id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
166,545,628 | Filtering unnecessary details, the prosecution case, briefly stated, is that an incident had taken place on 14-11-2013 at about 11:00 AM.It is alleged by the prosecution that when the prosecutrix went to the field known as "Doodhdairy" along with her children to collect Soyabean scattered in the field, the appellant came over there, caught hold of her from backside, threw her on the ground and thereafter sexually assaulted her.He also intimidated to her life.Report to that effect, vide Ex.P/5 was lodged at the Police Station concerned and offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the IPC were registered against the accused-appellant and criminal law was set at motion.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and the MLC report is Ex.Spot map was prepared which is Ex.The accused was arrested, vide arrest memo Ex.P/8 and he was also sent for medical examination.His undergarments, pubic hair and slides of private parts were seized and the same were sent to the Forensic Lab for analysis.The FSL report is Ex.The investigating agency after conducting necessary investigation filed charge-sheet before the court of competent jurisdiction which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial.The accused-appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded to be tried stating that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.She has stated that on the date of incident her husband was not in the village.She had gone to the agricultural field to collect Soyabean.At that time son of Sakharam, namely, Lal Singh came over there along with one Ranjeet Singh.The accused caught hold of her from behind, threw her on the ground and thereafter sexually violated here against her will.He also threatened her to kill.Another person - Ranjeet Singh fled from the spot.On her return to the village she narrated the entire incident to her mother-in-law and when her husband came back thereafter report was lodged in the Police Station, vide Ex.She was taken to the hospital by Constable Sharmila with an 4 application, Ex.She was medically examined on 15-11-2013 but no external injury was found on her person.The hymen was old and ruptured and there was no injury on her vaginal region.She was carrying on pregnancy of six months.On her undergarment - petticoat there was white spot.Samples of pubic hair and vaginal swab were also prepared and the same were sealed in different packets and handed over to the lady constable.Her medical report is Ex.In her cross-examination she has stated that white spots which were found on the undergarment were of vaginal secretion.The mother-in-law of the prosecutrix Manoramabai, PW-4 also stated that complainant is her daughter-in-law and on the date of the incident her son Mukesh was out of the Village and the prosecutrix had gone to collect Soyabean from the field - Doodhdairy.After returning from the field she narrated the entire incident.in the evening after about 30 years.Age of the prosecutrix is not disputed that she is a major and married woman.When Mukesh came back to home, thereafter report was lodged in the Police Station.The alleged incident had taken place on 14-11-2013 at about 11:00 AM and the report was lodged on 15-11-2013 at about 18:30 hrs.She was carrying pregnancy of six months.The investigation was 5 carried out by PW-06, Krishna Murari, who stated that after registering the FIR on 15-11-2013 he arrested the accused on 18-11- 2013 and the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Lab through the Superintendent of Police, Khandwa.The FSL report is Ex.He also stated that the undergarments of the accused, his pubic hair and semen slides were prepared vide Ex.P/14 and the same were sent for chemical analysis along with the Head Constable Prahlad.In the FSL report, human semen was found on the underwear of the accused.It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant is the Nandoi (sister's husband of the prosecutrix).The prosecution has not examined the so called person (Ranjeet Singh) who had accompanied the accused at the spot.In para 6 of her statement the prosecutrix stated that the accused is her Nandoi.He got married prior to her marriage and he has two children.Her devar (husband's younger brother) is a handicapped person and he is called 'Langra'.She denied that there was any quarrel in the family with wife of the accused - appellant.Considering the aforesaid background that the accused- appellant is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix and both the family are residing in the same village and there was suggestion of dispute 6 in the family, the evidence has to be evaluated.The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 14-11-2013 at about 11:00 AM and the FIR was lodged on 15-11-2013 around 06:30 PM.Admittedly, the prosecutrix and the accused both are married persons.The prosecurtrix was examined on 15-11-2013 at about 08:00 PM, vide report Ex.There is no explanation that where did she stay in the night as she was a married woman.In the same manner, the accused was arrested on 18-11-2013 after four days of the incident and his undergarments etc. were seized after his arrest.He is also a married person, therefore, presence of human semen on his undergarments and vaginal slabs of the prosecutrix loses its significance in absence of any explanation by the prosecution that where the prosecutrix had stayed in the night of the date of incident as she is a married woman and report to the police was made next day after about 30 hours and medical examination that too.Taking into consideration the facts that the FIR was lodged after more than 30 hours of the incident and thereafter she was medically examined.Further, the statement of the prosecutrix that she was forcibly thrown on rough surface does not get any corroboration from the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor, Laxmi Dodwe (PW-02).She did not find any external injury on the person of the prosecutrix.Besides, the prosecution has 7 not examined the so called person - Ranjeet Singh, who is said to have accompanied the accused at the time of the incident.Thus, taking into consideration the considerable delay in lodging of the FIR without any plausible explanation and non-examination of Ranjeet Singh, the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence of this Court.As already held that in absence of explanation of stay of the prosecutrix in the night presence of semen on her vaginal swab and on the undergarments, loses its significance. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,549,659 | AND CRI ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2486 OF 2018Paresh Vaghela & ors. ...Applicants VersusThe State of Maharashtra ...RespondentMr.It is further alleged that there was another incident of performingcertain rituals on 9th October, 2018, which is spelt out in theFIR.It is alleged that the complainant was made to sitfor certain rituals, which was performed by applicant/tantrik,wherein he stated that the said ritual was performed forconception of wife of accused Manoj.Dinesh Tiwari, a/w Mr. Mikhail Dey, i/b Dinesh Tiwari & Asso., for the Applicant in both ABA.Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State in ABA 2485/18.Mr.S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State in ABA 2486/18.Mr.P. M. Bhalerao, P.I., Narpoli Police Station present.The applicants in both applications are apprehendingarrest in connection with CR No.I-406 of 2018 registered withNarpoli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section376, 343, 497, 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IndianPenal Code.Theapplicants in ABA No.2486 of 2018 are related to the saidapplicant.It also appears that there was physicalrelationship between the applicant Manoj and the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:20:21 :::Considering the fact that the complainant was acquaintedwith the applicant Manoj Gohil and allegedly there was physicalrelationship and also alleged that the said accused had promisedthe complainant that he will marry with her and considering thefact that the incident of performing certain rituals occurredeither on 2nd October, 2018 or 9th October, 2018 as stated by thecomplainant, presently interim protection can be granted to theapplicants in both applications with a direction to cooperate withthe investigation.Hence the following order::Order:(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.2485 of 2018 and Anticipatory Bail Application No.2586 of 2018 are allowed.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:20:21 :::908&909-ABA2485&2486-18.DOC(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicants, in CR No. I-406 of 2018 registered with Narpoli Polilce Station for the offences punishable under section 376, 343, 497, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing Personal Bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount.(iii) Applicants shall report the Investigating Officer on 10th, 11th and 12th December, 2018 between 11.00 am.to 1.00 pm.and shall cooperate with the investigation.(iv) This interim protection is granted till the next date of hearing.[PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.] 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:20:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:20:21 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,550,098 | Heard on admission.This appeal by a private complainant is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2014 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.115/2013, whereby he has acquitted respondent nos.1 to 3 of the charges under sections 326, 324, 323/34 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.By the same judgment respondent no.3 has also been acquitted of the charges under section 25(1-B)B/27 of the Arms Act.The case of the prosecution was that on 15.10.2012 at about 8:00 a.m. Anup Khateek was returning to his house on a motorcycle.And although motorcycle of Anup Khateek did not touch the motorcycle of respondent no.1, the latter felt annoyed and exhorted respondent nos. 2 and 3 to assault Anup Khateek.Pursuantly, respondent no.2 caught hold of Anup Khateek and respondent no.3 dealt a blow to him with a sword which struck on the left side of head.It was also alleged that at that time Rahul Khateek (P.W.5) and Golu Khateek (P.W.4) intervened but they both were also assaulted with a sword.First information report, Ex.On the medical examination of Anup Khateek one cut injury was found on left auricular Mandibular which was bone deep.The injury report of Anup Khateek prepared by Dr.U.S.Pandey (P.W.8) is Ex.Likewise, Dr.U.S.Pandey also found a cut injury on the thumb of Rahul Khateek.And some bruises on the person of Golu Khateek.It is to be noted that on 15.10.2012 respondent no.3 had also lodged a first information report, Ex.P.6, at the same police station against Anup, Rahul and others that they had assaulted him and his cousins Tony Rajput as well as Narendra Khangar with their respective swords.Also on the medical examination of respondent no.3, Narendra Khangar and Tony Rajput cut injuries were found by the same Dr.And his injury reports are Exs.During the trial victims Anup Khateek, Rahul Khateek and Golu Khateek and other prosecution witnesses did not mention anything about the cut injuries found on respondent no.3, his cousins Tony Rajput and Narendra Khangar.The trial court, therefore, in the absence of any explanation given by the prosecution witnesses with regard to injuries caused to respondent no.3 and two other persons founds its case doubtful and acquitted respondent nos. 1 to 3 of the charges.The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,556,469 | This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.110/2013 registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind for offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC as well as the charge sheet and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1176/2013, pending in the Court of JMFC Lahar, District Bhind.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a written complaint was made by the respondent No.2 against the applicants, making allegations of harassment and ill-treatment for the demand of dowry and on the basis of said allegations, the police registered a FIR under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC at Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior and it was transferred to Police Station Lahar, District Bhind.The police 2 after conducting the investigation, filed a charge sheet for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC.The trial Court by order dated 06/11/2015 framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 506 Part II of IPC.The said criminal revision was dismissed by this Court on 22/06/2016 and the order framing charges was affirmed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,665,651 | The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, lie in a narrow compass.The case of prosecution is that, few days prior to 19-2-1986 and 20-2-1986 there was some complaint, in the village, that deceased/Ram Milan, outraged the modesty of a girl, Sita Bai, taking note of which, the inhabitants of the village, belonging to Kachhi community, blockaded the house of the deceased and lodged a report against him.After release, the deceased, went to his village, from Katni.In the evening at about 7, accused Mahesh went to the house of deceased and told that he had to go to Jabalpur and a car of one Nayak, Advocate was reserved for that purpose.Accordingly, at about 7-8 P.M., deceased went with accused and thereafter he was not found.The mother of the deceased Parwati Bai (P.W. 2), Mamta Bai (P.W. 3), sister-in-law, father Veeran (P.W. 4), and brother Jagdish (P.W. 16), searched for the deceased, but they could not, know his whereabouts.Next day noon, some boys of the village saw a dead-body near a pond, which was identified to be the body of the deceased.Village Kotwar Jethu (P.W. 1), on 20-2-1986 at 10.30 in the night lodged the report (Ex. P-l), which set the criminal law in motion.The dead body of Ram Milan, was sent for post-mortem.The Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. K.K. Jain (P.W. 11), performed the post-mortem, on 21-2-1996 and found as many as 14 injuries, on the body of the deceased.According to the Autopsy Surgeon, deceased died, on account of coma due, to multiple injuries upon the scalp, multiple fractures of skull, intracranial haemorrhage and injuries to brain.The Autopsy Surgeon found, 12 incised wounds, on the body of the deceased.According to the doctor, the duration of death was 18 to 36 hours.The accused was arrested and the police vide Ex. P-14, seized the blood-stained, clothes (kurta & pyjama) of accused from him.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.:The accused/appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC).The other co-accused persons namely, Ghisla @ Ghasiram, Karodhi and Gorelal were charged for the offence punishable under Section 120B, IPC, but they were acquitted by the impugned judgment.A 'Baka' was also seized at his instance.The blood-stained clothes of accused and the Baka were sent for chemical examination.The other co-accused persons, who were acquitted, by the learned Trial Judge, were also arrested, as they belong to Kachhi community.The prosecution filed the charge-sheet, before the Competent Court.After committal, the learned Trial Judge framed charge under Section 120B, IPC, against all the accused persons and a separate charge, of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, was framed against the appellant.All the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined number of witnesses.The learned Trial Judge, found that prosecution, failed to prove its case, against all the accused persons, for the offence punishable under Section 120B, IPC, and acquitted them from the said charge, but, according to the learned Judge, the prosecution has proved the charge punishable under Section 302, IPC, against the appellant and hence, he was punished to suffer life imprisonment by the impugned judgment.He had also drawn our attention, to the material discrepancies and omissions, that had come in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,385,044 | The accused are said to be friends and have been found guilty of murder of Mohd Yunis son of Shamsuddin resident of the same locality who it is said was also their friend at one time.The prosecution case against the accused is that the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 100.00 from Shanker accused some three months before the occurrence.On October, 12,1968 the two accused approached the deceased's father at his shop and told him that the deceased had nto re-paid the loan.Shamsuddin assured them that the deceased would make the payment and advised them to avoid mutual trouble on that score.The accused left the shop of Shamsuddin stating that they would have to deal with the accused in their own way.(2) At about 4.45 P.M. the same day, the accused met the deceased in front of a Qabristan abutting on a metalled road, known as Kacha Rasta Kadam Sharif, where there was exchange of hto words between the deceased on one side and the accused on the other.Shanker accused was heard threatening the deceased that he had withheld payment of the loan thinking himself to be a big bully.The remark provoked the deceased and he replied in an equally firm tone that he would nto make the payment and that Shanker could do what he liked.Shanker then whipped out a dagger, which was subsequently described as a cobbler's knife, from the right pocket of his trousers and struck the deceased on his face with it.The deceased reeled back after he had sustained a minor injury on the left side of his face.Parkash accused then caught hold of the deceased from behind and called on his companion to kill him.While the deceased was thus held by Parkash in his grip, Shanker stabbed him in the chest.The deceased fell on the ground at the entrance of the Qabristan near the Modern-Motor Training School and died almost instantaneously.(3) Pws Saeed Ahmed, Boota Ram and Som Nath claimed to have witnessed the occurrence.Public Witness Nanne Khan who was coming from the opposite direction claimed to have seen the accused making good their escape into the bye-lane of the Qabristan.He saw Shanker carrying in his hand what he described as a sort of dagger.PWs Saeed Ahmed, Boota Ram, Som Nath and Nanne Khan kept staying on the spto until the arrival of the police.(4) On receipt of a telephonic message at the police Control Room that someone had been stabbed and was lying unconscious at the Modern Motor Training school on Qutab Road in front of Kela Godam, Public Witness Krishan Kumar Asi of the Police Control Room relayed the message to the Kamala-Market Police Station where upon Asi Surjit Singh reached the spto within a few minutes.He recorded the statement of Public Witness Saeed Ahmed at 5.45 P.M. The Fir in the case was recorded on the basis of that statement the same day at 6-05 P.M. Investigation of the case was taken up by Inspector Sham Lal, Sho Kamla Market, Police Station who reached the spto between 5.30 and 5.45 P.M. He prepared the inquest report and recorded the statements of the witnesses present on the spto and sent the dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination.(5) Asi Rattan Chand searched for the accused in their respective house and in some other areas of the locality and ultimately found both of them sitting on a bench in the waiting hall of the railway station Delhi Main at about 2 A.M. PWs Shiv Lal and Rattan Lal were also with Asi Rattan Chand at that time.JUDGMENT Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This is an appeal by Shankar son of Hira Lal and Parkash son of Mohan Lal residents of Nabi Karim, Delhi who have been convicted of an offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 Indian Penal Code .and sentenced to imprisonment for life.In the presence of these two witnesses, he arrested the accused who were wearing blood-stained shirts.Asi Rattan Chand took those shirts into his possession and put them in sealed parcels.(6) On October 19, 1966 Shanker accused while in police custody made a statement before Inspector Sham Lal that he had thrown the cobbler's knife in the stones lying near the Paharganj Bridge.Pursuant to that statement, the knife Exhibit P1 was discovered from the place at the instance of Shanker in the presence of Boota Ram and Sardar Hussain.(7) The accused denied their guilt and attributed the case against them to enmity.Shanker accused stated that the had been falsely implicated by Asi Surjit Singh who had arrested him from his house at about mid-night on October 12, 1966 because he had made complaints against the police to the higher authorities.He also stated that Asi Surjit Singh who was posted at Paharganj Police Station at one time had been threatening him that if he did nto agree to be a witness for the police in some cases he would falsely implicate him in some case.Parkash accused who was a peon in the local civil courts, stated that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Boota Ram and Balwant Singh.He further stated that he had appeared as a witness against Balwant Singh.Boota Ram who was a friend of Balwant Singh had threatened him that if he did nto resile from his statement in the case against the latter he would ruin him by falsely implicating him in some case.The accused also examined a few witnesses in their defense.(8) The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of three eye-witnesses: Saeed Ahmed (Public Witness 5) Boota Ram (Public Witness 7) and Som Nath (Public Witness 10).There is also the evidence of Nanne son of Munne Khan (Public Witness 11) who deposed that he had seen the accused entering a bye-lane of the Qabristan and that Shanker was then carrying a sort of dagger in his hand.The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of Shamsuddin, Mohd Ismail father and brother of the deceased to prove the transaction of loan that had created bitterness among old friends and the visit of the accused of Shamsuddin's shop earlier on the day of the occurrence where they had complained to Sharnsuddin against the behavior of the deceased in nto re-paying the loan and that they would have to deal with him in their own way.(9) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge does nto appear to have been impressed by their evidence and has dis-believed Shamsuddin's evidence about the visit of the accused to his shop.He has also dis-believed the evidence of Public Witness Seed Ahmed.Although in one part of the judgment there is an observation that "the ocular evidence given by PWs Saeed Ahmed, Boota Ram and Som Nath and the circumstantial evidence given by Nanne Khan quite convincingly connects the accused with a charge framed against them", in a later portion of the same judgment the learned Judge has observed that Public Witness Saeed Ahmed is "certainly nto a witness without dubious credentials and that no conviction can possibly be based on his evidence."(10) It appears to us that inspite of this seeming inconsistency in the judgment, the learned trial Judge is right in holding that Saeed Ahmed is nto reliable witness and that no conviction can possibly be based on his evidence.(11) Pw Saeed Ahmed was no doubt the first person to be examined by the police and it is his statement (Exhibit PC) which formed the basis of the FIR.But he is apparently a person without firm moorings.On February 28, 1967 when he was examined before the committing Magistrate for the first time he fully supported the prosecution story as narrated above.The learned Magistrate then adjourned the case to March 4, 1967 for cross-examination of this witness.On that day Saeed Ahmed resoled from his earlier statement and stated that he had nto seen any of the accused stabbing the deceased and that his thumb impression on Exhibit P.C. had been obtained by the police on a blank paper.Strangely enough, he further stated that it was a dark night and that therefore the could nto see with whom the deceased was quarreling and who slabbed him.He went on to add that he made the previous statement under the fear of the police.The case was then adjourned to April 5, 1967 to enable the prosecutor to cross-examine the witness.During the interval he was arrested by the police and when the hearing of the case was resumed he told the learned Magistrate that the statement dated March 15,1967 exculpating the accused had been made by him under the fear of the accused.Once again he reverted to his original statement and fully supported the prosecution case both before the committing Magistrate and in the court of Session.We are nto un-mindful of the fact that one of the serious handicaps from which administration of criminal justice suffers in this country in the ease with which the witnesses for prosecution succumb to the attempts made by the accused and their friends and relatives to suborn their loyalty to the cause of truth.Attempts at tampering with the prosecution witnesses are frequently made with impunity and it is always a race between the persons interested in the accused and the police as to who should be able to retain the loyalty of the witnesses.But when a witness's regard for the sanctity of oath is subject to such pulls on both sides, it is bound to weaken one's faith in the value of his testimny.(13) Pws Boota Ram and Som Nath have both been believed by the trial Court and we see no reason to differ from him, although here again we have to make due allowance for the exaggeration in their statements.Boota Ram was on the way to his dairy which is situate in the Qabristan itself.Som Nath also belongs to the same locality.He is a chaudhary of the Tonga Stand Union and was on his way from the Tonga Stand.He met Boota Ram on the way.They stated that they had hardly gone a few paces from Qutab Road into the a Kacha Rasta Kadam Sharif when they saw an altercation going on between Shanker and Parkash accused on one side and the deceased on the other.They stated that they heard the accused demanding money from the deceased who replied that he had no money and the the accused were free to do what they liked.They further stated that they were about 20 paces away from the scene of occurrence when Shanker accused whipped out what looked like a dagger from his trousers and struck Yunis with it.They latter reeled back but was soon held by Parkash accused from behind.Prakash then uttered the words "Mar Sale Ko." Upon this Shanker plunged the dagger in the chest of Yunis who slumped to the ground.Seeing the deceased collapse, Shanker and Parkash both went away, Shanker carrying the dagger with himself.He also argued that Boota Ram was a friend of one Balwant Singh who was prosecuted in a murder case in which Parkash accused had appeared as a prosecution witness.We have gone through the cross-examination of this witness on these points.It is true that he had appeared as a prosecution witness in two cases but that would hardly make him a stock witness of the police.He also admitted his interest in Balwant Singh who had been sentenced to death and that he had gone to see him in jail along with some ladies of the neighbour-hood.He further admitted that Parkash accused had appeared as a prosecution witness in the case against Balwant Singh but denied that he had ever asked him to resile from his statement.This fact may be relevant so far as his evidence relating to the part ascribed by him to Parkash accused is concerned but there is no reason why he should falsely implicate Shanker accused against whom he had no animus.It has also nto been shown that he had any interest in the deceased.(15) Learned counsel for the accused made much of Boota Ram's admission in cross-examination that before the arrival of the police, he, Saeed Ahmed, Som Nath and Nanne Khan had talked among themselves that the injury appeared to have been inflicted by a cobbler's knife and that it was for that reason that the police had subsequently stage-managed the recovery of the knife (Exhibit PI).(16) We find nothing un-usual in this.It is but natural that when some one has been assaulted in the presence of three or four persons and the assailants have walked away with the weapon that the persons who have seen the occurrence should talk among themselves.Shanker accused had suddenly taken out a weapon from the pocket of his trousers.The witnesses were still about 15 to 20 paces away when he inflicted the injury.The manner in which the assault was made must lead to some discussion among the witnesses as to what kind of weapon was used.The admission made by the witness would rather go to establish his veracity than cast any doubt on it.(17) Som Nath's evidence was attacked by the learned counsel for the accused mainly on the ground that he had admitted in cross-examination that the Investigating Officer Pt.Sham Lal had recorded his statements many times and torn the same.He had also stated that the other witnesses were present when this process of recording his statements and tearing them was going on.Learned counsel argued that this showed that the police had first formulated a theory and then tried to adapt the statement of this witness to the requirements of that theory.He therefore urged that this cast a serious doubt on the integrity of investigation.In the first place, no such question was put to any other witness nor did any other witness support Som Nath on this point.In fact, even a suggestion to that effect was nto made during his long cross-examination.The admission made by Som Nath may therefore be treated either as a result of some mis-understanding on his part or it may be even an attempt on his part to oblige the accused in respect of a matter which he might have thought was of no consequence so far as his main evidence in the case was concerned.We have no doubt that by and large the evidence of Boota Ram and Som Nath inspires confidence.Their presence on the spto was quite natural and there is no reason why they should falsely implicate the accused.(18) Their names also find mention in the F.I.R. (Exhibit PC/I) which was recorded shortly after the occurrence.(19) The evidence of Nanne Khan who deposed that he saw Shanker carrying what he described as "a sort of dagger " in his hand when he was going to Qutab Road also has a bearing on the guilt of the accused.According to Exhibit Pg, Shanker had stated that he had thrown a sharp-edged iron "Rumpy" in the stones lying inside the Paharganj Bridge whereas PWs Boota Ram and Sardar Hussain deposed that Shanker had told the police officer that he had concealed the "Rumpy" in bushes near the Paharganj Bridge.It appears to us that this is nto such a discrepancy as would dis-credit the evidence regarding recovery.The embankment near the Pahar Ganj Bridge from where the cobbler's knife (Exhibit PI) is said to have been recovered consists of stones as well as bushes.The learned trial Judge has also observed that Boota Ram and Sardar Hussain could nto satisfactorily explain t (21) The medical evidence also establishes that the stabbing-wound 2" x 6/10" chest cavity deep on front of chest right side-"". | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
138,506,090 | So far as the charge under section 498A of IPC is concerned, they have been acquitted.Deceased Sarita was the wife of Applicant No.1.Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the brother-in-law and mother-in-law ofdeceased Sarita.The case of the prosecution is that theApplicants were suspecting the chastity of Sarita and on thatcount they used to abuse and beat her.On 16 th March 2013 atabout 5.57 p.m., brother of Sarita while working in the fieldreceived a call on his mobile phone from Bhausaheb Pawar - thecousin of Applicant No.1, intimating that Sarita had fell into wellin the afternoon and she was injured and the Applicants hadshifted her to Vaidya Hospital, Malegaon.Thereafter, complainantimmediately intimated about the said message to his parents andrelatives.Complainant along with his mother went to VaidyaHospital.P. C. :1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicants and learned APP for the Respondent-State.Upon trial, they were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under section 201 of IPC.On query, the Applicants told complainant that Saritaslipped and fell into the well and she died of drowning.There is no direct evidence in the form of eye-witnesses and the prosecution has relied upon the circumstantialevidence.The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution arethat there was motive of accused to kill Sarita, and secondly, theinjuries on the dead body of deceased Sarita.PW-6 have stated that accused were suspecting the chastity ofSarita and demanding dowry from her parents.On perusal, itappears that allegation about the chastity by these witnesses areimprovements.The Applicants have already been acquitted ofthe charge under section 498A of IPC.The prosecution heavily relied upon the medicalevidence which shows that there was incised wound on scaralarea 2cm X 1cm X 0.5cm oblique left lateral area, bruise overboth back of thigh upto knee and abrasion below chin.However,PW-8 Dr. Mahendra Patil in his cross examination has admittedthat if a woman falls from height in shallow water, then injuriesmentioned in column no. 17 are possible.In above facts and circumstances, coupled with thefact that the Applicants were on bail during trial and appeal is notlikely to come up for final hearing in near future, we are inclinedto release the Applicants on bail.The Applicants shall remainpresent in the Court at the time of final hearing of appeal.This application stands disposed of. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,510,908 | Thereafter, the said accident took place resulting in spot dead of six workers and serious injury of one person who was admitted to a hospital at once.The Jagatdal P. S. started investigation on the basis of a complaint under the above noted Sections which are the general law of the land.This has nothing to do with the provisions of the Factories Act.Upon due consideration of the materials placed before me, it appears that the management of the factory is to look after the building and they are to take adequate measures for protection of the life of the workers.Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contended that according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder, the occupier and the 3 manager are responsible for violation of any provision of the Act. Here, I may note that the said G. R. Case has not been lodged under any provision of the Factories Act, 1948 but under the general law of the land, i.e. under the provisions of the I.P.C. For convenience, I am quoting the Section 92 of the Factories Act which clearly lays down that when any contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or rules thereunder occurs, the occupier and manager of the Factory shall be held guity for the offence and they shall be punished.1 Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURSIDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.R. No.3195 of 2007 Present :The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Mandal Prakriti Kant Saran Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.For the petitioner: Mr. Milon Mukherjee.The facts giving rise to the filing of this application for quashing of the proceeding are that the petitioner is the Vice-President of Anglo India Jute Mill situated within the police station Jagatdal, District - North 24 Parganas.On 08.09.2006 at 21-50 hours while the employees of the said mill were working, the entire roof of the mechanical department of the said mill collapsed and a good number of workers were buried under the debris.As a result, six workers of the mill died on the spot and another was in critical condition and he was admitted to a hospital.On the basis of 2 a written complaint, Jagatdal Police Station started a criminal case under Section 325/304/34 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner and other officers of the management.Now the petitioner has come up with this application for quashing the proceeding on the ground that according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act, the occupier and Manager of the said factory shall be guilty for the offence and so he has made the prayer for quashing the proceeding."S. 92 General Penalty for offences.Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishalbe with imprisonment for a term which may extend to (two years) or with fine which may extend to (one lakh rupees) or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to (one thousand rupees) for each day on which the contravention is so continued. ......"Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. | ['Section 325 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. |
138,514,746 | This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on 5.4.2016 in connection with Crime No.92/2016 registered at P. S. Madhotal, Jabalpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 324, & 506 of IPC.Allegation against the applicant is that he along with other accused persons was armed with Lathi, knives and rods and all the accused persons had beaten Ritesh, Dipesh, Ashish, Ajay and Manish.A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party vide Crime No.91/2016 registered at P. S. Madhotal, Jabalpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 324, & 506 of IPC against three persons had received injuries. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,517,501 | No.71 A Polley [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 4367 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.04.2019 in connection with Haripal Police Station Case No. 51 dated 26.02.2017 under Sections 147/148/149/186/332/333/353 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Sections 3 / 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.And In Re: Nabab Ahiri & Anr.... ... Petitioners Mr. A. Bera ... ... for the petitioners Mr. A. Mukherjee Mr. D. Mahato ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 2 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders and the petitioners shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,526,074 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Som Kumar Ahirwar in crime no.361/2017 registered by P.S.- Cantt., District-Sagar under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34, 307, 302, 201, 109 and 120-B of the IPC.At that point of time, a dog tried to bite him.He chased the dog away; whereon, co-accused Laxman Ahirwar and his son co-accused Brajesh Ahirwar and Bharat Ahirwar came and filthily abused the deceased.When he asked them not to abuse him, Laxman Ahirwar and Bharat Ahirwar came armed with the sticks.Brajesh Ahirwar was armed with a knife.Laxman Ahirwar and Bharat Ahirwar assaulted him with the sticks.When he ran away, Brajesh Ahirwar chased him.Brajesh Ahirwar caused five injuries to the deceased with knife.Kiran, Sharif Khan and Chhotu Jatav were present on the spot.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of petitioner Som Kumar does not figure either in the first information report, or in the dying declaration or in the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the deceased recorded on the date of the offence.He has been in custody since 28.07.2017 and he has no criminal antecedents; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner Som Kumar be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has invited attention of the Court to the statements of the Rukhsar, Anjum and Amjad under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., who have stated that actually petitioner Som Kumar was also present on the spot and he handed over the knife to main accused Brajesh and exhorted the accused persons to assault the deceased.He further submits that the statement of witness Chhotu recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure revealed that he had heard the accused persons including petitioner Som Kumar, conspiring to kill the deceased.It has further been submitted that this a heinous offence; therefore, bail should not be granted to petitioner Som Kumar.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact that the name of petitioner Som Kumar does not figure either in the first information report, or in dying declaration or in the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it figures for the first time in the statement under 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the possibility of false implication cannot be discounted; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner Som Kumar deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Som Kumar Ahirwar, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,529,977 | Counter affidavit may be filed within four weeks.Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1641 of 2016 Revisionist :- Sammun & 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Gupta,Harish Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.Considered the prayer for bail on behalf of revisionists-applicants.It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists-applicants that maximum punishment that is given under Section 498 - A I.P.C, is two years and the revisionists-applicants were on trial.Learned A.G.A oppose the prayer for bail.Seeing the facts and circumstance let the revisionists - applicants - Sammun, Mohsin, Zarina, Kaushar & Yasin involved in Case No. 1468 of 2012 - (State Versus Sammun & others), Case Crime No. 12 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Ghaziabad, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,538,138 | O.P.No.1100 of 2019 has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent/A1, V.Udhayakumar, appellant in Crl.By the said order in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court had examined the dismissal of bail petition preferred by the appellant therein by the II Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry and by common order in Crl.A.No.72 of 2018 and Crl.A.No.81 of 2018 dated 12.02.2018, had thought it fit to allow the appeals and set aside the order dismissing the bail petition dated 30.01.2018 and had granted bail to the appellant.2. Crl.O.P.No.1107 of 2019 has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., seeking to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent-A8 (appellant in Crl.By the said order in the aforesaid criminal appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court had examined the dismissal of bail petition preferred by the appellants therein by the Special Judge, II Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry, and by common order in Crl.A.No.72 of 2018 and Crl.A.No.81 of 2018 dated 12.02.2018, had thought it fit to allow the appeals and set aside the order dismissing the bail petitions dated 30.01.2018 and had granted bail to the appellant.In the said common order, the learned Single Judge had imposed with conditions to stay at Karaikal for a period of one month and with further directions to appear before the Court on all hearing dates.Subsequently, the condition to stay at Karaikal, was also relaxed.This common order was then taken up in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Criminal) Diary No(s).8672 of 2018 and by order dated 26.03.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:http://www.judis.nic.in 4 “Permission to file special leave petition is granted.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.However, in case respondents-accused, namely, V.Udayakumar S/o.Venkatasamy and Boobalan S/o.Purushothaman, misuse their bail, it will be open for the petitioner to approach the High Court for cancellation of their bail.The special leave petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Pending applications stand disposed of.” (emphasis supplied)Taking recourse to the permission granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be open to the petitioner/defacto complainant, Gnanasekaran to approach the High Court to cancel the bail in case the said accused misused their bail, these petitions have been filed before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.After investigation, a final report was filed under Sections 143, 120(B), 109, 449, 427 and 302 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, against A1/Udhayakumar, A2/Senkathiravan, A3/Rathinavel, A4/Karthikeyan @ Ramesh, A5/Sivaraman @ Sivaramakrishnan, A6/Janarthanan @ Jana, A7/Karthi @ Karthikeyan and A8/Boobalan.An additional charge sheet was filed on 03.01.2018 against the accused persons including the offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, apart from the original Section under which the first charge sheet was filed.The accused filed bail petition before the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, namely, II Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry.By order dated 30.01.2018, the bail petitions were dismissed.This common order is now questioned by the de-facto complainant.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Crl.O.P.No.1100 of 2019:In the affidavit filed in support of Crl.O.P.No.1100 of 2019, it had been stated that the 1st respondent/A1-V.Udhayakumar was during the period when he was on bail, involved in Crime No.44 of 2018 for offence under Section 153A read with Section 34 of I.P.C, wherein he had instigated non Dalith people against Dalith people and had created law and order problem in the area.A complaint had been given by one M.Manivannan.It was therefore stated that this involvement in Cr.No.44 of 2018 was in direct violation of the conditions of grant of bail and consequently, it is urged that this Court should cancel the bail granted.Notice was served on the 1st respondent/A1 and learned counsel also entered appearance.Heard arguments advanced.Rulings 1876, wherein, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had stated that cancellation of bail would amount to review of the earlier order which is impermissible under Section 362 of Cr.P.C., whereby, final orders cannot be re-examined except for typographical errors.With due respects to the learned Single Judge, it must be mentioned that any order granting bail is not a final order coming under the purview of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Bail is granted with conditions and when there is violation of any condition, the Criminal Procedure Code in Section 439(2) gives the power to the High Court to revisit the order granting bail.The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in that case.There are as many as eight accused.As stated above, the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the bail application and in the appeals filed as against that, a learned Single Judge of this Court had granted bail.That order was challenged in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Hon'ble Supreme Court.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order cannot be interfered with, but however gave permission to the present petitioner to seek cancellation of the order, if there is misuse of bail condition.Pursuant the complaint given by one M.Manivannan, the Inspector of Police, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry, had registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2018, but in that case, it is represented that the learned Judicial Magistrate had discharged the accused.That is an issue which has to dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court cannot interfere with the proceedings of the Sessions case.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to cancel the bail already granted in Crl.A.No.72 of 2018 to the 1st accused.However, the learned Sessions Judge, may explore the possibility ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 obtaining a bond from the 1st accused/Udhayakumar, under Section 88 of Cr.P.C., for appearance before the Court on every hearing date.O.P.No.1107 of 2019:Notice was served.A.No.81 of 2018 had not even chosen to show the defacto complainant as respondent/party and that there was a violation of a mandatory provision is not known to this Court.However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the order granting bail and had granted permission to move the High Court seeking cancellation of bail only if the accused misused the bail.However, the learned Sessions Judge, may explore the possibility of obtaining a bond from the 8th accused/Boopalan, under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., for appearance before the Court on every hearing date.In the result, both the Crl..11.2019 smvhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,541,778 | He has not committed any offence.He has been falsely implicated in the case.He is ready and willing to co-operate investigation agency and will furnish adequate surety as may be directed by this Court.Case diary perused.This is third bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.433/2017, registered at Police Station Chapara District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 363,366, 376(2)(Dha) and 506-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 6/7 of the POCSO Act.Allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.12.2017, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was found to be disappeared from the village Tilbodi under the jurisdiction of police station Chapara District Seoni.A missing person's report was lodged by Ramnath, father of the prosecutrix.On that basis offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. has been registered against unknown person.During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 07.01.2018, her medical examination was conducted and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded.It is alleged that the statements of father, mother and other relatives were also recorded and on that basis offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(Dha) and 506- B of Indian Penal Code and Section 6/7 of the POCSO Act has been added in the already registered crime.Therefore, it is prayed that Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 12/02/2020 17:11:06 2 MCRC-52859-2019 the applicant be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for State has opposed the application for grant of bail and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this application.In the Admission Register also the mother and father both the persons are shown to be same.In the ossification report, the age of the prosecutrix is also shown to be 18 to 20 years.The trial will take time for its final decision.The earlier bail applications i.e. M.Cr.C. No.4025/2019 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.6.2019 M.Cr.C. No. 16323/2018 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.5.2018 with liberty to file a fresh application after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.After dismissal of the second bail application the prosecutrix and some of the important witnesses have been examined.At this stage, it would not be proper to discuss the merits and demerits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the applicant and also the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 07.01.2018, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.It is directed that applicant - Mukesh Kumar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 12/02/2020 17:11:06 3 MCRC-52859-2019 condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicant.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE AM Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 12/02/2020 17:11:06 | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,385,428 | The respondent/accused is a police constable working in Karamadai Police Station, CoimbatoreDistrict.The Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam filed a charge sheet againstthe accused that on 23.7.1988, at about 15.00 hours at Nathegoundenthottam inMollepalayam village, PC 497 of Mettupalayam Police Station attempted tocommit rape on Saraswathy @ Sarasa, aged about 17 years.During thisincident, he threatened her not to shout and also caused injuries to thevictim.The Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences underSections 376, 323 and 5 06 (ii) IPC.The victim Saraswathi, who was examined as P.W.1 in herevidence, deposed that on the date of the incident at about 3.00 p.m. whileshe was collecting Neem fruits, the accused suddenly gagged her mouth and tookher to the nearby pit; he forced her to remove her clothes; When she refused,he removed her saree, torn her blouse and bitten her breasts; he laid on herand had raped her.A boy who was nearby seeing this, went and informed to hermother (P.W.5).Immediately her mother, aunt Chinnammal (P.W.6), her sisterJothy came to the scene and caught hold of the accused and took him to thevillage and tied him to a telephone post.3. PW7, Sivakumar, was the Inspector of police, Mettupalayamat the relevant point of time.He has deposed that on 23.7.1988 at about6.30.p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station informed himover phone that a Police Constable was detained by Villagers; he along withthe Sub Inspector and another police constable went to the place ofoccurrence; the accused Kanagaraj was found detained by the villagers; PW1explained to him about the incident.He seized the personal belongings of theaccused under a Mahazaar Ex.PW4, Dharmarajan, who was working as Tahsildar,Mettupalayam has stated in his evidence that on 23.7.1988, he received aninformation over phone at 7.15 p.m. that one policeman had sexual intercoursewith a girl of Mullaepalayam village and because of that, there was Law andOrder problem.Immediately, he went to Karamadai Police Station along withVillage Administrative Officer, he reached there at about 8.15 p.m. At thattime, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was making enquiries.Then theInspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, came with the victim as well asthe accused to the police Station.He examined the victim and her statementwas recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, which is marked as Ex.P1.He also sent a report dated 24.7.1988 to the Sub Collector.5. P.W.7 has further stated that when he returned to thePolice Station, the Superintendent of Police, Perianaicken Palayam and theTahsildar, Mettupalayam had assembled there and the Tahsildar examined PW1 andrecorded a statement.He also deposed that he registered a case in CrimeNo.103 of 1988 for the offences under Sections 276, 323 and 411 IPC and sentthe printed FIR to the Court and the copies to the concerned officials.Onthe same date at about 8.25 p.m. he seized the clothes of the victim underForm-95 and at about 9.30 p.m. arrested the accused and remanded him tojudicial custody.Hence the suggestion put to the accused does notappear to be true.The counsel Mr.M.S.Soundararajan, appearing for theaccused has argued with utmost ability in this case.10.07.2002Index:YesInternet:She has deposed that the victim had already washed her genitalarea and changed her dress; scratch marks and nail marks were found on boththe breasts; there were contusions 2" x1" on the medial side of both breasts;there were no marks of injury on any other part of her body.There were nomarks to show that her breasts were bitten by teeth.She has further statedthat there were no dried seminal strains found on the genitalia or the thighs.P2 is the certificate issued by her on the basis of the Chemical analysisreport to the effect that there were no evidence of forced sexual intercourse.P.W.2 has stated in the cross examination that P.W.1 would have had sexualintercourse on many occasions prior to the alleged incident.7. PW3, Doctor Gurusamy, the Assistant surgeon, attached tothe Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, examined the accused Kanakaraj to provehis potency; he has given a certificate Ex.P3 to the effect that the accusedhas potency and on the date of occurrence, the accused had consumed alcohol.PW8, Jeyakodi, the Sub Collector of Coimbatore has statedin his evidence that after receiving the report of the Deputy Superintendentof Police on 26.7.1988, he took the case in Crime No.103/88 under Sections 376r/w 511 IPC and 4(i)(j) of TNP Act for further investigation.On 8.8.1988, hesent the FIR copy to the District Collector.He also examined the witnessesP.Ws.1, 5, 6 and others and recorded their statements on 22.08.1988.Thereafter, he was transferred from that place.PW9, Sanjeev Kaushel, whosucceeded P.W.8 as Sub Collector has examined the accused on 17.10.88 andrecorded his statement.After his transfer P.W.10, Devan, succeeded as SubCollector, Coimbatore and he has deposed that he examined Dr.Chandra, P.W.2and recorded her statement.The trial Court, after considering the evidence on recordheld that the charges are not proved and hence acquitted the accused.Thereasons given by the trial Judge is that the statement of the victim has notproved that she has sustained injuries on her back , thighs and legs.Thelearned trial Judge, relying upon the cross examination of PW2, came to theconclusion that when a woman struggles to prevent forcible sexual intercourse,there are possibilities for sustaining injuries on the other parts of herbody; that when a woman is forced to lie on an uneven and rough surfacewithout dress for sexual intercourse, there is the possibility of hersustaining injuries on her back, thighs and portions of her legs; and thatwhen a woman is subjected to forceful sexual intercourse for the first time,there is a likelihood of rupture of hymen and bleeding.Since PW1 did notsustain any injuries on her back and since PW2 has asserted in her evidencethat except for the nail marks and swelling on the breasts of PW1, there wereno other injuries on her body, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found thatthe evidence of PW1 that the accused had pushed PW1 into a rough surface andhad sexual intercourse was not acceptable.Further the Assistant SessionsJudge pointed out that PW1, in her last portion of cross examination hasstated that when the accused had forcible intercourse with her, she had hereyes open, and that was not disgusting to her.Aggrieved by this judgment, the State has preferred thisappeal against acquittal.The Public Prosecutor submitted that in this casethe evidence of PW1 is fully corroborated by medical evidence; the victim girlis a minor at the time of occurrence and since the accused is a policeconstable, he has taken advantage of the peculiar situation of the minor girl,and has committed this crime.He has also submitted that of course there areminor contradictions in the evidence, but that will not affect the main case.The evidence of PW1 alone coupled with the injuries proved the chargeslevelled against the accused.Further, thelearned counsel has submitted that there was enmity between this accused andone Kandasamy, who was an illicit arrack seller and PW1 had some relationshipwith Kandasamy; since the accused filed a case against the said Kandasamy, heusing P.W.1 has foisted a false complaint against the accused.To thatextent, the counsel submitted that there are suggestions to PW1 as well as toother witnesses, including the Investigating Officer.The investigating Officer as well as P.W.9 the SubCollector have denied that the accused told them that this case has beenfoisted by Kandasamy.Further the suggestion remains only as a suggestion,there is nothing more to prove the suggestion; the accused has not statedanything more than merely denying the case of the prosecution when he wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore the defence case that thiscase has been foisted against him at the instance of Kandasamy does not appearto be true.In the statement, Ex.P1 recorded by PW4 as well as inExs.P4 and P5, it is stated that the accused attempted to commit rape.PW4,who examined the accused for potency, has also stated that the accused wascharged for an offence of attempt to commit rape under Section 376 r/w 511IPC.PW2, the Doctor, who examined the victim, has stated categorically thatthere was no symptom of any intercourse on the victim girl.Therefore, thereis no evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW1 before the Court that shewas raped by the accused as alleged.It is seen even from the evidence of theSub Collector, PW8, that he received the complaint only under Section 376 r/wSection 511 IPC.Therefore the Assistant Sessions Judge was right inholding that the offence under Section 376 IPC was not proved.But the clothes of the victim, viz.,M.Os.1, 2 and 3 arefound to be torn when they were seized; this corroborates the evidence of PW1that the accused tore off her clothes when she refused to obey his orders.There was also a law and order problem.This is a naturalreaction in a village.This action of villagers of tying a Police Constablecannot be the result of a foisted case.When Pws.5 and 6 reached the place of occurrence, they saw that thevictim was lying without any dress and the accused was found lying without anydress on her.1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruppur through thePrincipal Sesions Judge, Coimbatore.A.K.RAJAN,JraaCrl.A.No.86 of 1995 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
550,732 | JUDGMENT G. Ramanujam, J.During that search, three aerogrammes and Indian Currency notes amounting to Rs. 8,100 were seized.The seized aerogrammes had been addressed to the appellant by her sons Messrs. Sambandam and Kasi Viswanathan.In the statement the appellant had stated that Messrs. Sambandam and.She has also stated in the statement that the sum of Rs. 8,100 seized from her premises had no connection with her shop.Pursuant to the summons issued by the.Enforcement Directorate to the appellant requiring her to produce the said sum of Rs. 10,000, she produced the same after withdrawing it from her mother-in-law.Based on the statement given by the appellant and the actual seizure of the sum of Rs. 8,100 as also the aerogrammes written by her sons, adjudication proceedings were initiated as against the appellant and by his order of adjudication, dated 31st December, 1973, the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, held the appellant guilty of contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 and ordered confiscation of the said two amounts of Rs. 8,100 and Rs. 10,000 under Section 2(1-B) of the Act.There was an appeal to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board by the appellant and in that appeal, the Board held, by its order, dated 26th September, 1975, that the order of the Deputy Director of Enforcement was bad for violation of the principles of natural justice in that so opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses.In that view, the Board allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Deputy Director of Enforcement for a fresh disposal.There was again an appeal to the Appellate Board by the appellant.In that appeal, it was mainly contended : (1) that the appellant's son, Kasi Viswanathan on whose instructions the sum of Rs. 20,000 was said to have been received by the appellant, through Ramaswamy, was not resident outside India and therefore Section 5(1)(aa) will not stand attracted; and (2) that the statement of the appellant dated 23rd May, 1970, taken at the time of the seizure of the amounts and the aerogrammes was not a voluntary one and therefore it should not be relied upon.Dealing with the first contention, the Appellate Board has specifically held that the appellant's son Kasi Viswanathan has not been shown to be a person resident outside India at the relevant time and that the endorsements made on his passport to the effect that he was not permitted to engage himself in any employment, business or profession there, would go to prove that he is not, in fact, a resident outside India.On the second question the Appellate Board did not give its opinion.On the contrary, it relied on the statement of Ramaswamy Chettiar given on 22nd May, 1970, which was to the effect that on the instructions of his son Muthukaruppan Chettiar in Malacca, the amount was received by the appellant through him, and held that even if the disputed amount is not received by the appellant on the instructions of her son Kasi Viswanathan, it could be taken that the amount has been received through Ramaswamy Chettiar on the instructions of Muthukaruppan Chettiar, a resident outside India.In this appeal, the llearned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Appellate Board is in error in upholding the order of the Assistant Director of Enforcement after giving the finding that the appellant's son is not a person resident outside India.According to the learned Counsel the charge being one of receipt of money on the instructions of Kasi Viswanathan, a person resident outside India, the department has to prove that charge strictly.Having failed to prove that Kasi Viswanathan, from whom the appellant is alleged to have received instructions, is shown to be a person not resident outside India, the charge must automatically fail, and that it is not open to the department to alter the same or substitute a new charge in the place of the original charge and to uphold the order of penalty on the basis that the altered or the substituted charge has been proved by the material on record.In this case, the original charge against the appellant at the stage of the adjudication proceedings was that she had received a sum of Rs. 20,000 through Ramaswamy as per the instructions of her son Kasi Viswanathan residing at Malacca.Though this charge was taken to have been proved by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, the Appellate Board has taken the view that Kasi Viswanathan is not a person residing outside India and therefore any amount received by the appellant as per his instructions cannot be the subject-matter of contravention under Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act. As per the said finding of the Appellate Board, the charge cannot be said to have been proved.To this extent, therefore, the learned Counsel appears to be right in his submission.The charge, as originally framed has not been established on the finding of the Appellate Board.However, the Appellate Board, relying on the statement of Ramaswamy given on 22nd May, 1970, that on the instructions of his son Muthukarappan Chettiar who had a money-lending shop at Malacca he paid the sum of Rs. 20,000 to the appellant, has held that the appellant has received the sum of Rs. 20,000 through Ramaswamy on the instructions of Muthukaruppan Chettiar at Malacca and this will attract Section 5(1)(aa).The Appellate Board agreed with the appellant that Kasi Viswanathan has not been shown to be a person resident outside India.It is in: this context the Appellate Board has held that it has got the power to alter the charge at the appellate stage if the facts establish the altered charge.We, do not see how the Appellate Board can alter the charge in the manner it has done at the appellate stage.The only case that the appellant was asked to meet at the adjudication proceedings is that she received a sum of Rs. 20,000 through Ramaswamy Chettiar on the instructions of her son Kasi Viswanathan, a person resident outside India.Now the charge as altered, in respect of which the appellant has been found guilty, is that she received the amount from Ramaswamy on the instructions of one Muthukaruppan, a resident outside India.There will be no order as to costs. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,074,831 | TUESDAY, 5th FEBRUARY 2019 P.C. :1 Order of externment dated 14th September 2018 issued by respondent No. 2 is questioned on the ground that it does not consider relevant material and therefore there is non-application of mind.Our attention is invited to chart looked into in said order to urge that in offence at serial No. 2, externee has filed cross FIR while in offence at serial Nos. 5 and 7, he has been already acquitted.It is claimed that alleged offence No. 33 of 2018 of Mulund Police Station is only under Sections 324, 323, 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and therefore, not that serious.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 22:56:41 :::wife of externee who is finding it difficult to maintain herself and two children.It is stated that the only serious offence is at serial No.3 and that too of year 2014, which is still pending and hence, its cognizance cannot be taken.3 Learned A.P.P points out that no appeal was filed against impugned order and material looked into shows proper consideration.The crime registered vide 33 of 2018 is serous in nature and there are in-camera statements which support the order.4 Petitioner could have filed appeal against order dated 14 th September 2018 within one month.That has not been done and in absence of power to condone delay, the appeal cannot now be entertained.However, as externment affects right under Article 21 of Constitution of India, we are looking into merits of the controversy also.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 22:56:41 :::Relevant materialSQ Pathan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 22:56:41 ::: wp.5023.18.26.doc has been examined and on its basis, a subjective satisfaction has been reached.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 22:56:41 :::9 In the light of arguments advanced, we find no case made out warranting intervention.REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 22:56:41 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,082,706 | (VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AK/-ANAND KUMAR 2019.11.23 18:28:39 +05'30' | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,099,778 | % (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.60/2012 under Sections 306/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi is sought on merits.Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits that the matter is coming up before the trial court on 5 th February, 2015 for hearing on the point of charge. | ['Section 482 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. |
55,102,575 | Heard Sri Anup Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for State of U.P.Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the first information report was lodged by one Devi Prasad Yadav on 30.12.2018, under sections 302, 201 IPC against unknown persons.The statement of the first informant under section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 31.12.2018, in which the name of the revisionist was surfaced as information received through Barkoo Mishra, as last seen evidence, but nobody was witnessed of the alleged occurrence.The impugned judgment and orders are liable to be set aside.Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,105,961 | Case diary is available.Argument heard.This is second application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The present applicant was arrested by Police Station Annapurna District Indore in Crime No.146/2015 under Section 307, 302, 120-B, 201, 212, 149, 148 and 147of of IPC & Section 25/27 of Arms Act. According to the prosecution story on 24.02.2015 at about2 P.M. The deceasedJitendra yadav and his friend Pankaj Yadav went to IDBI Bank situated at Sethi Gate, Ranjit Hanuman Road.When they came out of the Bank and sat in I20 car, four accused persons came there and they fired gun shot on them due to which the deceased Jitendra Yadav sustained fatal injuries and died.His friend Pankaj Yadav also sustained some gun shot injuries.In the FIR it is alleged that incident was also seen by some of the eye witnesses.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that his first application was allowed for grant of temporary bail and no other application was decided on merit.According to him, four persons were named in the FIR.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that the co-accused Guddu @ Pramod Dubey was granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court not in this case but in a private complaint filed by the complainant.In this case, no bail was granted to him as he was already discharged as an accused.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA) | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,107,356 | This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings of crime No. 58/10 alleging offence punishable under sections 498-A and 506-B/34 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.During pendency of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 have jointly filed application stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.By the rival parties, application has been filed on 20/11/2015 bearing I.A. No. 10063/15 informing about parties having entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.Normally, this Court would have refrained from quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings launched pursuant thereto and would have relegated the parties to trial court to file appropriate application under section 320 of Cr.P.C for compounding the offence of punishable under sections 498-A 2 Mcrc.12723/15 Surendra & others Vs.State of M.P. & another and 506-B/34 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is compoundable with the permission of the Court, but to save the parties from undergoing further procedural wrangles and to save time by keeping in mind the resolve of the parties and that in the given situation there is no possibility of conviction and further to eliminate the parties from bearing the travails of undergoing the arduous trial, this Court deems it appropriate to draw curtains over this matter to give it quites.No order as to cost. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,149,393 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 07/12/2015 in connection with Crime No. 404/2015 registered at Police Station Ishagarh, District Ashoknagar for the offences punishable under Section 326, 324, 323, 294, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.Actually, it was a case of free fight and a Kamlu, Prakash & Anikes & Aniket vs State of M.P.2 M.Cr.counter case has also been registered against the complainant and his companions.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application of the present applicants namely Kamlu, Prakash & Anikes & Aniket under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. | ['Section 326 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
12,115,372 | (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 orderpassed in No.34/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 31.07.2014 by the detaining authority,who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameSalaman @ Salamon and quash the same and thereby set him at libertyforthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, C3 S.S.Colony Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:(i)Crime No.229 of 2014, C3 S.S.Colony Police Station registered underSection 379 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 19.05.2014 one Moris,Son of Selvaraj has given a complaint against the detenu and others in C3S.S.Colony Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.655 of2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Codeand ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982against the detenu.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 detenu is in thehabit of committing crimes one after another and ultimately invoked Act 14 of1982 against him and thereby branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passing theimpugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present HabeasCorpus Petition has been filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.A.SELVAM, J.4.The Inspector of Police, C.3 S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.ORDER MADE INH.C.P(MD)No.941 of 201424.11.2014 | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,155,014 | The deceased Sunil Ramchandra Khairnar, resident of Bangaon, Tal.Chalisgaon, was the real brother of the informant namely Chhotu Ramchandra Khairnar.The native place of the appellant is village Takali (Budruk), Taluka Chalisgaon.The co-accused Sundarabai is his wife.The matrimonial village of Sundarabai is Bangaon, Taluka Chalisgaon.The appellant and Sundarabai were residing in the colony of homeless persons at village Bangaon.However, prior to two years of the incident, their relations became strained due to some domestic reasons.Therefore, the appellant had gone to reside at his own house at village Takali (Budruk).3 criapl230-2013It is alleged that the deceased Sunil had illicit relations with the co-accused Sundarabai.The deceased Sunil went to the house of another co-accused viz:- Babulal Pardeshi on 16.08.2003 prior to 8:30 p.m. The deceased Sunil asked the said Babulal to call Sundarabai to his house.Accordingly, Babulal went to the house of Sundarabai and brought her to his house at about 8:30 p.m. The deceased Sunil and Sundarabai were having talks.At that time, the appellant went there and questioned Sundarabai as to why she came there and was having talks with the deceased Sunil.He further questioned Babulal as to why he got called Sundarabai to his house.The appellant slapped twice or thrice on the person of Sundarabai.He caught hold of the deceased Sunil, dragged him inside the house of Babulal and assaulted him with a pestle and knife on his head and chest respectively.The deceased Sunil sustained serious bleeding injuries.After hearing commotion of the incident, the villagers gathered in front of the house of Babulal.The informant had gone to village Ranjangaon at 7:30 p.m. When came back at 9:30 p.m., he saw the crowd of ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 ::: 4 criapl230-2013 villagers near the house of Babulal.The brother and uncle of the informant were found running towards the house of Babulal.They informed the informant that the deceased Sunil was lying inside the house of Babulal in an injured condition.The informant went there and found that the deceased Sunil had sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and chest.He was not in a position to speak.He came to know from Babulal and Sundarabai as to how the deceased Sunil sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant.The deceased Sunil was immediately taken to the hospital of Dr. Deore at Chalisgaon, who examined the deceased Sunil and declared him as dead.The informant lodged a report in Police Station, Chalisgaon on 17.08.2003, as against the appellant for committing murder of the deceased Sunil on the suspicion that the deceased Sunil had illicit relations with Sundarabai.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 :::On the report of the informant, Crime No.203 of 2011 came to be registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.The investigation followed.Jijabai (PW4) states that her house is in front of the house of Babulal.She states that she had seen Sundarabai (PW8) and the deceased Sunil talking with each other in the house of Babulal on the day of the incident at about 8:00 p.m. According to her, she was preparing food at that time in the kitchen, which was inside of her house.She states that the appellant came there and gave two slaps on the person of Sundarabai (PW8).Thereafter, scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased Sunil.The appellant dragged the deceased Sunil inside the house of Babulal.She got frightened and closed the door of her house from inside.She opened the door of her house after an hour when she found crowd in front of the house of Babulal Pardeshi.Reserved On : 22th SEPTEMBER,2016 Pronounced On : 27th OCTOBER, 2016 JUDGMENT : (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.):The appellant, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 ::: 2 criapl230-2013 vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2012 by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, has challenged the vires of the said judgment and order by this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 :::The case of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the prosecution"), in short, is as under:-However, on the day of Rakshabandan, prior to the incident, the appellant had again started cohabiting with Sundarabai at village Bangaon.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 :::Inquest panchanama of the dead body of the deceased Sunil was prepared.The spot ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 ::: 5 criapl230-2013 panchanama was prepared.The blood stained pestle and knife, a sleeper, telephone diary, liquor bottle, Tavij and three currency notes came to be seized from the spot of the incident.The samples of plain earth and blood mixed earth also came to be seized from the spot of the incident.The postmortem of the body of the deceased Sunil was conducted by the Medical Officer Dr. Chavan of Municipal Dispensary at Chalisgaon.Considering the external as well as internal injuries found on the body of the deceased Sunil, the Medical Officer opined that the deceased Sunil had died of head injury and other injuries causing puncture of right lung.The clothes of the deceased Sunil came to be seized.The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyst for analysis and report.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:39 :::The informant gave the supplementary statement on 05.06.2004 and alleged that Sundarabai and Babulal Pardeshi also assaulted the deceased Sunil and that the appellant, Sundarabai and Babulal Pardeshi, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Sunil.Therefore, Sundarabai and Babulal also came to be shown as the accused persons for committing murder of ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 6 criapl230-2013 the deceased Sunil with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against Sundarabai but since the present appellant and Babulal Pardeshi were not traceable, they were shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet.On the basis of that charge sheet Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No. 319 of 2004 came to be registered against Sundarabai in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chalisgaon for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against Sundarabai.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the said case to the Sessions Court at Jalgaon, whereon Sessions Case No.171 of 2004 came to be registered.After Babulal was arrested a separate charge sheet came to be filed against him, on the basis of which Regular Criminal Case No.136 of 2005 came to be ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 7 criapl230-2013 instituted against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chalisgaon, for the above mentioned offences, who, in turn committed that case to the Sessions Court at Jalgaon.Sessions Case No.91 of 2005 came to be instituted against Babulal Pardeshi for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 174 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::After his arrest the charge sheet came to be filed against him for the above mentioned offences in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chalisgaon, on the basis of which Regular Criminal Case No.444 of 2011 came to be registered against him.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Sessions Court at Jalgaon, whereon Sessions Case No.11 of 2012 came to be instituted against him for the above mentioned offences.The learned Trial Judge framed charges against ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 8 criapl230-2013 the appellant vide Exh-6 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 174 of the IPC and explained the contents thereof to him in vernacular.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.His defence is that of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses to establish the guilt of the appellant for the above mentioned offences.After evaluating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder of the deceased Sunil.He, therefore, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him, as stated above.However, the learned Trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove that in spite of proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"), the appellant intentionally omitted to attend the Court and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 174 of the IPC.He has specifically recorded his ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 9 criapl230-2013 negative finding as against point no.3 for determination in respect of the said offence.However, he has not passed specific order acquitting the appellant of the said offence.Considering the negative finding of the learned trial Judge in respect of point no.3, the appellant would be deemed to have been acquitted of the said offence.We are, therefore, confining this judgment to the facts and evidence pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC only.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::The blood stained pestle and knife came to be seized from that spot under the said panchanama.The inquest panchanama (Exh-23) in respect of the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 10 criapl230-2013 Sunil was prepared wherein bleeding injuries were noted over his head and chest.The postmortem of the body of the deceased Sunil was actually conducted by Dr. Chavan, who is no more.Therefore, Dr. Tribhuvan (PW7) (Exh-32) was examined by the prosecution, who was working as the Medical Officer in Municipal Dispensary at Chalisgaon.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::On the basis of the contents of the memorandum (Exh-33) of the postmortem, Dr. Tribhuvan (PW7) states that the deceased Sunil had sustained head injury i.e. compound fracture, over right side of frontal region having size 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. into brain deep, compound fracture over both parietal regions having size 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. brain deep on each side, stab wound over 4 th inter-costal space of chest having size 2 c.m.X plural deep (touching the lung) cavity deep.The said injuries were ante-mortem.He further states that on internal examination, it was noticed that there was compound fracture over the scalp of front parietal region and laceration over brain.There was puncture of middle lob of right lung.He states that Dr. Chavan opined that the death of the deceased Sunil was due to head injury and other injuries causing puncture of right lung.He opined that the said injuries were caused by forceful assault ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 11 criapl230-2013 by hard and blunt object.He further deposes that injuries Nos.1 and 2, mentioned in column no.17 of the memorandum (Exh-33) of postmortem, were possible by pestle Art. "A", while injury no.3, mentioned in column no.17, was possible by penetrating and sharp object like knife Art. "B".From the evidence of Dr.Tribhuvan (PW7), it is clear that the deceased Sunil succumbed to the injuries that were caused on his head and chest.In the circumstances, considering the nature of the injuries and the evidence of Dr.Tribhuvan (PW7), we hold that the death of Sunil was homicidal.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::To connect the appellant with the death of Sunil, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of Jijabai (PW4) (Exh-19), who was residing in front of the house of Babulal and the co-accused Sundarabai (PW8) (Exh-41).The prosecution is further relying on the circumstance that the appellant was absconding since after the incident.Therefore, it will have to be seen as to how far the evidence of these two witnesses and ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 12 criapl230-2013 the alleged abscondence of the appellant would be helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the appellant for the offence of committing murder of Sunil.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::She further saw that the deceased Sunil had sustained injuries over the head and chest.Thereafter, the brother and uncle of the deceased Sunil came there and took him to the hospital at Chalisgaon.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::13 criapl230-2013The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in the cross-examination of Jijabai (PW4), she states that the house of Babulal Pardeshi was not visible from her kitchen and that at the relevant time, she was preparing food in the kitchen that was at the backside of her house.He, therefore, submits that the evidence of Jijabai (PW4) that she saw the appellant giving two slaps on the person of Sundarabai (PW8) and dragging the deceased Sunil inside the house of Babulal, cannot be believed.The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out to the deposition (Exh-63) of Jijabai (PW4), recorded on 29th November, 2004 before the Court in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004, that was instituted against Sundarabai (PW8) as well as the present appellant and Babulal Pardeshi.He, therefore, submits that Jijabai (PW4), in fact, has not at all witnessed the appellant slapping Sundarabai (PW8) ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 14 criapl230-2013 and dragging the deceased Sunil inside the house of Babulal and that she is not a reliable witness.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::Jijabai (PW4) in her deposition (Exh-63) before the Court in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004 states that on 16.08.2003 at about 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., when she was cooking in her house, she heard commotion from the house of Babulal Pardeshi and therefore went out of her house.She saw that Babulal Pardeshi, the appellant and Sundarabai (PW8) came out of the house of Babulal and went to some other place.Thereafter, the villagers gathered there.Then somebody told her that the deceased Sunil was lying inside the house of Babulal.She specifically states that she did not see as to what had happened prior to the shouts from house of Babulal.She was cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. but she denied all the above mentioned facts which were stated by her in this case, implicating the appellant in the incident in question.In her cross-examination in Sessions Case No.171 of 2004, she admitted that she did not hear shouts but heard the sound of falling utensils.She further admitted that she had not seen Sundarabai (PW8) coming out of the house of Babulal.The deposition of ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 15 criapl230-2013 Jijabai (PW4) recorded in Sessions Case No.171 of 2004 does not contain that the appellant had slapped twice or thrice to Sundarabai (PW8) on the ground that she was having talks with the deceased Sunil and thereafter, the appellant dragged the deceased Sunil inside the house of Babulal Pardeshi.She could not explain as to why these material facts were not stated by him in her deposition (Exh-63), to which her attention was specifically drawn.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::She further admitted that she had not stated before the police that there had been scuffle between the appellant ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 16 criapl230-2013 and the deceased Sunil.There are material omissions in the evidence of Jijabai (PW4).Considering the variance between her version before this Court and that has been recorded in Sessions Case No.171 of 2004 as well as the above referred material omissions, it would be difficult to rely on the testimony of Jijabai (PW4).Her evidence would not be helpful to the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused injuries on the person of the deceased Sunil.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::Sundarabai (PW8) states that she used to sell liquor prior to the incident and that she was prosecuted for the same.She states that the deceased Sunil was helping her in the cases prosecuted against her.According to her, on the day of the incident at about 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Babulal came to her house and told her that the deceased Sunil wanted to tell her something about the dates of Court cases.Therefore, she went to the house of Babulal, where the deceased Sunil was present.She was talking to the deceased Sunil in respect of the dates of court cases.At that time, the appellant came there and gave her two - three slaps asking her as to why she was talking with the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 17 criapl230-2013 Sunil.She further states that the appellant dragged the deceased Sunil and the scuffle took place between them.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::She tried to intervene.The appellant took up iron pestle and assaulted over the head and chest of the deceased Sunil.The deceased Sunil sustained bleeding injury on his head and fell down on the ground.Thereafter, accused took up a knife, which was lying nearby and inflicted blow thereof on the chest of the deceased Sunil.She got frightened and went to the house of her mother.Thus, Sundarabai (PW8) has tried to implicate the appellant with the offence of murder of the deceased Sunil.The learned A.P.P. submits that the Sundarabai (PW8), wife of the appellant was present at the time of the incident.Her evidence is quite natural, probable and believable.He, therefore, submits that the evidence of Sundarabai (PW8) itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased Sunil.As against this, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sundarabai (PW8) admittedly is a co-accused.She faced the trial in Sessions Case No.171 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 18 criapl230-2013 of 2004 for committing murder of the deceased Sunil, in furtherance of her common intention with the appellant and Babulal.Therefore, she being an accomplice her evidence cannot believed unless there is strong corroboration on all material points.He submits that Sundarabai (PW8) is a got up witness.Her presence at the time of incident itself is doubtful.When she claims to have intervened at the time of the incident and that the deceased Sunil had sustained bleeding injuries, her clothes must have been stained with blood of Sunil.Her clothes have not been seized by the police.The statement of Sundarabai (PW8) is coming for the first time before the Court in the present trial.She was not even examined as a witness in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2005, instituted against Babulal, the another co-accused.It is not explained by the prosecution as to why her statement before the police was suppressed for such a long time.He submits that the evidence of Sundarabai (PW8) is full of infirmities.It is not corroborated by any independent evidence.She is not at all believable witness.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::Admittedly, Sundarabai (PW8) was prosecuted and ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 19 criapl230-2013 tried in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004 for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, in respect of death of Sunil only.However, her acquittal would not change her character as a co-accused.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::As stated above, the evidence of Jijabai (PW4) is of no help to connect the appellant with the incident in question.Nothing incriminating has been recovered or discovered to connect the appellant with the incident in question.The evidence of Sundarabai (PW8), thus, has remained totally uncorroborated by any independent evidence.Even otherwise, if the version of Sundarabai (PW8), as has been brought in her cross-examination, is considered carefully, it would be clear that she was a tutored witness.In paragraph no.6 of her deposition, ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 20 criapl230-2013 she admits that the police had read over her statement before her for two-three times prior to entering the witness box.She further states that the police had asked her to depose according to that statement.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::As stated above, the statement of Sundarabai (PW8) has surfaced only when the appellant came to be prosecuted.The prosecution has not at all explained as to why her statement was suppressed for about 8 years of the incident.In paragraph no.7 of her deposition, Sundarabai (PW8) specifically states that she had not stated about the incident immediately to the police.She further states that she did not narrate the incident to her mother or anybody else.This evidence creates a strong doubt about the recording of her statement immediately after the incident.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::Therefore, according to him, the alleged abscondence of the appellant cannot be an incriminating circumstance against him.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::If that be so, the alleged abscondence of the appellant cannot be used to incriminate him.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::The learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence of Jijabai (PW4) and Sundarabai (PW8) properly and correctly.As stated above, the alleged abscondence of the appellant was not put to him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::27 criapl230-2013 Moreover, the abscondence of the appellant has not been duly proved by the prosecution by producing necessary evidence.In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge, on the basis of evidence of Jijabai (PW4), Sundarabai (PW8) and the alleged abscondence of the appellant, cannot be said to be correct and sustainable.The learned Trial Judge has directed that the seized currency notes of Rs.40/- be deposited with the Reserve Bank of India.The learned Trial Judge has not assigned any reason as to why this cash amount should be deposited in the Reserve Bank of India.The said direction is not at all warranted.The amount of Rs.40/-will have to be directed to be forfeited to the State.The remaining part of the order for disposal of the property needs no interference.The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence of committing murder of the deceased Sunil.The impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, are not sustainable.They are liable to be quashed and set ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: 28 criapl230-2013 aside.The appeal is liable to be allowed.In the result, we pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 :::Rs.10,000/- with a surety in the like amount vide Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(vii) Since learned counsel Mr. S.B. Jadhav was appointed to represent the appellant, we quantify his fees at Rs.7500/-, which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee at Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:40 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,163,642 | The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-The marriage between A1 and the deceased took place in the year 2000 and they have two children out of the wedlock.After marriage, for 3 years they were living happily.After some time, A2 misbehaved with the deceased and hence, the deceased came to her parental house.Thereafter, there was a mediation in the village and on the advice of the mediators, the deceased once again went to her matrimonial house.But the accused once again demanded Rs.20,000/-.Since P.W.1 have no money, he gave some dead woods for the brickklin run by the accused.Four days prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 invited both A1 and the deceased to his house and P.W.1 has given Rs.20,000/- to them.Thereafter, on 06.07.2006, the appellant informed P.W.1 that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging.Immediately, he went to A1's house and found her daughter dead.P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.350 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.Then, he sent the First Information Report(Ex.P.16) to the higher officials.The accused in S.C.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions(Chief Judicial Magistrate) Court, Krishnagiri are the appellants herein.They stood charged for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. By judgment, dated 13.02.2009, trial court, convicted both the accused under Sections 498-A, 304(B) IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Today, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. side) appearing for the respondent would submit that pending appeal, the second Appellant Muniappa Gounder died on 29.06.2016, and she has also filed a memo along with the death certificate.Recording the same, the appeal against A2 is dismissed as abated.5. P.W.15, Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, on receipt of the First Information Report commenced investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and drew a Rough Sketch(Ex.P.17) in the presence of the witnesses and he has also recorded the statements of the witnesses and based on the investigation, he altered the case into Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and the alteration report is Ex.In the mean time, on receipt of the First Information Report, since the death has occurred within a period of 7 years, P.W.13, RDO, conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of the panchayathars and he prepared an inquest report (Ex.P.15) and also an enquiry report (Ex.P.8) and he was of opinion that the death was not due to dowry demand.Then, he sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Kaveripattinam.7. P.W.11,Doctor, working in the government Hospital, Kaveripattinam, on 07.07.206, at about 10.00 a.m., conducted postmortem/autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injuries:-" 1. lacerated wound on the right leg 3 x 2 x 1 cm.2. multiple linor abrasion over back side.Small anti morterm abrasion over front of 1 cm.Small abrasion at 1/2 x 1/2 cm over the cheek.5.Small abrasion over front of neck below hyoid bone 1/2 x 1/2 cm."P.4 is the Postmortem Certificate and the doctor was of the opinion that the death was due to hanging.P.W.16 conducted further investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove its case , on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the brother, P.W.4 is the sister and P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased.P.W.6 is a witness, who saw the deceased hanging.P.W.10, Grade-I Police, in the respondent police, after postmortem handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased.P.W.11, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Kaveripattinam, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate(Ex.P.4).P.W.12, Village Administrative Officer, is a witness to the observation mahazar.P.W.13, RDO, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayathars and prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem.P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case and sent the First Information Report(Ex.P.16) to the jurisdictional Magistrate and higher officials.P.W.16 continued the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.11.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not examine any witness or marked any documents.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.I have heard Mr.Ramesh, Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.M.F.Shabana, Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record carefully.The marriage between A1 and the deceased took place in the year 2000 and the deceased had committed suicide on 06.07.2006, i.e., within a period of 7 years of her marriage.Then four days prior to the occurrence, he invited both A1 and the deceased and he has given Rs.20,000/- for their expenses.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.After some time, there was some problem in their house and both A1 and A2 has beaten the deceased and hence, the deceased came to their house and the deceased also complained that A2 has misbehaved with her, there was a mediation in the village and based on the advice of the mediators, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial house, all the above incidence happened 3 years prior to the occurrence.15. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased.According to him, the deceased has complained to him that A1 had an illicit intimacy with a lady working in the brickkiln and also complained that A2 has misbehaved with her.Then, a mediation was conducted, where the accused has admitted the guilt and on the advice of the panchayathars, she went back to her matrimonial house.After 6 months, the accused demanded one lakh for the purchase of a tractor.Then, both the deceased and A1 came to his house for a temple festival.After two months, the deceased also complained to P.W.3, that A1 had illicit intimacy with a lady working in a STD booth, and A1 also harassed her.16. P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased.She has deposed that A2 harassed the deceased and they have also demanded Rs.20,000/-, and A2 has misbehaved with the deceased and he has also beaten the deceased.Subsequently, there was a mediation and the deceased complained before the mediators that A2 misbehaved with her, and some time, before the occurrence, both A1 and the deceased came to their house for a festival and stayed there for two days and then they went back to their house.In her cross-examination she had stated that Rs.20,000/- was demanded 3 years prior to the occurrence.P.W.5 is the another brother of the deceased.He has also deposed that for 3 years after the marriage, they were living happily, thereafter, some dispute arose between them and after 6 months of their marriage Rs.20,000/- was given to them.Thereafter, the accused harassed the deceased and there was a mediation.In the mediation, the accused tendered apology and the deceased was sent back to their house.Before the occurrence, for temple festival A1 and the deceased came his house and stayed there.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, it could be seen that all the demand and harassment took place long prior to the occurrence.It is their evidence that the accused had demanded Rs.20,000/-, 3 years after the marriage, i.e.,3 years prior to the occurrence.There were some problem between the accused and the deceased and there was a mediation, and the accused also tendered apology and accepting the apology, the deceased was sent back to the house of the accused.After that there is no evidence that the appellants have demanded dowry.Subsequently, P.W.1 also sent 4 loads of fire woods for his brickkiln.Four days prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 invited A1 and the deceased to his house and he has voluntarily given Rs.20,000/- for their expenses.It is the consistent evidence of all the five witnesses that harassment took place only 3 years prior to the occurrence, thereafter, there is no demand of dowry.There was a serious allegation that A2 father of A1 has misbehaved with the deceased and the deceased complained the same to her family members.Even thereafter, P.W.1 sent dead fire woods to the accused, and he has also voluntarily given Rs.20,000/-, and absolutely, there is no evidence to show that soon before death the accused made any dowry demand or harassed the deceased.So far as the other allegations regarding A1 having illicit intimacy with some other lady also cannot be construed as cruelty committed by the accused to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC in the instant case.In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 304-B and 408-A IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond any reasonable doubt.Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 in S.C.No.97 of 2008 dated 13.02.2009, are set aside and the appellant/A1 is acquitted from all the charges.Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/A1, shall stand cancelled.23.02.2017mrpIndex:Yes/noInternet: yes/noToThe Assistant Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., mrp Crl.A.No.133 of 200923.02.2017 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,176,859 | C.R.R. 81 of 2012 With C.R.R. 82 of 2012 In Re: CRR 81 of 2012 Israfil MollaThe State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Arnab Chatterjee Mr. Jisan Iqubal Hossain ...For the petitioner.Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta ... for the State.The petitioner has preferred this revision challenging the order dated December 15, 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in connection with Criminal Misc.Case No. 3222 of 2010 by which the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the application for bail of the petitioner under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It appears from record that Hariharpara Police Station Case No. 27 of 2010 dated January 23, 2010 was initiated against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on the allegation of committing offence under Section 498A/ 307/326 of the Indian 2 Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.On June 16, 2010, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 498A/323/325/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.On June 24, 2010 the petitioner surrendered before the learned Court of Magistrate and was released on regular bail.The said order of bail granted by learned Magistrate was challenged before the Court of Sessions in Criminal Misc.On December 15, 2011, learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, cancelled the application for bail of the petitioner.The said order of learned Sessions Judge is under challenge in this revision.Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no document is produced before the learned Sessions Judge to justify the allegation that the petitioner threatened the witnesses with dire consequences.According to Mr. Chatterjee, the order passed by learned Sessions Judge is liable to be cancelled.Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party/State contends that after filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on June 16, 2010, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the petitioner.None appears on behalf of the private opposite party in spite of service of notice.On perusal of the impugned order under challenge in the revision I find that learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of the petitioner mainly on two grounds:First, the petitioner threatened the witnesses with dire consequences and secondly, the petitioner suppressed the fact of refusal of anticipatory bail before learned Magistrate at the time of obtaining regular bail.There is nothing on record to indicate that the de-facto complainant made any complaint before the police station or before any other authority about threat held out by the petitioner 4 to the witnesses, in the absence of production of any document before learned Sessions Judge, Learned Sessions Judge formed the opinion that the petitioner threatened the witnesses with dire consequences, which I think is not reasonable and justified under the law.It is true that the petitioner suppressed the fact of refusal of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Magistrate at the time of obtaining regular bail.However, after filing of the charge- sheet on completion of investigation there cannot be any justification of custodial interrogation of the petitioner in connection with the said criminal case and as such suppression of fact by the petitioner cannot be a ground for cancellation of regular bail.There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner misused the liberty granted to him by learned Magistrate.In view of my above findings I am inclined to set aside the order passed by learned Sessions Judge.Accordingly, the order dated December 15, 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in connection with Criminal Misc.Case No. 3222 of 2010 is hereby set aside.Criminal Revision is, thus, disposed of.5 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the petitioner within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.(R.K.Bag, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,211,792 | JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) By this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Shri Chandra Bose, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi vide Fir No-92/91 under Sections 39/44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short the Act) read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code . | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
167,248,210 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the second respondent in CMP.No.71 of 2019 dated 22.01.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sholingar.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The second respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the same day.Curiously, the bail petition was taken up for hearing on 22.01.2019 itself and on that day the very same respondent police gave an instruction as if the victim has been discharged.The Court below by an order dated 22.01.2019 i.e., within one day after dismissing the earlier petition, had granted bail to the second respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fraud has been played by the second respondent in active connivance with the police.The second respondent has been served notice and there is no representation for the second respondent.The name of the second respondent has also been printed in the cause list.Supervening circumstances in this case is the fraud that was played by the second respondent in obtaining bail with the active connivance of the first respondent police.In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the bail granted by the Court below in favour of the second respondent requires interference and accordingly the bail granted by the Court below is hereby cancelled.The respondent police is directed to immediately secure the second respondent to proceed against him in accordance with law.In the result, Criminal Original Petition is allowed.28.03.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dhThe Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Namakkal, Namakkal District.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 N. ANAND VENKATESH , J.dh Crl.O.P.No.4328 of 2019 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
167,251,626 | Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are that the prosecutrix was the permanent resident of village Anandpur, Police Station Dehat, District Datia and her matrimonial house is situated in village Thanra, Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri.On 11/10/2015 the prosecutrix left her matrimonial house on the pretext of going to her parental home and boarded the bus at Thanra Bus stop.The appellant, who is also the resident of village Thanra noticed that the prosecutrix has boarded the bus, therefore, he also boarded the bus.When the bus reached Dinara bus stand, the appellant requested the prosecutrix to deboard the bus on the pretext of talking to her.When the prosecutrix alighted the bus, then the appellant requested her to accompany him.When it was objected by the prosecutrix, then the appellant extended the threat that he would kill her seven years old boy, as a result of which, the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant, from where they went to Jhansi Bus stand and thereafter from Jhansi Bus stand they went to Babina.At Babina the appellant took a house on rent and stayed there alongwith the prosecutrix for a period of about one and half months and during this period he raped the prosecutrix on several occasions.In the meanwhile, when the prosecutrix did not reach her parental home, then she was searched by her husband.The appellant is also the resident 3 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] of the same locality where the matrimonial house of the prosecutrix is situated and he too was absent.Accordingly, the husband of the prosecutrix lodged a Gum Insan report at Police Station Dinara and he on his own also was searching for the prosecutrix and the child.Thereafter, he received an information that the prosecutrix and the child are in village Babina from where the prosecutrix alongwith her child were recovered.When she requested the appellant not to do so, then the appellant used to say that when both of them are residing together, then this is not unnatural.About one month thereafter her in-laws came to know about her whereabouts, therefore, her husband along with other in-laws and Sarpanch came to Babina for taking her back and at that time the appellant was not in the house.She came back to her matrimonial house from Babina from where she went to Police Station Dinara along with her husband, in-laws and other persons.The FIR was lodged by her at Police Station Dinara, which is Ex.She was sent for medical examination, however, she did not tell any place of incident to the police.In cross-examination, she admitted that the house of a relative of appellant is also situated in village Angora and her parental home is also in village Angora.She further stated that she was going to her parental home as her mother was not well and she boarded the bus from Dinara for going to Angora.She further admitted that the bus going towards Datia takes a different route and does not go to Jhasni.The prosecutrix on her own clarified that from Dinara the appellant took her to Jhansi in a different bus.She further stated that at Dinara bus stand there were lot of passengers and similarly there were number of passengers in the bus, in which she went to Jhansi.Mukesh Jatav (PW-3) is the husband of the prosecutrix, who has stated that she had left her matrimonial house along with her son on the pretext that she is going to her parental home.On the next day, when he inquired from her in-laws, then he was told that the prosecutrix has not reached her parental home.He tried to find out the whereabouts of the prosecutrix and when he could not succeed, then he lodged a Gum Insan report.State of M.P.] Thirunavukarasu stated that Sekar (A1) had brought the girl with him to his house and told him that he had married her.They had come to see Trichy and requested a house to stay.This witness categorically stated that he thought that they were newly married couple.Her behaviour of not complaining to anybody at any of the stages after being allegedly abducted would be wholly unnatural.Earlier also, she had many opportunities to complain or to run away, but she made no such effort.It is noteworthy that she made no protest on seeing some known persons near the car, after her alleged abduction.She did not make any complaint at the residence of Selvi, sister of Sekar (A1) at Pudupatti.Again, there was no complaint on seeing her relatives allegedly assembled at the temple.The appellant is in jail.(23/07/2018) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 4/4/2017 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.7/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (n) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a 2 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment on both counts.As the appellant got the information that the husband of the prosecutrix is coming, therefore, he absconded from the spot.The FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Dinara, which was registered as Crime No.463/2015 and accordingly, the police registered an offence under Sections 376, 366, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3 (1) 12 and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "the Act").After concluding the investigation, the police filed the charge- sheet for the above mentioned offences.The trial court by order dated 29/1/2016 framed charge under Sections 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Deepak Kumar (PW-1), Prosecutrix (PW-2), Mukesh Jatav (PW-3), Kaliyabai (PW-4), Prabhawati (PW-5), Anjana Khare (PW-6), Bhagwandas (PW-7), Brijesh Pachori (PW-8), Dr. Indu Jain (PW-4 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.]9) and S.C. Pateriya (PW-10).The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.The trial court by judgment and sentence dated 4/4/2017 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.7/2016 convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (n) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment on both counts.Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, and acquitted the appellant for offence under Sections 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that if the entire evidence which has come on record is considered in its entirety, then it would be clear that the prosecutrix herself was the consenting party.She on her own left her matrimonial house along with the appellant and came to Jhansi bus stand along with the appellant from where they went to Babina where the appellant took a house on rent and the prosecutrix along with her seven years old son stayed with the appellant for a period of more than one month and during that period the prosecutrix did not resist or object the act of physical relations.Although the prosecutrix was never kept in confinement and all the time she was free to move and talk to anybody, but still she did not try to contact her in-laws or her parents or even did not inform any neighbors that she has 5 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] been abducted and is being kept in confinement and is being raped by the appellant frequently.It is submitted that thus, from the evidence which has come on record, it is clear that the basic requirement of Section 375 Firstly of IPC have not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant and she was kept against her will in village Babina and she was raped by the appellant.It is further submitted that it is well established principle of law that where the prosecutrix has stated that she was raped by person without her consent, then there is no reason to disbelieve the said statement.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated that about 8-9 months back, at about 8-9 AM, she was going to her parental home by bus.Her seven years old son was also with her and present appellant was also sitting in the same bus.When the bus reached Jhansi bus stand, at that time the appellant asked the prosecutrix to go along with him to Babina.When she refused to do so, then the appellant took the son of the prosecutrix and again said that the prosecutrix must accompany him.Thereafter, the prosecutrix went to Babina along with the appellant in a bus where she stayed 6 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] with the appellant in a room.Her son was also with her.The appellant had committed rape on her in the room on certain occasions.She further stated that the house of Bua of the appellant is situated at a distance of 1-2 km. from the house of her father.The appellant was not known to her when she was residing in Angora.Thereafter, this witness on her own has stated that she was introduced by the Bua (father's sister) of the appellant.She further admitted that she is knowing the appellant after her marriage and the house of the appellant and her matrimonial house are adjoining to each other and their agricultural fields and well are also adjoining to each 7 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] other.She also admitted that the appellant and the prosecutrix used to meet each other even in isolation.She further admitted that while she was going alongwith the appellant in the bus she neither raised any alarm nor informed the conductor of the bus or passengers that the appellant is forcibly taking her away.When she alighted from the bus at Jhansi bus stand for going to Babina even at that time she did not inform anybody that the appellant is forcibly taking her to Babina nor she informed in this regard to the passengers or conductor of the bus by which they were going to Babina.She further stated that she did not make any attempt in her defence.It is further submitted that lot of houses are situated adjoining to the room where she and the appellant had stayed.She further stated that after leaving the prosecutrix and her child in the room the appellant used to go to market for taking articles and during that period she used to stay back in the room along with her son.She further admitted that in 8 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] absence of the appellant she could have run away from the room, but did not try to run away from the room.She further admitted that she did not narrate to any neighbors about the incident.She further admitted that during the period when she and the appellant were staying in Babina, the appellant used to go to market every day for taking articles and during this period she was all alone in the room and even during this period also, she did not narrate the incident to anybody.She further admitted that she along with her son and the appellant had gone to Odissa for tourism purposes.Thereafter, on her own she stated that one more person was accompanying the appellant.She further admitted that in Odissa also she did not inform anybody.She further stated that whenever the appellant had physical relation with her, she had merely refused, but did not do anything and she had stayed with the appellant for a period of one month and twenty days.She further stated that her husband is in the habit of consuming alcohol and in inebriated condition he used to beat her.Further, she denied that her relation with her husband were strained.She further denied that she on her own had requested the appellant to take her to some other place as her husband in inebriated condition used to beat her.Thereafter, she further stated that one Pran Singh Banjara is staying at the well of the appellant, who had said that she should go for tourism and accepting the suggestions given by Banjara she went along with the appellant willingly.She 9 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] further stated that she has engaged a lawyer, who has come from Dinara along with her.She further denied that she has given the evidence as per the advice given by her counsel.About one month of lodging the Gum Insan report, he came to know that the prosecutrix is living along with the appellant at Babina.Thereafter, he along with 10-15 persons went to Babina from where they went to the house of Mausi of the appellant where the prosecutrix and her son were found, then they came back to his house.In cross- examination, attention of this witness was invited to the omission in his case diary statement that the prosecutrix and her son were found in the house of Mausi of the appellant, however, this witness could not explain the reason of such omission.Kaliyabai (PW-4) is the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix.She has merely stated that she does not know anything about the incident and she was declared hostile.Prabhawati (PW-5) is the Constable, who had taken he prosecutrix for medical examination.10 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.]Anjana Khare (PW-6) is the Sub Inspector, who was posted in village Karera, District Shivpuri, who has stated that she was informed by the SHO, Police Station Dinara that a lady has come for lodging the report and since there is no lady officer in the police station, therefore, she went to Police Station Dinara where she recorded the statement of the witnesses.The FIR, Ex.P/2, was written on the report given by the prosecutrix.Bhagwandas (P.W.7) has stated that vide Ex. P.5, the prosecutrix was recovered in the police station Dinara.Dr. Indu Jain (P.W.9) had conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix and vide medical report, Ex. P.8, no external/internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix.S.C. Pateria (P.W. 10) was the investigating officer who had prepared the spot map, Ex. P.09 and had recorded the statements of the witnesses.11 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.]The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the prosecutrix herself was the consenting party and nothing was done without her consent.Section 375 First of I.P.C., reads as under :Rape.--A man is said to commit "rape" if he--(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; orHowever, where undisputedly, the two persons, i.e., the appellant and the prosecutrix were involved in sexual activities, then the moot question for determination would be that whether the act of sexual intimacy was without the will of the prosecutrix or it was with her consent.Whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party and 12 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] whether her claim, that She was subjected to sexual violation, is a question which has to be determined after considering the surrounding circumstances.Whether the prosecutrix had involved herself in the sexual relations willingly or not, is a debatable question of fact.The word "willingness" would mean that when a woman in her full senses, and with clear understanding of the consequences of intimate relationship, agrees to involve herself in sexual relations, without any misconception of fact and without any coercion or pressure, then it can be said that the act of sexual intimacy was not against the will of the woman.The Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep K. Mahato Vs.State of Bihar reported in (1998) 6 SCC 420 has held as under :Then coming to the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, although both the courts below have held after accepting the evidence of the prosecutrix as being truthful that the appellant had forcibly committed the rape, we are of the opinion that the said finding is unsustainable.The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity not only to run away from the house at Ramgarh but she could have also taken the help of the neighbours from the said village.The medical evidence of Dr Maya Shankar Thakur, PW 5 also indicates that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix 13 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.He lived in the house adjacent to the house of the appellant and it is the 14 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.We have noticed earlier that she did not make any complaint on so many occasions when she had the opportunity to do so.He had made them stay in door No. 86 of the Police Colony, which was under his responsibility.On 10th August, 1993, the police inspector, who arrived there at 10.00 p.m. told this witness that Sekar (A1) had married the girl by threatening her and "spoiled her".The girl, according to the prosecution, was recovered from the aforesaid premises.Therefore, for six days, this girl was staying with Sekar (A1).She did not raise any protest.She did not even complain to this witness or any other residents in the locality.Her relatives apparently took no steps at the time when mangalsutra was forcibly tied around her neck by Sekar (A1).No one sent for police help even though a car was available.She made no complaint when she was taken to the house of PW5, Thiru Thirunavukarasu and stayed at his place.Again, there was no protest when Sekar (A1) took her to the police station on 5th day of the alleged abduction and told at the Tiruchi Police Station that they had already been married.The above behaviour would not be natural for a girl who had been compelled to marry and subjected to illicit sexual intercourse.21 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.]If the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned cases, it would be clear that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy.The prosecutrix has stated that as her mother was not well, therefore, She left her matrimonial house for going to her parents home, however, the prosecution has not examined the mother of the prosecutrix to prove that She was not well, therefore, the prosecutrix had started from her matrimonial house for coming to her parental house.Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the very reason for the prosecutrix to leave her matrimonial house.It is also admitted by the prosecutrix, that when She boarded the bus, the appellant was already sitting in the bus.Thus the possibility of leaving the matrimonial house after due deliberations with the appellant, cannot be ruled out.Further, it is the prosecution case, that for going to Babina, the prosecutrix changed various buses at bus stops but neither She made any complaint to the co-passengers or to the conductor.Further, the appellant, took a room on rent at Babina, where the prosecutrix stayed with the appellant for a period of one and half months, and although she was not kept in confinement and was free to move around, but neither she informed her in-laws, nor informed any neighbor, although the room in which the prosecutrix was staying was situated in a densely populated area.The prosecutrix has also admitted that She used to meet the appellant 22 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.The prosecutrix has also admitted that her husband used to beat her in inebriated condition.Therefore, the possibility of leaving her matrimonial house, because of the conduct of her own husband, cannot be ruled out.However, it appears that later on, in order to save the pride of the family, a false report of abduction and rape has been lodged.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy and She appears to be the consenting party.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the applicant on any count.Accordingly the appellant is held not guilty of committing offence under Section 366 and 376(2)(n) of I.P.C.Resultantly, the judgment and sentence 4/4/2017 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.7/2016, is hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted of all the charges.He be released from jail immediately, if not required in any other case.The appeal succeeds and is hereby Allowed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.07.23 18:15:53 +05'30' 23 Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 [Kalyan Pal Vs.State of M.P.] HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR, BENCH AT GWALIOR Criminal Appeal No.954/2017 .........Appellant: Kalyan Pal Versus .........Respondent: State of M.P.JUDGMENT post for 23/07/2018 (G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 19/07/2018 | ['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
167,253,434 | 1 11.1.2019 (18) Allowed md.(18)Samir Das and others ... Petitioners Mr. Pawan K. Gupta Mr. Snehansu Majumder .. for the petitioners Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Dipankar Mahata .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No.739/2018 dated 17.12.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
167,255,911 | i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.The order dated 17th October, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Misc.Criminal Application No. 733 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:56:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:56:21 :::With this the appeal is allowed and disposed of.V. M. Deshpande, J.Diwale::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:56:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:56:21 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,823,638 | Heard on admission.Shri Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent accepts notice.No further notice required.Call for the record of Courts below.Also heard on I.A. No.1253/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 stand convicted and sentenced as hereunder:Petitioner No.1 Rama Barela CONVICTION SENTENCE Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonm ent in lieu of fine 325 read with I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year Rs. 400/- R.I. for 1 Section 34 month Petitioner No.2 Shivam Barela CONVICTION SENTENCE Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonm ent in lieu of fine 325 read with I.P.C. R.I. for 2 year Rs. 400/- R.I. For 1 Section 34 month Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners has been in custody since the judgment of the appellate Court i.e. 18.1.2018, therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the petitioners be suspended.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 866/2018 2 Rama Barela & another.V/s.State of M.P.Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserves to be released on bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17.09.2018 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon the petitioners - Rama Barela and Shivam Barela shall stand suspended and they shall be released on bail.C.C. as per rules.( C.V. SIRPURKAR ) JUDGE Alok/-Alok Gargav 2018.02.24 16:07:46 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
828,268 | ORDER Sen, J.This rule must be discharged.The-rule is against an order passed by a learned Presidency Magistrate refusing to consent to the withdrawal of the prosecution from a case against Gopi Mohan Roy one of several accused.The facts briefly are as follows: The case was started against Gopi Mohon be y and eight other persons charging them with having committed offences punishable under Section 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, read with Section 8, Essential Supplier (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (xxvin [18] of 19d6) and Section 7(l), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (XXIV [24] of 1946) and Section 120B, Penal Code.Put shortly, the charge against the accused was that they were members of a criminal conspiracy to sell salt at a rate higher than that permitted by the Ordinance.Some of the accused were sellers and some were the buyers.The accused Gopi Mohan Roy was the broker who brought the two groups together and who took his commission on the price obtained by the sale.The case was started on 12th August 1947 and dragged on witheut any hearing till 15th December 1917 when it was set; down for evidence on 10th January 1948 with a warning that no further adjournment would be allowed.On that date, the Public Prosecutor moved the learned Magistrate to consent to his withdrawing from the prosecution of Gopi Mohan Roy.The application was made under Section 494, Criminal P. C. Under that section the Public Prosecutor may. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,830,646 | Heard on the question of admission.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent no.2 lodged a F.I.R. on 18-2-2015 to the effect that she was coming back to her house from the College.As some insect went inside her eyes, therefore, she stopped.All of a sudden, one boy on black Pulsar motorcycle came there and touched her breast and went away on his motorcycle.The registration number of the vehicle was not written and she would identify the said boy.Thereafter, the matter remained pending.Another incident of similar in nature took place on 25-9-2016 with another girl "X" who lodged the F.I.R. and also disclosed the registration number of the motor cycle.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was implicated in the present case, on the basis of the confessional statement of the applicant 2 recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act.The police after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet and the Trial Court by order dated 27-2-2017 framed charge under Section 354-A of I.P.C.Challenging the order passed by the Trial Magistrate, the counsel for the applicant submits that the police did not conduct the Test Identification Parade of the applicant and the entire case is based on the confessional statement of the applicant which was recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, and in view of Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act, the confessional statement is not admissible.Therefore, there is no admissible evidence against the applicant warranting his trial.Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the order dated 27-2-2017 passed by Magistrate is a revisable order, and therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be entertained.As a result, both the appeals, one preferred by Prabhu Chawla and the other by Jagdish Upasane and others are allowed.The impugned common order dated4-20091 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the petitions under Section 482 CrPC in the light of law explained above and for disposal in accordance with law. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,283,232 | (09.06.2020) Since, both the petitions arise from the same order and the relief sought are identical, therefore, these petitions are being heard and decided analogously by this common order.These revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2018 in S.T. No. 40/2018 passed by 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, Distt.Betul, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioners.According to the case, a written complaint was made by one Chayendra Kumar Budekar, Project Officer, Child Welfare 2 Cr.R. No. 404/19 Cr.R. No. 1620/2019 Service, Amla, District Betul, to the police station-Amla alleging that the applications were invited for the post of Aanganwadi Worker, in pursuance to which the interested candidates have filed their candidature-ship enclosing the relevant documents with their applications.It is further stated that on the basis of merits of applicants therein, the merit list was published but certain objections were filed in respect of filing forged mark-sheets by the candidates, hence, the same was enquired about and mark-sheets of four persons, namely, Priyanka, Meera Bai, Anjani and Tulsi Bai were found forged.Thereafter, the police has registered the FIR and during investigation, recorded the memorandum of co-accused Anjani Pawar, wherein she stated that she had taken forged mark-sheet from the petitioner-Jagesh, hence, the petitioner has been made as an accused in the case.Thereafter, in his memorandum, petitioner-Jagesh informed the police that he gave rupees 60,000/- to petitioner- Dashrath for preparing forge mark-sheet of Anjani Pawar.After completing the investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet before the concerning Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and by passing the impugned order, the learned ASJ has framed the charges which are under challenge in these petitions.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below erred in framing the charges against the petitioners whereas no case is made out against them even after accepting the whole prosecution case as it is.He further submits that the Court below failed to see that there are four persons who have 3 Cr.R. No. 404/19 Cr.R. No. 1620/2019 produced the forged mark-sheets and out of them, only one namely Anjani has stated against the petitioner-Jagesh.Her statement is inadmissible in evidence in the eye of law and petitioner cannot be convicted on that basis.Petitioner-Dashrath has also been impleaded in the case on the basis of memorandum of co-accused/petitioner- Jagesh.There is no other evidence in the case except the memorandum of co-accused persons and no ingredient of conspiracy is found in the case.With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing these revision petitions.In support of his contention, he has relied the order of this High Court passed in M.Cr.C. No. 25653/2017 (Kamal Singh and others Vs.State of MP) and M.Cr.C. No. 24620/2017 (Jankilal Vs.State of MP).On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the petitions submitting that there is sufficient material available on record for framing the charges of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners.He submits that defence of petitioners may not be considered at this stage and these revision petitions may not be allowed at this initial stage of trial, the petitioners may raise all the grounds before the trial Court at appropriate stage of trial.With the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of these petitions.In support of his contention he has relied the order in the High Court of MP passed in M.Cr.C. No. 25653/2017 (Kamal Singh and others Vs.State of MP), M.Cr.C. No. 24620/2017 (Jankilal Vs.State of MP) and M.Cr.C. No. 24381/2017 (Raju @ Rajmal Vs.State of MP.R. No. 404/19 Cr.R. No. 1620/20196. Heard both the parties and perused the case-diary.Section 467 of IPC prescribes punishment for making forgery of valuable security, bill, etc. whereas Section 468 of IPC speaks about the punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating.So far as Section 471 of IPC is concerned, it comes to effect when any person used the documents as genuine knowing the fact that the same is 10 Cr.R. No. 404/19 Cr.R. No. 1620/2019 forged.Section 464 of IPC provides about the making a false documents.After careful reading of aforesaid provisions and principle, I revert back to the facts of the case.On perusal of documents annexed with the case, it is found that the allegation against the petitioner- Jagesh is that he got 70,000/- rupees from the co-accused Anjani Pawar for preparing a forged mark sheet of class 12th which was submitted by her in the office of Women and Child Welfare Department for getting recruitment of the post of "Aanganwadi Worker".On the basis of memorandum of petitioner- Jagesh, police also made Dashrath as accused who allegedly got rupees 60,000/- from the petitioner-Jagesh for preparing forged mark sheet of co-accussed-Anjani Pawar.At this juncture, I would prefer to mention that according to memorandum of petitioner/accused Dashrath, he gave rupees 45,000/- to one Jitendra Prajapati for the same purpose, who is not charge-sheeted by the police.R. No. 404/19 Cr.R. No. 1620/2019On the case in hand, it prima facie appears from the case diary that the mark sheet of four persons were found forged but the petitioners have been made as an accused in relation to forged mark sheet of co-accused Anjani Pawar.Although, the trial Court has framed the aforesaid charges against the petitioners/accused in relation to other persons also allegedly whose mark sheet found to be forged but this is not a case of prosecution.It is not disputed that on the basis of memorandum of Anjani Pawar, the petitioner Jagesh has been implicated as an accused who disclosed about the petitioner Dashrath.There is no other evidence against the petitioners except the memorandum of co-accused.Although, the seizure of Rs. 10,000/- from the possession of petitioner-Jagesh and Rs. 5,000/- from the possession of petitioner-Dashrath were made by the police but same was done after long time of its giving, moreover, there is no material on the record on which it can be said that the seized amount was in 12 Cr.R. No. 404/19 Cr.There is no material on the record on which it can be said that the petitioners committed alleged offences.Apart from that there is no material which shows that the petitioners and co-accused Anjani Pawar were entered into an agreement and for getting a job, they prepared and submitted a forged mark-sheet as genuine.In regard to criminal conspiracy, there is no material available on the record as well as no extra judicial confession of petitioners/accused in which he confess his offence. | ['Section 467 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 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,833,981 | The case is still at the stage of trial.By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.3.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel.The petitioner and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Ms.Ananthapoomari, Head Constable.The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.Case No.14 of 2017, on the file of the Mahila Court, Tuticorin.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.4.The petitioner and the second respondent have filed a joint compromise memo, dated 15.10.2019, wherein, it is stated as follows:“1.It is submitted that the first respondent Police has registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2016, dated 07.05.2016 for offences under Sections 417, 376, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code @ 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and final report is filed and is pending before the learned Mahila Court, Tuticorin in Spl.Case No.14 of 2017, on the file of the Mahila Court, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018Menakaraj, Hindu, aged about 21 years residing at Polpettai, Tuticorin, now temporarily come down to Madurai, do hereby 3/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018 solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:1.I am the second respondent / de-facto complainant herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018 Spl.Case No.14 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Tuticorin.7.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Spl.Case No.14 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Tuticorin is quashed and the terms of the joint compromise memo and the affidavit of the second respondent / de facto complainant which shall form part and parcel of this order.The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only ) to the second respondent herein within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.15.10.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No tsg 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District.The Mahila Court, Tuticorin.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., tsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21646 of 2018 15.10.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,835,136 | On behalf of applicant, it is submitted that he is innocent.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 28.8.2015 in connection with Crime No. 418/2015 registered at Police Station Pichore District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Section 323, 294, 506-B and 452 of IPC.It is alleged that on 25.8.2015 complainant Juli Lodhi of village Baretha was at her house with her mother-in-law Gendaharam, at that time the applicant came there armed with Lathi abused the complainant and asked for her husband Shivkumar.When the complainant asked not to abuse, the applicant inflicted her injury by lathi.When her mother-in-law came to her rescue the applicant thrown her on the ground and dragged her by her hair.On hearing the shout, Brijesh and Shivkumar came to the scene and saved the complainant.On the report of Mulayam, father of the applicant ( 2) M.Cr.C No. 9478/2015 Cross Case No. 419/15 has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC has been registered.Therefore, as counterblast complainant party has lodged this case against the applicant.Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,837,618 | On the other hand, evidence is forthcoming that the victim housewife suffered brutal death and her body was secreted in a well within the compound of her matrimonial home.Jagannath informed them that his sister was missing.He along with others searched for his sister but could not find her.He went to her matrimonial home.Sandhya Das, her mother-in-law, claimed she 5 had left the matrimonial home after a quarrel with the appellant.On the other hand, her father-in-law stated that the appellant had murdered his wife.He lodged missing diary at Rabindranagar Police Station.In the evening appellant returned in a bicycle.He admitted he had murdered his wife and put her body inside the well.Police of Rabindranagar Police Station came to the spot and with the help of divers, body of his sister was recovered.He proved the complaint.P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased.She deposed her daughter had been killed by her husband and thrown into the well.She also deposed that the appellant had come to their house and stated that his wife could not be found.P.W. 3 is the uncle of the deceased.He deposed that body of the deceased was recovered from the well where it was concealed with brick and cement.She however did not corroborate her husband with regard to extra-judicial confession.On the other hand, she stated Tapas claimed that Mamoni had gone to their house.P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are the brother-in-law and sister of the deceased respectively.PW10 further deposed father of Tapas brought out the Katari and bloodstained ganji of Tapas from the room.He proved his signature on the seizure list.P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 deposed regarding recovery of dead body from the well.P.W. 14 and P.W 15 are the barber and the priest respectively who proved the marriage between the appellant and the deceased.P.W. 16 and P.W. 17 are the divers who had been requisitioned by the police for recovering the deadbody of the deceased.P.W. 24 conducted the magisterial inquest over the deadbody and P.W. 25 is the post-mortem doctor.He deposed that the body was in a state of decomposition and was covered with cement.He noted a number of incised wounds on the face and body of the deceased.All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.He opined the death was due to effects of the injuries, homicidal and ante-mortem in nature.On and from 15th January 2009 the deceased was missing from her matrimonial home.They 7 searched for the deceased but failed to trace her.When PW 1 went to her matrimonial home, Sandhya, mother in law of the deceased, told him Mamoni had a quarrel with the appellant and had left the residence.On the other hand, father in law of the deceased stated his son had murdered his wife.against the appellant, mother-in-law, Sandhya Das, sister-in-law, Manika Naskar and her husband Jagannath Naskar.In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused persons.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas for trial and disposal.Charges were framed under sections 498A, 304B read with section 120B IPC, section 201 read with section 120B IPC and section 302 read with section 120B IPC against the appellant and other accused persons, namely, Sandhya Das, Jagannath Naskar and Manika Naskar.In course of trial, prosecution examined 27 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.Appellant resorted to a cut-throat defence.In course of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, he put the blame on his mother, Sandhya Das.On an analysis of the evidence on record trial Judge did not believe the outlandish defence of the appellant and by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2015 and 08.10.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.Appellant claimed that 4 he was not present at the time of occurrence.Prosecution evidence is contradictory to one another on whether the appellant was present at his residence after the occurrence or not.Version of father of the appellant implicating the latter in the crime is inadmissible in evidence.Extra-judicial confession of the appellant suffers from various contradictions and/or inconsistencies.Recovery of bloodstained wearing apparel and katari on showing of the appellant has also not been proved.P.W. 10 claimed that the articles were recovered on the showing of the father of the appellant.Place of recovery also has not been proved.Hence, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.On the other hand, Mr. Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Ms. Gour argued that the circumstances proved by the prosecution unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant.Appellant resided with his wife at the matrimonial home.Although he claimed he was not present at the place of occurrence he did not prove such alibi.Subsequently, he made an extra-judicial confession.On his showing weapon of offence and his bloodstained wearing apparels were recovered from his room.These circumstances establish his guilt beyond doubt.Evidence on Record:-They stated Tapas had made an extra-judicial confession at the spot.P.W. 8 stated the appellant made extra-judicial confession before police, while P.W. 10 claimed the appellant was detained in a room and upon pressure had made extra-judicial 6 confession.Second investigating officer, P.W. 26 concluded the investigation and filed the charge- sheet.Findings of the Court:-From the aforesaid evidence it is admitted that the appellant was married to Mamoni and the couple was residing at the matrimonial home with the parents of the appellant, namely Gourmohan and Sandhya.Subsequently, they noticed a cloth floating in the well of the appellant.In the meantime the appellant had arrived at the spot.Police was summoned and with the help of drivers dead body of the deceased which was hidden under slabs of cement was recovered.Post mortem doctor found the incised injuries on the face and the body of the deceased and opined that she had died due to effects of injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature.These facts particularly recovery of the decomposed body of the deceased which was hidden in the well of the appellant leave no doubt in my mind that the deceased had suffered a brutal end at her matrimonial home.Thereafter, her body was surreptitiously secreted in the well under slabs of cement.The moot question is who is responsible for the brutal homicidal death of the housewife at her matrimonial home.Evidence has come on record the victim resided at her matrimonial home with her husband, the appellant herein and her parents in law.P.W 1, her brother did not suspect her father in law, Gour.He was not even cited as an accused in the FIR.Reason for exoneration of Gour is not far to seek.Evidence of PW 1 and other witnesses unequivocally show Gour told them that his son had murdered his wife and threw her into the well.Gour had died and was not examined during trial.Accordingly, this hearsay piece of evidence cannot be used against the appellant.However, the reason for exonerating Gour in the facts of the case appears convincing.This leaves behind the appellant and his mother as the 8 persons who were present in the matrimonial home when the victim suffered homicidal death.During trial appellant claimed he was away from his residence and it was his mother who committed the murder with outsiders.He, however, did not lead evidence either to prove his alibi by i.e. absence from the residence or to probabilize the fact that his mother along with outsiders committed the murder of his wife.I am conscious that weakness of the defence case is not a ground to accept the prosecution version.Hence, I have sought to shift the evidence on record to satisfy myself whether it was the appellant and not his mother (as claimed by him) who committed the murder.Evidence on record does not establish any motive why outsiders would be involved in the murder of the housewife.On the other hand, relations of the deceased (PW 1 to7) have consistently deposed that matrimonial relation between the couple was strained over demands of dowry.She was ill-treated at her matrimonial home.These pieces of evidence establish the motive on the part of the appellant to commit crime and clearly rule out his outlandish and belated plea during trial that his mother along with outsiders committed the murder.Conduct of the appellant immediately after the murder is most suspicious and is a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to his guilt.Such plea is wholly false as her dead body was recovered from a well within the compound of the appellant.I, however, do not give much importance to the extra judicial confession of the appellant.Although PWs 1, 5 to 8 and 10 deposed that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession, P.Ws 3 and 4 who were present at the place of occurrence do not corroborate such fact.Moreover, PW 8 claimed such confession was made before the police, while PW 10 stated police had been called and the appellant was detained in a room and 9 pressurised when he made such confession.These contradictory pieces of evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession and the possibility that same was procured under the duress after the police had arrived at the spot persuade me to keep aside the aforesaid circumstance while assessing the evidence against the appellant.I am also not convinced that the seizure of blood-stain wearing apparels and 'katari' was on the showing of the appellant.Such fact is not supported by P.Ws 5, 9 & 10, that is witnesses to the seizure.In fact, P.W 10 claimed father of the appellant had brought out the articles. Conclusion:-In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the following circumstances appear to have been proved against the appellant:(a) Appellant was married to the deceased and the couple lived together at the matrimonial home with her parents in law;(b) Victim was tortured over demands of dowry and relationship between the couple was strained;(c) Deceased was missing from the matrimonial home from 15.1.2009;(d) Appellant gave false explanation that his wife has gone to the residence of her brother PW 1(e) Appellant was not always available at his residence after the incident;(f) Dead body of the deceased was hidden inside the well by using cement slabs.;(g) Post mortem doctor noted a number of incised injuries on the face and body of the deceased and opined her death was due to effects of injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature(h) Appellant raised a false plea during trial that he was not at the residence and his mother had committed the crime along with outsiders.These circumstance in my opinion clearly show it was the appellant who had committed the murder of his wife and thereafter had spread a false canard that she had gone to the residence of her brother.During trial, he resolved to a cut throat defence and claimed he was not in the house and his mother along with outsiders had committed the murder.No defence evidence was led by him to probabilize such preposterous defence.Contradictory and wholly absurd explanation offered by the appellant with regard to the cause of homicidal death of his wife (which was within his special knowledge).Additional circumstance reinforce the chain of circumstances against him and establishes his guilt beyond doubt.Hence, I am of the opinion prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,841,945 | Heard on admission.Learned Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State, as such no further notice is required.Heard on IA.No.23671/2016 under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Rajendra @ Shubham @ Veeru, who stands convicted and sentenced as hereunder:Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and his sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by the learned trial Court under section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 21-12-2016; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04-05-2017 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,843,119 | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present:The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi And The Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj C.R.A. 524 of 2010 Julmuddin Sk.The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 20th/21st August, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No.17 of July, 2002 (Sessions Case No.101 of 1999) convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 326/304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code.No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is that the cow of the defacto complainant Abdul Khalil entered the courtyard of the appellant and consumed boiled paddy kept therein.Over such issue, there was an altercation whereupon the appellant struck a tangi blow on the head of Jamiruddin and he fell down.It is alleged that the appellant was assisted by one Hanif Sk., Manik Sk and a minor Hazarath Sk.The victim was shifted to Nalhati Hospital and thereafter to Rampurhat S. D. Hospital where he died.Charges were framed against the appellant and other co-accused persons namely, Hanif Sk.and Manik Sk under Section 326/304(1)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the course of trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case.Various documents were also exhibited.In conclusion of trial, the trial court by its judgement and order dated 20th/21st August, 2010 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.However, co-accused persons were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.Mr. Ali, learned Advocate appears for the appellant submitted that the incident occurred in the course of a heated discussion over the consumption of boiled paddy by the cow belonging to the victim and hence it cannot be said that the act of the appellant fell within the ambit of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Kabir, Amicus Curiae has supported the contentions of Mr. Ali.I have considered the evidence on record.the doctor who treated the victim deposed that he found four scalp injuries and a fracture on the upper ribs of the victim.He also found extensive and deep sharp cutting injury over scalp and also on the ribs.In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage which were antimortem and homicidal in nature.From the aforesaid evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.The conviction of the appellant is upheld.Coming to the issue of sentence, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. Ali that the incident occured in the course of a free fight over the eating of boiled paddy by the cow of the victim and that the appellant has no criminal antecedents.In these circumstances, I reduce the sentence imposed on the victim and direct him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.4 Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned Advocate as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal.Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (AS) | ['Section 326 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. |
828,439 | The short facts of the case are that on 27-1-1999 at about 11.30 a.m. Vesta and Kunwar Singh were working in the field of Ganesh Patidar.Applicant came from the side of the village driving tractor bearing number M.P.-10-A/1109 rashly and negligently.ORDER S.C. Vyas, J.This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar, in Cr.Appeal No. 214/1999 on dated 24-3-2000 confirming the judgment passed by JMFC Mandleshwar in Cr.C. No. 38/99 wherein learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304A, 338 and 279 of IPC and sentenced him with R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively.The witness was not declared hostile, this witness admitted in his cross-examination that immediately after accident the applicant informed him that the steering bolt of the steering wheel was broken all of a sudden which resulted into this accident.In such a situation 80 of the IPC comes into force which provides as under :- | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,816,116 | He has been further convicted under Section 324, IPC for causing injury to Ramakant and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Prosecution case briefly narrated points out that on 14-8-85 at about 12 O'clock accused was the member of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause death of Sharadchandra and cause simple injury to Satishchandra and Ramakant.The accused was carrying knife at the relevant time and caused injury deliberately to Sharadchandra.He also caused injuries to Satishchandra and Ramakant.One of the accused tried to fire from country-made revolver.According to the prosecution case when Satishchandra, Sharadchandra and Jawaharlal Tamrakar were going on a motor-cycle from their house towards bus-stand and when they reached the house of Balkumar Gupta, on account of previous enmity, the motor-cycle was stopped by the accused persons.Sharadchandra stopped the motor-cycle.Accused Jagjivan Lal abused him and inflicted one injury by knife which hit him on left side of chest.Satishchandra asked him not to indulge in such act, on that he was also abused and inflicted injury by Jagjivan Lal on left shoulder by knife.Ramakant Tiwari also came on the spot, who was also assaulted by Jagjivan Lal by knife.Ajaja, co-accused fired, but, did not hit anybody.Other accused persons armed with lathis started beating Sharadchandra, Satishchandra, Jawahar and Ramakant, injuries were caused to them.They were taken to Mangawan Hospital, where they were examined by Dr. D.P. Pandey who submitted the reports vide Exs.JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J.This appeal has been filed by Jagjivan Lal who has been found guilty of offence under Section 308, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and for causing injury to Satishchandra he has been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.Injury caused to Sharadchandra was certified to be dangerous to life and he was referred to G.M. Hospital, Rewa.Report was lodged of incident at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rewa from where the same was sent to Police Station, Mangawan.Investigation was set in.The injury report from doctor was obtained, statements of witnesses were recorded.During the investigation blood soiled clothes of Sharadchandra, Satishchandra and Ramakant which were obtained from Primary Health Center, Mangawan, were seized and spot map was got prepared by Patwari.Certain accused persons were absconding initially.Challan was filed in their absence.After their arrest, after committal, separate Sessions Trial was registered.Both were tried together and decided by common judgment of the trial Court.The accused took the defence that Jagjivan Lal was sitting in the shop of Raju Tailor, at that lime Sharadchandra, Satishchandra and Jawaharlal came on motor-cycle and attacked on him.Sharadchandra had caused several knife injuries by knife to Jagjivan Lal and Satishchandra had caused injury by country-made revolver, at which he had wielded scissor, due to which Sharadchandra had also received injuries.All were taken together for decision.Cross appeal arises out of the same incident, i.e., Cr. A. No. 739/89, is also being decided together.Injured complainants were going on motor-cycle.They were stopped and assault was made to kill them, but, conviction which has been recorded under Sections 308 and 324, IPC for causing injuries to three persons calls for no interference.It may be seen that Sharadchandra has suffered the following injuries:(1) Incised would 1" x 1/2" on the left side of chest.He was unconscious, pulse was absent, B.P. was not recordable, respiration deep was 30 per minute.The injury was certified by the Doctor to be dangerous to life, as deposed by Dr. D.P. Pandey (P.W. 1).However, depth could not be measured and it required immediate surgical treatment and surgery was performed.Injured Satishchandra had suffered the following injuries :(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the posterior aspect of body right side.(2) Incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the left thumb caused by sharp edged weapon.(3) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the posterior aspect of body on the left side.(4) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the left side of forehead.Injured Ramakant Tiwari had suffered the following injuries :(1) Incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" about 1/4" on the dorsal aspect of right wrist joint.(2) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the right arm.(3) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x about 1/4" on the left side of chest.(4) Incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral wall of right side of nose.(5) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right side of scalp.There is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the accused was carrying knife and he caused injuries to three injured persons and that was not disputed.But, the submission of learned counsel is that he was exercising right of private defence.Trial Court has given benefit of doubt to other accused persons.The trial Court has even given a finding in Para 30 of the judgment that accused appears to have exercised in right of private defence.On the person of Jagjivan Lal 10 injuries/wounds were found as follows :(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x about 1/2" on the Deloid region of posterior aspect.(2) Incised wound 2 & 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the left side of chin.(3) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x upto bone on the left side of scalp; on the left parietal bone.(4) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x up to bone on the left side of scalp on the posterior 1/3rd of parietal bone.(5) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x about 1/41" on the posterior aspect of body left side at scapular region.(6) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x about 1/4" on the left side of posterior aspect of chest.(7) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x about 1/4" on the right scapular region.(8) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x about 1/4" on the right acromian scapular region.(9) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x about 1/4" on the posterior aspect of right D. muscles.(10) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x about 1/4" near left clavicle.Most of the injuries were caused by sharp cutting object found on the person of appellant Jagjivan Lal.Sharadchandra Tiwari (P.W. 9) had deposed that when he fell on ground injuries were caused by accused.He took out RAPI lying at the shop of cobbler and inflicted several RAPI injuries to Jagjivan Lal.The trial Court has come to the conclusion that 8 injuries caused by Sharadchandra were of serious nature, he could not have inflicted these injuries to Jagjivan Lal after being injured.Thus, it was unnatural to accept that Sharadchandra had inflicted these injuries to accused Jagjivan Lal first and thereafter Jagjivan Lal had inflicted injuries in his self defence by knife.Injured was armed with a weapon. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
181,622,072 | Anticipatory Bail Application No. 304 of 2020 is rejectedand stands disposed of.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 14:58:51 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
181,630,947 | The brief facts necessary to dispose of this Criminal Original Petition is recapitulated as under: The marriage between the petitioners son namely Ponrajan and Kalaiselvi the daughter of the 2nd respondent herein was solemnized on 01.11.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs.2.According to the petitioners, after marriage their son and daughter-in-law Kalaiselvi lived separately at Pammal and they had no nexus with them.While so, on 05.10.2007 the daughter-in-law of the petitioners herein committed suicide by hanging herself at Pammal.3.Pursuant to the above said occurrence, a case was registered in Crime No.838 of 2007 under section 174(2) Cr.P.C. and the same was under investigation.The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chengalpet conducted inquest and submitted his report on 10.10.2007 to the 1st respondent police.Thereupon final report was filed on 17.12.2009 for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in P.R.C.No.76 of 2010 arraying the petitioners herein as 2nd and 3rd accused respectively and their son was arrayed as 1st accused.Challenging the same the petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final report.4.It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st accused, the son of the petitioners herein and her wife Kalaiselvi lived separately at Pammal from their marriage.The petitioners lived separately at Madambakkam and they never ever visited the place of the alleged incident.The implication of the petitioner in the above final report is meant only to harass and humiliate the in-laws of the deceased Kalaiselvi.5.It is further contented that in the above report filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpet, it has been specifically stated that the deceased Kalaiselvi has committed suicide by hanging herself due to mental agony caused by her parents and for non-visiting her frequently after the marriage.In the report, it is further stated that the suicide of the deceased Kalaiselvi was not caused by the ill-treatment for dowry.More so, there is no specific overt act against the petitioners.Therefore, allowing the above criminal case to see the ordeal of trial as against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.7.I heard Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Ramesh Babu, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on records.The expression cruelty in section 498-a covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continues to be filed under section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
181,631,399 | The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The petitioner shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of petitioner or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses.In case the petitioner is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government.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 on merits with liberty to come again after receipt of the seriological report.Petitioner has been arrested on 15.04.2019 by Police Station Barason District Bhind (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 30/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 363, 368 and 506 of IPC and added with Section 376(D) of IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Learned counsel for the prosecution informs that DNA Test report is also awaited.New ground raised herein is that recording of testimony of prosecutrix on 31.08.2019 as PW-2 who has not supported the story of prosecution.In view of above and looking to the period of custody suffered, no useful purpose would be served to continue incarceration of petitioner.Considering the above and looking to the fact that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention being an 2 M.Cr.C. No. 37451/2019 anathema to the concept of liberty and the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice, this Court though is inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions looking to the nature of offence.2 M.Cr.C. No. 37451/2019The petitioner 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;The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The petitioner shall appear and mark his presence before the 3 M.Cr.C. No. 37451/2019 concerned trial Court once every fortnight;3 M.Cr.C. No. 37451/2019The petitioner shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.On complying with condition No.8 aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned.For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the petitioner resides is directed to assist the petitioner/accused to comply with condition No.8 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the petitioner admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection 4 M.Cr.C. No. 37451/2019 personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalf disclosing as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.8 or not, and if yes to what extent?4 M.Cr.C. No. 37451/2019A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.For the time being this case stands disposed of. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,492,078 | JUDGMENT Harries, C.J.This is an appeal by ten per.sons who were tried by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge and a jury upon a charge under Section 304, Penal Code, read with Section 149 Penal Code.It is to be noted that there was no charge framed under either Section 147 or Section 148, Penal Code.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted this verdict and sentenced each of the appellants to 4$ years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 125 read with Section 149, Penal Code, and passed no separate sentence against the four appellants convicted under Section 823, Penal Code.The case for the prosecution was that at about 10 p. m. on 9th March 1948, the appellant Apel Shaikh rushed into the house of the com-plainant Ainal Shaikh driving before him a heifer belonging to Ainal.At that time Aziz, Ainal's sod, was attending to cattle.When Apel saw Aziz he told him that his heifer had damaged Apel's gram.A quarrel arose between the parties, and it is said that Apel became furious and called to other persons to come with lathis to deal with Aziz.Upon this, it is said, the other appellants armed with lathis rushed to the house of Ainal and chased Aziz who entered the inner part of the house and took shelter in a room facing west.On hearing the uproar Majid who was asleep inside a room facing east came out on the verandah.He was attacked by the appellants and injured.Other members of Ainal's house came to defend Majid and there was a general marpit.Majid1 however unfortunately died and the matter was reported to the police and a first information report was recorded.The police conducted an investigation and finally submitted a charge sheet for an offence under Section 304 read with Section 149, Penal Code.The trial by a Judge and a jury resulted as I have already indicated.The jury retired and on their reappearance returned a majority verdict of 4 to 1 guilty under the charges.They seemed to have returned a majority verdict upon, the charges. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,492,081 | Hukam Chand had also detected the appellanttaking Railway line sleepers in a compartment, a portion ofwhich was protruding of the compartment, and made a reportagainst the appellant, as a result of which he wastransferred.It is alleged that on November 30, 1959, HukamChand was on duty as a Guard on 20 Down train standing atthe platform at Achhnera Railway Station at about 4-50 p.in.Suddenly the appellant came out from behind acompartment, armed with a scythe, and waiving it in his handin a menacing way told Hukam Chand that he would cut hisneck, and hurled abuses on him thereby causing anobstruction in the discharge of his duty.D. S. Golani and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.C. P. Lal for the respondent.The judgment of Imam, Subba Rao andMudholkar jj. was delivered by Imam J. Dayal J. delivered aseparate judgment.IMAM, J.-Appellant Shyamlal was convicted by the HonoraryRailway Bench Magistrate,.Tundla Bench Agra, exercisingfirst class powers, for an offence punishable under s. 121of the Indian Railways Act and was sentenced to pay a fineof Rs. 6O/- and in case of default in the payment of fine,to two months' rigorous imprisonment.His appeal to the 11Additional Sessions judge, Agra was dismissed and hisconviction and sentence were confirmed.He then filedRevision No. 971 of 1961 in the High Court of judicature atAllahabad, but the same was also rejected by Mr.Justice BrijLal Gupta.Against the judgment of the High Court heobtained special leave from this Court and has filed thisappeal.The appellant Shyamlal was a pointsman at Achhnera RailwayStation.He bore grudge for some time against Hukam ChandChaturvedi, P. W. 2, who was a Guard.The latter bad takenin 1955 63objection to a bed being carried on a passenger train by theappellant.The learned Sessions judge saidin his judgment :"'So far as the question of obstruction is concerned it maybe noted that Shri Hukam Chand was on duty as a Guard ontrain 20 Down, which was then standing at the platform."Again, there is no reference to any particular duty whichHukam Chand was performing at the time.There was,according to Hukam Chand's deposition, a luggage guard withthe train.Ram Lakhan Pandey was the luggage guard.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
149,212,445 | JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?SANJIV KHANNA, J.:It was also stated that the State Bank of India CRL.M.C. Nos. 2683/2007 & 2136/2008 4 had informed that till both the partners agreed, FDR cannot be issued by transferring the amount from the current account.By another letter dated 10th October, 2002, Mr. P.K. Sharma, AGM, State Bank of India (C&I Division), Chandni Chowk was reminded about an earlier letter dated 17th September, 2002 and asked to issue an FDR.Copy of the correspondence exchanged between Dr.Through Dr. Mahesh Chand Jain, respondent No. 2 in person.HON'BLE MR.Mr. P.K. Sharma, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (C&I Division), Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Mr. Manish Mittal have filed the present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for quashing of Order dated 2nd June, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance and summoning them as accused to stand trial for offences under CRL.M.C. Nos. 2683/2007 & 2136/2008 2 Section 425/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short).The impugned order dated 2nd June, 2007 reads as under:-"Counsel for the Complainant Arguments on summoning order heard.Record perused.I found sufficient material on record to summon the accused for the offence U/s.425/427 IPC, as prima facie case is made out against the accused.Issued summons to the accused on PF/RC for 18/09/07"Dr. Mahesh Chand Jain, the respondent No. 2 has filed a criminal complaint in his individual capacity as a partner and on behalf of partnership firm M/s Biopolymer Systems.Mahesh Chand Jain and Mr. Manish Mittal was enclosed.As noticed above, even the Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, Mr. P.K Sharma has been summoned.It may be relevant to state here that Dr. Mahesh Chand Jain had filed a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge on 8th August, 2002, which is before letters dated 17th September, 2002 and 10th October, 2002 were CRL.M.C. Nos. 2683/2007 & 2136/2008 13 written.By the first order, petition filed by Dr. Mahesh Chand Jain for quashing of FIR No. 101/2002 under Section 406/420 of the IPC, Police Station Model Town and the consequential proceedings was dismissed.By order dated 3rd March, 2006, LPA No. 394/2006 filed by the appellant was dismissed.Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed. | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,492,131 | RELEVANT FACTS:According to him, while he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed, the driver of jeep bearing No. MZV-6437 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently gave a dash to the motor-cycle and resultantly he sustained injuries.A case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the Police Station, Udgir.The Appellant resultantly of the accident sustained permanent disability to the extent of 48%.He filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being Case No. 26 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 ::: 4 Tribunal, Latur, which was contested and decided finally by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 5th May 1989 awarding compensation of Rs.51,000/- only with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim petition.This judgment of the Tribunal was impugned by the Claimant by filing First Appeal No.638 of 1989 before this Court praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded.The owner-driver of the jeep died on 16th July, 1987 during the pendency of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal.The Insurance Company had denied its liability and the present Appeal was only preferred against the Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle.The Deputy Director of Health Services-original Respondent No.1, being owner of the jeep also preferred Appeal being First Appeal No. 637 of 1989 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal.The Appeal filed by the Claimant (First Appeal No.638 of 1989) was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.56,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 :::Dissatisfied from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Claimant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 35 of 2005 praying for further enhancement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 :::There was no serious objection on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents for condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal.We have perused the Application.Since sufficient cause for condonation of delay is shown, the Civil Application is allowed.The delay of 212 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.Registry to register and number the Letters Patent Appeal accordingly.First Appeal No. 129 of 1998 was filed challenging judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna.The accident ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 ::: 6 occurred when motor-cycle No.MH-21 driven by the deceased was dashed by Taxi No. MH-20-A-7090 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash or negligent manner.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna by Judgment and Award dated 4th April 1997 directed Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability) to Claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.The Judgment/Award of the Tribunal was challenged in First Appeal No. 129 of 1998 in which the learned Single Judge by Judgment and Award dated 25th January 2005 modified the Award by substituting figure of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) in place of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh).This Judgment/Award of the learned Single Judge is challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 20447 of 2005 by Claimants seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 :::ORDER OF REFERENCE:When the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd February 2008, the learned Counsel appearing for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 ::: 7 respective parties relied upon different judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court to argue for and against the very maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in view of the provisions of Sections 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.V. Act") Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 :::It will be useful to refer to the Order of Reference dated 22nd February 2008 which reads as under:-Accordingly, this matter be placed before the Full Bench.The Registry shall communicate the date fixed for hearing of the matter before the Full Bench to the parties."QUESTIONS OF LAW FORMULATED:In order to appropriately deal with the different questions which require consideration of the Court, it will be desirable to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 ::: 9 formulate the questions which are likely to arise repeatedly before the Court and even otherwise are questions of law of some significance as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 :::(a) Whether, upon amendment to Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( with effect from 1st July, 2002 ), the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court would be maintainable ?(b) Whether an appeal arising out of special statute like Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( even if assuming that it is a special statute ) would be maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction ?RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 ::: 10 LEGAL ISSUES FORMULATED.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 :::"Section 100A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:29 ::: 14 instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single judge."More so, in the case of State of Haryana vs Smt. Darshana Devi & Ors., reported in (1979)2 SCC 236, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, stated that as under:-"The reasoning of the High Court in holding that Order XXXIII will apply to the Tribunals which have the trappings of the civil court finds our approval.We affirm the decision."The appellant had no right to get such an order from the Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:31 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:31 :::Thus, it is obvious that the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 218-D of the Act was a second appeal against the appellate order made by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Cause Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:54:32 ::: | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
149,213,671 | A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 2 of 8The prosecution case as noticed by the trial Court in para no. 1 of its judgment is as under:-"On 28.7.91 at about 12.40 p.m. DD No. 8-A was recorded at PS Alipur according to this DD information was received that Jugal Kishore Arora has been taken away in his own car No. PB-011 C 0950 by three/four persons in police uniform.ASI Babu Lal was entrusted with the said DD who along with Const.Nag Raj, Const.Rajbir Singh and ASI K.C. Sharma went to the spot.The matter was also brought to the notice of the SHO of the police station who also went to the spot along with const.One Om Parkash s/o Chunni Lal was present on the spot and he gave a statement to ASI Babu Lal (Ex. PW2/A) which when translated into English with interalia read as under:-"I know Jugal Kishore Arora for the last two years.He has his place of work at Hamirpur Satnam Overseas Export.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 3 of 8 30/35 years, fair complexion and was 6 feet in height.He was clean shaved and was having a small moustache and he appeared to be a high ranking officer.The other police officer was a young person of good height and was having a wheatish complexion.The other two were also of young age and spoke Hindi and were in white clothes.I could not note down the number of the white Maruti Car.Maruti 1000 silver gray coloured I am sure that these persons have kidnapped Jugal Kishore and driver Sanjay by force.I can identify these persons."A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 3 of 8The police suspected the involvement of appellant Sanjay and so he was arrested and then on his disclosure statement other accused were arrested.Test Identification Parade(TIP) of those accused was arranged by the police but they allegedly refused to participate in the TIP.P.K.BHASIN, J:The appellants had been convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC and 364/365/386/120-B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28th August, 2001 and vide order dated 30th August, 2001 they had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months u/s 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months u/s 364 r/w Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of ` 2,500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months u/s 365 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of ` 2,500/- each and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months u/s 386 r/w Section 120-B IPC.All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 28th August, 2001 and order on CRL.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 2 of 8 sentence dated 30th August, 2001 the three convicted accused had filed separate appeals but since all of them were heard together they are now being disposed of by this common judgment.Ashok Kumar on his police Gypsy.I purchased bardana from him.Today at about 11.20 p.m. I along with my son Avesh Kumar had come to godown on our two wheeler scooter where we had met Jugal Kishore.We had a talk with him about purchase of Bardana whereafter I along with my son left on our scooter.At about 11.45 a.m. when we reached a place in front of the factory on the Hamirpur Bakoli road we heard the noise of a horn coming from behind.I thought that it was the car of Jugal Kishore.As I turned back, I saw a Maruti Car of white colour parked ahead of the factory.We returned to the place where the vehicle was parked and saw two persons in police uniform standing outside the car of Jugal Kishore.This car was parked behind the Maruti car.Jugal Kishore was sitting on the rear seat of his car and a police officer was sitting beside him.I tried to talk to Jugal Kishore and opened the gate of the car.I was brushed aside by the police officer who stated that I cannot talk to him.In the meanwhile another person in white clothes came there and sat on the driving seat of the car of Jugal Kishore whereas another person sat on the front seat.Both the cars sped towards Kekola.I along with my son came to the godown and told Pawan Kumar about this incident.The police officer who was sitting besides Jugal Kishore was aged about CRL.On completion of investigation ten accused persons were charge-sheeted.After the trial began, two of them absconded and so they were declared proclaimed offenders and after trial five accused were acquitted by the trial Court while the three appellants were convicted.Feeling aggrieved by their convictions the three appellants filed separate appeals.Arguments were advanced on the basis of trial Court record which was re-constructed one since the original could not be traced.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 4 of 8As far as appellant Sanjay is concerned he has been convicted despite the fact that his employer PW-7 Jugal Kishore, did not express even a suspicion about his involvement in his abduction.The trial Court has observed while convicting him that if he was not involved in the abduction of his master he should have informed the police or to the brother of PW-7 about the involvement of accused Satish and Jagmal in the crime as they were known to him and since he failed to do that his involvement in the crime was clear.It was for the prosecution to adduce necessary evidence against him and he could not be convicted on conjectures.He had followed the instructions of PW-7, as claimed by PW-7 himself also, to bring money from his brother (PW-4) which he did and handed over to accused Satish, as per the prosecution case.There was no evidence to show that this accused knew accused Satish and Jagmal (PO).Another reason given by the trial Court to convict Sanjay was that on his disclosure appellant Vinod was arrested and he had got recovered police uniform which he was wearing at the time of abduction.However, this circumstance also could not be used against Sanjay since PW-7 did not claim in his evidence that accused Vinod was one of his abductors.Since PW-7 in his examination-in-chief had not identified accused Vinod he was cross-examined by the prosecutor and that too after more than four years and only then on the pointing out of the prosecutor he admitted the suggestion that Vinod was the same person who was wearing uniform of a constable at the time of CRL.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 5 of 8 incident.That identification of accused Vinod by PW-7, in my view, cannot be accepted since if actually this accused was one of his abductors PW-7 would not have categorically said in his chief- examination that he could not identify any of the accused except Satish and his recognising Vinod after more than four years does not inspire confidence.No other evidence against appellant Sanjay was brought to my notice by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.So, the conviction of accused Sanjay cannot be sustained.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 5 of 8Since the only evidence against appellant Vinod brought to my notice by the prosecutor was his identification by PW-7 Jugal Kishore in his cross-examination by the prosecutor, which as just now noticed, was conducted more than four years after his examination-in-chief in which he had failed to identify him, the prosecution case against him also becomes doubtful and so his conviction also deserves to be set aside.After examining the evidence against appellant Satish I find that the prosecution case against him also is not free from doubts and it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against him also beyond reasonable doubt.PW-7 Jugal Kishore in his examination-in-chief had after narrating the incident as to how he was forced to accompany the abductors from one place and another and also about their demanding ransom of thirty lacs and then settling for twenty lacs stated at the end that accused Satish was one of the three CRL.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 6 of 8 persons other than two who were in police uniform.He, as noticed already while noticing his evidence qua accused Vinod, had not identified any other accused.In cross-examination by the prosecutor he had also stated that ransom money was taken by this accused as well as Vinod.However, that statement also made in cross-examination does not inspire confidence since he had claimed so after more than four years of his examination-in-chief.Learned prosecutor had submitted that the evidence of his identification by PW-7 in Court alone is sufficient to uphold the conviction of accused Satish as nothing has been brought on record by him in the cross-examination of PW-7 that he had any motive to falsely claim him to be one of his abductors.However, in my view, and as was argued by the counsel for accused Satish also, merely on the basis of evidence of identification of this accused by PW-7 in Court for the first time after about four years of the incident without TIP he should not be convicted.Though the investigating officer had claimed that Satish had refused to participate in TIP but no evidence to that effect was brought to my notice by the prosecutor.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 6 of 8No other submissions were made by the learned prosecutor in respect of any of the three appellants-convicts.In the result, all the three appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and consequently the convictions of the CRL.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 7 of 8 three appellants on all the counts also stand set aside.They were released on bail during the pendency of the appeals and now with their acquittal their bail bonds stand discharged.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 7 of 8P.K.BHASIN, J November 21, 2012 CRL.A. 695/2001, 703/2001 & 736/2001 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
149,222,797 | The challenge in this petition under Section 482 read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is to the orders dated 23rd October 2007 and 29th January 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi in the Criminal Complaint Case titled "Lord Krishna Bank v. Hitesh Mohan Nagpal".The Respondent No.2 Lord Krishna Bank, which has since been CRL.M.C. No. 646/2008 Page 1 of 10 amalgamated with Centurion Bank Ltd. and which in turn has been amalgamated with HDFC Bank Ltd., filed five separate criminal complaints against the petitioner in relation to dishonour of several cheques.In C.C. Nos. 458/1, 459/1, 460/1 and 462/1, the complaint was in respect of three dishonoured cheques each whereas C.C. No. 461/1 was in respect of one dishonoured cheque.All these cheques were in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each except one cheque No. 911543 (which is one of the cheques mentioned in C.C. No. 459/1) which was for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-.The said cheques were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds.Five separate orders dated 25th October 2005 were passed by the learned MM in these complaints summoning the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).CRL.M.C. No. 646/2008 Page 1 of 10In the first instance two applications were filed by the accused.By the order dated 23rd October 2007, the learned MM rejected the second application pointing out that "the complainant had clubbed three cheques which were dishonoured" and in any event "all the cases are being tried together and no prejudice would be caused to the accused".The petitioner filed a further application seeking clarification of the aforementioned order.CRL.M.C. No. 646/2008 Page 2 of 10The application also stands dismissed. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
149,231,129 | (i) The application is allowed.(ii) The applicants be released on their executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount, on the following conditions:-(a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.(b) The applicants shall not commit similar offence/s.(iii) The bail bonds shall be furnished before the Trial Court.(iv) The Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGEmandawgad/ba1134-18+ ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:30:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:30:20 ::: | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
149,231,132 | Heard on I.A. No.2926/10, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.As per Office note, the petition is barred by 116 days.Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.Heard on admission.This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.7.2009 passed by II Additional Judge at Waraseoni to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.191/2008, whereby respondent no.2 Sunil has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), but convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly.Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/9/08 at about 7 a.m. at Village Chhatera, upon the objection raised by complainant Sangharsh to the molestation of his sister by the respondent, respondent not only filthily abused him but, while threatening to kill, also assaulted him with an Iron Katta on his head.The incident was witnessed by Rajendra, Chandrashekhar and Devdas.First Information Report (Ex.P/3, for short "FIR") was registered at the instance of the complainant and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
149,232,192 | This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 108/2014, registered at Police Station Myana District Guna for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 294, 505-B of IPC.The allegations against the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Sadan Singh.The applicant has also not inflicted any blow on the deceased-Anand.Considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence collected in the case-diary, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during pendency of the trial of the case 2 M. Cr. C. No. 7837/2014 concerned and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.2 M. Cr. C. No. 7837/2014 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 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'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,524,303 | (11/04/2019) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 16/01/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.188/2013 by 18 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur whereby charges have been framed against the applicant under Section 419 in alternate 419/34, under Section 420 in alternate 420/34, under Section 467 read with Section 120-B and under Section 471 of IPC.The facts alleged 2 in the complaint was that one Smt. Swarnlata Ganguli sold out the questioned land to respondent No.2 to 4 and they became owner of that land.After marriage respondents No.2 to 4 went to their matrimonial house.They expressed to sale out the disputed land and constructed house but did not sell the land.Three women whose photos are affixed with the sale deed sold property to the applicant.The applicant paid money to them.The applicant was not having any criminal intention or knowledge of deceiving the respondent.However, later on, they came to know that the said property has been sold in the name of applicant-Vinod Bansal by executing the sale deed.Applicant-Vinod Bansal fetched the loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from the ICICI Bank and submitted as security forged and fabricated sale deed.Superintendent of Police sent a report to Police Station, Omti where Crime No.263/2011 has been registered against the applicant as well as three other unknown women.After investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed against Jitendra Makhija, Manoj Talreja, Vinod Bansal, Anita Singh Thakur and Sunil Bachwani for the offence punishable under Section 419, , 420, 467, 468, 471 3 and 120-B of IPC before the Court of J.M.F.C. where from the matter committed to the Court of Session.The case is being tried by 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.The trial Court after hearing both the parties framed charge on 16/01/2019 against the applicant along with other accused.In these premises, the applicant prays allow this revision by setting aside all the criminal proceeding instituted against the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes that application and stated that there is a prima facie case made out against the 4 applicant who along with other co-accused has made conspiracy for executing the sale deed in his name and obtained a loan of Rs.45,00,000/- on that sale deed from the bank.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents filed along with this revision.Copies of charge sheet and other documents filed along with charge sheet have been filed by the petitioner in this revision.After perusal of the whole documents and statement of the witnesses, this fact emerges out that respondents No.2 to 4 are the owners of the questioned property.All of them disclosed their intention for selling the property to witness- Shiva alias Shiv Kumar then Shiva alias Shiv Kumar contacted the dealer Jitendra Makhija.As per the statement of Shiva alias Shiv Kumar, respondents were not agreed to sell the property below the rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft.Shiva alias Shiv Kumar showed the photocopy of the sale deed by which respondents No.2 to 4 purchased the land from the previous owner.Later on, when this transaction did not reach to finalize, Shiva alias Shiv Kumar came back.Jitendra Makhija who is also co-accused in S.T. No.188/2013, kept a 5 copy of sale deed with him and after that, without consent of the respondents managed to arrange three women for impersonating the respondents.Witness- Shiva alias Shiv Kumar also stated that Jitendra Makhija got registered the questioned property in the name of one of his employee i.e. Vinod Bansal and a cheque of Rs.45,00,000/- deposited in the fake account of Chandra Banerjee and after that, the amount ultimately transferred into the account of Jitendra Makhija.Vinod Bansal immediately contacted to ICICI bank and fetched a loan of Rs.45,00,000/- on the basis of registered document from the ICICI bank.When this Court considered all these facts, it is prima facie reveals that applicant-Vinod Bansal was well in connivance with Jitendra Makhija and other co-accused deceivably purchased the property and took a loan from the ICICI bank of Rs.45,00,000/-.If he has paid Rs.45,00,000/- for sale consideration why he was immediately in need of money after registration of property.There is prima facie ingredients of the offence 6 present against the applicant for purchasing the property illegally and hatched a criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused for purchasing the property of respondents No.2 to 4 who are not agreed to sell the land and instead of actual owner, the applicant along with other co-accused arranged three women to impersonate the respondent and got succeeded to get registered fake sale deed in the Registrar Office.Accordingly, the revision is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2019.04.11 16:10:11 +05'30' | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,725,323 | The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was carrying on the business in Real Estate under the name and style of Nature Development Company.One of their projects relates to Farm House Plots to be developed in and around Sholinganallur village, Tamabram Taluk.The petitioner had arrangements with various land owners when the land value was Rs.7 lakhs per plot measuring about 4 grounds.However, the 2nd respondent, who was an IAS Officer, paid only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and plot nos.151 and 152 each measuring 4 grounds were earmarked for him.However, due to unforeseen development including the sudden spurt in real estate prices, the owners of the land refused to sell their lands .Some of the individuals, apprehending land acquisition proceedings, received back their advance amount.By consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in Cr.No.735 of 2006 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.One Sri G. Balachander, IAS approached the petitioner and represented that some of IAS officers and IPS officers were also interested in buying the Farm House.After negotiation, those persons, who are interested, were asked to remit Rs.25,000/- as advance payment by demand draft in the name of the Company.The petitioner by his letter dated 6.12.2005 informed all the prospective purchasers that the transaction of sale could not be gone through and requested them to collect the advance amount paid by them.However, the defacto-complainant sent a reply dated 24.3.2006 making allegations against the petitioner.He also lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Thoraipakkam Police which was registered in Cr.No.813 of 2006 under Sec.417 and 420 IPC.It is alleged that the petitioner having taken an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-, promising to convey two plots for Rs.7 lakhs each, did not conclude the transaction and thereby cheated him.However, some of the officers refused to accept the advance amount, but insisted upon registering the document of sale.This Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the money.According to the petitioner the FIR is abuse of process of law on the ground that the matter is civil in nature and there is no element of cheating.The 1st respondent has filed a counter stating that on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case has been registered and investigated and according to the respondent, the investigation revealed that the petitioner had approached the complainant with an offer of house plots at the price of Rs.7 lakhs per plot and made the complainant to agree to purchase the plots and pay him an advance with fraudulent representations.It is submitted that the petitioner had even identified the house sites and has represented to the defacto-complainant that several IAS and IPS officers have joined the scheme.It is further submitted that knowing fully well that the enrolment of IAS and IPS officers would enhance the stake in the demand for lands, the petitioner had lured many IAS and IPS officers with this offer and it is further stated that investigation is still pending.The defacto-complainant, using his high influence has chosen to register a criminal case against the petitioner, even when the allegations on the face of the record do not constitute an offence.The petitioner would admit that he has received advance payment from various persons including the defacto-complainant.It is alleged that the petitioner was not concluding the transaction inspite of many requests and all of a sudden sent a letter dated 6.12.2005 informing the difficulties in the scheme and later could not be contacted at all.It is alleged that the petitioner has cheated the defacto-complainant after receiving the advance amount.The petitioner seemed to have returned the amount and that too, on the direction of this Court while granting anticipatory bail.After sending a letter dated 6.12.2005, the petitioner is said to have evaded receiving any calls from the defacto-complainant and has not chosen to complete the transaction or to repay the meagre sum of Rs.10,000/-.23.Interestingly in the counter filed by the first respondent it is stated that it is only the petitioner who approached the defacto complainant and made promises; petitioner had approached the complainant with an offer of house plots at the price of Rs.7 lakhs per plot and made the complainant to agree to purchase the plots and made him to pay an advance with fraudulent representations; the petitioner represented to the defacto-complainant that several IAS and IPS officers have joined the scheme; knowing fully well that the enrolment of IAS and IPS officers would enhance the stake in the demand for lands, the petitioner had lured many IAS and IPS officers with this offer; when the petitioner has not even purchased the properties from the land owners, has received various amounts from various persons and it is not a case of breach of contract simplicitor.No. Cr.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Land Grabbing Cell Thousand Lights P.S. Chennai-600 006The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,543,454 | M.C. 6464/2018 Page 3 of 3M.C. 6464/2018 Page 3 of 3(ORAL)Quashing of FIR No. 386/2018, under Sections 325/308/354/354A/506/509/34 IPC, registered at police station Aman Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 2nd July, 2018 (Annexure-P/5) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court have been identified to be the complainant party of FIR in question by HC Arvind on the basis of identity proof produced by them.M.C. 6464/2018 Page 1 of 3Respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 2nd July, 2018 (Annexure P/5) and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties.They affirm the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 2nd July, 2018 (Annexure P/5) and their affidavits filed in support of this petition and submit that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.In Gian Singh Vs.State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 2nd July, 2018 (Annexure P/5), I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to Crl.M.C. 6464/2018 Page 2 of 3 registration of this FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.M.C. 6464/2018 Page 2 of 3Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 386/2018, under Sections 325/308/354/354A/506/509/34 IPC, registered at police station Aman Vihar, Delhi is quashed subject to petitioners depositing cost of `10,000/- with Prime Ministers National Relief Fund within four weeks from today.The receipt of deposit of cost be placed on record within two weeks thereafter.This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 18, 2018 r Crl. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,546,676 | By an order dated 21.04.2005, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three and half years with fine `500/-.Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 05.05.2004 at about 7:00 p.m. at House No.881, Gautam Crl.A.635/2005 Page 1 of 10 Puri, Phase I, Badarpur, the appellant attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 13 years.The information about the incident was conveyed to the police at 10:55 p.m. and Daily Dairy (DD) No.27 A came into existence at Police Station Badarpur.The appellant was specifically named to have outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix 'X'.The investigation was assigned to SI Tika Ram who with Constable Anil went to the spot.The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report.The prosecutrix was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination.Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376/511 IPC.The prosecution examined ten witnesses.Admitted position is that the victim's Mausi used to live on the ground floor of the premises in question.PW-2/A) was recorded and rukka (Ex.PW-9/A) was sent to lodge FIR at 1:30 a.m. on the night intervening 5/6.5.2004. 'X' was taken for medical examination at AIIMS where arrival time is recorded 00.21 hours.The alleged history mentioned therein records 'an attempt of rape by Raju'.Apparently, the appellant was named in the MLC (Ex.PW-6/A).In the complaint, 'X' gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant attempted to commit rape upon her when she had gone on the second floor of the Crl.A.635/2005 Page 3 of 10 house to collect wheat spread over there.In her 164 Cr.She deposed that on the day of occurrence, her Mausi had spread 'wheat' on the appellant's roof to dry and had directed her to gather it.When she went upstairs to collect the wheat at around 07:00 p.m., the accused caught hold of her; dragged her inside the room; bolted it; closed her mouth; and, disrobed her.He also put off his clothes.Thereafter, he put his 'male organ' on her 'female organ'.At that time, on hearing sound of 'someone' coming, the accused fled the spot.She, after wearing her clothes, came down stairs weeping and informed her ordeal to her Mausi.In the cross-examination she denied if she used to play along with the appellant's children often on the roof.She denied that on that day the accused had slapped her for making a noise.She further denied if prior to the incident any quarrel had taken place with the accused and her family members.She denied if she had given false statement at her Mausi's behest.A.635/2005 Page 3 of 10A.635/2005 Page 4 of 10 examination to suspect her version.From the statement of the prosecutrix, it can be concluded that attempt was made by the appellant to ravish her.The accused had disrobed the prosecutrix inside his home when none else was present there.Indecent assaults are often magnified into attempts at rape.In order to come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was indicative of a determination to gratify his passion at all events, and in spite of all resistance, materials must exist.Surrounding circumstances many times throw beacon light on that aspect."A.635/2005 Page 8 of 10An innocent child aged around 13 years who was stranger to Delhi was sexually abused by the appellant aged around 27 years that time.Taking advantage of her innocence and tender age, every endeavour was made by the appellant to defile her.The appellant himself was a married man and had a child.He betrayed the trust of his neighbour.The appellant Raju @ Gayur impugns a judgment dated 08.04.2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.99/04 arising out of FIR No.326/04 registered at Police Station Badarpur by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false implication.DW-1 (Shanno) and DW-2 (Munni) appeared in defence.On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for the offence mentioned previously.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.A.635/2005 Page 2 of 10A.635/2005 Page 1 of 10A.635/2005 Page 2 of 10I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.The appellant along with his wife and child lived on the first floor on rent. 'X' aged 13 years had come to her Mausi's house from her village two months before to take care she being on her family-way.Ossification report (Ex.Apparently, she was minor on the date of occurrence.The incident took place at around 07.00 p.m. Police machinery was set in motion at around 10.55 p.m. vide DD No. 27A in which the appellant was named to be the perpetrator of the crime.Soon thereafter, the victim's statement (Ex.No ulterior motive was assigned to the child witness to make false allegations against the appellant.Nothing has emerged to show if prior to the incident, there was any animosity or ill- will between the parties prompting X's relatives to falsely rope in the accused for the heinous offence.The appellant alleged false implication due to his slapping 'X' for making a noise disturbing his sleep.The defence deserves outright rejection.For trivial issue (if any) 'X' and her relatives were not imagined to level serious allegations against the appellant to defame an unmarried little child who was stranger to Delhi and had visited for short period to take care of her Mausi.The appellant did not examine any child with whom the prosecutrix was playing at the relevant time disturbing his sleep.No witness from the locality was examined to substantiate his allegations.No compelling reasons exist to disbelieve X's testimony and to throw away the prosecution case overboard.Why a child of tender age would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour? She would not tarnish or damage her own reputation and image by volunteering to falsely claim that she had been Crl.A.635/2005 Page 5 of 10 defiled.Soon after the occurrence, 'X' narrated the incident to her Mausi.FIR was lodged promptly and 'X' was medically examined without delay.The appellant was named at the earliest in the initial information conveyed to the police vide DD No.27A recorded at around 10.55 pm.The prosecutrix is consistent throughout.A.635/2005 Page 4 of 10A.635/2005 Page 5 of 106. PW-3 (Paras), X's Mausi has corroborated her version in its entirety.After the occurrence when she saw the prosecutrix coming downstairs weeping, she enquired as to what had happened, only then she came to know about X's ordeal.She immediately made a telephone call atDespite searching cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited to dent her version.She denied if 'X' was slapped by the accused for making a noise and on that account, he was falsely implicated in this case.Trial Court has discussed all the relevant contentions minutely in the impugned judgment and the findings based upon fair appraisal of the evidence need no intervention.A.635/2005 Page 9 of 10Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE DECEMBER 10, 2015 / sa / tr Crl.A.635/2005 Page 10 of 10A.635/2005 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,548,764 | However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused was released on bail (a) by this Court in Crl.OP.No.11990/2013 for the offence under section 341, 147, 148 and 302 IPC in Cr.No.276/2013 on the file of K-7 ICF Police Station and (b) by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.6863/2013 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.752/2013 on the file of D-1 Triplicane Police Station. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,551,011 | 1. Arundhati Sapru Mehra, first respondent in Crl.M.C 1223/2015 and the second respondent in Crl.M.C. 947/2016 was married to Yash Mehra (petitioner in Crl.She (hereinafter, referred to as "the complainant") had lodged a criminal complaint case (CC no.19496/2008 - new no.6/2/15) on 17.03.2008 in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi alleging offences punishable under Sections 315, 328, 329, 406, 420, 498A, 506 read with Section 120 B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) impleading Yash Mehra (hereinafter referred to as "the first accused"), Ashok Khurana ("second accused"), Dr. Tripat Chaudhary, petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1223/2015 ("third accused") and Dr. Raj Kumar Saxena ("fourth accused").On the said criminal case, the Metropolitan Magistrate held preliminary inquiry in the course of which the complainant examined herself (as CW-1), also examining D.R. Tiwari, Medical Record Officer of Kailash Hospital, Noida (CW-2) and B.K. Pandey, Sr.Executive Medical Records, Sitaram Bharatiya Institute of Science and Research (also CW-2).It may be added that Crl.On 19.07.2018, she informed the court that she did not want the services of any counsel.All sides have been heard at length and the record has been perused.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 3 of 17 complications arose on or about 28.07.2001 for which she had consulted the third accused.On 15.09.2001, she was again examined by the third accused in the aforementioned hospital.There is material to show that on 17.10.2001, she was subjected to ultrasound examination by the person mentioned as second accused (not summoned) who found that there was no heart beat in the foetus.The report was seen by the third accused and on the basis of her medical examination, the complainant underwent a procedure described as Dilatation and Evacuation (D &E) on 18.10.2001 at the said hospital.The complainant herself has proved the discharge document (Ex. CW1/E) dated 19.10.2001 pertaining to the said procedure.The material would show that the pregnancy was of the duration of eight weeks plus six days.The ultrasound examination had revealed the "gestational sac in the fundus with a pulseless embryo", it being described as "missed abortion".M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 3 of 17The allegations of the complainant relevant to the accusations for laying the charge for offences under Sections 315 and 328 IPC, may be extracted from the complaint as under :-That in July 2001 the complainant went to Dr. Prabha Manchanda at Defence Colony clinic for UTI (Urinary Track Infection).By mid August, 2001 the complainant became pregnant, however, she did not know it then.The OB/Gyn Dr. Tripat Choudhary, whom the complainant started seeing from 28.07.2001, accused No.3 told the Crl.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 4 of 17 complainant that she imagined muscular trembling, blurred vision, uncontrollable paralysis like lethargy, unexplainable anxiety / fear symptoms depression etc. and she must control them herself.The symptoms continued to bewilder the complainant.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 4 of 17That on 15th September, 2001 the complainant saw Dr. Tripat at Sitaram Bhartia as the UTI was not cured.She told the complainant that she was 4 weeks pregnant, she said that the complainant could be given injections twice-daily by her male nurse, like a diabetic.The accused No.1's first wife died from complications from diabetes at 31 years.The complainant balked at the suggestion and refused so she said she would try Cefturn, etc., which cured it.During this time, the complainant got high fever, acute stomach pain and Urinary burning constantly, which had not been as acute as in previous Months.That on October 17, 2001 the complainant was taken for her first ultrasound to Dr. Ashok Khurana, accused no.2 who informed her that he could not hear the heartbeat of the foetus and that it was a miscarriage and he would tell Dr. Tripat Choudhary, accused No.3 to perform a Dilatation and Evacuation immediately.Dr. Tripat Choudhary, accused No.3 called it a "missed abortion", another term for a miscarriage, and ordered a D & E (Dilatation & Evacuation) the next day, October 18th, 2001, as Sitaram Bhartia Hospital in Delhi.The complainant did not get her periods for 3 months after that and the physical symptoms continued.That on January 5th 2002 the complainant took her jewellery out of the locker to keep at home, this was the last time she used the locker Crl.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 5 of 17 during the marriage, as accused wanted her to keep all that at home, as befitting his businessman's status among his colleagues and friends.In January itself the complainant also called Accused no.3, Dr. Tripat and told her that she had not got her periods and when could she start a family.She showed her surprise that the complainant had not started both.Immediately after, surprisingly immediately thereafter the complainant got her periods as normal cycle, again.She had left without any jewellery on her, leaving behind a box full of her jewellery in her cupboard at D-272, Defence Colony, New Delhi.When the complainant called accused No.1 on July 6th to send her the car to come home, he told her to stay another two days and use the same clothes.He arrived at her parent's home on July 8 and told her he wanted a divorce.He also told Crl.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 6 of 17 the complainant that he was too angry with her and changed his mind about having a child while she was pregnant and had wanted to get out of the marriage so he had actually told the doctors, Dr. Ashok Khurana and Tripat Choudhary to tell the complainant that if had been a miscarriage, while they had really done an abortion on the complainant on October 18th, 2001 further enabled by the mega, dosing with drugs.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 6 of 17The Magistrate, by order dated 03.11.2014, declined to issue any process against the second accused.She, however, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the first accused (petitioner Yash Mehra) for offences under Sections 498A, 315, 328, 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC.She also found sufficient grounds to proceed against the third accused (petitioner Dr. Tripat Chaudhary) for offences under Sections 315, 120B IPC.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 2 of 17 summoning order was also issued against the fourth accused for offences under Sections 506 and 120B IPC.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 2 of 17The first and third accused, as aforesaid, feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order, have come up to this court by the petitions at hand invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC to seek the said order issuing process against them to be quashed and vacated.The complainant had initially appeared in these proceedings with a counsel representing her.However, accused continued to delay in starting the family.M.C. 1223/2015 and 947/2016 Page 5 of 17That on May 15th, 2002 accused No.1 told the complainant that he was going to adopt a girl child and that the complainant had no say in it.The complainant was distressed and said she wanted her own child and the accused No.1 could not make a unilateral decision in the adoption.Accused No.1 said he would divorce her if she would not also adopt the child.The complainant was acutely distressed that accused No.1 continued to deny her a child and as threatening her with divorce.That on July 4th, 2002 accused NO.1 forced the complainant to leave early morning to visit her sister who had arrived from Hong Kong on July 3rd night.He told her to stay with her for two days at her parent's home in Gurgaon.The complainant left with two sets of clothes. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,552,751 | Heard on IA No.1206/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf appellant No.2-Makrand.We have perused the objection.The appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 (two counts) and 302/149 of IPC and awarded jail sentence RI 1 year, 6 months, 1 year (two counts) and life imprisonment.Fine of Rs. 5000/- has also been imposed for commission of offence under Section 302/149 of IPC with default stipulation RI 6 months.It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that it is not alleged in the FIR that the present appellant had caused injury to the deceased.The allegation against the present appellant in the FIR is that he had caused injury to complainant Pawan Yadav, who received simple injuries.A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party.Hence, the present appellant is also eligible for suspension of sentence.We have also perused the record.As per FIR Ex.P/1, which was lodged by the complainant/PW-1-Pawan Yadav/injured witness, allegation against the present appellant is that he had caused injury by farsa to Pawan, however, in court statement, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 deposed that the present appellant had also caused injury to the deceased.However, this fact was not mentioned by them in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, hence, this is omission.PW-10 Dr. L. L. Chanderiya deposed that Pawan received simple injuries.The appellant is in jail from the date of judgment and he was in jail for a period of 8 months during trial.A counter case under Sections 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC was also registered against the complainant party.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, the appellant No.2- Makrand be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 28.08.2017 and on such other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.C. C. as per rules. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,560,102 | This appellant was a clerk in the Electric Department of Haldwani Municipal Board and the charge against him was that he received three sums of money :aggregating to Rs. 447/5/9 and misappropriated the whole amount, though his defence was that having received the money, he gave it to his official superior, Electrical Engineer Pandy ; and did not have anything more to do with the money. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,563,044 | Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.1991 around 7:30 a.m., appellants Rajender Singh and Srikant are stated to have reached the jhuggi C-2/B, Janak Puri along with their co-accused Lal Chand and asked Ms. Manju (deceased) if her father was there.When she replied that her father was not at home, appellant Srikant who was carrying a one ltr.tin of 'Rath' containing kerosene oil poured kerosene on her from that can and the co-accused Lal Chand lit a matchstick and set her on fire.PW1 Ram Ratti, mother of the deceased, at that time is stated to have gone to answer the call of nature and when she returned she saw her daughter on fire and a crowd of people was trying to extinguish the fire.She also helped in extinguishing the fire and in the process, suffered burn injuries on her hands.Injured Ms. Manju was taken by PW1 and few other neighbours to RML Hospital in a taxi.The injured is stated to have made a dying declaration to her mother that she was set on fire by the appellants Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 2 of 17 Rajender and Srikant as also Lal Chand(P.O.).Manju (deceased) was admitted in the hospital at about 9:00 a.m. Head Constable Jaswant Singh, PW17 was the Duty Constable posted at RML Hospital at the relevant time.He conveyed the information about the admission of the deceased Manju with burn injuries to Police Station Janak Puri, which was recorded as DD No.4A. On the receipt of the DD report, SI Khushi Ram, PW16 is stated to have gone to RML Hospital and there he obtained the MLC of injured Manju on which the Doctor had opined that she had suffered 85% burn injuries.The Doctor at the Burns Ward declared injured Manju to be fit for making statement.SI Khushi Ram thus requested the services of SDM, Punjabi Bagh for recording her dying declaration.Shri H.C. Gaur, SDM, PW5 reached at the hospital around 11:30 a.m. and recorded the dying declaration of Ms. Manju (Ex.PW5/A) in question answer form wherein she stated that the appellants along with Lal Chand had visited her jhuggi in the morning at 7:30 a.m. and asked about her father.When she told them that her father was not available at the residence, Lal Chand (P.O.) suddenly poured kerosene oil upon her from a one ltr.tin of 'Rath Vanaspati' and the appellant Srikant lit a matchstick and set her on fire.Thereafter all three of them ran away.PW5, Shri H.C. Gaur, SDM, obtained the thumb impressions of the deceased Manju on first and last page of the dying declaration and directed the Investigating Officer to register the case under relevant provisions of the IPC against the appellants and Lal Chand.The Investigating Officer sent the dying declaration along with Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 3 of 17 his remarks to the Police Station and on the basis of said dying declaration, formal FIR under Section 307/34 IPC was registered.Consequently, the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was added.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 2 of 17Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 3 of 17Inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.The Investigating Officer obtained the report of post mortem examination, recorded the statements of the witnesses, completed the formalities of investigation and submitted challan against the appellants and Lal Chand(P.O.) under Section 302/34 IPC.The appellants were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.So far as their co-accused Lal Chand is concerned, he absconded and he was declared proclaimed offender.On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge relying upon the dying declaration Ex.PW5/A stated to have been made by the deceased before the SDM, Shri H.C. Gaur (PW5), convicted both the appellants Rajender Singh and Srikant on charge under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.It transpires from the record that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.09.1999, appellant Srikant was released on bail.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 4 of 17 Thereafter he absconded and failed to turn up for hearing.When his presence could not be procured despite of best efforts, Shri K.K. Sud, Sr.Advocate, who is representing appellant Rajender Singh, was requested to assist the Court as Amicus in the appeal filed by the appellant Srikant.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 4 of 17Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there is no bar under law to convict an accused on sole basis of a dying declaration, yet before acting on a dying declaration, it is incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself about the veracity of the dying declaration and also that it is not the result of some tutoring or prompting and that the declarant, at the time of making the statement, was in a fit state of mind to make a clear and concise statement about the cause or circumstances leading to his or her death.He has submitted that from the record it is established that neither of the dying declarations is worth of any credence.Regarding the first dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased in presence of her mother, learned counsel has submitted that the testimony of PW1 Ram Ratti is full of contradictions and improvements, as such her version regarding the dying declaration Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 5 of 17 made by the deceased is not trustworthy.It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that as per the version of PW1 Ram Ratti, the deceased made the dying declaration to her at the spot of occurrence when she was extinguishing the fire and also on her way to the hospital.She also deposed that several neighbours helped in extinguishing the fire and the neighbours Ram Kishan, Mohan, Bhola and Hamid accompanied her and the deceased in the taxi to the hospital.It was argued if said version is to be believed then the dying declaration was made in the presence of the neighbours who helped in extinguishing the fire and also in presence of the above named persons who accompanied the deceased to the hospital in the taxi and atleast someone out of them was expected to hear the deceased making the dying declaration.None of those neighbours have been examined as witnesses to corroborate the version of PW1 Ram Ratti.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 5 of 17Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW1 Ram Ratti has made several improvements in her testimony given in the court vis-a-vis her statement made to the police and had to be confronted with her earlier statement Exhibits PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC given to the police.Not only this, it was pointed out that PW1 stated that the deceased told her that appellant Srikant poured kerosene oil on her and Lal Chand ignited her which is contrary to the case of prosecution that it was Lal Chand who poured kerosene oil upon the deceased and Srikant set her on fire.Learned counsel for the appellants also drew our attention to the testimony of initial Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 6 of 17 Investigating Officer SI Khushi Ram, PW13, who in his cross- examination has admitted that in the case diary it is recorded that deceased Manju did not state anything to her mother about the manner in which she got burnt, which also rules out the possibility of the deceased having made any dying declaration in presence of PW1 Ram Ratti.In view of the above, he has urged us to disregard the testimony of PW1, being unreliable.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 6 of 17On the other hand, regarding the first dying declaration, learned counsel for the State has argued that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW1 Ram Ratti because her presence at the spot of occurrence is established from the fact that she herself sustained burn injuries on her hands while extinguishing the fire of the deceased, as is apparent from her MLC Ex.PW16/A and there is no reason as to why she would depose falsely to implicate the appellants.We have considered the above submissions made on behalf of the parties.We find merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 7 of 17 the then SDM, Punjabi Bagh has categorically stated that on the receipt of information from the Police Station Janak Puri, he had visited RML Hospital, Burns Ward on 19.04.91 at about 11:30 a.m., where he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Manju Ex.PW5/A. He stated that he recorded the statement in question answer form after satisfying himself that she was in a fit state of mind.He has proved the dying declaration in question answer form as Ex.PW5/A.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 7 of 17Despite of that the SDM went on to ask superfluous questions to the deceased which were not necessary for the purpose of recording the dying declaration as envisaged under Section 32(1) of the EvidenceCrl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 8 of 17From this, he has urged us to infer that the SDM was biased and he was keen on promoting the case of investigating agency or the complainant to implicate the appellants.Thus, according to learned counsel for the appellants, the dying declaration Ex.(1) When it relates to cause of death.- When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 9 of 17Indeed, Section 32(1) deals with the law relating to the admissibility of dying declaration in evidence and it specifies which statements can be termed as dying declaration.It is true that in response to Q.No.1 referred to above, the deceased had clearly stated about the cause of her injuries which ultimately proved to be fatal and about the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death by responding that the appellants and Lal Chand had visited her Jhuggi at about 7:30 a.m. and asked about her father.When she told that her father was not present at the Jhuggi and she was alone, Lal Chand threw kerosene oil upon her from a one ltr.If in his wisdom to elicit more facts, he had asked certain questions to the deceased while recording her dying declaration, it would not render the dying declaration suspect.Otherwise also, when the SDM was recording the statement of the deceased, he could not have been sure that the deceased would die.If at all some part of the statement Ex.We do not find it surprising that the SDM, Shri H.C. Gaur who had examined the deceased in his official capacity could not remember the details about the circumstances under which he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.This infirmity can easily be attributed to fading of memory because of lapse of time.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 12 of 17Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 12 of 17Next submission on behalf of the appellants is that PW5 Shri H.C. Gaur, SDM has stated that he asked the Doctor about the fitness of the patient to make statement before proceeding to record her dying declaration, yet there is no certification to that effect by the treating Doctor.Therefore, it is doubtful whether or not the deceased was fit for making statement at the relevant time.PW19/A. Perusal of the MLC of the deceased reveals that it contains two different endorsements made by Dr. Sanjay Barnwal declaring the patient fit for making statement.The first endorsement appears to have been made by the Doctor concerned on the request of the Investigating Officer.The second endorsement on the MLC has been exhibited as Ex.PW19/B. This endorsement is also in the hand of Dr. Sanjay Barnwal and it bears the time 11:50 a.m. under the signatures of the Doctor.As per the testimony of PW5, the SDM, he had reached at the hospital at 11:30 a.m. and thereafter he asked the Doctor whether or not the patient was fit for statement and the Doctor declared her fit for statement.Aforesaid version finds support from the second endorsement Ex.PW19/B on the MLC of the deceased made at 11:50 a.m. declaring her fit for statement.Thus, there is no doubt in our mind that statement of the deceased Manju was recorded by the SDM after ensuring from the Doctor that she was fit for making statement.Therefore, we find no reason to suspect the dying declaration Ex.PW5/A on this count.It was also submitted on behalf of Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 13 of 17 the appellants that the dying declaration is neither attested by a Doctor nor by a nurse nor by the Ward Boy on duty at the Burns Ward at the relevant time.He had no axe to grind with the appellants and there is no reason why he should mix up with the complainant or the police to create false evidence against the appellants.PW5/A is beyond suspicion and the learned trial Judge has rightly acted upon the dying declaration of the deceased.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 13 of 17Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that assuming the dying declaration Ex.PW5/A is accepted, then also there is no evidence on record to justify the conviction of appellant Rajender Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.He has submitted that the dying declaration Ex.PW5/A only established that the appellant Rajender had accompanied Lal Chand and Srikant to the jhuggi of the deceased where the occurrence took place.There is nothing in the dying declaration to attribute any overt or covert act to the appellant Rajender to justify the inference that he shared a common intention to kill the deceased with the other co- Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 14 of 17 accused persons or that he developed common intention with them at the spot of occurrence.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 14 of 17On perusal of the dying declaration Ex.PW5/A, it transpires that the only role attributed to the appellant Rajender Singh is that he accompanied his co-accused Lal Chand (PO) and Srikant, (appellant) to the spot of occurrence where after enquiring about the father of the deceased, Lal Chand suddenly threw kerosene oil on the deceased and the appellant Srikant lit a matchstick and set her on fire.In absence of any evidence of appellant Rajender having played any overt or covert role in the act of setting the deceased on fire, merely because he was in the company of the appellant Srikant and Lal Chand(PO), who played an active role in the commission of crime and he then ran away from the spot, we find it difficult to infer that he either shared common intention with his co-accused persons to kill the deceased by setting her on fire or he developed such common intention at the spot when the deceased told them that her father was not available.Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the appellant Rajender Singh had accompanied Lal Chand (PO) and Srikant (appellant) to the jhuggi of the deceased with common intention to kill her father, then also in absence of any evidence, it is difficult to conclude that at the spot of occurrence on coming to know that father of the deceased was not available at the jhuggi, the common intention to kill the father got transformed into the common intention to kill the deceased.From the dying declaration Ex.PW5/A, it is obvious that the incident took place Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 15 of 17 suddenly when Lal Chand threw kerosene oil on the deceased and Srikant (appellant) threw a lighted a matchstick on her.The suddenness of the event would not possibly have given time to appellant Rajender Singh to react to prevent his companions from committing such heinous act.In the matter of Daya Shankar Vs.State of M.P., AIR2009 SC 1426, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere fact that the appellant was in the company of the accused who were armed, would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC when it was undisputed that the appellant in that case was not armed and he had no animosity with the deceased.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 15 of 17In this case also only role attributed to the appellant is that he accompanied his co-accused persons to the place of occurrence.There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant Rajender was either armed or he had any enmity with the deceased or he was aware that the co-accused Lal Chand, (P.O.) was carrying kerosene oil in the can and he had intention to cause harm to the deceased or her father.In view of the above factual matrix, we are of the considered view that Section 34 IPC does not come into play so far as appellant Rajender is concerned and the learned trial Judge was not right in concluding that he nurtured common intention with his co-accused to kill the deceased by setting her on fire.Thus, conviction of the appellant Rajender under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained.We, however, do not find any fault with the conviction of the appellant Srikant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC because he did Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 16 of 17 play an active role in setting the deceased on fire by throwing lighted matchstick upon her after the co-accused Lal Chand (P.O.) had poured kerosene oil on her.Crl.A.Nos.136/1998 and 170/1998 Page 16 of 17The result of discussion above is that the appeal of appellant Rajender is allowed and he is acquitted of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.So far as the appeal of Srikant is concerned, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence.Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed.The police authorities should also endeavour to apprehend Lal Chand who absconded during trial.Appeals are disposed of accordingly. | ['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. |
172,566,154 | 3) Rule made absolute in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 23:15:16 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,568,283 | And In the matter of :........... petitioners Order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in S.T. - 1(9) of 2005 has been assailed before me.The prosecution case is to the effect that marriage was solemnised between the petitioner no. 1 and one Mst.It is further alleged that the petitioners subjected Masuda to physical and mental torture and, as a result, she committed suicide.On the basis of such information, Nandigram Police Station Case No. 80 of 1992 dated 31.07.1992 under Sections 498A/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.In completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the instant case under Sections 498A/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.In course of trial, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.By the self same order the learned Judge also turned down the prayer of the petitioners to examine other prosecution witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The aforesaid order has been challenged before me.The petitioners cannot be denied an opportunity to cross- examine the Investigating Officer and thereby improbablise the prosecution case.It has also been pleaded that the examination of 3 other prosecution witnesses were necessary for a just decision of the case.I have considered the materials on record including the impugned order.It is most surprising that the Investigating Officer did not present himself for examination as prosecution witness although it is his incumbent duty to be present on all dates of hearing.Such dereliction of statutory duty on the part of the Investigating Officer is writ large in the facts of the case. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,569,507 | DATE: 13th JANUARY, 2018 1/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)1] Present appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.661 of 2010, thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one year2] Prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus:::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::3] Appellant is undisputedly acquainted with deceased Pawankumar Jain.Deceased Pawankumar Jain, on the date of incident i.e. on 02/07/2010, was to close his shop alongwith his servant Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5).At that time, Appellant/Accused No.1 came there and had some talk with deceased Pawankumar Jain.Deceased informed Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5) that, he should go home and deceased would shortly follow him.It is the prosecution case that, thereafter, in Maruti-800 Car, which was driven by the 2/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentAppellant, the deceased and the Appellant went away.Thereafter, Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5) went home.After reaching home, when he was watching T.V., he came to know about a breaking news of deceased Pawankumar Jain being murdered.He thereafter went to Rajawadi Hospital and identified the body.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::4] It appears that, in the meantime, in the jurisdiction of RCF Police Station, it was reported that an accident had taken place near Jyoti Panjab Hotel.When Police Constable Mahadev Shende (P.W.1), on receiving wireless information, went there, he saw that one blue Maruti-800 Car was standing there and one person was nabbed by the crowd.He also saw that one another person was running away and a third person was in unconscious condition.P.W.1 - Mahadev Shende immediately sent that person to Rajawadi Hospital for treatment.On being inquired about the name of the person who was nabbed by the crowd, Appellant told his name to be Nitin Parab and the name of the other person who had ran away, as Arif Khan.On reaching the Police Station, P.W. 1 came to know that name of the deceased was Pawankumar Jain.He therefore lodged an FIR below Exhibit-19. 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentAppellant was immediately arrested.Accused No.2 came to be arrested subsequently.During investigation, identification parade of accused persons was conducted and it is stated that P.W.1 -Mahadev Shende and P.W. 2 - Vijay Jadhav had identified Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 in the identification parade.Accused No.1 was identified as a person who was sitting in the Car, whereas Accused No.2 was identified as a person who ran away.5] At the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392, 397 read with Section 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Both the accused pleaded not guilty.Present Appellant also filed his Written Statement in addition to the answers given by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The learned Trial Judge framed the following two points for consideration and answered them as under:-4/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::201-Appeal-401-12-judgment POINTS FINDINGSDoes the prosecution prove that accused nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of PROVED their common intention hatched a AGAINST conspiracy and committed murder of ACCUSED NO.1 Pawankumar?Does the prosecution prove that accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed robbery at the NOT PROVED point of deadly weapon and caused hurt to Pawankumar and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S 392, 397, r/w 34 of I.P.C.?6] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted Accused No.2 of the charges levelled against him.Present Appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 392, 397 r/w Section 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.However, Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced, as aforesaid.Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.7] Mr Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the learned Trial Judge has grossly erred in convicting the Appellant.He submits that, the learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the sole eye witness P.W. 8 - Mayur Keni, finding that his 5/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentevidence was not trustworthy.Learned Counsel further submits that, the learned Trial Judge has also found that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.Learned Counsel therefore submits that, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the Appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::8] Mrs. Takalkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently opposes the appeal.She submits that, even if the evidence of P.W. 8 - Mayur Keni is ignored, from the evidence of P.W. 5 Linkeshkumar Jain, it would be clear that it is the Appellant who was last seen in the company of the deceased.She submits that, the prosecution having proved that the deceased and the Appellant went together and when deceased was found in injured condition, the Appellant was with him alongwith Accused No.2, burden entirely shifted on the Appellant, which has not 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentbeen discharged by him.Learned APP therefore submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::9] With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP, we have scrutinized the evidence on record.Perusal of the material on record, would reveal that the prosecution has heavily relied on the evidence of P.W. 8 - Mayur Keni.However, it appears that the version given by him could be a script of some scene in a movie.His evidence in the cross-examination is totally shattered.Apart from that, his statement was recorded after a period of one month from the date of incident.No explanation was given for his statement being not recorded earlier, though he states that he met police for the first time after 7 to 8 days after the incident.We therefore find that, the learned Trial Judge was totally justified in disbelieving his evidence, holding him to be a got up witness.10] That leaves us with evidence of P.W. 5 - Linkeshkumar Jain and P.W. 2 - Vijay Jadhav.P.W. 5 - Linkeshkumar Jain states in his 7/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentevidence that, when the deceased and the said witness were about to close the shop, Appellant came there.He had a talk with the Appellant.Deceased asked him to go home and thereafter in blue Maruti-800 Car, deceased and the Appellant both went away.Appellant had himself admitted the fact with regard to he being in the company of the deceased.As such, we find that there cannot be any quarrel with the fact that the Appellant was with the deceased from around 9.15 P.M. on the date of incident.Insofar as evidence of P.W. 2 - Vijay Jadhav is concerned, though he states that they were required to follow the vehicle to stop it, his cross-examination would reveal that in his statement recorded under section 161, he has stated that the Car was stationary near Bombay Shoe Company.It could thus be clearly seen that, his version that he was required to follow the Car to stop it, is totally in contradiction with what he has stated in his police statement.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::11] In view of the position admitted by the Appellant that, he was with the deceased from the time they left the shop of the deceased till they were found in the area of RCF Police Station, the question that 8/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmentwe will have to put to ourselves is, as to whether the prosecution has discharged the initial burden of proving its case beyond the reasonable doubt and as to whether the explanation given by the Appellant could be said to be plausible or not.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::12] From the material placed on record, it would reveal that Mahadev Shende (P.W.1) and Vijay Jadhav (P.W.2) have identified Accused No.2 in the identification parade.Evidence of these witnesses so far as identification of accused is concerned, has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge.From the evidence of Linkeshkumar Jain (P.W.5), it is clear that accused and the deceased were very well acquainted with each other and they used to frequently go together.Appellant has given his Written Statement under Section 233(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.In brief, he has stated that when both of them were travelling together in his Car, they saw a man of their common acquaintance.Deceased got down from the Car and had a word with him for some time and then Pawankumar told him that he would like to go back and the said man would also accompany in the said Car.He has stated that, thereafter when they were proceeding 9/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmenttowards Chembur, hot arguments between Pawankumar and Accused No.2 took place.Then it took a violent turn and Accused No.2 whipped out some weapon and started assaulting Pawankumar.In the said incident, one blow landed on his left forearm, resulting in a bleeding incise wound.He has further stated that in the said scuffle, right side glass of the window where Pawankumar was sitting was also damaged.When he was trying to stop the Car, Accused No.2 threatened him not to stop or he would finish him as well.He has stated that thereafter he mustered courage to control and drive the car with an intention to take the deceased to the Hospital.He took the Car towards nearest Inlaks Hospital.He states that, when they were reaching the Hospital, he made a show that there was a breakdown of the Car and therefore he got down close to Inlaks Hospital and started pushing the Car as he wanted to take the deceased to the Hospital.He states that, in the mean time, Accused No.2 got down and started running away.People who gathered, saw Pawankumar lying in injured condition.He tried to explain the situation but the crowd was not willing to listen.Since he received injury, he was also taken to the Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::10/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::However, version of P.W.2 would show that he has claimed that he had to break the glass and while doing so he has received injuries.However, in cross-examination, he has admitted that he was neither taken to the Hospital, nor has he produced any injury certificate on record.14] Per contra, the arrest panchanama of the Appellant, which is below Exhibit-30 and specifically column No.15 thereof would reveal that there was a fresh injury on the right hand of the Appellant.Not only that, the injury certificate below Exhibit-29 would also reveal that the Appellant had suffered incise wound on his left hand.Prosecution 11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgmenthas not at all explained the injury suffered by the Appellant.It was the duty of the prosecution to have explained the injury which was found on the person of the Appellant.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::15] By now, it is a settled principle of law that a mere circumstance of non-explanation or false explanation cannot be a circumstance which can be used against the accused.However, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays a vital role.1 AIR 1984 SC 1622 12/14 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: 201-Appeal-401-12-judgment16] We further find that, the approach adopted by the learned Trial Judge is also totally unknown to law.The point that has been framed by the learned Trial Judge is, as to whether the prosecution proves that accused Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of Pawankumar.It is a basic principle of law that, for hatching a conspiracy atleast two minds have to meet.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::We therefore find that, appeal deserves to be allowed and as such is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 :::Appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:22:03 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,459,109 | The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu, Pollachi taluk the respondent herein registered a case in Crime No. 208/87 for the alleged offences u/Ss. 457 and 380, IPC against the petitioner-accused on the ground that on 30-11-1987/1-12-1987 at 1 a.m. he entered into the residence of one Mappillai Gounder and committed theft of 15 Kgms. of rice valued about Rs. 75/-.After completing the formalities of the investigation, he laid the final report under S. 173(2), Crl.Records were stated to have been furnished to the accused.The accused did not engage any Counsel of his choice and he was stated to have pleaded guilty of the offences with which he had been charged. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,912,413 | Tiwari, learned APP accepts notice for the respondent-State and seeks time.ii] In the event of arrest of applicants, namely, Sunil s/o.Magan Bhalerao, Manoj s/o.Gopichand Baviskar and Samadhan s/o.Madhukar Sapkale in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered vide Crime No. 26 of 2020 [mentioned as FIR No.45/2020 in the application] with City Police Station, Chopda, District Jalgaon, the applicants be released on interim bail on each of them furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount on following conditions :::: Uploaded on - 29/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2020 06:52:45 :::358.20ABA.odt 4 a] The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b] The applicants shall make themselves available as and when required by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation.[V.L.ACHLIYA] JUDGE DDC::: Uploaded on - 29/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2020 06:52:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2020 06:52:45 ::: | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
14,591,574 | 1 4 26.11.2018 AB Court 28 C.R.M. 4766 of 2018 With C.R.A.N. 2947 of 2018 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chanditala P.S. Case No.510 of 2017 dated 18.11.2017 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Sk.Sanowar Ali ...Petitioner.Ms. Subhasree Patel, Mr. Saikat Mondal ...for the Petitioner.Affidavit is filed on behalf of the State stating that no prior application seeking anticipatory bail had been filed on behalf of the petitioner.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the victim committed suicide due to the torture meted out on her by the 2 husband and other in-laws upon demands of dowry.We have considered the materials on record in the light of the rival submissions of the parties.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall appear before the court below within a fortnight.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,925,644 | Heard on I.A. No. 11678/2018, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.The revision has been preferred by the applicant against judgment dated 15.06.2018 passed by learned 5th Additiional Session Judge, District-Katni (M.P.) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2700146/16 arising out of judgment and findings dated 02.11.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 1424/2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Katni (M.P.) whereby the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal of the applicant and affirmed the order of the learned Trial Court.Final hearing of this revision will take time.If the applicant is not released on bail, the purpose of filing this application will be frustrate.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.The custodial sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision.Applicant-Anuj Vamnel be released from 2 CRR-3344-2018 custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall appear and mark his presence before C.J.M Katni on 10.12.2018 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.Office is directed to requisition the record of the Court below and thereafter, list the matter for admission after four weeks.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2018.08.01 15:16:38 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,932,424 | In Re:- Sk.Ahad Ali & Anr... ... Petitioners.Swapan Kumar Mallick Mr.Ramdulal Manna .. for the petitioners.Mr.Pradipta Ganguly... for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with.Pukhuria P.S. No.144 of 2016 dated 30.04.2016 under sections 363/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioners are the relations of the principal accused.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Md.Mumtaz Khan, J.) 25 20.12.2016 sm Rejected CRM No.10501 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.12.2016 in connection with Bamangola Police Station Case No.151 of 2016 dated 24.08.2016 under sections 376/109/34of the Indian Penal Code read with section 477 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffenceAnd In Re:- Nityan Sarkar @ Mirtan Sarkar .. Petitioner.Tapan Dutta Gupta ... for the petitioner 3 Mr.Manjit Singh, Ld.PP Mr.Saryati Dutta ... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected at this stage.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Md.Mumtaz Khan, J.) | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,933,096 | The petition has been appearing on the board forhearing for several weeks.After the submissions on the petitionby Mr. Savant were heard, it was adjourned to enablerespondent no.2 to appear and advance his arguments.He hashowever failed to appear before the Court.Petitioners no.2 to 8and respondent no.2 are members of petitioner no.1 SocietyHema Park Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. At the relevant time,petitioner no.2 was the Chairman and petitioner no.3 was theSecretary of the Society.His flatconsists of three rooms with each room having a balcony.Respondent no.2 had kept potted plants and also installed awash basin in the balcony.He alleges that on 12 th February,2002 when he returned from his annual holiday he found that allthe balconies were covered with cement dust.The plastic potsof the plants were damaged.The plants had died and therewere cracks in the wash basin.According to the complainantthis damage caused to his property is on account of negligenceon the part of the petitioners in protecting the property of themembers when maintenance work to the building was beingcarried out.The damage to his property was allegedly causedwhen petitioner no.1 was carrying out pre-mansoonmaintenance work to the terrace of the building.Petitioners no. 4 to 8 were themembers of the Managing Committee.On 13 th September, 2002respondent no.2 filed a private complaint in the Court of 27 thMetropolitan Magistrate, Mulund being CC No.429/S/2002alleging offence punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 of IndianPenal Code (I.P.C.).By the order dated 25 th September, 2002 theTrial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued processagainst the petitioners under Section 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Bythe present petition the petitioners seek to not only quash the ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:49:31 ::: ssk 3/4 WP 1476/02-27/2/17proceedings against them but also claim compensation in thesum of Rs.50,000/- to each of the petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:49:31 :::The brief statement of the facts alleged in thecomplaint is that respondent no.2 is occupant of flat no.2/A/103situate on the first floor of the building of the society.As per thecomplaint, the total damage caused to respondent no.2 was ofthe value of Rs.2,000/-.He had by his letter dated 17 th June,2002 brought the damage to the notice of the petitioners butthey failed to take any action thereon.Petitioner no.3 being the Secretary ofthe society has filed recovery proceedings under Section 101 ofCo-operative Societies Act before the Registrar of Co-operative ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:49:31 ::: ssk 4/4 WP 1476/02-27/2/17Societies 'S' Divison, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.In the saidproceedings notice has been issued to respondent no.2 anddespite receipt of notice he has failed to appear in theproceedings.Consequently the Registrar by his order dated 19 thJuly, 2002 has directed respondent no.2 to pay the arrears to theextent of Rs.30,329/- of monthly maintenance to petitioner no.1.The petitioners contend that ever since the time, respondentno.2 has filed as many as eight criminal complaints against thepetitioners.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:49:31 :::This material ingredient isconspicuously missing from the complaint.Hence theapplication is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).[Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:49:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 00:49:31 ::: | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,509,688 | 12.2010 CRM No. 16163 of 2010 In Re:- An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th November, 2010 in connection with Mahishadal P.S. Case No. 218 of 2010 dated 10.09.10 under Sections 363/365/366A/372/373/120B of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)And In the matter of:- Raj Kumar Pramanik Petitioner Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta for the petitioner Mr. Asimesh Goswami, Ld. P.P.At the very outset, the Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail.He submitted that only on 25th of October, 2010, this court after considering the case diary, rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail on merits.Now having considered the fact that this court has rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail a few days back and considering the fact that as the petitioner has not been able to make out any 2 substantial change in the circumstances which justify granting bail to the petitioner.The prayer for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Asim Kumar Ray,J.) | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,655,108 | JUDGMENT Ellis, J.His Lordship narrated the facts of the case and proceeded as follows.3. 81 persons were committed to stand their trial at the Court of Session; of them 83, were actually tried before Mr, B. Mukherji the Additional Sessions Judge and four assessors.The trial ended in the conviction of 9 only of the accused of an offence Under Section 148, Penal Code.These 9 appealed to the High Court against their convictions and sentences; two were successful while the convictions of the remaining 7 were maintained.The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs on behalf of the Province of Bengal applied Under Section 417, Criminal P.C. for the admission of an appeal against the acquittal of 27 of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, but the appeal was admitted only as against 14 of the accused.And of these 14, three have not been traced.That there actually was a riot between the Mussalmans and Namasudras of Sanapur Char Basuria on 26-5-1944 admits of no dispute, and has not been challenged before us.It remains for us to see whether the 11 accused whose cases are now under consideration before us took part in that riot or not.They were tried and acquitted; we have to see whether the reasons for their acquittal are good and sound, or whether there has been a failure of justice.The first accused is Amari Charan Tikadar, a cultivator, 25/30 years of age, of Char Basuria.In dealing with his case the learned Additional Sassions Judge has commented on the fact that he was only identified in the Sessions Court by three witnesses, P.Ws. 6, 13 and 24 and of them P. Ws 6 and 24 are not "Charge-sheet witnesses." The learned Additional Sessions Judge has throughout the case declined to place any reliance on the evidence of any witness whose name is not to be found in the charge-sheet.This is the real grievance of the Crownthat the evidence of all these witnesses has been discarded for no other reason.If a witness was actually examined by the police during the investigation of the case, we see no reason why his evidence should be rejected just because his name does not appear in the charge-sheet.On the other hand, if a witness did not appear before the police at all and there is no doubt that some of the witnesses did not do so for the obvious reason that they were wanted in the counter cases then the Judge was quite right in refusing to place any reliance on their testimony.The prosecution was evidently hampered in this case in that the investigation officer, Kalidas Dutt, went down with acute appendicitis when the case was being tried and was unable to come to Court.The conduct of the prosecution bears obvious traces of his inability to attend to the case himself.Of the three witnesses whose evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge has commented on, P.W. 6 Abdul Karim Molla, and P.W. 24 Abdul irik Shaikh, both admit that they never gave any information to the Police.Abdul Karim lays that he was afraid to go to them; Abdul Barik says that he never informed them about the murder of Wahed.It is true that he may have found out he name in the interval.There were 8 witnesses who identified Amari Tikadar as a rioter in the Lower Court.The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to rely on their evidence of identification as they did not maintain it in the Sessions Court.The evidence of P.W. 2, for example, Abdul Malek Mulla shows that in the Committing Court the accused were named by the lawyer examining him, and he said that he saw them.This can hardly be considered a satisfactory identification, P.W. 3 Masud Sheikh identified him by sight as being amongst the rioters in the Committing Court.P.W. 32, Manik Molla named Amari Tikadar in the committing Court, but failed to do so before the Sessions Court.P.W. 34 named him before both Courts. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,510,847 | This is second application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Satnam Singh Randhawa who is in custody since 14/9/2016 in connection with Crime No.772/2014 registered at P.S. Madhav Nagar, Ujjain for commission of offence punishable u/Ss.This Court on 14/9/2020 has directed the State Government to inform about the pending cases against the present applicant.Time was granted on 6/10/2020, however, the learned Government Advocate has not received information except for the case diary.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has argued before this Court that in the year 2008 also certain deposits were received.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M CR C No. 33537 / 2020 SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs.--- 2 ---Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 22/6/2020 passed in M.CR.C.No.16374/2020 by which bail has been granted to the present applicant in respect of similar nature of offence.The order dated 22/6/2020 reads as under :Indore, dated 22/06/2020 Mr. Z. A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Dharmendra Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Archana Kher, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent / State.Earlier bail application i.e. M.Cr.There is no progress in trial and the trial will take a long time.He has stated that the applicant is unwell, he is under trial prisoner and suffering from diabetes and he is also having high blood pressure.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail.However, she has stated that the applicant is in jail since 05/09/2016, meaning thereby, for almost 03 years and 10 months.She has further stated that there is one more case against the applicant registered under Section 420 of the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M CR C No. 33537 / 2020 SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs.STATE OF MP--- 3 ---The applicant shall also attend each and every date of hearing before the trial Court.He shall surrender his Passport before the trial Court and the trial Court shall be free to pass appropriate order, without reference to this Court, if any condition is violated by the applicant in the matter of bail and the trial Court shall be free to pass appropriate order keeping in view the subsequent facts and circumstances of the case.Learned counsel for the respondent - State has read out the statements available in the case diary.He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.The applicant shall also attend each and every date of hearing before the trial Court.He shall surrender his Passport HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M CR C No. 33537 / 2020 SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs.Certified Copy, as per Rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Kamal Rathor 2020.10.22 12:27:36 +05'30' | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,511,643 | (i) One Muktabai W/o Shankar Gawali is resident of Yelamwadi, Tq.Chakur, Dist.She is living along with five sons namely Ashok, Balaji, Sanjay, Vyankat and Baba and three daughters namely Prabhawati, Ushatai and Vijatai.Her daughter Prabhawati was married with Ranba (Ranba).Said Ranba is having land at village Yelamwadi, and the field of accused Trimbak Shivange (accused no.11) is adjoining to his land.One and half month back of the incident, Trimbak Shivange had quarrel with Ranba Dadge over half acre of land.Since then the accused Trimbak Shivange and his sons are on inimical terms with complainant's family.(ii) On 20.08.1998, Thursday, at about 8.00 a.m. her son-in-law deceased Ranba Dattu Dadge had ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 5 come with milk-can to her house, and he was intending to go outside.Shankar Eknath Gawali, who is husband of Muktabai and son-in-law deceased Ranba, went to the house of Manohar Patil for meal at about 8.30 a.m., on occasion of death anniversary of father of Manohar Patil.They took the meal and again came to complainant's house.Muktabai did prepare tea for them.After drinking tea, her husband and deceased Ranba, proceeded towards Nalegaon, on foot.They travelled distance at about 50 to 60 spaces.Suddenly, Muktabai heard commotion, and she started going towards said direction.So in the meanwhile her husband met her, who had received injury on his head.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::The complainant went ahead and came to the spot and saw that, the accused persons beating the deceased by axe, sword, Kathi, sticks, etc. Accused Babruwan had a sword, Suresh had a stick, Sudhakar had an iron bar, Padmakar had Kathi, Kamalakar had a stick, Bapurao had an iron bar, Narsing had a Kathi and Yeshwant had a stick, and they were beating to deceased Ranba ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 6 in pit, which is near to the house of Bapurao Amrata Dadge.She told the accused not to beat, but accused Baburao Dadge came near her and gave blow of axe on her head.Then Bapurao Dadge beat her by iron bar on her shoulder, thereby she received bleeding injuries.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::Moreover, the accused persons assaulted deceased, who died on the spot.The complainant in injured condition went to lodge the complaint at Nalegaon, Tq.The Police sent her to the Govt. Hospital, Nalegaon, wherein she was given medical treatment.As per the version of the complainant, while beating complainant, the accused abused her by uttering the words that "Do you come there to lift the dead-body of Ranba and hurry up, lift his dead-body".(vkrk dk; jkuckp e<a mpyk; vkyh dk \ mpy R;kp e<a).Husband Shankar Gawali was also admitted in the hospital.He called panchas and drew the inquest panchanama Exh. 55 on the very same day at about 2.00 p.m. Then the dead body was removed and the spot-panchanama Exh. 56 was drawn on the spot.PW-3 Digamber Biradar acted as panch witness.(iv) Thereafter, Prabhakar Latange saw the spot, so also the field of deceased Ranba.He saw that, house of Ranba is damaged, so also the electric motor and pipe line in his field was also damaged.Not only this, the pipe line of Shankar Gawali and his electric motor was also damaged.Accordingly, he drew the panchanama Exh. 79 of the damaged house of deceased Ranba.Similarly, he also drew panchanama of pipeline and electric motor in the field of Shankar ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 8 Gawali, which were damaged.On 22.08.1998, he received the postmortem report and injury certificates of Muktabai and Shankar.On 23.08.1998 again he recorded the statements of Shankar Gawali.On interrogation with them, the said accused agreed to produce the weapons ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 9 namely sticks, axe, iron bar, sword and Kathi and thereafter, they went in the field, where the accused had hidden the weapons under the heap of fodder in the field of Trimbak Shvange.(vi) Then on 26.08.1998, again he called panch witnesses namely Sham Sitaram and Devidas Patale.Accused Narsing (Accused no.8), Bapurao Dadge (accused No.9), Sanjay (Accused No.5), Deelip (Accused no.3) and Sudhakar (Accused No.6), were interrogated and on interrogation, they agreed to produce the weapons which were in their houses and field.Accordingly, the memorandum panchanamas Exh. 95 to 99 were drawn.On this very day, he seized blood of injured Shankar Gawali, then he recorded supplementary statement.On 04.09.1998, he sent muddemal property through police constable Jadhav for depositing in the C.A. Office for analysis.459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 29In her deposition, she stated that, her elder daughter Prabhawati was married with Ranba Dadge (deceased), resident of Yellamwadi.Said Ranba had 15 to 20 acres land at village Yellamwadi.He had four sons.He himself with his family members used to cultivate the said land.It appears from the evidence of PW-1 that, in Yellamwadi, there are 52 to 60 houses and population might be 400 to 500 people.It further appears that, this witness knew Yeshwant Dadge and others, who according to her belong to her community.However, according to her version, the accused are not belonging to her caste.She further deposed that, the field of her son-in-law Ranba is adjacent to the field of Trimbak Shivage.Said Trimbak demanded half acre land to Ranba.However, Ranba refused to give half acre of land.Said Trimbak entered in the said field and started ploughing in the said land.The son of Ranba Dadge obstructed Trimbak.Husband of PW-1 and Ranba went for meal to the house of Manohar Patil.It further appears that, both of them returned back to the house, then PW-1 prepared tea for them and thereafter husband of PW-1 and Ranba started going to Nalegaon on foot.They crossed a distance of about 50 to 60 spaces.PW-1 heard commotion and she came outside.She rushed towards water tank.She saw that, the accused were beating Ranba.Their names are Babu Dadge, Padmakar, Kamlakar, Bapurao, Narsing, Yeshwant Dadge, Babruwan Dadge, Suresh Dadge, Sudhakar, Trimbak Shivange, Dilip Shivange, Vilas Shivange, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 31 Sanjay Shivange, Balaji shivange, Shivaji Shivange.She stated that, accused - Babu Dadge bet by axe.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::-Padmakar bet by Katti, Accused - Kamlakar bet by stick, Accused - Bapurao Dadge bet by iron bar.Accused - Narsing bet by Katti, Accused - Yeshwant bet by stick, Accused-Babruwan bet by sword, Accused -Suresh bet by stick and Sudhakar bet by iron bar.She further deposed that, she received bleeding injuries.Then accused pushed Ranba by using their legs.Then she went to Nalegaon Out-post.The police sent her to government Hospital, Nalegaon for treatment.came and recorded her statement and obtained thumb impression.She identified the contents of F.I.R. except portion mark `A'.Portion mark `A' as it appears in the First Information Report reads thus; "within short time, her husband Shankar came to house, at that time his turban was there, so he said give us and, he slept there".She was further examined and she stated that, she was in the hospital at Nalegaon for short time and then she was sent to Latur hospital.She was admitted ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 32 there.The treatment was given to her.Then Police came to her for enquiry.She was in hospital for 20 days.His field is less than 3 Kms away from the village.Shivange family had one Adat shop at Latur.Accused - Trimbak and Vilas are looking after the business.One or two months prior to incident, the dispute started between sons of Trimbak and deceased Ranba and his sons.Family of PW-1 and said Shivange was not on talking terms.So far actual incident is concerned, she stated that, when commotion started, that time she was in her house.She was doing household work with her daughter-in-law inside the house.She denied suggestion that, at the relevant time it did not happen that her husband entered in the courtyard of house and he was bare headed and slept on the wooden plunk.She further denied the suggestion that, husband asked her to bring his turban.It appears that, the defence tried to elucidate from her cross-examination that, in first information report she stated that, her husband received injuries ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 35 and he entered the courtyard of house and she saw that, he was bare headed and slept on the wooden plunk.He is a witness for inquest panchanama.His evidence inspires confidence.He stated about injuries on dead body of Ranba.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that, deceased Ranba Dadge was his son-in-law.He was resident of Yellamwadi.He died last year on the `Khand Malni' day i.e. during the period of `Pola Festival'.On that day there was invitation to attend death anniversary of father of Manohar Patil at about 8.00 a.m. Therefore, he himself and deceased Ranba went there, taken meal and came back to his house.His wife served tea to them.Thereafter, he himself and ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 40 Ranba, proceeded for Nalegaon with milk can for selling the same.At about 9.00 a.m. they came near Water-Accused Bapurao bet by iron bar, accused -Dilip Shivange bet by axe, accused- Babru Dadge hit by sword.Shankar tried to rescue Ranba, when accused Babu Dadge hit him by axe on his head and Bapurao bet him by iron bar, then they pushed him.In meanwhile, his daughter-in-laws came there and took him in the house.He received bleeding injuries to his head.Then his wife went towards Ranba and she was also beaten by accused persons.He fell down on the wooden plank.Then the police came there and he went with them at Nalegaon.Then they sent him to the Hospital at Nalegaon.The Medical Officer sent him at Latur Hospital.He has stated names of accused, who were armed and present on the spot.He has stated name of Trimbak, Dilip, Bapu, Babru Dage, Sanju, Vilas, Balu, Shivaji, Atnoore, Padam Dadge in his examination-in-chief.He stated that, they were holding the arms.It is also stated by him that, all the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 43 above accused, whose names are mentioned, were also beating Ranba though he has not attributed specific overt act to them.Said complaint was brought to PW-5 by Police Constable Sonhivare.PW-5 read the complaint.He registered the offence being Crime No. 134/98 under sections 302, 307 etc of I.P.C. Accordingly, he made endorsement on the said complaint.He identified his signature.During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that, he did not receive the complaint at about 1 p.m. on the date of incident nor he has registered the offence nor sent the First Information Report to the Court.C.P.I. Latange given him the letter.He further stated that, he received the muddemal property in sealed condition.459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 45In his cross-examination, he stated that, each items were properly sealed.They were kept in one box.Chakur-Latur road is 4 Kms.He left Chakur Police Station on 6th September, 1998 at about 00.25 hours.Latur road to Aurangabad is 7 hours journey.On 4 th September, 1998, he received muddemal property in Police Station at about 8.00 p.m. Those articles were in his custody in the Police Station for two days.Therefore, the said recovery is not believable.In fact, this witness has stated in his cross examination that, each items were sealed and they were kept in one box.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that, on 20.08.1998, he was attached to Police Station Chakur.On that day at about 5.00 a.m., he himself and his staff went to Ghute Ghugi Tanda and Wadwal and Janwal for prohibition raid.At about 10.45 a.m., he was returning after completing the prohibition raid.He came to village Gharani.He received message on wireless about incident on that day.Accordingly, he proceeded towards Yellamwadi.Some of the staff went to Police Station, and some of the staff members accompanied him, and they came to Yellamwadi in a Jeep.He came to the Chowk of Nalegaon and learnt that, one woman injured was sent to Nalegaon Hospital.He went straight way to the Government Hospital, Nalegaon.One injured woman was admitted there.He saw her.He made an inquiry to the Doctor about her condition.The Doctor told him ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 47 that, she is serious, but in conscious condition.He asked her name and she told that her name is Muktabai w/o.Shankar Gawali, aged 60 Years, Resident of Yellamwadi.He recorded her complaint as per her say.It was read over to her.He obtained her thumb mark on it.He signed on it.He identified Exhibit 52 and stated that, the contents thereof are correct.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::He further stated that, he gave letter to the Photographer namely Sanjay Shrangare, resident of Nalegaon.The photographs were shown to him and he identified the same.Then, he sent some constables to the spot.The constable brought Shankar Gawali in a Hospital, who received serious injury.Then, he was referred to Nalegaon Hospital.He was given treatment.Thereafter, Muktabai and Shankar were sent to Latur Hospital by the Medical Officer in the Police Jeep.Thereafter, he ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 48 went to the spot at Yellamwadi.He drew panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::He saw the mother of deceased was weeping there.Some persons had come there to see the dead body, so he called two panchas namely Digamber and Sitaji Raghu Jadhav.The inquest panchanama was signed by him and the panch witnesses.Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Hospital.Thereafter, he drew the spot panchanama at Exh.56, which is attested by him and signed by the panchas.From the spot, one blood mixed stone, cap having blood stain, shoes, catali, blood mixed earth, plain earth were attached under the same panchanama.He obtained the signatures of panchas.Then he sealed the stone and earth in a pocket.He further stated that, then he sent the police staff to take the search of accused.But they could not arrest accused since they were not found.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 49 Then he recorded the statements of witnesses.The Police Constable Pandharge brought the clothes of the deceased after postmortem, same were seized and attached under the panchanama.Then, Deputy S.P.Shankarrao had come there and asked him to transfer further investigation to Shri Latange.He further stated that, he was at Chakur for two years.In the month of June, six months back one rioting offence was happened and the complaint was filed by Dharma Ranba Dadge.Ranba and his son had burnt the heap of fodder belonging to Trimbak Shivange, so his son had filed complaint under Section 435 of IP Code.He did the investigation.Thereafter, he called both the parties and told them not to quarrel and thereby he gave ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 50 understanding to both the side.igDuring his cross-examination, he stated that, he was in Police Station, Chakur for two years and 9 months.He went for investigation in village Yellamwadi.Ranba was residing in the field with cattle and implements etc. There was one well and sugar cane crop in his field.He received message at about 10.45 a.m. that, Ranba was assaulted by Baburao, Trimbak and other accused.He denied that, he brought two injured persons for further treatment in the hospital at Latur.The prosecution examined Gunwant Govindrao Jankar as PW-8, but he was declared hostile and therefore, his evidence is of no use to the prosecution.This witness was declared hostile, therefore, his evidence is of no use to the prosecution case.In his examination-in-Thereafter, he learnt that, the house of Ranba was damaged.Similarly, he learnt that, there was damage of electric motor and pipe in Shankar Gawali's land.He took 2 panchas namely Dattu Kashinath Khandade and Shivaji Laxman Shelar and went in the field of Ranba.He saw his house.The house of Ranba was shown by one Venkat Gawali, who is brother-in-law of the deceased.He saw the said house and drew panchanama in presence of the panchas.The said house was damaged worth Rs.200/-.Accordingly, the panchanama was drawn.He identified the said panchanama and he stated that, the same is true.He further stated that, he went in the field of Shankar Gawali along with the said panchas.Venkat Gawali had shown the spot to them and he drew panchanama.He noticed that, the PVC pipe was ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 53 broken worth Rs.800/-.He further stated that, then, he recoded the statement of some of the witnesses.He drew the arrest panchanama.Yeshwant Annarao Kasale and Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Maheboob are the panch witnesses, they signed on the panchanama.He further stated that, on 22.08.1998, he received the postmortem notes and he enclosed the same in the file.On the very same day, he seized the blood stained cloth under panchanama, which is signed by the panchas and attested by him.On the very day, he recorded the supplementary statement of Muktabai.He further stated that, on 24.08.1998, he seized the blood stained clothes of 8 accused by drawing separate panchanamas.The said panchanamas at Exhibit 82 to 89 are signed by the panchas and those are attested by him.He further stated that, on 25.08.1998, he interrogated the accused in presence of the panch witnesses namely Sham Sitaram Dhondge and Devidas Sambhappa Patale.Accused Yeshant Limbaji, Dadge disclosed that he will produce the stick from the field.Accordingly, the memorandum panchanama was drawn.He further stated that, on the very same day, the accused Babu was interrogated by them and agreed to produce the axe from the field of Trimbak Shivange.He further stated that, then, the accused Babruwan Yeshwant Dadge was interrogated by them and he agreed to produce the sword from the field of Trimbak Shivange.The memorandum panchanama was drawn accordingly.He further stated that, then the accused Padmakar Bapu Dadge was interrogated and on interrogation, he agreed to produce Katti from the field of Trimbakrao Shivange.Accordingly, the memorandum panchanama was drawn.He further stated that, then, he himself, panchas and 5 accused persons went at Yellamwadi in police vehicle in the field of Trimbak Shivange.Then accused Yeshwant Limbaji Dadge produced the stick, iron from the heap of fodder.The said stick was attached under the panchanama.Accordingly, the panchanama was drawn.He also identified the axe article no. 30 which had blood stains.The labels of signatures of panchans were pasted on it.He further stated that, the accused Suresh Dadge produced the iron bar under the heap of fodder.Accordingly, the panchanama was drawn and same was signed by panchas and attested by him.He identified the iron bar article no. 31, which had blood stains.The labels of signatures of panchas were pasted on it.He further stated that, accused Babruwan Dadge produced the sword, which was hidden by him under the fodder heap.The sword was rusted.It is pasted by slip of signatures of panchas.He further stated that, accused Padmakar has produced the Katti from the heap of fodder.It had blood stained.Accordingly, the panchanama was drawn.He further stated that, on 26.08.1998, he called panchas namely Sham Sitaram and Devidas ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 57 Sambhappa Patale.Accused Narsing Bapurao Dadge was interrogated by them and on interrogation, he agreed to produce Katti from his house at Yellamwadi.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::He further stated that, the accused Bapurao Amruta Dadge was interrogated by him and on interrogation, he agreed to produce iron bar and Jambiya which was kept in his house.The memorandum panchanama was drawn.He further stated that, accused Sanjay interrogated by them and on interrogation, he agreed to produce the axe, which was hidden by him in his field.Accordingly, the panchanama at Exhibit - 97 was drawn.He further stated that, accused Dilip Shivange was interrogated by them and on interrogation he agreed to produce the axe from his cattle-shed.He further stated that, then, accused Sudhakar Atnure was interrogated by them and on interrogation, he agreed to produce the iron bar from the field of Trimbak Shivange.He further stated that, they themselves, panchas and accused went to Yellamwadi in a Jeep and the accused Narsing stopped the jeep in front of his house.They got down.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Then, accused Narsing went in the house and he produced the Katti.It was seized and attached under the panchanama at Exh.95/A. The Katti is marked by signature of the panchas and then took in their custody.He further stated that, accused Bapurao had produced the iron bar and Jambiya from his house and it was produced before them.He further stated that, accused Sanjay took them in his field.He produced the axe from his cattle-shed.It had blood stained.It is seized and attached under the panchanama at Exh.97/A. He identified the axe article no. 36, which was signed by the panchas on paper label.He further stated that, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 59 accused Dilip took them in his field and he produced the axe from the cattle-shed.It had blood stained.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Accordingly, the panchanama was drawn at Exh.98/A.He further stated that, accused Sudhakar took them in the field of Trimbakrao Shivange and he produced the iron bar from the heap of fodder, which was lying under the mango tree.It was seized and attached under the panchanama.The panchas have signed on it and it is attested by him.He further stated that, he recorded the statements of some witnesses.Then, they came to the Police Station with muddemal and gave to writer Police Head Constable.He also gave the muddemal property, which was attached on 25.08.1998 under the panchanama.He further stated that, on 29.08.1998, he recorded the supplementary statement of Muktabai and other six witnesses.On 02.09.1998, again he recorded the statements of 10 witnesses.He seized the blood of Shankar Gawali, who was injured, from Doctor.On 03.09.1998, again he recorded supplementary ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 60 statement of Shankar Gawali.Then he came to Latur and collected the blood sample of Muktabai.On 04.09.1998, he sent muddemal property to C.A. for analysis by letter at Exh.100 through the Police Constable Jadhav.He identified the said letter, which bears his signature.The C.A. received the property on 07.09.1998 and accordingly he put endorsement.He further stated that, on 13.11.1998, he recorded the statement of Mahadeo Shankar Gawali as per his say.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::On 17.11.1998, he drew the spot map through Tahsildar Chakur.He sent letter to Tahsildar Chakur to draw the map of the spot and same was put in the file.On 18.11.1998, he submitted the charge sheet in the court.Then on 15.12.1998, he arrested the 4 absconding accused.On 18.12.1998, he arrested accused Balaji Trimbak Shivange.459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 61During cross-examination of PW-10, the defence has brought on record that, when the accused were arrested, the blood spot on their clothes, on their person were not mentioned in the panchanama of arrest.PW-10 stated in cross-examination that, portion marked by letters `A', `B', `C' and `D' from the statement of PW-1 Muktabai was stated by her.Similarly, the portion marks by letters `A', `B', `C' and `D' from the statement of Shankar Eknath Gawali was also stated by him.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that, he passed MBBS in the Year 1979 from Marathawada University, Aurangabad.Accordingly, he issued the postmortem report in his own handwriting and signatures.He opined the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to incised wound over medial part of right scapular with multiple fracture injuries with multiple C.L.Ws.He identified the same.He further stated that, injury no.1 could be caused by back side of the axe.Injury no.2 could be caused by axe, sword, Jambiya.The injury no.3 could be caused by stick.All other injuries are possible by stick and head of the axe.The death was caused immediately.Injury nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 14 are grievous in nature.He has also expressed his opinion that, cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to incised wound over medial part of right scapular with multiple fracture injuries with multiple C.L.Ws.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::In his examination-in-chief, he stated that, on 20.08.1998 he was attached to Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur.On that day, he received the phone of his superior officer to go to the Hospital at Latur and record the statement of Shankar Eknath Gawali.Accordingly, he went to the Hospital and recorded his statement as per his say.Before that, he obtained the endorsement of Medical Officer, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 68 recorded the statement and obtained the thumb impression of Shankar Eknath Gawali.RESERVED ON : July 20, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : August 14, 2015 ...JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE,J):-Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999 is filed by the original accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, who are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2000 is filed by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, acquitting the original accused nos. 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 324 r/w 149 of I.P. Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 4The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as under :-Then her complaint (at Exh. 52) was recorded by the Police and both of them were sent to Latur hospital for further medical treatment.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 7(iii) After this incident, the Police Sub-Inspector received the information on phone, so he came there and saw the dead-body.Then he recorded the statements of witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::They produced the weapons and same were attached under panchanama Exh. 90-A to 94-A.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::Thereafter, the panch witnesses, P.S.I., and accused went in jeep and entered in Yelamwadi.Firstly, the accused Narsing produced Kathi from his house, Bapurao produced iron bar and Jambiya and then they went to their field, and accused ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 10 Sanjay produced the axe from cattle-shed, Deelip produced the blood stained axe from cattle-shed, accused Sudhakar went in the field of Trimbak Shivange took out the iron bar from the heap of fodder, and produced the same, and accordingly, the panchanamas Exh. 95-A to 99-A were drawn.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::(vii) On 29.08.1998 again he recorded the statement of Muktabai and other witnesses.He received the C.A. reports afterwards.(viii) On 13.11.1998, he recorded the statements of Mahadeo Shankar Gawali and on 17.11.1998, he sent letter to Tahsildar, Chakur to draw the spot map.He received all the case papers and on 18.11.1998, he submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 11 Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedpur.The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedpur committed the case to the Sessions Court.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::(ix) Then the Sessions Court framed the charge against the accused under sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1)(3) r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It was read over and explained to the accused.All accused pleaded not guilty and they have claimed to be tried.However, they contended that, deceased Ranba was murdered by other person and not by them.The accused persons have not examined any defence witness.The trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, convicted the accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 for the offence punishable under section 147 of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 12 rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month.They are convicted for the offence punishable under section 148 of I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month.They are convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 149 of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::(Rs. five hundred) each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year.They are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w section 149 of I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-(Rs. five hundred) each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.They are convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w section 149 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs. 500/-::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 13 (Rs. five hundred) each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.They are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rs. one hundred) each, in default rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.The trial Court has acquitted the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 149 of I.P. Code.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 459/1999 submits that, the impugned judgment and order is based on wrong appreciation of facts and evidence on record.The appellants - accused are prejudiced as the trial Court has not scanned and marshaled the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective.The findings on the issues framed by the trial court are not properly answered with a definite conclusion, so as to demonstrate the reasons for the conviction of the present appellants.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that, section 149 of IP Code creates a specific offence and deals with the punishment of that offence.Whenever Court convicts a person/s for an offence, with the aid and assistance of section 149 of IP Code, a clear findings regarding common object of the assembly is to be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but also the object was unlawful.In this case, reading the medical evidence in general and particularly, the Doctor's explanation, on the nature and number of injuries in cross examination, it would appear that the object of the alleged unlawful assembly, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 15 in this case on the face of the prosecution story, could not be said to be the object to commit murder of Ranba Dadge and therefore, the charge u/s. 302 r/w. section 149 of IP Code fails on that count.The charge is also not substantiated by the prosecution evidence as well.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that, the only motive alleged by the prosecution is against the accused Shivange family because of the trifle dispute between them on account of adjacent agricultural lands, while no motive whatsoever is alleged against the rest of the accused.The PW-1, Muktabai, mother-in-law of deceased Ranba admits that, her family and members of Shivange family, being living in the neighbourhood of each other in the village were on cordial and visiting terms till the initiation of the civil and criminal litigation about two months prior to the incident.Thus, there was no other reason to complaint against each other on any count.It is submitted that, FIR though not a ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 16 substantive piece of evidence is not a less extremely important piece of evidence and because of the havoc, which tampered FIR can play upon an innocent person, it needs close scrutiny, particularly when, it is lodged by an interested and inimical person/s closely related to the deceased and that being the first document in time to serve the intent of legislature, as demonstrated under the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in such cases, the FIR is treated as a touch-stone of the prosecution case.In this case, FIR was allegedly lodged by PW-1, Muktabai to PSI J.D.Kolekar, in the Hospital at Nalegaon on 20.08.1998 [Exh.52].Significantly, the actual time when the FIR was recorded by the PSI, has not been mentioned on it.This FIR was registered by the Police in the Station Diary maintained by the Police Station, Chakur, at 1.00 p.m. It is submitted that, the information given by PW-1, Muktabai, to the PSI, was not all the first FIR.The Station Diary Entry No. 21 [Exh.70] has an information of an offence of cognizable nature, which was taken on the oral information lodged ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 17 by Prabhavati, wife of the deceased Ranba, who was accompanied by her brother Vyankat Shankar Gawali.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::This witness, Vyankat Shankar Gawali, who was cited as an eye witness to the alleged incident, was not examined by the Court in prosecution case.A bare look at the Station Diary Entry No. 21 [Exh.70] goes to show that, the facts narrated by Prabhavati and Vyankat Gawali were nothing short of information of a cognizable offence, yet no FIR was registered by the Police.No copy of it was given to the Judicial Magistrate First Class by Police.Instead of showing the entry made in the Station Diary, the police left for Hospital at Nalegaon, where they claimed to have recorded statement of PW-1, Muktabai, mother-in-law of deceased.Thus, the alleged FIR [Exh.52], purely being a statement, recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., is hit by section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The Lower Court erred in not appreciating these vital points of importance concerning the FIR in this case.The height of the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 18 things is that, the prosecution did not choose to prove the contents of the FIR recorded in the Station Diary Entry No. 21 [Exh.70].::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that, the prosecution has examined three witnesses as eye witnesses viz. PW-1 Muktabai, mother-in-law of deceased Ranba, PW-2 Madhav Shankar Gawali, brother-in-law of the deceased and PW-4 Shankar S/o.Eknath Gawali, who are closely related to the deceased Ranba.PW-1 and PW-4 are injured witnesses, who were hospitalized for some time at the Primary Health Centre, Nalegaon, and thereafter, in the Civil Hospital at Latur.PW-1 Muktabai, who is cited as informant and whose information is treated as FIR [Exh.52], disowns in clear terms the material portions in the said complaint, with a view to claim herself to be an eye witness.The witness was confronted by the prosecution itself, about the material part marked 'A' in Exh.52, which wipes out the possibility of this witness being an eye witness.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 19 1 Muktabai admits in clear and unambiguous term that, though she was interrogated by PSI Kolekar in the Hospital at Nalegaon, she did not give anything in writing, so much so, that she claims that her two thumb impression were only obtained, on two separate papers in the Civil Hospital at Latur, by some unknown Police Officer.In short, the FIR [Exh.52] stands substantially disowned by the witness PW-1 Muktabai.It is submitted that, PW-2 Madhav Shankar Gawali, the youngest brother-in-law of deceased Ranba, is a school going boy.It is curious and surprising to mention here that, the police have recorded the statement of Madhav Gawali, after 2 and ½ months of the alleged incident.The FIR does not remotely discloses that, Madhav was present at the scene of offence when the alleged assault was going on.His testimony seems to be a tutored one and does not inspire much confidence.His testimony sounds improbable in nature and is false one.PW-2 Madhav ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 20 admits in cross examination that, though he knew that his parents were injured and were hospitalized, he never cared to see them by going to the Hospital till they were discharged.He claims to be almost in the company of police moving from place to place, yet he admits to have not disclosed about having seen the incident to anyone, except the Investigating Officer.No explanation came from the prosecution side for the reason of delayed recording of his statement.Thus, the evidence of this witness is unreliable.It is submitted that, PW-4 Shankar Eknath Gawali, is father-in-law of deceased Ranba.He claims to have been hospitalized for a long period, for the reasons not known.Though he was admittedly very much available to the PSI Kolekar in the Hospital at Nalegaon, by the side of his wife Muktabai, he was not interrogated at all by the PSI.The PSI also admits to have not recorded his statement during investigation at his hands.His statement was recorded in the Civil Hospital at Latur, by the police of Gandhi Police Chowk, Latur and then, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 21 by the Investigating Officer, on the next date.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that on the dead body of deceased Ranba Dadge, at the time of postmortem examination, the Medical Officer [PW-11] Dr. Banate, found in all 14 external injuries, out of which the injury no. 2 was an incise wound, over inter-scapular region, on right side of 1 & ½ x 1 & ½, in size, caused by sharp weapon.This shows that fractures may have been suffered by ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 22 the deceased by any other means other than blows inflicted upon those parts, by the weapons, as alleged by the prosecution.The Medical Officer admits in para no. 6 of his cross examination that, such injuries may often be possibly caused by objects like stones.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that, injury no.2 though shown as an incised wound, admittedly, did not cause any internal damage, which was noticed by the Doctor on internal examination of the dead body and, therefore, it was a simple incise wound.The cause of death is shown 'hemorrhagic shock' and admittedly, the death was not instantaneous.On the contrary, the Medical Officer admits and has even shown in postmortem notes that the period involved between infliction of injuries and death of Ranba, covers a span of eight hours.As regards the injuries suffered by the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 23 Muktabai and PW-4 Shankar, it is submitted that, Muktabai suffered four injuries.Injury no. 2 is result of injury no. 1 and except the fracture on the wrist joint, other injuries are simple in nature and they being irregular in shape, must have been caused in stone pelting.The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show that either of the injuries suffered by PW-1, Muktabai, was likely to result in her death.As regards the injuries suffered by PW-4, Shankar, one contusion over Occipital region, irregular and oblique and second injury was also a contusion, over right arm, irregular in nature.Injury no. 1 is shown to be grievous while injury no. 2 is simple in nature.Both the injuries are not testified to be of serious in nature and such injuries, according to the Medical Officer, can be caused by any blunt object like stick or stone.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::As admitted, the police could not seize the blood stains on their clothes, but claims to have seized those very clothes from the person of accused on 24.08.1998, which creates a great suspicion upon the alleged seizure of blood stained clothes.The panch witness, examined to prove the seizure of clothes, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.No other panch witness was examined to prove the contents of the panchanama.The prosecution claims to have recovered different weapons with some blood stains belatedly from the field of accused no.11-Trimbak Shivange at village Yelamwadi.This fact of recovery of weapons from the field of accused no.11 Trimbak, smacks of artificiality in drawing panchanama.It is come in the evidence of Investigating Officer Shri Latange that, all blood articles seized and recovered from the accused were kept in the custody of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 25 the police of Police Station, Chakur, for some days before they were discharged for Chemical Analyzer's examination.No evidence is put forth on the point of custody of the articles showing that they were kept under seal.The Investigating Officer failed to obtain signature / thumb impression of the individual accused on the seizure panchanama exhibited in this case and hence the said panchanama cannot be taken into consideration for convicting the appellants.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that, the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the contradictions and omissions brought on record by the defence, without discussing and appreciating the same, by observing that, they are not material in this case.It is submitted that, the trial Court in para 28 of the Judgment observed that, as the accused persons are having agricultural lands, naturally, they have grudge against the deceased.On late receipt of FIR by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class i.e. after five days, the trial Court observed that, the FIR is registered on the very day, but it was received by the Court after five days and late receipt of FIR does not call for any help to the accused persons.The trial Court further replied the argument of the defence by stating that, anyway I ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 27 am not inclined to accept this contention.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that, the trial Court did not offer clear cut findings, based on conclusions arrived at after a proper appreciation of evidence on record, regarding the guilt of the appellants and their conviction and sentence, for the offence for which they are convicted.There is no clear cut findings as regards the conviction under section 302 r/w. 149 of IP Code, in view of acquittal of rest of the accused persons, on the same prosecution evidence.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused submits that, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, and the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of IP Code is wrong and illegal.Therefore, he submits that, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 28 when PW-1 and PW-4 and also PW-3 have stated the presence of all the accused and also stated that, they were holding the weapons, each member of unlawful assembly irrespective of overt act attributed to such member, is equally responsible for the murder of Ranba.It is submitted that, there is direct evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 and also other witnesses, therefore, there was no reason for the trial Court to acquit some of the accused.It is submitted that, so far order of conviction to 7 accused is perfectly sustainable in law.Trial Court has discussed in detail the entire evidence and thereafter, recorded the cogent findings which need no interference.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. P.N. Kutty, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant also invited our attention to the notes of evidence and submits that, the appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed and the appeal filed by the convicted accused deserves to be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::Trimbak bet Dharmraj and in that respect criminal case was ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 30 filed by Trimbak.Therefore, the relations between them were not cordial.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::The said incident had taken place at about 9 a.m. According to PW-1, Ranba came to her house from field, on invitation of Manohar Patil.There was death anniversary of father of Manohar Patil.Her blood stained clothes were attached by the Police.Her statement was recorded by the Police twice.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::She identified weapons shown to her before the Court.She was cross-examined by the Advocate of the accused.It appears that, certain questions were asked to her about caste of the accused persons and some persons from her community.She stated that, accused Shivange is from different caste.Her house and house of Shivange are having road in between and said road is of 2 ft.Infront of house, there are houses of Dadge, Survase, Kale etc. There is a road of 2 cubmits in between her own house and Maroti Temple.If one can stand in open court yard of their house, the idol of Maruti is visible.She stated that, the place where Ranba was lying, there was wall of loose stone, and the house of Dashrath Dadge was near to it.She further stated about adjoining houses of said spot.It appears ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 33 that, defence tried to elucidate from cross that, the place where Ranba was lying is crowded and visible place.It further appears that, during her cross-::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::examination, she admitted that, her son-in-law Ranba has one brother by name Gyanoba.Deceased Ranba, Prabhawatibai and her sons are residing in the house, which is in the field.In one survey number, there are shares of Babu Dadge, Yeshwant Dadge, Gnyanoba Dadge and Bapurao Dadge and her son-in-law Ranba.The said survey numbers are divided north south, and from western side Babu and Yeshwant and on eastern side Ranba and Gyanoba have their shares.Gyanoba had executed the sale deed of his share to accused -Dilip Shivange.Said Shivange is in possession of the purchased land from Gnyanoba.Said land was purchased by Shivange 10 years back.She further stated that, there was dispute on common boundary in between field of Shivange and Ranba, and therefore, there was some misunderstanding.She further deposed ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 34 that, accused Shivange and Balaji are taking education at Ahmedpur and Latur.It appears that, aforementioned portion from the first information was confronted to this witness during cross-examination, which she denied.She further stated that, police officer, who wrote her complaint, did not reduce in writing said complaint as per her narration.There were 5-6 policemen with him.Her thumb impression was obtained in Latur.She did not know which police had taken thumb marks.She also stated that, she did not know the said police officers were from Latur or Chakur Police Station.She further stated that, the contents of the said first information report were not read over to her.She further deposed that, she did not tell the police that, except accused nos. 9 and 10, other accused were seen standing on the spot.The other accused standing there written in the complaint, is false.She did not tell the Police when she went to the spot.She saw her son-in-law Ranba lying in the injured condition near the house of Bapurao Dadge.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 36 The said portion from her first information report, which is marked as portion mark `B', is false.It appears that, while recording the cross-examination, this witness stated in clause 15 of her cross examination that, "Today on 20.08.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. I was in the house and my husband Shankar came to the house, he received the injury to his head and he told me about it and he was standing in open court yard is not correct".She did not tell to the police of Latur.She did not know how and when he received injuries.She did not ask him how he received injury, and who caused it, and who bet him and for what reason.She denied the suggestion that, she herself and husband went outside near the Water-Tank.The portion mark "C" and "D", she did not state to police.It is wrongly written.She also denied portion mark `A' from her statement before the Police.She denied the suggestion that, there were 100 persons gathered at the place of incident.She denied suggestion that, she did not sustain injuries due to assault by sharp weapon by ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 37 the accused.She also denied the suggestion that, she did not know how her son-in-law was injured and by whom.She further denied suggestion that due to the earlier dispute between family of Ranba and Shivange, she tried to implicate the other members of the family of Shivange.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Upon considering the evidence of this witness in its entirety, it appears that, she herself did not witness the said incident of killing Ranba.It appears that, portion marked from her police statement and also complaint was confronted to her during her cross-examination and the defence is successful in bringing on record that, there is substantial improvement in her deposition before the Court about witnessing of actual incident of killing of Ranba.It is brought on record by the defence through cross-examination of Investigating Officers that, the said portion marks `A', `B', `C', `D' and `F' from the police statement was stated by her while recording her ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 38 statement.However, the fact remains that, she immediately went to the spot of the incident, wherein she saw Babu Dadge, Padmakar, Kamlakar, Bapurao, Narsing, Yeshwant Dadge, Babruwan Dadge, Suresh Dadge, Sudhakar, Trimbak Shivange, Dilip Shivange, Vilas Shivange, Sanjay Shivange, Balaji shivange, Shivaji Shivange standing there.As a matter of fact, when she went on spot of the incident, she was assaulted and sustained injuries, and was hospitalized.As stated by her, she was in the hospital for 20 days.In her evidence, she categorically deposed that, accused Babu Dadge assaulted her by axe.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Accused -Padmakar and Bapurao Dadge assaulted by iron bar.Therefore, so far as aforementioned accused are concerned, it is abundantly clear that, overt acts are attributed to them and, presence of accused at the spot is clearly established through evidence of this witness.Since his statement was recorded after 2 and 1/2 months by the police, after the date of incident, the trial Court did not place reliance on the said statement.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Accused Babu Dadge and other accused came there.Accused Babu gave blow of axe on the neck of Ranba.He was in the hospital for 10-12 days.The policemen from Latur came in the Hospital and recorded his statement.the policemen seized his clothes.He further ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 41 stated that, the name of other accused are Trimbak, Dilip, Bapu, Babru Dadge, Sanjy, Vilas, Balu, Shivaji, Atnoore, Padam Dadge, and they were possessing sticks and axe.They were beating to Ranba.He identified the accused present in the Court.(Underlines supplied)::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::In cross-examination this witness stated that, Maroti temple is adjoining to his house.Police from Latur interrogated him in the hospital at Latur.He denied the suggestion that, 5-6 persons, who assaulted son-in-law Ranba, were unknown to him.He stated that, the statement that, 5-6 persons were unknown to him, recorded by the Police is not correct.He denied suggestion that, he did not tell before the Police that, accused Babruwan bet by sword.He reiterated his version in examination-in-chief that, the accused persons, who are named in the examination in chief assaulted him by axe and iron bar.He denied the suggestion that, except accused nos. 8, 9 and 10, other ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 42 accused persons were simply found present on the spot.He denied the portion mark `A' from the police statement.He stated that, manner in which portion mark `A' is written by the police was never stated by him.Upon careful perusal of his examination in cross, nothing substantial has been brought on record by the defence, so as to disbelieve his version.On the contrary, he has stated presence of accused persons on the spot and also he has attributed the overt act to the some of the accused.However, in his evidence, he has fairly stated that, his daughter-in-law came on the spot and took him to the house.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::On 20 th August, 1998 the Out Post Nalegaon recorded the complaint of Muktabai.He also identified the complaint dated 20.08.1998, which bears his signature.He further ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 44 stated that, after registering the offence, he handed over the papers for investigation to P.S.I. Kolekar, Nalegaon.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::On 07.09.1998, he deposited the muddemal property in the C.A. office, Aurangabad.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::The learned counsel appearing for the convicted accused argued that, since the articles were lying in the custody for two days, there was possibility of tampering with the said articles.Therefore, though those articles were in custody for two days in the Police Station, it cannot be said that, those were lying without sealing and there was possibility of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 46 tampering with the said articles.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::It was filed against Trimbak Shivange and others.He submitted charge sheet against 8 persons.Again the son of Trimbak Shivange namely Dilip lodged complaint against Ranba and Dharmaraj.He has filed the case under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code against both the parties.From 19.08.1998 to 02.09.1998, there was prohibitory orders under Section 37 [1] [3] of B.P. Act.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::He denied the suggestion that, the complaint was not sent immediately to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court.When this witness was confronted with portion mark `B' from the statement of PW-1 -Muktabai, he stated that, she did state the said portion ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 51 and accordingly, the same was recorded.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::chief, he stated that, on 20th August, 1998 he was Circle Inspector at Chakur.On 21.08.1998, he received the investigation papers from Kolekar as per order of Deputy Superintendent of Police in writing.The complaint of Muktabai [Exhibit-52], spot panchanama, inquest panchanama [Exhibit-53], the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 52 blood stains clothes of the deceased with panchanama and 13 statements of the witnesses and case diary was received by him.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Then he arrested 10 accused on the very same day.On 23.08.1998, he recorded the supplementary statement of Shankar Gawali.It is attested by him and signed by the panchas.He recorded the statements of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 54 three witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Accordingly, the memorandum panchanama was drawn.He further stated that, the accused Suresh @ Suryakant Dadge was interrogated and on interrogation, he agreed to produce the iron bar from the field of Trimbakrao ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 55 Shivange.Accordingly, the memorandum panchanama was drawn.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::The label of signatures of panchas were pasted on the stick.He further stated that, the accused Babu ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 56 Limbaji Dadge produced the axe from the fodder.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::On 19.12.1998, he submitted the supplementary charge sheet against the five accused.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::The PSI Chakur Police Station referred the dead body of Ranaba s/o.Dattu Dadge of Yellamwadi for conducting the postmortem along with the Police Constable No.316 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 62 Shri R.B.Pandhare, Police Station Chakur.He has made an endorsement on it.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::On the very same day, he has performed the postmortem examination from 5.00 p.m. to 6.20 p.m. and noticed the following injuries:C.L.W. over left scapular region of size 1 ½ x ½" x ½", irregular and oblique.Incised wound over inter scapular region right side of size 1 ½" x ½" x 1 ½", sharp and oblique.3. Contusion over left scapular region below the injury of size 1 ½" x 1 ½" linear and oblique.Contusion over left shoulder joint of size 1" x ½" irregular and oblique.Contusion over left groin of size ½" x ½", irregular and oblique.Contusion over left thigh of size ½" x ½", irregular and oblique.Contusion over the left thigh just above the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 63 knee joint of size 1" x ½", irregular and oblique.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::C.L.W. behind and above the left mallecous of size 1" x ½" x ½", irregular and oblique.Fracture of left tibia fibula just 3" above the ankle joint.C.L.W. over left arm midway and outside of size 1" x ½" x ½" transverse and irregular.Fracture of left humer us [midway].C.L.W. over right arm outside of size ½" x ½"x ½", oblique and irregular.C.L.W. over right leg of the lower 1/3 rd of upper 2/3rd junction of size 1 ½" x ½" x ½", irregular and transverse.Fracture of right tibia fibula at the junction of lower 1/3rd of upper 2/3rd.He opined that, all the injuries were caused within 0 to 8 hours.The injuries were caused by hard and blunt, sharp and hard weapons.All the injuries are ante-mortem, they are shown in column no. 17 of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 64 the post mortem report.Injuries no. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 14 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::On the very same day, the injured Smt. Muktabai w/o.Shankar Gawali was referred to him for her examination.He noted down the following injuries.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 651. Contusion near the left wrist joint, irregular and transverse of size 2" x 1".Fracture radio ulna, both bone lower end near to the left wrist joint.C.L.W. over left temporal region, irregular and oblique, of size 4" x ½" x up to the scalp.Contusion over left shoulder joint, irregular and oblique of size 2" x 1".C.L.W. over right forearm dorsom, irregular and oblique of size ½" x ½" x ½".The age of all injuries was 0 to 8 hours.The injuries no. 2 and 3 are grievous and rest of the injuries are simple.The injuries no. 2 and 3 could be caused by head of the axe and other injuries are caused by blunt and hard weapon.Accordingly, he issued the certificate in his own handwriting and signature.He also identified the injured before the Court.He examined Shankar Eknath Gawali on the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 66 very same day and found following injuries.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::1. C.L.W. over occipital region, irregular and oblique, of size 3" x ½" and upto the scalp.2. Contusion over right arm dorsom, irregular and transverse of size 2" x ½".Injury no. 1 is grievous injury, caused by back side of the axe and injury no.2 is simple injury, caused by stick.Age of injuries was within 0 to 8 hours.Accordingly, he issued the certificate at Exh.117 in his own handwriting and signature and same was identified by him.The injured before the court is the same.During cross-examination of PW-11, the defence has brought on record his admission that, except injury no.2 rest of the injuries can be caused by hard and blunt object and barring fracture injuries are simple in nature and except injury no.2, the other injuries are on non-vital part of the body.Then he sent the statement to Police Station Chakur.He also recorded the statement of Muktabai Shankar Gawali, as per her say.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::During his cross examination, he stated that, the portion mark by letters "C" and "D" in the statement of Muktabai recorded by him in the hospital at Latur on 20th August, 1998 is correct and she has stated the same.He also stated that, portion mark by letters "A" and "B" from the statement of PW-4 Shankar Gawali is as per his version.We have referred and discussed evidence of all the witnesses.The prosecution has proved inquest panchanama and also the spot panchanama.PW-3, panch witness, has stated about injuries noticed by him on the person of deceased Ranba.The panch witnesses were examined.The evidence of panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer has convincingly ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 69 proved inquest as well as spot panchanama.The Investigating officer did seize blood mixed earth, jerman can, shoes and clothes having blood stains from the spot.Investigating Officer also seized cap having blood stains, two plastic boot, one Jerman can having smell of milk, small stones having blood stains, plane earth, blood mixed earth.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::C.A. report also supports the prosecution case.Upon reading of evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 in its entirety and considering even contradictions/ improvements and omissions appearing in their evidence, their evidence is completely reliable.It is true that, so far actual assault on Ranba is concerned, PW-1 might not have seen the said assault, however, looking to the distance between the house of PW-1 and spot of incident, her evidence can safely be believed that, immediately she went to the spot.She has named the accused, who were present armed with the weapons.Since the prosecution case is that, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly with an unlawful object to cause grievous hurt to Ranba and ultimately killed him, therefore, irrespective of which accused was actually involved in the assault on Ranba or to the prosecution witnesses is not material.Upon careful perusal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is abundantly clear that, the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly with an object to cause grievous hurt to Ranba and ultimately kill him gathered on a public place in the village and killed Ranba and assaulted PW-::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::1 and PW-4, who are injured witnesses, who were treated as indoor patients in the hospital for ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 71 considerable period.Evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 has to be believed for the simple reason that, since Ranba was their son-in-law, they will not unnecessarily rope in the other persons leaving aside the real culprits.It has come on record that, Ranba's house was destroyed, even pipelines laid for watering the land were also destroyed by accused persons.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that, the members of unlawful assembly had no knowledge for what purpose they have assembled, and why they were carrying the weapons in their hands.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the members of the unlawful assembly had knowledge about the fact that, they have assembled with unlawful object of causing grievous hurt to Ranba and ultimately killed him.The medical evidence on record clearly indicates that, death was homicidal and injury nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 14 were grievous in nature, which were sufficient to cause death.Medical evidence also shows, how brutally Ranba was assaulted.The version of PW-1 and PW-4 gets complete corroboration from the medical evidence.It is necessary to note that, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove overt act by each accused, since each member of the unlawful assembly was equally responsible for killing of Ranba irrespective of specific overt act attributed to them.Therefore, even if the PW-1 has not actually seen assault on Ranba, she saw accused persons holding weapons in their hands, Ranba lying on spot when she went to the spot of the incident, which is 50 to 60 paces from her house, Accused said her "Do you come there to lift the dead-::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 73 body of Ranba and hurry up, lift his dead-body".(vkrk dk; jkuckp e<a mpyk; vkyh dk \ mpy R;kp e<a) and also she was assaulted by accused.The main criticism by the defence qua the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 is that they are partisan or interested witnesses inasmuch as, deceased was their son-in-law.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::The prosecution has placed on record satisfactory evidence showing the involvement of accused persons in commission of offence.There is overwhelming medical evidence which would unequivocally suggest that, the deceased Ranba was brutally murdered by the accused persons by using deadly weapons like sword, axe and also stick and iron rod.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 82 medical evidence.Finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court ignoring materials on record oral as well as documentary evidence fully supported by medical evidence.Acquittal of accused found to be based basically on dying declaration whose maker was alive.Said statement was not admissible in evidence.On appraisal of evidence on record it was amply clear that prosecution had fully proved its case beyond doubts.Judgment and order of acquittal reversed and all the accused were convicted by allowing government appeal.In case of Phodol vs. State of C.G.3, Chhattisgarh High Court, in the facts of that case, held that injuries found over bodies of deceased were incised wounds, lacerated wounds and depressed fracture of head.Appellants were holding battleaxe and other weapons and they had caused homicidal death of three persons and also caused fatal injuries to prosecution witness by battleaxe and other weapons.Evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and defence taken by appellants were sufficient to establish fact that appellants had formed unlawful assembly having its common object to commit murder of 3 2014 CRI.L.J.4704;::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 83 deceased and in furtherance of common object of assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons.In the said case, the Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 141, 142, 148 and 149 and also sections 302 and 319 of IPC, held that there was no delay in lodging FIR.Ocular testimony gets corroborated from medical evidence.All accused persons came together armed with lathis and gun.Eye witnesses who are natural 4 ILR2014(2)Kerala871; 2014(2)KLT800; 5 (2014) 5 SCC 753;::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::vs. State of Bihar,6 that there is cogent, trustworthy, clinching and reliable evidence of the eye witnesses.We have discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and the overt-acts attributed to them qua each accused and also the medical evidence.Upon re-appreciating the entire evidence, inevitable conclusion is that above mentioned accused persons named by witnesses and to whom overt act is attributed formed an unlawful assembly, they were aggressors, they had knowledge, they went to the spot and killed Ranba and 6 (2011) 5 SCC 324;::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::Therefore, evidence led by the prosecution in the present case even satisfy the tests laid down in the case of Kuldeep Yadav (supra).However, it would be relevant to mention at this juncture that, it appears that the judgment in case of Masalti (supra), which is by the larger Bench consisting four Honourable Judges, was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Yadav (supra).Upon considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, in nutshell PW-1 in her evidence stated that, accused persons were standing at the spot, armed with weapons.When she went to the spot, she saw Ranba lying in seriously injured condition.She specifically attributed overt act to accused Babu Dadge, who assaulted deceased Ranba by axe, accused Padmakar, who assaulted by Katti, accused Kamlakar assaulted by stick, accused Bapurao Dadge assaulted by iron bar, accused Narsing bet by Katti, accused Yeshwant assaulted by stick, accused Babruwan assaulted by sword.accused Suresh assaulted by stick and accused ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 86 Sudhakar assaulted by iron bar.She further deposed that, Babu Dadge assaulted her by axe, accused Padmakar and Bapurao Dadge assaulted her by iron bar.She was seriously injured.She was in hospital for 20 days.PW-4 - Shankar Eknath Gawali in his evidence stated that, accused Babu gave blow of axe on the neck of Ranba, accused Bapurao bet by iron bar, accused Dilip Shivange assaulted by axe, accused Babru Dadge assaulted by sword.When he tried to rescue Ranba, when accused Babu Dadge hit him by axe on his head and accused Bapurao assaulted him by iron bar and then they pushed him.PW-4 is injured witness in the main incident of killing Ranba by accused persons.Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 together, the safe conclusion can be reached that, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presence with deadly weapons and overt acts, as alleged by two witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-4, qua accused Babu Limbaji Dadge, accused Bapurao Amrata Dadge, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 87 accused Deelip Trimbak Shivange, accused Babruwahan Yeshwant Dadge and accused Padmakar Baburao Dadge.We have accepted the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 in respect of those accused against whom both witnesses have stated about their presence and overt acts.So as to make sure that, in case of unlawful assembly, there should be minimum two witnesses, stating presence of the accused, holding weapons and attributing overt acts to the accused persons, as laid down in the case of Masalti (supra).::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::The trial Court in para 64 observed that, the names of accused no.1 Yeshwant, accused no.5 Sanjay, accused no.6 Shankar, accused no.11 Trimbak, accused no.12 Vilas, accused no.13 Shivaji, accused no.14 Kamlakar and accused no.15 Balaji are included without any reason.It appears that, the trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record has granted benefit of doubt to aforementioned accused.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::Therefore, we do not wish to interfere in order of the trial Court acquitting them.In our considered view, if the case of accused No.4 Suryakant S/o Yeshwant Dadge and accused No.8 Narsing S/o Baburao Dadge is considered, in the light of evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, out of two witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-4, only one witness has attributed the overt act and not the other witness.Therefore, in our considered view, appellant -Suryakant Yeshwant Dadge and Narsing S/o Baburao Dadge are required to be given benefit of doubt like accused who are acquitted by the trial Court.We are aware of the legal position that, every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.If an ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 89 offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.However, in the present case, the incident had taken place at about 9 a.m. in the village, and having minutely considered evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, the possibility of presence of other accused as mere spectators, without knowledge and intention of object of unlawful assembly, cannot be ruled out.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::Therefore, applying the test laid down in the case of Masalti (supra) and in the case of Kuldeep Yadav (supra), we hold that, the aforementioned accused Babu Limbaji Dadge, accused Bapurao Amrata Dadge, accused Deelip Trimbak Shivange, accused Babruwahan Yeshwant Dadge and accused Padmakar Baburao Dadge are guilty for commission of offence, as proved by the prosecution and convicted by the trial ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 90 Court.Therefore, their appeal deserves to be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::In the result, we pass the following order:I) Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2000 filed by the State against order of acquittal of the respondents therein, stands dismissed.Their bail bonds stand cancelled;II) Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999 filed by the appellants / accused against their conviction and sentence is partly allowed;Criminal Appeal No.459/1999 as regards accused No.4 Suryakant s/o Yashwant Dadge and accused No.8 Narsing s/o Baburao Dadge is allowed and they stand acquitted of the charges levelled against them; Their bail bonds stand cancelled.Fine, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them.Criminal Appeal No.459 of 1999 as regards appellants / accused No.10 Babu Limbaji Dadge, accused No.9 Bapurao ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 ::: 459.99 & 79.2000 Criappeal 91 Amrata Dadge, accused No.3 Deelip Trimbak Shivange, accused No.7 Babruwahan Yeshwant Dadge and accused No.1 Padmakar Baburao Dadge stands dismissed.They shall surrender to their bail bonds forthwith.They are given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., if already they were in jail as under trial prisoners.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 :::III) The trial Court to ensure that, the aforementioned five accused shall surrender themselves forthwith and send the compliance report to the Registry to that effect.The copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Latur by fastest mode.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2015 23:58:12 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,514,745 | Date of Reserve : 25.11.2014Date of pronouncement : 28.11.2014 The Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment of convictionand sentence dated 10.04.2003 made in S.C.No.609 of 2001 on the file of thefirst Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II,Madurai, wherein A1, A5, A7 and A8 are convicted and sentenced as follows:Name of AccusedChargesFindingSentenceA1.ArumugamSecs.120 (B) read with 489(A), 489(A) and 489(C) of I.P.C.Found guilty underSecs.120 (B) read with 489(A), and 489(C) of I.P.C.120(B) r/w 489(A): 7 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two monthsS.I.489(C):7 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two months S.I.A5.Ranavel ThevarSecs.120(B) read with 489(A), 489(A) and 489(C) of I.P.C.Found guilty underSecs.120 (B) read with 489(A) of I.P.C.120(B) r/w 489(A): 7 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two monthsS.I.120(B) read with 489(A) and 489(A) of I.P.C.Found guilty underSec.120(B) read with 489(A) of I.P.C.120(B) r/w 489(A): 7 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two monthsS.I.2.The case of prosecution briefly is as follows:i) P.W.28 Liyeakath Ali was working as Inspector of Police, CBCID(Counterfeit wing), Chennai.On 11.12.1987, when he was in the Camp Officeat Madurai, on information, he caught one Sekaran and Thambirajan belongs toThiruthangal, who were quarreling with Balan, the owner of tea shop situatedat Melur Road and recorded the confession statement of Balan, which is markedas Ex.Thereafter, at 17.15 p.m. he enquired accused Gunasekaran andrecorded his confession statement in the presence of Balan and Ramamoorthyand the admissible portion of the confession statement is Ex.P17 and on thatbasis, accused Gunasekaran produced counterfeit American Dollars in 100denominations (M.O.3 series), counterfeit two rupees Indian currency (M.O4series), Original five rupees Indian currency (M.O.5 series) from his lefthand shirt pocket and the same was recovered by P.W.28 under Athatchi Ex.(ii)On the same day at 6.45 p.m., he received M.O.6 series, originaltwo rupees Indian currency one in number, M.O.7 counterfeit two rupeesIndian currency, M.O.8 series counterfeit American dollars in 100denominations 50 in numbers in the presence of the same witnesses underEx.P19, Athatchi from the accused Thambiraj.He brought the accusedGunasekaran and Thambiraj to Madurai D.C.B. Police station and on the basisof Ex.P.16, statement recorded from Balan, he registered a case in crimeNo.138/1987 and prepared First Information Report, Ex.Thereafter, hearrested the accused Ponnappan and in the presence of P.W.2 Kumbam and oneSyed, he recovered M.O.9 series, counterfeit American Dollars 100denominations, M.O.10, counterfeit two rupees Indian currency and M.O.11,original two rupees Indian currency one in number under Ex.P21 Athatchi.Healso arrested A8 Karuppiah in the presence of the same witnesses andrecovered M.O.12 series counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations 50in nos, M.O.13, original five rupees Indian currency and M.O.14 counterfeittwo rupees Indian currency four in nos., along with the front cover ofKumutham magazine, which was covered the same under Ex.He sent a note to the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai regarding therecoveries of counterfeit currency notes and counterfeit American Dollars in100 denominations.He gave requisition Ex.P5 to send the counterfeit notesto the Currency Note Press, Nashik for analysis.(iii)On 27.04.1988 at 10.40 a.m. He arrested A7 Marimuthu in thepresence of P.W.3 Archunan and P.W.4 Maduraiveeran and recorded hisconfession statement, which is marked as Ex.P14 and on that basis, in thepresence of P.W.5, Kali Manickavasagam, Village Administrative Officer andVillage Menial Janpa, he searched the press of A1 Arumugam and recoveredM.O.1 series counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations four innumbers, which was hidden in the backside of switch box.(iv)At 5.30 p.m., he arrested A5 Ranavel thevar, who was identified byA1 Arumugam in the presence of witnesses and recovered M.O.2 counterfeitAmerican Dollars in 100 denominations and M.O.15 Pocket diary from his houseand recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the accused for judicialcustody and sent the material objects to the Court.He also givenrequisition to send the material objects to Security Press of India, Nasik.He sent a letter to the Director, Stationery and Printing, Chennai to send anexpert to find out as to whether the machinery available in the press of A1is capable to print counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations.(v)On 08.08.1988 at 09.00 a.m. He arrested the accused Gnanasekaran andA2 Manoharan and he searched their house in the presence of witnesses.On12.09.1988, P.W.22, Vijayakumar, forensic expert and inspected the press ofthe 1st accused.On 01.10.1988, he arrested A6 Chermakani and searched hishouse in the presence of P.W.10 Duraipandian, V.A.O and Village MenialSattanathan.He came to know that expert reports from Nashik press regardingthe counterfeit currencies.On 18.05.1989, he arrested A3 Jeyam @ Jeyarajan.He came to know that Accused Gnanasekaran has given 164 Cr.P.C. statementbefore the Judicial Magistrate, which was marked as Ex.He gaverequisition to the Sessions Judge, Madurai to treat him as witness.Theorder copy of the Sessions Judge is marked as Ex.On 10.09.1989, hearrested the accused Vasu @ Vasudevan in the presence of Krishnasamy and Maniand recorded his confession statement Ex.He arrested A4 Chidambaram andAnbazhagan.(vi)P.W.15 Sankaran was working as Manager, Ink Company, Sivakasi.P.W.19 Murugan wasworking as Finance Officer in Tamil Nadu Industries Investment Corporation,Virudhunagar.TIIC lent loan for purchase of machineries to the partnershipfirm viz., C.K.Printograph at Sivakasi.Since the partners did not pay theloan amount, the firm was locked.P.W.20 Muthukrishnan, who was working asHead Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai received Ex.A8.KaruppiahSecs.120 (B) read with 489(A), 489(A) and 489(C) of I.P.C.Found guilty underSecs.120 (B) read with 489(A), and 489(C) of I.P.C.120(B) r/w 489(A): 7 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two monthsS.I.489(C):7 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/- in default two months S.I.P.28requisition given by P.W.28 and he sent the counterfeit American Dollars in100 denominations and counterfeit two rupees Indian currency to theGovernment Press, Nasik for analysis under Exs.P7 to 10 and received Ex.As per the order of the Secretariat, P.W.25 Abdul Salam and P.W.22Vijayakumar gone to C.K.Printograph, Sivakasi and found out whether themachinery are printing counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations andvisited the press and sent the report Ex.P15 to the Secretariat saying thatthere was facilities in the machinery of C.K.Printograph Press to printcounterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations.Thereafter, P.W.28,completed his investigation and filed charge sheet against the Accused.3.The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, framednecessary charges against the accused.Since the accused pleaded notguilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 28 were examined and Exs.P1 to P26and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked.Accused were questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances.Accused deniedthe same in toto and stated that a false case has been foisted against them.No defence witness was examined on the side of the accused.7.Learned counsel for the 4th appellant/A8 is adopting the argument ofthe learned counsel for the appellants 1 to 3/A1, A5 and A7 and prayed forallowing of the appeals.8.Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side)would submit that the evidence of P.W.25 has been proved that A1 is the ownerof C.K.Printograph and evidence of P.W.4 was also supporting the case ofprosecution and the trial Court has correctly held that A1, A5, A7 and A8were convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) read with 489(A) ofI.P.C. and Section 489(C) of I.P.C. and acquitted the other accused andhence, the judgment of conviction and sentence does not warrant anyinterference and hence, she prayed for the dismissal of the appeals.9.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also onperusal of the types set of papers, the charges against the appellants arethat the appellants and other accused along with one approver Gnanasekaran,who was examined as P.W.1, conspired to prepare counterfeit American Dollarsand Indian Currency and printed the same and hence, they were charged for theoffence under Sections 120(B) read with 489(A) of I.P.C. The second chargeagainst the appellants and other accused is that they printed counterfeitAmerican Dollars in 100 denominations and Indian currency and they werecharged for the offence under Section 498(a) of I.P.C. and the third chargeagainst A1, A8 and A9 is that on 11.12.1987 at about 09.00 p.m. they found inpossession of counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations 50 in nos.and counterfeit two rupees Indian currency four in nos. in the western sideof Rajaji Park and knowing fully well, they tried to change the same as theyare genuine and that has been seized and hence, they were charged for theoffence under Section 489(C) of I.P.C.10.To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 28 andExs.P1 to P26 and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked.Even though the case has beentried against 9 persons, except A1, A5, A7 and A8 were acquitted from all thecharges levelled against them.Therefore, this Court has to decide as towhether the conviction under Sections 120(B) read with 489(A) of I.P.C.against A1, A5, A7 and is sustainable? On the basis of the evidence ofP.W.1, who was the approver alone, the charge under Section 120(B) has beenframed, but, he has not supported the case of prosecution.On examination,P.Ws.1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 were turned hostile.Therefore, the evidence of other witnesses have to be considered to find outas to whether the ingredients of Section 120(B) of I.P.C. has been proved.On perusal of the remaining availableevidence viz., P.Ws.2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 19 , their evidence has notproved the ingredients of Section 120(B) of I.P.C. Hence, I am of the viewthat there is no evidence on the side of prosecution to prove that theappellants had conspired for preparing the counterfeit Indian Currency andAmerican Dollars.Hence, I am of the view that the prosecution has notproved the guilt of A1, A5, A7 and A8 for the offence under Section 120(B) ofI.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the benefit of doubt shall begiven to the appellants/A1, A5, A7 and A8 and they shall be liable to beacquitted for the ffence under Section 120(B) of I.P.C.11.Here, P.W.5 Kali Manickavasagam, Village Administrative Officer hasbeen examined to prove the seizure of M.O.1 at A5's house.Considering hisevidence, in his cross examination, he has stated that since he was agovernment servant, to support the police people, he has given evidence.Inhis further cross examination, he has gone to the extent by saying that shecould not say as to whether it was xerox copy or printed?.In suchcircumstances, I am of the view that the evidence of P.W.5 is not whollyreliable, which needs corroboration.But, to corroborate the same, no onehas been examined.In his chief examination, he has gone to Sivakasi alongwith Village Menial Johnpa.But, he was not examined before the trial Court.Since the recovery of material objects seized from A5 has not been proved bythe prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the possession of M.O.1 with A5was not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.12.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the argument of thelearned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence to show that theprinting press is belong to A1 Arumugam.To prove the same, the prosecutionexamined P.W.19 Murugan, who was the Finance Officer of Tamil NaduIndustrial Investment Corporation and P.W.23, Sivaraman, who was working asBranch Manager of Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation.P.W.19Murugan has stated in his evidence that C.K.Printograph is a partnership firmand they lent loan for the to purchase the printing machinery and oneKrishnagurunathan and Ramakrishnan are the partners of that firm and the saidRamakrishnan was arrayed as A9 in this case and he was acquitted from all thecharges levelled against him.In his chief examination, he has stated that n23.03.1986, since the locked and sealed the press, A1 was operated themachinery without getting prior permission from them and during that period,he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-.In his cross examination, he has fairlyconceded that the said amount has been paid by way of Demand Draft andwithout that document, he was unable to depose that who had drawn the DemandDraft for a sum of Rs.20000/- and paid the same towards loan obtained byC.K.Printograph.His cross examination itself has falsified his chiefexamination.For example, in his cross examination, he has stated that from23.03.1986 onwards, the press was not functioning, whereas, he has furtherstated that he did not know as to whether A1 was having any connection withC.K.Printograph.P.W.23, Sivaraman, Branch Manager of TICC hasdeposed in his evidence that he sent the documents to CBCID, counterfeit wingand hence I am of the view that there is no evidence to show thatC.K.Printograph was in possession of either A1 Arumugam and A5 Ranavelthevar.Furthermore, the seized materials have been sent to Currency NotePress, Nashik for analysis.P.W.20 Muthukrishnan, who was the Head Clerk ofthe Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Madurai and P.W.22 Vijayakumar, AssistantDirector of Forensic Science Department were examined.P.W.22 Vijayakumarhas stated in his evidence that he has visited the C.K.Printograph, where noclue has been found.But, he has stated that one Offset printing machine andcutting machine were available there.14.Furthermore, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.25,Abdul Salam, who was working as Deputy Manager of Stationery and PrintingDepartment, Chennai.He has deposed in his examination that he has visitedC.K.Printograph and made inspection to find out as to whether the machineryis capable for printing counterfeit Indian currency notes and Americandollars.He gave a report Ex.P15 stating that there are facilities to printcounterfeit Indian currency notes and American dollars.But, P.W.22 Vijayakumar, whovisited the place along with P.W.25 has deposed that when he visited theplace, he had not seen any evidence to print Indian currency notes andAmerican dollars.16.Furthermore, as per the evidence of P.W.5, Village AdministrativeOfficer, he has deposed that even though M.O.1 series have been seized in hispresence, he was not able to say that M.O.1 series is counterfeit Americandollars or xerox copies of the same.In such circumstances, there is no prima facie evidence to showthat M.O.1 series is counterfeit American dollars.So, considering theevidence of P.W.5, P.W.19 and P.W.22, I am of the view that the prosecutionhas failed to prove that A1, A5, A7 and A8 were guilty for the offence underSections 120(B) read with 489(A) of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt andthe benefit of doubt shall be given to the appellants/A1, A5, A7 and A8 andthey were liable to be acquitted from the charge under Section 498(A) ofI.P.C..The witnesses, who were examined to provethe guilt of A8, were turned hostile and there is no evidence to show that A8was in possession of M.O.2 series.As per the case of prosecution, on11.12.1987 A8 was arrested and from him, M.Os.12 and 14 were seized underExp.22 in the presence of P.W.2 Kumbam.But, he has not supported the caseof prosecution, only his signature alone has been marked as Ex.P1 and P2 andthe other attestor Syed was not examined before the trial Court.In suchcircumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed toprove that A8 Karuppiah has possessed counterfeit Indian currency notes orAmerican dollar, knowing fully well that it was forged or counterfeited notesand he was in conscious possession and used the same as genuine.Consideringall these aspects, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved theguilt of A8 for the offence under Section 489(C) of I.P.C. beyond allreasonable doubt.19.For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the prosecutionhas not proved the guilt of A1, A5, A7 and A8 for the offence under Section120(B) read with 498(A) of I.P.C. and the guilt of A1 and A8 for the offenceunder Section 498(C) of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and withoutconsidering the same convicted the appellants and the benefit of doubt shallbe given to the appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and sentenceshall liable to be set aside and the appellants/A1, A5, A7 and A8 shallliable to be acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.20.In fine,The Criminal Appeals are allowed.Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.609 of 2001 dated10.04.2003 by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,Madurai, is hereby set aside.2.The The Inspector of Police, CBCID (Counterfeit wing) Chennai.3.The Public prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,523,169 | G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)The deceased Hari Madhav's income was claimed to be `8,000/- per month.In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to his income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a MAC.No.200/2012 Page 1 of 8 skilled worker, added 50% towards inflation and applied a multiplier of '15' to compute the loss of dependency as `8,53,848/-.The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `25,000/- towards funeral expenses, `1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `10,000/- for loss of consortium and `5,000/- towards loss to estate.No.200/2012 Page 1 of 8The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:(ii) The Claims Tribunal in the absence of any evidence took the deceased's income to be of a skilled worker as per the Minimum Wages Act but erred in making an addition of 50% towards inflation.(iii) The Respondent No.6 Bhagwan Das (the deceased's father) cannot be considered as dependent on the deceased; the deduction towards personal and living expenses should have been 1/4th instead of 1/5th.(iv) The compensation of `1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection and `25,000/- towards funeral expenses was excessive.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 7) argues that the accident took place MAC.No.200/2012 Page 2 of 8 because of sudden application of breaks of the offending vehicle by the Eighth Respondent.Thus, the Respondents No.1 to 7 sufficiently proved negligence on the part of the Eighth Respondent.No.200/2012 Page 2 of 8While dealing with the issue on negligence, the Claims Tribunal observed as under:Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M.V. Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.Accident Information Report (AIR) u/s 158 Motor Vehicle Act was filed by the police pertaining to case FIR etc. bearing No.480/09, P.S. Nangloi u/s 279/337/304-A IPC.To determine the negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304A IPC or the certified MAC.No.200/2012 Page 3 of 8 copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under Section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code.No.200/2012 Page 3 of 8The Claimants examined Smt. Rinki (the deceased's wife) as PW1 to prove the negligence.She deposed that on 17.12.2009 while the deceased was returning from Nangloi, a truck/trolla No. HR-46-8209 was being driven by the Respondent No.8 at a very fast speed and in a negligent manner.She deposed that the Respondent no.8 suddenly applied brakes as a result of which the maruti van driven by her deceased's husband collided against the truck.Smt. Rinki (PW-1) was not an eye witness of the accident.The learned counsel for the Appellant has taken me through the FIR No.480/2009, site plan and the mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles involved in the accident.In this case, the FIR was registered merely on the ground that the accident had taken place.The driver of the truck was not accused of the negligence in the FIR.A perusal of the mechanical inspection reports reveals that there was extensive damage in the front portion of the maruti van No.DL-1CE-6568 MAC.No.200/2012 Page 5 of 8 and some fresh damages on the rear of truck/trolla No.It is, therefore, apparent that the maruti van was also being driven at an excessive speed and the driver was not maintaining proper distance to stop the vehicle.No.200/2012 Page 5 of 8With regard to the deceased's income, Smt. Rinki (PW1) testified that her husband was employed as a driver and was earning a sum of `8,000/- per month.Her testimony on the aspect of employment was not challenged in the cross- examination.It was, however, disputed if the deceased Hari Madhav was earning `8,000/- per month.The Claimants did not produce any documentary evidence with regard to the deceased's income.Admittedly, the Claimants did not produce any evidence with regard to the deceased's bright future prospects.As far as addition on account of future prospects/inflation is concerned, this Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors.(MAC.390/2011) decided on 16.07.2012 relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE MAC.No.200/2012 Page 6 of 8 559 held that the persons who are getting fixed salary or who are self employed as menial, skilled and unskilled workers, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, carpenter, etc. etc. would be entitled to an increase in the income to the extent of 30% on account of inflationNo.200/2012 Page 6 of 8In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the father would not be considered to be financially dependent on his son.In this case, there was no evidence that the Respondent No.7 was financially dependent on the deceased.Rather, there was evidence that the deceased had two younger brothers.In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal erred in making a deduction of 1/5th towards personal and living expenses.Since the number of dependents, excluding the father, were six, the deduction towards personal and living expenses would be 1/4th.In view of above discussion, the loss of dependency comes to `7,89,750/- (`4500/- + 30% x 3 4 x 12 x 15).The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,00,000/-towards love and affection.Loss of love and affection cannot be measured in terms of money.Thus, when the Claimants are awarded compensation for loss on dependency, actually a nominal sum is awarded under the head of loss of love and affection.Thus, uniformity is to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages.The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) MAC.No.200/2012 Page 7 of 8 17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- under the head of loss and affection.The compensation under this head is reduced from `1,00,000/- to `25,000/-.No.200/2012 Page 7 of 8The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `25,000/- towards funeral expenses.In the absence of any evidence with regard to the actual expenditure, a sum of `10,000/- is awarded under this head.The compensation under this head is reduced from `25,000/- to `10,000/-.Thus, the overall compensation comes to `8,44,750/-.Thus, the Appellant Insurance Company is under obligation to pay a sum of `4,22,375/-.The compensation held payable shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants (the Respondents No.1 to 7) in the manner as suggested by the Claims Tribunal.The excess amount of `1,49,098/- along with proportionate interest and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.Pending Applications stand disposed of.(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JULY 23, 2012/pst MAC.No.200/2012 Page 8 of 8No.200/2012 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,655,257 | Similarcharges have been made against both of them in respect of a complaint made byDr. Swaroopa Rani.The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 in support oftheir case.P.W.1 - Rangarajan has retired from Escorts Company.Accordingto him, his daughter Padmalatha has married to one Rajagopalan, as theirmarriage life was not happy, P.W.1 decided to initiate divorce proceedingswith regard to his daughter Padmalatha.On verification from the TelephoneDirectory, he contacted the Consumer Protection Cell, which was situate atT.Nagar, Chennai.A.1 was present at that time and introduced himself as Ramanand he told them he was the proprietor of the Consumer Protection Cell.A.2was also present at that time and she introduced herself as an Advocate.A.1told P.W.1 that he would conduct case and get divorce immediately andthereupon P.W.1 told him the particulars of his case.He also told P.W.1 that the saidamount will be refunded after the case is over.Then A.1 and A.2 took the P.W.1 to Family Court.It is her evidence that she went along with her father - P.W.1 and sawthe accused Raman and Srimadhi.She also stated that P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- incash to A.1, while A.1 demanded Rs.27,500/-.Then P.Ws.1 and 3 went to FamilyCourt along with accused A.2 and A.2 got the signature of P.W.3 in a petitionto be filed on her behalf.5. P.W.4 - Dr. Swaroopa Rani is running a private clinic.According to her, her husband is a Marine Engineer and her son is studying inDevi Academy School.She knows the Correspondent of the said School and P.W.4paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Correspondent.Afterseeing the advertisement in Yellow Pages Telephone Directory regarding theLegal Cell, she went to the Office of A.1 and A.2 in Krishna Street, T.Nagar.There A.2 was introduced the A.1 as her Senior Counsel.P.W.4 toldthem about her case.At that time, A.2 waswearing Advocate's gown.In spite of his request, A.1 and A.2 refused toissue receipt of the amount paid.On seeing the news item in the Hindu paperto the effect that A.1 and A.2 had cheated many persons, P.W.5 gave acomplaint to the police.7. P.W.6 - Nagarajan, residing in Door No.2, Adambakkam Road,Valasarawakkam, is employed as Chief Engineer in Bangkok in a ShippingCompany.He is the husband of P.W.4 - Dr. Swaroopa Rani.He also went andmet A.1 and A.2 and paid Rs.90,000/- to A.1 for arresting two persons.Theaccused also demanded further sum of Rs.30,000/-. P.W.6 after reading thestatement in Hindu to the effect that A.1 and A.2 cheated many persons, hemade a complaint to the police.8. P.W.7 - K. Baskaran residing in Door No.9, KothandaramanStreet, Chennai 21 is employed in Tiruvottiyur Bharath State Bank.As in other cases, A.1 and A.2 informed thatthey are the Advocates and informed P.W.7 that a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to bedeposited in Court and Rs.2,500/- has to be paid towards Advocate fee.P.W.7paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to A.1 and promised to pay the balance on the nextday.9. P.W.8 - Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Elephant GatePolice Station was the Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. On29.06.1996, on the basis of Ex.P.1 - complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.8registered a case in Crime No.409 of 1996 under Section 429 IPC and thecomplaint given by P.W.1 has been marked as Ex.P.4 is the printedFirst Information Report sent to the concerned officers.P.W.8 took up theinvestigation and examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and recorded their statements.When A.1 and A.2 were examined underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to theincriminating evidence against them on the prosecution side, they denied theirevidence.No defence witnesses were examined on the side of the accused.The direction of thelearned Principal Sessions Judge that out of the fine amount, a sum ofRs.2,000/- would be paid to P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 each respectively by way ofcompensation is also acceptable.Net result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.Index:YesInternet:The Prl.Sessions Judge,Chennai (with records if any)The Inspector of PoliceCentral Crime Branch, Egmore,Chennai.The second accused in C.C.No.47 of 1996 on the file of thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai is the appellant in the above appeal.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore,Chennai has lodged a charge sheet against [one Jai Sudarshan, who was cited asA.1 in the charge sheet (herein after referred to as A.1 and the presentappellant as A.2 A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.47 of 1996, alleging that on 09.04.1996at Door No.25, Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai, A.1 Jai Sudarshanintroducing himself as J. Raman and A.2 J. Vasanthi introducing herself asSrimathi induced the witness K.P. Rangarajan to part with a sum ofRs.25,000/- in cash, by falsely representing that they get divorce order tothe daughter of witness Rangarajan, i.e., Mrs. K.R. Padmalatha within 90days and also recover the sridhana properties and maintenance allowance andalso get back the baby of the said Padmalatha and also by falsely promisingthat some amount should be deposited in the Treasury for filing the suit inthat regard; both A.1 and A.2 neither deposited the said amount of Rs.25,000/-paid by the witness Rangarajan nor issued any receipt for the same and theydid not get divorce order and have used the said amount for their personalgain, thereby A.1 and A.2 committed an offence punishable under Sections 419and 429 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC").They got thesignature of the daughter of P.W.1 namely, Padmalatha.After some time, P.W.1saw the news published in the Hindu paper regarding the accused that both ofthem had defrauded many persons and P.W.1 went to the Office of A.1 and foundlocked.Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred a complaint to the Commissioner ofPolice.P.W.2 - Raghunathan, employed in Hindu Office and son-in-law of P.W.1has also explained the role played by A.1 and A.2, their statements andassurance made to him regarding settlement of divorce case.A.1 and A.2 stated that a sum of Rs.90,000/- is requiredto file a case and Rs.75,000/- has to be deposited in Treasury, which would berefunded to P.W.4 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is towards fees and there will notbe any receipt for payment of fees.Shehad withdrawn the said sum of Rs.90,000/- as a loan from the Fixed Deposit inthe name of her husband in Andhra Bank.In spite of meeting the accused on several occasions, P.W.4did not get any relief.On seeing the news item in Hindu paper that theaccused have cheated many persons, P.W.4's husband gave a complaint to thepolice.6. P.W.5 - Suryanarayanan, residing in No.9, KodhandaramanStreet, I Lane, Old Washermenpet, Chennai is employed as Engineer in theCorporation.A.1 who introduced himself as Raman, pointedout A.2 and stated that her name is Lalitha and she is an Advocate.At that time, one Clerk by nameSrinivasan and P.W.5's son Vijayakumar were present.The accused Srinivasanhad only brought A.2 in the High Court premises.It is seen that A.1 and A.2 have been charged underSections 41 9 and 429 read with 34 IPC (three counts) for impersonatingthemselves as Advocates and also for dishonestly inducing P.w.1 - Rangarajanto part with a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash and also inducing P.W.4 Dr.Swaroopa Rani to part with a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by cheating her andsimilarly by impersonating themselves and dishonestly inducing P.W.5 -Suryanarayanan to part with sum of Rs.17,000/- in cash and thus according toprosecution, A.1 and A.2 cheated P.Ws.1, 4 an 5 respectively.On appreciationof oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge foundA.2 guilty for the offence under Section 419 IPC (3 counts) and sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in each count.A.2 was also foundguilty for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC (3 counts) andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in each count and A.2is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in each count in default ofwhich, A.2 shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for each count.In the same order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has directed thatafter the fine amount is collected, a sum of Rs.2,000/- would be paid toP.Ws.1, 4 and 5 each respectively by way of compensation.Questioning thesaid conviction and sentence, A.2 has preferred the above appeal.The appellant / accused appeared in person.Apart frommaking oral submission, she also filed written arguments.Learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal Side) argued on behalf of the State.The only point for consideration in this appeal is,whether the prosecution has proved the charge framed against A.2 beyond allreasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence made by the learned PrincipalSessions Judge is sustainable?In so far as the first charge against A.2 - appellantherein is concerned, it is the specific case of the prosecution that A.2 alongwith A.1 had impersonated themselves as Advocates and dishonestly inducedRangarajan, P.W.1 to part with a sum of Rs.25,000/-.I have already referredto the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who substantiate their case.It is the caseof P.Ws.1 to 3 that in order to file a divorce case on behalf of P.W.3, basedon the advertisement, they approached A.1 and A.2 and in the Office, A.1introduced himself as Raman, as the proprietor of the Consumer Protection Celland A.2 introduced herself as Srimadhi and that she is an Advocate.It is clear that at the relevant time P.W.1 hadfunds.It is further seen that after payment of the said amount to A.1, A.1and A.2 took P.W.1 to the Family Court and got the signature of P.W.3 andfiled a case in the Family court.P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, in all materialaspects.It was also represented that the said sum will bedeposited in Treasury.It is clear thatA.1 and A.2 cheated P.W.1 and A.2 was introduced by A.1 as an Advocate.Thusthe prosecution has proved the first charge.P.W.6 - Nagarajan is the husbandof P.W.4, Dr. Swaroopa Rani.P.W.4 deposed before the Court below that sheis running a private clinic.P.W.4 had paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to theCorrespondent of Devi Academy School, where her son Robin was studying.Sinceaccording to P.W.4, in spite of her repeated demands the said amount was notrepaid by the said Correspondent.P.W.4 wentalong with her son on 06.02.1996 and she paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- in cash toA.2 - appellant herein at the instance of A.1 - Raman.P.W.4 has also statedthat after payment of Rs.90,000/- to A.2, on 06.02.1996, they all went to theCourt.Onlythereafter, they came to know the news about A.1 and A.2 cheating severalpersons and made a complaint to the police.It is clear from the evidence ofP.Ws.4 and 6 that both A.1 and A.2 impersonated themselves as Advocates andthey dishonestly induced P.W.4 to part with a sum of Rs.90,000/- andthereafter P.W.4 and her husband P.W.6 to part with a further sum ofRs.30,000/- for initiating legal proceedings for recovery of alleged amount ofRs.5 lakhs from one Jayalakshmi.The learned Principal Sessions Judge hasaccepted the case of P.Ws.4 and 6 and found that A.2 by impersonating herselfas an Advocate, dishonestly induced P.Ws.4 and 6 to part with the said amount.I am in agreement with the said conclusion.Now, I shall consider the third charge.He wanted toevict two of his tenants from the house owned by him in Anna Nagar.On the assurance given by A.1 and A.2, P.W.5 andP.W.7 came back to their house and again went to the Office of A.1 and A.2 andP.W.5 paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to A.1 and told that they would repay thebalance on the next day.On the next day, at the request of one Srinivasan,accused in another case, P.W.5 went to City Civil Court, wherein he noticed ajeep was parked and at that time he also noticed that A.2 was wearing Advocategown.On seeing them, P.W.5 paid the balance amount of Rs.14,500/- to A.2 andA.2 promised P.W.5 that they would file a case immediately and informed P.w.5within two or three days.It is the case of P.W.5 that only on 22.06.1996, hesaw the news item in Hindu paper with photographs of A.1 and A.2 and they havecheated many persons.P.W.5 gave a complaint to the police.The evidence ofP.W.5 and P.W.7 clearly show that the payment of Rs.3,000/- at the firstinstance and Rs.14,500/- in City Civil Court compound, at that time when A.2was wearing advocate's gown.The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 as observed by thelearned Principle Sessions Judge is convincing and clearly show that A.1 andA.2 had impersonated themselves as Advocates and they have identified A.1 andA.2 in the Court as if they were practicing Advocates.Their evidence clearlyshow that A.1 and A.2 impersonated themselves as Advocates and dishonestlyinduced P.W.5 to part with a sum of Rs.17,500/-.The other witness - P.W.8,who is the Investigating Officer has explained the examination of P.Ws.5 and 7and his investigation.It is clear from the materials placed on the side ofthe prosecution that it has established the third charge against A.2 forimpersonating herself as an Advocate and dishonestly induced P.W.5 to partwith the said amount and the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly right inarriving a conclusion that the third charge is also proved against A.2 beyondreasonable doubt.If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannotnormally be any element of fraud.It is for the accused, in such asituation, to rebut the presumption. "Considering the proved charges and taking note of thepart played by A.2 along with A.1 by impersonating herself as an Advocate andcheated several persons by collecting money on the pretext of depositingsizable amount in Court, I am of the view she deserves deterrent punishmentand the learned Principal Sessions Judge is right in imposing a sentence tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.There is no validground for interference with the conviction and sentence imposed on theappellant and the appeal deserved to be dismissed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,552,673 | And In the matter of: Tahidul Rahaman alias Tahidur Rahaman and Anr....Petitioners.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.After considering the case diary and the materials on record we find that the names of these petitioners do not appear in the First Information Report made by the eyewitnesses.The petitioners are in custody for 190 days and the investigation is complete, we are of the opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioners is not necessary and they may be released on bail.Therefore, the accused/petitioner no.1, namely, Tahidul Rahaman alias Tahidur Rahaman, and the petitioner no.2, namely, Hamider Ali alias Hamidar Ali, be released on bail upon furnishing bond of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, on conditions that the petitioners shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Jalpaiguri till completion of trial without the leave of the trial court except for the purpose of attending court proceedings and shall attend the court regularly on each and every occasion unless prevented by sufficient cause.The petitioners shall, also, disclose their addresses where they would be residing after release on bail to the Officer-in-Charge of Dhupguri Police Station, and shall, also, meet the Officer-in-Charge of local police station where they would be residing once in a fortnight till completion of the trial.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,928,699 | In pursuance of the registration of a case FIR No. 25/84 at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, accused Gopi, Pawan Kumar, Chhote and Hari Ram were arrested and charged to stand trial for the offence under section 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. for causing the death of Chander, near bus-stop of D.T.C., Yamuna Bazar, Delhi.Both these cases were consolidated by order dated 6-9-1984 of the Addl.It is against this order conviction and sentence that the accused Pawan Kumar has filed the present appeal through jail.Miss Urmil Khanna, Advocate was appointed as amices curiae to defend the accused in this appeal and assist the Court.The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned lower Court has relied upon the evidence of the police officials insofar as the recovery of the knife is concerned.No public witness was joined even though the place of arrest was a main thoroughfare and number of persons were present.According to him, there is nothing wrong in relying upon the statement of the Police Officials who happened to be present at the time of the arrest of the accused and recovery of the weapon of offence from the person of the accused.I have given my anxious thought to the problem which has arisen in this case.So far as the recovery of the knife is concerned, a doubt is created in my mind if at all it is the same which was taken into possession from the accused.In the sketch plan alleged to have been prepared at the spot, the blade is shown as 5.5" long whereas the data (grip) is 6.5" in length.Same length is shown in the recovery memo.PW11/D as well as the ruqa, PW 11/F, which was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case.From the careful perusal of these three documents no doubt is left in my mind that there is some overwriting in the measurement of knife shown in these documents.Though it cannot be said with certainty as to what was its original length shown in these documents but even the learned counsel for the State has no plausible explanation of this overwriting.Furthermore, in the recovery memo, the description of the knife is shown on the blade as "B. M. Rampur, U.P.".Same words were repeated in the ruqa, which was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and naturally the same wording was incorporated in the First Information Report Ex.PW11/G. Unfortunately, these words do not find mention in the sketch plan of Knife.On the blade, only "Rampur" is written whereas the words "B.M." and "U.P." are missing.These two discrepancies go to show that the knife shown to have been recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest is not the same which was deposited in the Malkhana as the case property.This aspect can also be looked into from another angle.Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex.PW11/D was prepared.Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses.After that, the ruqa Ex.PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW 11/G was recorded.The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration.It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable.In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case.However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR.It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case.These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused.On the second aspect also, Miss Khanna has something to say.PW-11, ASI Jagbir Singh is the person who in the company of PW-15, Kalam Singh and PW-21 Kanchan Dev, Head Constable apprehended accused Pawan Kumar and from his possession the knife (Ex. P-1) was recovered.On the recovery memo.Jagbir Singh obtained the signatures of Kalam Singh and Jai Bhagwan, constables.Jai Bhagwan has not been produced.Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar.According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there.It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time lime 7.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations.Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation.At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation.It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses.If his case had not been tagged along with the murder of Chander, the accused might have served his imprisonment long time back.Appeal allowed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,289 | Her father is an agricultural labour.Her father was engaged by one Bapurao Gawali to work as a labour in his agricultural field bearing Gat No.11 situated at Kesapuri.The village Kesapuri is situated at a distance of about 4/5 Km.away from township of Majalgaon but is practically part of the township due to development of the town towards that side.The father of the victim, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 ::: 3 namely, P.W.6 Sk.Mahboob use to reside in a small three rooms farm house alongwith other two servants of his Master.There were two other servants, namely, P.W.4 Laxman and deceased Rangnath.The victim had left Schooling in the midst while she was in 6th standard and had started residing with her father since few days prior to the relevant night.The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that in the night of June 16, 2006, the victim (P.W.1 Mumtaj), her father (P.W. 6 Sk.Maheboob) and other two servants were preparing to go to bed in the farm house.At about 10-30 p.m. three persons came to the agricultural field on a motor-cycle.Those three persons had brought a piglet with them.They demanded some dry raw cotton plants.P.W.4 Laxman indicated place where some stack of dry cotton plants was kept.Those three persons, including the appellant, took away some dry cotton plants.They set fire to a bunch of the dry plants at a place situated approximately about 150 ft. away from the farm house.After a little while, two of them left the agricultural field on the motor-cycle, whereas the appellant remained behind.The appellant went towards the farm house at about odd hours after the mid-night.He thereafter, wriggled out the victim from the room and locked the room.Thus, father of the victim and the other two agricultural servants were confined in the room.The appellant dragged the victim towards a place near Bandh.He asked her to remove her clothes and lie down on a mattress which was laid.She refused to do so.He forcibly removed her garments, placed himself over her body and forcibly took bites of her lips and cheek.He ravished her.She started screaming.He thereafter sodomised her.The child whimpered He did not leave her even after ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 ::: 5 the carnal intercourse in both the ways.He took her near him and pressed her under his person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::However, after some time he became drowsy and fell fast asleep.The victim (P.W.1 Mumtaj) gradually escaped from clutches of the appellant and rushed towards the room.She asked her father from outside the room as to where shall she go.He told her to go to house of a relative by name Mainuddin, who use to reside in nearby locality.She took shelter in the house of said Mainuddin during remaining part of the dark night.In the next morning, lock of the room was broken.She narrated the incident to her father.Her father and his Master took her to the Police Station where her complaint was reduced into writing vide FIR (Exh.14).She was subjected to medical examination.The appellant was arrested.The Police prepared spot panchanama and recovered the mattress alongwith a moulded plastic bucket from that place.The Police also recovered a knife and under-garment of the appellant at his instance.What emerges from the versions of the victim (P.W.Mumtaj), P.W. Laxman and P.W.Maheboob is that the appellant and his two friends ig or relatives visited the agricultural field Gat No.11 in the relevant night at about 10-30 p.m. Their versions categorically show that the appellant and the other two persons roasted the piglet at a place situated around 150 ft. away from the farm house.They ate the piglet and lateron other two persons left the field, whereas the appellant alone remained there.Considered together, these three versions unmistakably show that at about 1-00 a.m., after midnight, the appellant went towards the farm house and asked P.W. Sk.Maheboob as to why lock was put on the room.He asked P.W. Sk.Maheboob to open the lock.The victim was sleeping inside the room, whereas her father was sleeping outside that room.Maheboob, P.W.Laxman and deceased Rangnath in the confinement at point of knife.True, he was alone, whereas they were three.However, he was armed with knife.He had exhibited his brutal mentality by knifing P.W.Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, in Sessions Case No.34/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable U/ss 376, 377, 342, 323 and 506 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 ::: 2 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months on first count, rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::(Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months on 2nd count, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months on 3rd count, to undergo imprisonment for three (3) months on 4th count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months on the 5th count.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The hapless victim is a minor girl.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::They roasted the piglet on the fire.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::They barbecued the piglet.He enquired with father of the victim as to why the room was locked.He compelled her father to open the lock put on the door of the room.He threatened her father and assaulted him by means of a knife while doing so.The appellant was charge-sheeted after collecting the necessary material during course of the investigation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.His defence was of simple denial.He stated that father of the victim had picked up a quarrel with his wife on account of grazing of goats near the agricultural field and, therefore, he had called for explanation of her father -(P.W. Sk.Maheboob) about misbehaviour with his wife.The appellant further stated that he told father of the victim that in order to teach a lesson to him, he would lodge a report at the Police Station about commission of rape on his wife.It is due to such reason that father of the victim assaulted him, and lodged a false report about sexual assault on the victim.Hence, he sought acquittal from the charge.At the trial, the prosecution examined in all eight (8) witnesses in support of its case.The learned Sessions Judge believed version of the victim (P.W. Mumtaj).He noticed that the victim was minor at the material time ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 ::: 7 and was sexually abused by the appellant.It being a case of child abuse as such, the learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant did not deserve any sympathy.In keeping with such findings, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as described hereinbefore.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::Palve, would submit that the entire story of the prosecution is improbable for the reason that there were three agricultural servants in the farm house alongwith the teenager victim and the appellant was alone.He would submit that it is unbelievable that singlehandedly, the appellant managed to confine the three agricultural servants in the room and thereafter committed the act of sexual assault on the victim.He pointed out that two other persons who had accompanied the appellant upto agricultural land were not examined and, therefore, it is contended that genesis of the incident is not properly proved.Palve, would point out further that hymen of victim was found intact.He would submit that if the victim would have been subjected to sexual intercourse then ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 ::: 8 private part of the appellant would have received injuries and that the hymen of the victim could not have remained intact.He urged to dislodge the testimony of the victim on the ground that she is a minor witness and was likely to be tutored by her father.Per contra, learned A.P.P. Smt.Reddy, supports the impugned judgment.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:27 :::ig The fact that the victim was aged about 14 years is not seriously disputed during the course of the trial nor such a dispute is raised before me.There is no iota of evidence to hold that the entries in the School record were improperly taken.The medical evidence tendered by P.W.8 Dr. Yende, also shows that age of the prosecutrix was approximately in the range of 10/15 years.The ossification test indicated her age between 12/14 years.His version shows that she was below 14 years of age at the relevant time.She gave ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 9 her age as 14 years.Her father also corroborated this fact.It can be gathered, without difficulty, that the victim was aged around 14 years at the relevant time.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::The appellant threatened to kill her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 10 father by means of a knife.He gave blows of knife on hands and back of P.W. Sk.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::Under spell of fear, P.W. Sk.Maheboob opened the lock.Thereafter, the appellant confined her father (Sk.Maheboob), P.W. Laxman and deceased Rangnath in that room.The appellant chained the room from outside and locked the same after he dragged the victim out of the room.The consistent versions of P.W. Sk.Maheboob and P.W.Laxman go to establish the fact that the appellant confined them in the room under threats.It has been proved that the appellant assaulted P.W. Sk.Maheboob by means of knife when resistance was offered.The three agricultural servants became helpless due to the serious threats given by the appellant and more so because they noticed that he dared to actually use the knife against ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 11 them.In this view of the matter, I find it difficult to countenance the submission of Mr.Palve about improbability of the genesis of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::There is no reason coming forth as to why P.W.Laxman, who is an independent witness, should speak against the appellant.His version corroborates ig a part of the prosecution story regarding confinement of P.W. Sk.Maheboob himself and deceased Rangnath in the room.His version also corroborates further part of the prosecution story regarding forcible removal of the victim by the appellant towards secluded place near the Bandh in the agricultural field.There is no scintilla of evidence to show that P.W.Laxman and P.W. Sk.Maheboob had any animosity with the appellant.Nothing of much significance could be gathered from their cross-examinations.The victim (P.W.Mumtaj) narrated the manner in which she was sexually abused by the appellant.Her version purports to show that he tore out her clothes.Made her to lie down on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 12 the mattress at point of knife and committed sexual intercourse with her.Her version further reveals that even after the vaginal intercourse, the appellant sodomised her by committing anal intercourse.He acted like a brute animal while committing the sexual assault.He took bites of her cheeks, lips and physically assaulted her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::The evidence on record clearly shows that there was total exit of reason and the appellant's mind was working like that of a brute animal.The horrendous act of sexual assault is rather a pathetic story narrated by the victim.She was subjected to life time harrowing experience which would shudder her at any time as and when she would recollect the incident throughout her life.The medical evidence tendered by P.W.7 Dr.Wagh lends corroboration to the eye witness account tendered by the victim (P.W.Mumtaj) as well as her father (Sk.Maheboob).His version purports to show that on 17.6.2006, he examined the victim at about 12-30 p.m. He noticed multiple injuries including abrasions on anal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 13 region, redness around vaginal orifice, abrasions around right breast, right upper lip, right cheek, vertebral column in lower part, vertebral column on right side in upper 1/3rd, on tip of the tongue and below the tongue on lower jaw inside the mouth.These were fresh injuries.The injuries revealed that the victim was sexually assaulted in brutal manner.The version of P.W.Dr.Wagh, ig who was attached to the Rural Hospital, Majalgaon, at the relevant time, lends corroboration to the medical certificate (Exh.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::43).His version also indicates that though the hymen was not ruptured, yet, he noticed a tear on the hymen.He corroborates the findings in the medical certificate (Exh.44) in this behalf.His version also shows that clinical examination of P.W. Sk.Maheboob revealed presence of three injuries as stated below :Contused lacerated wound on his right leg, below knee joint, anteriorly placed, having size 1x1/2 cms.x 1/2 cm.2. Abrasion on left upper lip on inner ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 14 side, having size 1 x 1/2 cms.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::3. Abrasion on right side of back, in middle 1/3rd near vertebral column, having size 2 cms.x 1/2 cm."He issued injury certificate (Exh.45) accordingly and opined that the injury No.1 could be result of assault by knife.The second injury could have been caused due to blunt object like handle of the knife.It has come in the evidence of the victim that she had put up resistance while the appellant was committing the act of sexual intercourse.The version of P.W.Dr.Wagh, reveals that medical examination of the appellant indicated presence of a contusion on his right ring finger and abrasion.Thus, there is medical corroboration available to show that the victim physically offered resistance and, therefore, the appellant received minor injuries on his person.Mere fact that the hymen was not found ruptured by itself will not be sufficient to infer absence of sexual intercourse by the appellant with the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 15 victim.It is well settled that even a small penetration of the male organ in the vagina of the victim would amount to the sexual intercourse within the meaning of Section 375 of the I.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::The Medical Officer explained as to how he located tear in the hymen.He states that after separating the vulva, he would be able to see the hymen's tear.Needless to say, the version of the victim is duly corroborated by the medical evidence.The version of P.W.8 Dr.Yende, goes to prove the fact that the victim was having eight (8) injuries including bruises on her tongue, anus etc. He noticed presence of evidence to indicate the child abuse.His version reveals that the victim (P.W. Mumtaj) was aged between 10/15 years.He issued certificate (Exh.52) accordingly.He admits that there is distinction between the term "abrasion" and the term "bruise".His evidence has remained unimpeached in so far as his opinion regarding the child abuse is concerned.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::In "Rajendra Datta Zarekar Vs.It was argued before the Apex Court that charge for offence of rape was not made out because the hymen of victim Sonia was intact.The Apex Court rejected such argument.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::The question, which arises for consideration, is whether the proved facts establish the offence of rape.The injuries clearly indicate that rape, as defined in S. 275, I.P.C.did take place."Having carefully gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution and close scrutiny of the circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant committed heinous act of sexual intercourse by use of force and also that of unnatural carnal intercourse with the minor child.The learned Sessions Judge, has rightly convicted and sentenced him for the said offences.There is nothing redeeming about the appellant.The child victim was subjected to horrendous crime due to lascivious acts of the appellant.His acts are indicative of depraved mind and sexual perversity.Indeed, I feel that the sentence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: 21 awarded to him is on lower side.In such a case, one feels that the embargo put on the powers of the Court as per proviso appended to Section 31 of the I.P.C. is required to be uplifted in suitable cases.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::Hence, the appeal is dismissed.learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, is confirmed.(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal14307 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:50:28 ::: | ['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,891,696 | During pendency of the said appeal, appellants Sukhlal and Harcharan expired and therefore Cri.Appeal No. 454/2000 is being now prosecuted by sole appellant Ajay Singh.It is further relevant to mention here that two amongst the accused namely Devpal Lodhi and Ajab Singh absconded and could not be traced out.Appellants Nirbha, Pistabai, Kamla, Thakurdas in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00, appellants Sukhlal, Harcharan and Ajay Singh in Cri.Appeal No. 454/00 and Smt. Sampatbai in Cri.Appeal No. 459/00 stood trial on the charges levelled against them before the trial court and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced as follows :-(a) for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C., they were sentenced to suffer one-one year's rigorous imprisonment;(b) for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. for causing murder of Ajeeta in prosecution of their common object, and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment;(c) for the offence punishable under Section 326/149 of I.P.C. for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention to the injured, they were sentenced to suffer five-five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were Cra.355/2000, Cra.3.1 The trial court further directed that out of total fine amount of Rs. 64,000/- deposited by the appellant under the impugned judgment, Rs. 40,000/- be paid as compensation to the wife of the deceased Ajeeta under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and also perused the judgment and the evidence on record.The prosecution story in brief is that at about 4 p.m. on 15/3/99 Virdha (PW-1) alongwith his daughter Imratibai, Savitribai, sister Kalibai, Suniyabai, Gyasobai, mother-in-law Sonabai, wife Runiabai and sister-in-law Shantibai was harvesting the wheat crop at village Bamhari, P.S. Dinara.Deceased Ajeeta was also present.It is alleged that at that moment, all the accused alongwith Devpal and Ajab Singh wielding lathi, luhangi, Farsa, Kulhadi and country-made pistols arrived at the scene of the crime and started abusing Virdha (PW-1) and his family members.On being objected to, accused Devpal (absconded accused) fired with his country-made pistol resulting in deceased Ajeeta sustaining gunshot injury at the back and dying on the spot.Shantibai, Bhuniabai, Runiabai, Imratibai, Kalibai, GyasobaI, Savitribai and Sonabai rushed to the rescue when the accused assaulted and injured them.Thereafter, Mathura (brother Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 4 of the deceased Ajeeta) and Ramdeen Jatav also came to the scene of the crime when the accused fled away.FIR was lodged by Virdha (PW-1) vide Ex.P/1 at 6 p.m. on the same day where the said incident was reported and old property dispute was assigned as the motive behind the crime.The necessary formalities of investigation were completed by the police which included panchnama of dead- body, seizure of the plain and blood-stained soil, arrest of the accused and recovery of the offending weapons based on disclosure statements.over the sup.Surface Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 5 and left shoulder.(Delivered on the 27th day of October,2017) Per Sheel Nagu, J.The aforesaid three Criminal Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated dated 3/5/2000 Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 2 rendered in Special Sessions Trial No. 56/1999 by the Special Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.).Since the judgment and order challenged in these criminal appeals is one, all the appeals are herewith taken up together for disposal and decided by this common judgment.At the very outset, it would be appropriate to point out that Criminal Appeal No.454/2000 was filed by three appellants namely, Sukhlal, Harcharan and Ajay Singh.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 3 directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one month;(d) for the offence punishable under Section 325/149 of I.P.C. for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the injured with common intention, they were sentenced to suffer three-three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one month;(e) for the offence punishable under section 323/149 of I.P.C. for causing simple hurt to the injured with common intention, they were sentenced to suffer six-six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one month.The investigation was conducted by SDO (P) Karera who sent the seized items for chemical analysis to FSL, Sagar but the forensic report was not obtained.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against all the 11 accused (including four appellants in Criminal Appeal No.355/00, one surviving appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 454/00 and sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No.459/00 except against Devpal and Ajab Singh who absconded and against whom perpetual warrants were issued.5.1 The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. R.K.Goyal (PW-10) who prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P/3) finding the following injuries on the dead-body:-"(i) Incised wound of size 8 cm.x 1/2 cm.x deep up to bone over the post aspect of head, occipital region, Rt.side obliquely placed.(ii) Contusion of size 4 cm.x 2 cm.Over right side of head;(iii) Lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.x skin deep over the right ankle left aspect;(iv) Abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm.over the left knee anterior aspect.(v) Lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.X skin deep over the left elbow posterior aspect.(vi) Contusion of size 2 cm.x 2 cm.(vii) Gunshot injury of entrance over the back at the level of T6, caused by pallets which found embedded in the bone and the lungs.5.2 On internal examination of the dead-body, left lung was found to be in collapsed state.The autopsy surgeon opined the Injury No.(i) to be caused by sharp-cutting weapon, Injury Nos. (ii) to (vi) by hard and blunt object while Injury No.(vii) by firearm.Injury No.(vii) was further opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.5.3 Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) deposed that on 17/3/1999 at 6-55 p.m. he examined injured Pistabai aged 35 years (appellant No.2 in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00) and found as per MLC (Ex.P/4) one contusion of size 2 cm.X 1 cm.over dorsal aspect of left forearm, middle region.He further deposed that on clinical examination no external injury was seen.5.4 Similarly on the same day injured Sampat Bai aged 35 years (appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 459/00) was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who found as per MLC (Ex.P/5) one contusion of size 1 cm.x cm.over right side of face below right eye with reddish blue hue.He further deposed that on clinical examination no external injury was seen.5.5 On 16/3/1999 injured Imarti (victim) w/o Parmanand aged 30 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who found as per MLC (Ex.P/6) lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x cm.x muscle deep over dorsal aspect of left lower leg.One contusion of size 2 cm.x 1 cm.over posterior aspect of right lower leg, middle region and one contusion of size 1 cm.X 1 cm.over left scapular region.5.6 On 16/3/1999 injured Kalibai (victim) w/o Kallu aged 40 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who found vide MLC Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 6 (Ex.P/7) three lacerated wounds; first of size 3 cm.x cm.x bone deep over right side of parietal region of skull, second of size 1 cm.x cm.x muscle deep over anterior aspect of left lower leg, middle region and third of size cm.x cm.x muscle deep over lateral aspect of right lower leg, lower 1/3 rd region.For injury sustained on right side of parietal region, the injured was referred for x-ray examination to the District Hospital, Shivpuri.5.7 On 16/3/1999 injured Gyasobai (victim) w/o Parma aged 55 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who found vide MLC (Ex.P/8) one contusion of size 3 cm x 1 cm over the left scapular region placed obliquely.One swelling of size 3 cm x 2 cm over posterior aspect of right lower leg middle region and one contusion of size cm x cm.over tip of little finger of left hand.For injury No.1 sustained on scapular region, x-ray examination was advised.5.8 On 16/3/1999 injured Muniya (victim) w/o Halke aged 50 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who as per MLC (Ex.P/9) found diffused swelling of size 4 cm x 3 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm lower 1/3rd region.For this injury, x-ray examination was advised.5.9 On 16/3/199 injured Runiabai w/o Virdha aged 35 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who as per MLC (Ex.P/10) found lacerated wound with diffused swelling of size 1 cm x cm x muscle deep with swelling of size 4 cm x 3 cm over dorsal aspect of left hand, lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x cm x muscle deep over dorsal aspect of right hand in between index finger and thumb, lacerated wound of size 2 cm.x cm x muscle deep over anterior part of left lower leg middle region, lacerated wound of size cm x cm x muscle deep over lateral aspect of right lower leg and one abrasion of size cm x cm over anterior aspect of Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 7 left knee.For the injuries sustained by this injured on left/right hand and left leg, x-ray examination was advised.5.10 On 16/3/199 injured Shanti (victim) w/o Imrat aged 35 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who vide MLC (Ex.P/11) found one incised wound of size 3 cm x cm x bone deep over right side of parietal region of skull, lacerated wound with diffused swelling of size 2 cm x cm x muscle deep with swelling of size 4 cm x 3 cm over posterior aspect of left elbow joint, multiple contusions of maximum size of 1 cm x 1 and cm and minimum of 2 cm x cm over both legs and posterior aspect of chest, one contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm over post aspect of left lower leg and lacerated wound of size 1 cm x cm x muscle deep over anterior aspect of right lower leg.For injuries sustained by the injured on right side of parietal region and left elbow joint, x-ray examination was advised.5.11 On 16/3/199 injured Savitri (victim) daughter of Virtha aged 12 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who vide MLC (Ex.P/12) found diffused swelling of size 3 cm x 2 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm middle region, one contusion of size 1 x cm over dorsal aspect of right forearm middle region, one contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm over posterior aspect of left thigh lower 1/3 rd region, one contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over posterior aspect of right lower leg middle region and multiple abrasions of maximum size 3 cm x 1 cm and minimum 1 cm x over both sides of posterior aspect of chest.For the injury sustained on dorsal aspect of left forearm x-ray examination was advised.5.12 On 16/3/199 injured Sonabai (victim) w/o Bhagwandas aged 50 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who vide MLC (Ex.P/13) found one lacerated wound of size cm x cm x muscle deep over dorsal aspect of right forearm lower 1/3 rd region Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 8 and one contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm middle region.5.13 Dr. M.L.Agrawal (PW-12) carried out the radiological test on 20/3/1999 and found the following grievous injuries:-fracture of 1st phalanx of index finger of right hand vide Ex.Shantibai Fracture of lower end of humerus bone vide Ex.The trial court after marshalling of the evidence, out of the 13 original accused (Devpal and Ajab Singh absconding) acquitted accused Jevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharajsingh of the charge of murder but convicted appellants Nirbha, Pistabai, Kamla, Thakurdas in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00, appellants Sukhlal, Harcharan and Ajay Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 454/00 and sole appellant Sampatbai in Criminal Appeal No. 459/00 of the charge of murder punishable u/S. 302/149 and for causing grievous and minor hurt to the injured u/Ss. 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 I.P.C., and u/S. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced accordingly as mentioned above.Hence, these appeals.Before adverting to the findings rendered by the trial court, the testimony of each of the injured eye-witnesses deserves consideration as follows :-(i) PW-1 Virdha in his testimony disclosed that all the accused had collected since 6 a.m., on the fateful day at the house of Ajay Singh (sole surviving appellant in Cri.Appeal No.454/00), which was situated adjacent to the agricultural Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 9 field of Virdha (PW-1) where the incident took place.This witness further disclosed that all these accused consumed liquor cooked and ate food and when it was around 4 p.m. all the accused armed with different weapons came to the spot where the incident took place.This witness has categorically testified that the appellants Sampatbai and Pistabai had no weapon in their hands.PW-1 has unequivocally disclosed the presence of all the appellants at the time of incident by further stating that the absconded accused Devpal inflicted gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta with country-made pistol leading to the death of deceased on the spot while other absconded accused Ajab Singh inflicted injury with a pharsa on the neck of deceased.This witness has denied the suggestion that any disclosure in his earlier statement or FIR was made regarding appellants having collected since 6 a.m. on 15/3/1999 at appellant Ajay's house situated adjacent to the field in which incident took place.(ii) PW-2 Suniabai who is mother-in-law of PW-1 Virdha being an outsider (resident of Jhansi) stated that she was harvesting crop alongwith PW-1 Virdha and his family members and recognized only the absconded accused Devpal but none of the other accused since she permanently resides in District Jhansi.Although PW-2 states that number of other persons had come when the said absconded accused Devpal and other accused were involved in the act of abuse and assault and that the absconded accused Devpal inflicted firearm injury upon deceased Ajeeta who died on the spot.As regards injuries sustained by one self she disclosed of having sustained injury on her wrist which Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 10 according to her was inflicted by one of the assailants.PW-2 Suniabai further states that her accomplices Shantibai, Runiabai, Guniyabai, Gyasobai, Savitribai, Imratibai also sustained injuries.Certain omissions and contradictions were noticed between her earlier statement and the testimony recorded in the court of the said witness Suniabai (PW-2) but the trial court found that PW-2 Sunibai was present on the date of the incident and sustained injuries while being attacked by the appellants while she was harvesting crop of wheat and that the absconded accused Devpal had inflicted gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta which led to his death.PW-2 Suniabai further deposed that the incident took place in the agricultural field of Virdha (PW-1).(iii) PW-3 Muniabai, the sister of Virdha (PW-1) who was also an outsider being resident of Jhansi testified and disclosed about the same facts and circumstances which were revealed by PW-2 Suniabai.(iv) PW-4 Runiabai states that she was present at the scene of the crime and she was harvesting the crop of wheat alongwith PW-1 Virdha and his family members.She states that apart from Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharajsingh, all the other accused (including the appellants herein in all the three criminal appeals) were among the assailants, who had accompanied the absconded accused Devpal and Ajab Singh and that the deceased died on the spot due to gunshot injury inflicted by Devpal.This witness further disclosed that she sustained injuries due to assault made by absconded accused Ajab Singh, Kamla, Nirbha, Sampatbai and Ajay Singh with the weapons like lathi, pharsa, axe etc. This Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 11 witness also states that there is long standing property dispute between the rival parties arising out of agricultural field where the incident took place.She also states that PW- 13 Mathura witnessed the incident.(v) PW-5 Gyasobai who is an outsider being resident of Jhansi has testified and made disclosure in manner similar to that of PW-2 Suniabai and PW-3 Muniabai.(vi) PW-6 Imratibai, daughter of the PW-1 Virdha who is also an outsider being resident of Jhansi, testified that she was harvesting the crop of wheat alongwith his father and other family members.She states that bedsides Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharaj Sngh all other appellants had come to the spot alongwith absconded accused Devpal who inflicted gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta and all these assailants caused injuries by assaulting the women family members of PW-1 Virdha.This witness as regards injury sustained by her, discloses that absconded accused Devpal inflicted an Axe blow on her left hand while appellant Kamla and Thakurdas (two of the appellants in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00) inflicted lathi blow on her.This witness further reveals that Ajay Singh (sole surviving appellant of Cri.Appeal No.454/00) was present at the scene of crime as one of the assailants.This witness lastly testified that the acquitted accused Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharaj Singh were not present at the scene of crime.(vii) PW-7 Kalibai another sister of PW-1 Virdha is an outsider being resident of Jhansi, who also states that the acquitted accused Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharaj Singh were not present at the scene of the crime and also clarified that being outsider she did not know the assailants prior to Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 12 the incident.This witness has revealed that she was present at the scene of the crime and was harvesting the crop of wheat alongwith her brother Virdha (PW-1) and other family members when she saw absconded accused Devpal inflicting gunshot injury on the deceased who died on the spot.This witness further testified that sole appellant Sampatbai in Cri.Appeal No.459/00 and Pistabai one of the appellants in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00 were present at the scene of the crime.This witness further reveals that Nirbha/appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00 alongwith Sampatbai assaulted all the injured women who were harvesting the crop.She has further stated that Nirbha did not cause any assault upon her.(viii) PW-8 Shantibai who is an outsider belonging to the neighbouring village testified that she was harvesting wheat crop alongwith PW-1 Virdha and his relatives.She states that PW-1 Virdha is her brother-in-law (Behanoi) and she knows the appellants Sampatbai and Pistabai and she belongs to the neighbouring village and not to the village where the incident took place and therefore she does not know the other appellants but clarifies that she recognizes the absconded accused Devpal since prior to the incident and that it was Devpal who inflicted gunshot injury upon the deceased who died and that absconded accused Devpal and appellant Kamla inflicted injury on her.(ix) PW-9 Savitribai another daughter of PW-1 Virdha states that she knows the appellants Sampatbai, Pistabai, Kamalbai, Nirbha and Thakurdas since before the incident but does not know other appellants.However, she states that she knew absconded accused Devpal and Ajab Singh Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 13 who were very much available and she witnessed the incident when she was harvesting the crop of wheat alongiwth PW-1 Virdha and other relatives.This witness states that 8 to 10 persons came to the spot and among whom the absconded accused Devpal inflicted gunshot injury to the deceased who died on the spot while appellant Kamla inflicted minor injury with an axe and appellants Thakurdas inflicted injury with lathi.Appellants Sampatbai also gave lathi blow and appellant Pistabai caused blow with the blunt side of a spade.She states that these accused also inflicted injuries to the persons harvesting the crop in the agricultural field alongwith PW-1 Virdha.This witness further reveals that appellant Kamla inflicted minor injury with an axe on her leg.She also reveals that the incident was witnessed by Ramdeen and Mathura.(x) PW-13 Mathura who is brother of the deceased disclosed his presence at the scene of the crime where PW-1 Virdha and his relatives were present and harvesting the crop alongwith Ramdeen and Chandan when absconded accused Devpal caused gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta who died on the spot.The appellant Thakurdas, Nirbha, Samptatbai and Pistabai were stated to be present on the spot.Appellant Nirbha and as well as Thakurdas inflicted farsa blow on the deceased while appellants Pistabai and Sampatbai pelted stone on her and other women harvesting the crop alongwith PW-1 Virdha.This witness has denied suggestion that she alongiwth PW-1 Virdha and other injured witnesses has concocted the story to implicate the appellants.(xi) PW-10 Dr. R.K.Goyal who conducted the postmortem Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 14 has proved the same by reiterating his opinion in the postmortem report by stating that out of all the injuries found on the body of the deceased, the cause of death was a result of excessive internal and external haemorrhage due to gunshot injury over the back region which corroborates the ocular version of the deceased being assaulted by absconded accused Devpal.The injuries No. (ii) to (vi) were caused by hard and blunt object while Injury No.(vii) was a firearm injury which was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Dr. Goyal (PW-10) accepted suggestion that the incised injury No.(i) can be caused by weapon such as Pharsa or Kulhadi.All the injuries were also stated to be antemortem in nature and caused within 24 hrs of the autopsy.(xii) PW-11 Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya who had conducted examination of the 8 injured witnesses namely, Pistabai, Sampatbai, Imartibai, Kalli, Gyaso, Muniabai, Runia, Shanti, Savitri and Sona, proved MLCs prepared by him in regard to each of the injured persons while PW-12 Dr. M.L.Agrawal proved the radiological/x-ray examination of the grievous injures described above and sustained by injured Bhunia, Rania, Savitri and Shanti.Per contra, appellants Nirbha, Pistabai, Kamla and Thakurdas recorded the statement of DW-1 Nahar Singh, DW-2 Saligram, DW-3 Lakhan Singh and DW-4 Kailash in support of their plea of alibi.Appellants Kamla, Nirbha and Pistabai took the plea that they had gone to attend Satyanarayan Ki Katha at the house of Nahar Singh (DW-1) whereas appellant Thakurdas took the plea that he had gone to his in-laws' place since his wife was unwell.Both these pleas of alibi were discarded by the trial court primarily on the ground that all Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 15 the said Dws were closely related to the said four appellants and therefore are interested witnesses and also the fact that no such suggestions were made in respect of these four appellants being elsewhere at the time of occurrence of incident in the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses.The court also found that no such plea was raised in the statement of any of these four appellants recorded u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. More so, further reason for discarding testimony of Dws was that they contradicted each other as regards period of stay of the appellants Kamla, Nirbha and Pistabai at the house of Nahar Singh to attend said Satyanarayan Katha.One of the said DWs stated that the said appellants stayed away for one day while other DW stated that they stayed away for 3 days.10.1 The plea of right of private defence was also raised by the appellants.In this regard, the plea was raised that the appellants were in possession of the agricultural land on which deceased, PW-1 Virdha and his relatives including the injured witnesses were harvesting wheat crop and therefore altercation and assault took place in exercise of right of private defence of property.The trial court discarded this plea as none of the witnesses supported the said plea while in fact categorically denying the possession of the agricultural field in question, to be of the appellants.The court further noticed that the witnesses were unanimous on the aspect that civil suit between the rival parties in regard to the said agricultural field was pending since last 12 years.The court also noticed that the appellants had collected in the adjoining field since 6 a.m in the morning on the fateful day where they cooked and ate food and drank liquor liquor.Alongwith appellants, Sampat and Pistabai (appellants) were also present and it was only at about 4 p.m. that they came down to the place where the deceased, PW-1 and his relatives were harvesting the crop to perpetrate the crime in Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 16 question.The court also found that the deceased, PW-1 Virdha and his relatives were unarmed while the appellants were armed.10.2 The trial court found that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly to assault and commit crime.The common object of forming unlawful assembly was inferred by the trial court on the basis of all the appellants having collected since 6 a.m., in the morning in the adjoining field and thereafter coming down to the scene of incident and committing the offence, armed with weapons.The court also found that all the appellants actively participated in the incident thereby strengthening assumption of all the appellants nursing common object which was to put an end to life of the deceased Ajeeta.From the analysis of the evidence above, the fact which comes to light is that all the appellants involved in the present three criminal appeals have been convicted u/S. 302 with the aid of Sec. 149 I.P.C. Thus, the trial court was of the view that all the appellants formed unlawful assembly as defined in Sec. 149 I.P.C., for committing offence of murder alongwith the principal absconded accused Devpal who inflicted fatal firearm injury.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep over the occipital region of the head of the deceased, which obviously was caused by sharp-cutting object such as phrasa or an axe, which appears to have been caused by another absconded accused Ajab Singh vide testimony of the PW-1 Virdha.So far as injury No.(ii) is concerned, the same was contusion over the right of the head which was minor in nature and the injury Nos. (iii),(iv) and (v) were also minor in nature being lacerations and abrasions on non-vital parts of the body, i.e., ankle, knee and elbow.12.1 As regards injury inflicted to the injured eye-witnesses Virdha (PW-1), Suniyabai (PW-2), Muniabai (PW-3), Runia (PW-4), Gyasobai (PW-5), Imartibai (PW-6), Kallibai (PW-7), Shantibai (PW-8) and Savitribai (PW-9), all have sustained injuries of minor and grievous on non-vital parts of the body.In the above conspectus of the circumstances, this court has to see whether each of the appellants involved in the present appeals was individually responsible for his/her individual act of assault or Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 18 there are circumstances to indicate that they shared common object to commit murder of Ajeeta with principal absconded accused who inflicted fatal firearm injury.PW-1 Virdha in the FIR has stated that at about 4 p.m., when they were harvesting wheat crop, the main absconded accused alongwith the appellants came to the spot armed with weapons and started abusing and assaulting.Thus, it is evident that due to this long standing litigation between the rival parties, there was bad blood between them.It is common knowledge that agricultural holdings which in India are predominantly marginal in area, are the sole source of livelihood for a marginal farmer who makes all out efforts to protect his land sometimes even at the cost of incurring the wrath.It is this burning desire in the mind of the appellants of hoping to acquire ownership of the land by fruits of litigation which was pending since long that the appellants were motivated to commit the assault when they saw the yield of the crop being harvested by PW-1 Virdha.Thus, in the considered opinion of this court the fact of sustaining injuries by appellant Pistabai and appellant Sampatbai, the admitted long standing litigation of the rival parties in regard to the land in question where the incident took place coupled with the burning desire of neighbouring farmer to increase his holdings which appears to have been frustrated by long standing litigation, the trial court ought to have given the benefit of right of private defence of property to the appellants to at least some extent.15.3 Pertinently, appellants Sampatbai and Pistabai, as er ocular evidence of PW@-1 were empty handed and merely pelted stones causing only minor injuries.Thus, these two appellants are liable for the offence of voluntarily causing minor injury punishable u/S. 323 Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 21 I.P.C. Whereas all the other appellants except Sampatbai and Pistabai have been seen by one or more of the injured witnesses to cause minor and/or grievous hurt and thus are liable to be held guilty for offence punishable u/S. 324 and/or 325 I.P.C. as enumerated in the table infra.In view of the above discussions, the element of common object being missing and not spelled out from the attending circumstances, the appellants herein have been wrongly convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable u/Ss. 148, 302/149 I.P.C. read with 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, but have been rightly held guilty for causing minor and grievous hurt to various injured witnesses with the help of their different weapons thereby rendering themselves punishable u/Ss. 325, 326, 323 I.P.C.Consequently, the present appeals stand allowed in part to the extent of setting aside conviction and sentence of the appellants herein for commission of offence u/Ss. 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act. However, their conviction and sentences are altered as follows :-Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 22fine one month rigorous(iii) Appellant Sampatbai in Cri. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,892,792 | The facts of the case are in brief that from 30/05/2017 to 08/07/2017, on the pretext of marriage the applicant put the deceased- Nisha in the house of one Siyaram at Ekta Nagar, Ujjain, where he committed rape upon the deceased-Nisha.Thereafter, when the applicant refused to marry deceased, then deceased feeling harassed and humiliated committed suicide by hanging herself.This petition preferred u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') being aggrieved by order dated 30/10/2017 passed by Sessions Judge, 154/2017 in S.T. No. 574/2017, whereby charge for offence u/s. 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.On receiving the information regarding the incident the Merg No. 46/2017 was registered by Police Station-Dewas District-Dewas under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Dead-body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.During investigation, applicant and co- accused were arrested and call-details of their mobile phones 2 CRR 3806/2017 were collected. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,897,123 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.The co-accused Ram Sumiran and Kunta Devi have already been granted bail by this Court.Along with supplementary affidavit S.A.-3 has been enclosed which is a bail order or Ram Sumiran dated 27.9.2019 in Bail No. 8704/2019 wherein the reference of bail granted to Kunta Devi has been mentioned, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant may be granted bail on the basis of parity.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Kamta, involved in Case Crime No. 250/2016 u/s 308, 323 & 504 IPC, P.S. Kothi, District Barabanki be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.Order Date :- 16.10.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,214,840 | There are omissions by this witness with reference, to the allegations of beating by the accused to Laxmi.Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 Hirabai and P.W. 5 Shakuntala is sufficient for proving the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code so far as it relates to the ill-treatment given to Laxmi.JUDGMENT D.G. Deshpande, J.Heard learned Advocate for the appellants and learned APP for the State.All the four accused have been convicted by the Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli by his judgment dated 17.9.1991 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.They have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and fine under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for three years and fine under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Two girls Laxmi and Sharada, who were daughters-in-law of accused Nos. 3 and 4 and wives of accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, committed suicide on the same day by drowning themselves into the well.Laxmi and Sharada were married on the same day to accused No. 1 Shankar and accused No. 2 Rajaram respectively.Within fifteen months they committed suicide because of torture and demand of Rs. 20,000/-.This is the prosecution case.The prosecution examined Hirabai - the mother of Laxmi as P.W. 1, Navsherkhan Pathan as P.W. 2 to prove the map, Krishanbai, who is related to the accused, as P.W. 3 for proving last day meeting and the complaints made to her by Laxmi and Sharada about the ill-treatment given to them by all the accused.One Kashibai was examined as P.W. 4 to prove that P.W. 3 along with Laxmi and Sharada had worked in her field.Savanta, the brother of Sharada was examined as P.W. 6 to prove the narration of Sharada about the ill-treatment given to her and, another witnesses were Panchas and Investigating Officer, etc.Challenging the aforesaid conviction by all the accused it was contended by Miss Manisha Patil, the Advocate for the accused that firstly, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that both Laxmi and Sharada committed suicide.She also contended that there are circumstances on record and also the evidence on record to show that they might have died as a result of accident.Therefore, according to her, the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was wrong.So far as ill-treatment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, she contended that the evidence of mother and sister of Laxmi was totally contradictory, full of improvements and not at all trustworthy.According to her, the evidence of brother of Sharada was also liable to be rejected because of the same reasons.The evidence of Krishnabai P.W. 3 to whom Laxmi and Sharada were alleged to have made complaints of ill-treatment and expressed their resolve not to go back to their house cannot also be believed because of unnatural behaviour of the said witness.Therefore, according to her, the accused were entitled for acquittal on all the counts.On the other hand it was contended by learned APP for the State that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.The evidence on record amply proved that Laxmi and Sharada committed suicide.He also contended that the accidental death of brides on one and the same day and at the same time is highly impossible coupled with the narration made by both of them to Krishnabai and, therefore, it was according to him, a fool-proof case of suicide.He also contended that the so-called contradictions or omissions in the evidence of the witnesses were minor and in any case natural and they could be capitalized by the accused for the purpose of seeking acquittal.The admitted facts are that Laxmi was the wife of Shankar and Sharada was the wife of Rajaram.Their marriages took place on one and the same day in the same pendal and, they died within 14-15 months of their marriages.The relationship of the witnesses with the deceased wherever alleged? is also not disputed.The fact that both Laxmi and Sharada died as a result of drowning is also not disputed.The crucial question is, whether it was suicide or accident.The well is round, squarish and slippery and length of the said well is 50 x 50 ft., depth is about 35 ft., water level is 12 ft.and all the four sides of the well are slippery.The stones and rubble are spread north side of the well and from east-west side there is a slippery way which goes to south and again to west and inside the well.The well is dug fully in the centre and from centre to east it is halfly dug and towards western side the earth is accumulated which is wet and dry both.The entire western side is slippery.The Counsel for the accused-specifically pointed out that the Panchanama in Maratia where, according to her, it is clearly and specifically mentioned that a footpath directly goes into the well, that it is slippery and all the surrounding area of the well is also slippery.She also contended that the theory of accident is thus fortified directly because the well is not fully constructed, that it had no parapet wall at all at any side and anyone could go into the well for drinking water directly by the footpath which was going into well.Therefore, according to her, because the footpath was directly leading to the well, because it was all slippery and because it was a time of summer when the death of Laxmi and Sharada took place, it was very possible that they had accidentally fallen in the well one after the other.She drew my attention to the map drawn by P.W. 2 from which it was clear that the well was near the way.Further P.W. 4 Kashibai, in whose field Laxmi and Sharada and P.W. 3 had worked on that day, has admitted that the well is on the pathway of her field, the date of incident was the day of summer, besides this well there are other two wells on this pathway but those two wells are dry wells in summer days one gets thirsty repeatedly.From the aforesaid circumstance as mentioned in the Panchanama Exhibit 11 and the admissions given by Kashibai P.W. 4 the Advocate for the accused contended that in the absence of any direct evidence of suicide coming from the prosecution these circumstances were sufficient to create doubt as to whether Laxmi and Sharada committed suicide or not.The learned APP in this regard urged that it was next to impossible that two daughters-in-law in the family would die on the same day and the same time by accident.He contended that even if there was a slippery road leading directly into the well, the possibility of both the girls falling in the well by an accident was highly impossible.If one girl had slipped into the well, the other would have raised hue and cry and at least would have saved the victim or herself.P.W. 3 Krishnabai has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident of suicide in the morning she went along with Laxmi and Sharada in Ghopade's jungle for labour work.They used to start the work in the morning and used to return home in the noon.On that day they sat together in that field for one hour, took rest and meals and again started the work as usual.Thereafter they drank the water and started back to their homes.P.W. 3 further stated that at that time she told the girls to go to their home, but both of them told her that they would not go to their home, that they were having trouble by all the accused and in no case they would go to the home.P.W. 3 Krishnabai persuaded them, but again both of them refused.Learned APP, therefore, contended that since immediately on the same day evening bodies of the girls found in the well, there is direct material available on record to prove that it was a case of suicide and not accidental case as alleged by the defence.As against this, Counsel for the accused drew my attention to the cross-examination of P.W. 3 Krishnabai, where she admitted that for number of years she was not on visiting terms with the accused even though they were related to her, that when she came back from the field she did not tell anybody about the narration of Laxmi and Sharada.She also admitted that on that night itself the father of Laxmi and relations from his side came in the village but she did not tell anything to the father of Laxmi or anybody else in that night.She also stated that on the next day the relatives of Sharada also came but she did not tell anything to any person either related to Laxmi or to Sharada about the narration made by them to her on the earlier day.She also stated that even though the corpses of Laxmi and Sharada were brought, she did not tell anything to the police or did not go to the police of her own accord.From this conduct of Krishnabai (PW. 3) the Counsel for the accused contended that it was full of suspicion and was liable to be rejected because in natural course of events, Krishnabai should have revealed the narration to somebody else at least after the bodies of Laxmi and Sharada were brought from the well.I find considerable force in the submissions made by the Counsel for the accused.The conduct of Krishnabai (PW 3) in keeping silence over this vitally important aspect i.e. over the narration made to her by Laxmi and Sharada, even after their bodies were brought from the well creates grave doubt as to whether Laxmi and Sharada really narrated anything to her.Admittedly, she was related to the accused and also related to the father of Laxmi and relatives of Sharada, but she does not disclose anything to them, even after they were in the village to her knowledge, she did not disclose anything to the police on her accord.Since the entire case of the prosecution is about the suicide of Laxmi and Sharada, the evidence of Krishnabai (P.W. 3), which was otherwise material and vitally important for the prosecution, becomes full of suspicions because of lapses on her part.The theory of suicide gets support only from the narration made by Laxmi and Sharada to Krishnabai because it discloses their intention not to get back to their house i.e. the house of the accused.However, firstly, there is no corroboration to what Krishnabai says and, secondly her conduct is most unnatural.Therefore, vital link is missing in the theory of Krishnabai about the narration made to her by Laxmi and Sharada.There is, no doubt that both of them died by drowning in the well.The death is unnatural.However, the case of suicide has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and, from the topography of the well, existence of slippery road directly leading to the well, all slippery area around the well, absence of any injuries on the body of Laxmi and Sharada and the doubt about the veracity of Krishnabai because of her unnatural conduct, are all sufficient to create doubt in the mind of the Court.Obviously in such case benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.So far as evidence of mother and sister of Laxmi and brother of Sharada is concerned, that evidence has to be independently considered regarding the case of the prosecution under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code for proving abetment Jo suicide.Their evidence does not help the prosecution.This import?.".', aspect of the matter that is considered above about the suicide is left sight of the Trial Court and as such the conviction of the accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained.So far as conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is admittedly sufficient material on record for proving ill-treatment and demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/-.The evidence of Hirabai (P.W. 1) - the mother of Laxmi, the evidence of Shakuntala (P.W. 5), the sister of Laxmi and the evidence of Savanta (P.W. 6) - the brother of Sharada are there on record.All of them have consistently narrated about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by all the accused and the ill-treatment given by them to Laxmi and Sharada on that count.It is true that there are some contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 1 but they are not major in material.Her conduct appears to be most natural because being a poor she had to explain to her daughter Laxmi that she had not been in a position to meet the demand of Rs. 20,000/- made by the accused.She had also stated that she went to see Laxmi and returning back, accused No. 1 followed her and threatened her that he would break her leg if she again went to his home.This meeting of accused and P.W. 1 was 3/4 days before the death of Laxmi.These are not at all material contradictions.Even if that part is excluded from her evidence because of the contradictions, the other evidence given by her is sufficient to prove the ill-treatment given by the accused to Laxmi.P.W. 1 is corroborated by P.W. 4 Shakuntala that Laxmi narrated about the ill-treatment given to her by all the accused.Her evidence was challenged by the Counsel for the accused on the ground that Sharada was living separately with her husband from her in-laws and the conduct of this witness does not inspire confidence.The scrutiny of her evidence shows that Laxmi had been to her house 10/15 days before Laxmi's death.At that time tonsils of Laxmi were removed at Sangli and it is at this juncture Laxmi told her about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by the accused and the ill-treatment given to her.She has further stated that the same things were repeated by Laxmi when she met her on Diwali and Sankrant days.According to the accused, this witness is telling lies because even though Laxmi narrated all these things to her, she did not tell this to her mother or to her husband or to her in-laws.The prosecution then examined P.W. 6 Savanta - the brother of Sharada.He has also stated that Sharada told him twice about the ill-treatment given to her by all the accused and their demand of Rs. 20,000/-.The Counsel for the accused contended that from the evidence of Savanta it was clear that Rajaram - the husband of Sharada was admitted in Sangli in the hospital for operating upon his appendix.At the same time Laxmi was admitted for operation of tonsils.According to the learned Counsel for the accused, therefore, it was impossible that Rajaram was giving any ill-treatment to Sharada.She also pointed out that Rajaram and Sharada had lived at Pune and, therefore, during this time there could not be any ill-treatment from her mother-in-law and father-in-law.She also pointed out that it has come on record that the father-in-law of Sharada i.e. accused No. 3 was suffering from breathing problems.The Counsel for the accused also pointed out that RW.6 Savanta has admitted that Sharada never came to his house after her marriage.Therefore, according to her, there was no occasion to Sharada to make any such complaints.Further he has admitted that except his visit with Rajaram, he had not visited Rajaram, since the marriage of her sister with him and, further there is material omission in his evidence regarding Sharada's telling him about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- and beating by the accused.That part is totally absent in the police statement of this witness Savanta.Therefore, the Counsel for the accused contended that so far as ill-treatment to Sharada is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence because Savanta was the only witness examined by the prosecution in that regard and since Savanta's uncorroborated evidence, which is full of contradictions and material omissions and improbabilities, was liable to be rejected, then the accused were entitled for acquittal.The learned APP however relied upon the evidence of Suvarna (P.W. 9) for the purpose of proving the ill-treatment to Laxmi and Sharada.This witness Suvarna is next door neighbour of Laxmi and Sharada.She was knowing both of them.She has stated that all these accused vised to give trouble to Laxmi and Sharada.They used to beat them - Laxmi and Sharada, with the sticks and with their hands and their husbands also used to beat them.She has also stated about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by Shankar and Rajaram.Counsel for the accused pointed out that this witness has admitted that she had personally not seen the beatings to Laxmi and Sharada with her own eyes and in her presence.There is no demand of Rs. 20,000/- by any of the accused at any time.Further there was important omission amounting to contradiction about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- in the evidence of this witness.Therefore, she contended that her evidence was liable to be totally rejected.Considering, therefore, the entire evidence of all the important witnesses of the prosecution for proving 498-A it is clear that their evidence cannot be totally rejected.The evidence of four witnesses gets corroboration from each other's testimony.Even if the contradictions and material omissions are accepted, there are no grounds for total rejection of their evidence.Learned Counsel for the accused ultimately urged that the incident is of 1990, accused No. 3 is about 69 years of age, accused No. 4 Sakhubai is now 63 years of age and, therefore, even under Section 498-A. the Indian Penal Code, their sentence was required to be reduced by taking lenient view in this matter.Considering therefore, all these facts i.e. the age of accused Nos. 3 and 4 being more than 69 and 63 at present, the passage of 12 years, I pass the following order.ORDER The appeal filed by the accused is partly allowed.The conviction of all the accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges.The conviction of the accused under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code/ is maintained.The sentence of accused No. 1 Shankar and accused No. 2 Rajaram is reduced to two years and sentence of accused No. 3 Pandurang and accused No. 4 Smt. Sakhubai is reduced to six months.The accused are on bail.Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and all of them to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks from today. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,214,859 | Prosecution story in brief is that on the date of the incident i.e. on 23-6-1990 at about 9.30 a.m. deceased Toliya accompanied by his son Shambhu (P.W. 1), Chhagan (P.W. 2) Kalabai (P.W. 3) went to the disputed field which they had cultivated a day before.They found the accused and his two brothers conducting sowing operations in the disputed field.It was objected to by deceased Toliya and his family members.Accused Hemta took out bow and arrow and gave an arrow shot which hit deceased Toliya in his chest.He pulled out the arrow and died sometime thereafter.The matter was reported to the police by son of deceased Toliya i.e. Shambhu (P.W. 1) the same day at about 10.35 a.m. at P. S. Amzera which is about 3 km. away from the place of incident.A.S.I. Shersingh prepared spot map vide Ex.One bow and arrows were also seized at the instance of accused Hemta vide Ex.One twelve-bore gun was also seized from accused Kemta vide Ex.Clothes of the deceased received from the hospital were seized vide Ex.Accused Hemta had also sustained some injuries.Dr. Shrivastava (P.W. 4) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Toliya and found the following injury on his person :-Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" on right side of chest on 5th intercostal space and puncture of muscle and plura and pericardium.The injured died of haemorrhage and cardiac shock.One arrow with letter Ex.P/3 was sent by the police for examination and on examination, Dr. Shrivastava (P.W.8) opined that the injury found on the body of Toliya could be caused by this arrow.Dr. Shrivastava also examined accused Hemta on 24-6-1990 and found the following injuries on his person :-(1) Complained swelling and pain on left arm but no external injury was found.(2) Complained swelling and pain on right scapular region.(3) An abrasion on right leg 1/2" x 1 1/2".(4) An abrasion on lower part of right leg 1/2" x 1/4".Dr. Shrivastava prepared injury report of Hemta vide Ex.The arrow found on the spot, blood stained and controlled earth and clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination.Blood was found on all these articles excepting the controlled earth vide Ex.P/16 by the Chemical Examiner.All the three accused persons were prosecuted.They denied the guilt and pleaded false implication.After trial, the trial Judge acquitted accused Kemta and Sardar but convicted accused Hemta as stated above, hence this appeal.Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused persons were in possession of the land and the complainant party came armed and, therefore, the accused had a right of self defence.Second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused neither came prepared nor intended to commit murder as they refrained from causing further injury despite having been armed with gun also and, therefore, the offence would not come under the purview of murder.As against it, learned counsel for the State submitted that the complainant party was in possession of the land much before the date of incident.They had also cultivated the same.The accused committed trespass and conducted sowing operations.They were not in settled possession of the land and, therefore, they had no right of self defence.We have been taken to the evidence on record.The fact of homicidal death of Toliya has not been challenged and rightly so the same stands proved not only from the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.W 1 Shambhu, P.W. 2 Chhagan and P.W.3 Kalabai but from the evidence of Dr. Shrivastava (P.W. 4) as well, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Toliya on the same day.P.W. 1 Shambu son of the deceased has stated that he along with his father, sister and brother-in-law went to the field and found Hemta conducting sowing operations there.The same was protested by his father.Accused Hemta thereafter gave an arrow shot to his father who fell down on the ground and died thereafter on account of that arrow injury.This witness stands corroborated from the F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) proved by A.S.I. Shersingh (P.W. 8) and the medical evidence, i.e. autopsy report and the evidence of Dr. Shrivastava (P.W. 4).P.W. 2 Chhagan and P.W. 3 Kalabai have also corroborated the story disclosed by Shambhu (P.W. 1).Cross-examination and the arguments do not indicate serious challenge regarding causing of injury by the accused.In our opinion, therefore, it has rightly found by the trial Judge that accused Hemta gave an arrow shot and caused injury on the chest of deceased Toliya which resulted in his death.All the three eye-witnesses have stated that they have earlier cultivated the land and it was after their cultivation that sowing operation was being conducted by accused Hemta.Thus accused Hemta was not in settled possession of the land and, therefore, he had no right of self defence.The injuries found on the body of Hemta were on the leg and could be caused during sowing operations.No external injury was found on left arm and back.Complaint of pain may be because of other reasons also.In such a situation, the accused had no right of self defence of person or property.Learned counsel has drawn our attention to last line of paragraph 8 of the statement of P.W. 2 Chhagan and submitted that he admitted apprehension and use of force under that apprehension.The prosecution witness has denied all this suggestion.It has come in the evidence that the complainant party protested against sowing operations and accused gave an arrow shot to deceased Toliya.However, knowledge can be attributed to the accused regarding likelihood of death because of arrow shot injury.The accused would, therefore, he held guilty under Part II of section 304, Indian Penal Code.The incident took place over possession of small piece of land and exchange of hot words, protest and counter-protest between the complainant party and the accused and, therefore, very serious view cannot be taken in the matter of punishment.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 302 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. |
121,497,462 | Therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offences registered as against the petitioner.Hence, he prays for dismissal of the quash petition.(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force”Considering all these aspects, the second respondent is not the competent authority to lodge a complaint as against the petitioner.Therefore, the FIR is not at all sustainable as against the petitioner in the above said reasons.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First information Report in Crime No.501 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent herein is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.10.2018 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No msahttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 ToThe Inspector of Police Thoothukudi South Police Station Thoothukudi2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Maduraihttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J msa Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11806 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,498,435 | Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and perused the record. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,499,078 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 331 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police as against 1/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15532 of 2018 these petitioners.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 331 of 2017 for the offences under Section 379 of IPC as against the petitioners.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.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15532 of 20181.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattur Police Station Kanyakumari District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15532 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.aav CRL.O.P (MD) No.15532 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6857 of 2018 21.11.2019 | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,506,156 | She was in house around 2.00 p. m. On 22-03-2017, accused entered her house unlawfully and accused No.1 had abused and assaulted her.He pulled her scarf (odhani) and pressed her breast.He had outraged her modesty.When she raised shouts, her husband came and when fact was narrated to him, and he asked accused No. 1 about his acts, he was also assaulted.In the meantime, accused No.2 entered the house forcefully and assaulted informant.Threats were given to them by the accused that they would see how they continue to stay there, they would be evicted.Present petition has been filed by the original accused persons challenging the order passed on 27-07-2018 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 14, Aurangabad in RCC No. 2202 of 2017; thereby rejecting their application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioners have also challenged the order passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 1-11-2018; whereby he has rejected the Criminal Revision Application No.247 of 2018 filed by them to challenge the order passed by learned Magistrate.Petitioner No.2 had filed First Information Report (FIR) against respondent::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: (3) Cri.WP 1665/2018 No.2, her husband and son under Section 344, 354::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::Respondent No.2 has then lodged a report against the present petitioners on 23-03- 2017 as counter-blast.Crime has been registered vide CR No.220 of 2017 against them on the basis of said report.It has been alleged in the FIR that she is residing with her husband and son in a house which was standing in the name of her father.There is only one staircase to the flat and her house consists of three rooms.The dispute is going on in Court of law in respect of the house between her and the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Accused persons have been released on bail.They appeared after the charge-sheet was filed.They filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code.It was contended that accused No.1 was attending an institution on 22-03-2017 between 1.00 p. m. To 2.00 p. m. He was not at all present when the alleged incident had taken place.There is a civil dispute pending between accused No.2 and informant in connection with the house property.Accused No.2 had lodged report against the informant, her husband and son.It is prior in time.The said application was resisted by prosecution on the ground that the investigation officer has collected sufficient material against the accused persons.The evidence collected would show that the charge can be framed and matter can proceed further.Accused can put forward any defence as they can, at the time of trial.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::discharge, holding that no material has been shown by the accused persons, on the basis of which it can be said that the charge would be groundless against them.The said order has been upheld in the revision, by the learned Revisional Court.Hence, present writ petition.This shows the causal approach of the learned Judge and non-application of mind.Complainant had filed the said complaint with malafide intention and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2 and her family members.That::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: (6) Cri.WP 1665/2018 incident had taken place on 19-03-2017 vide FIR No. 206/17 under Sections 452, 344, 354(A), 323, 504, 506, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.In fact, petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 are the real sisters.There is civil dispute going on between them in respect of the property.Their relationship is strained.After the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners, they had filed said application for discharge under Section 239 of Indian Penal Code.Learned Magistrate as well as learned Revisional Court failed to consider the documents those were produced on record.Petitioner No.1 had specifically stated that he was not present at the place of alleged offence at the relevant time.He had in fact made a request to police officer investigating the case also to collect evidence in that respect; however, no such evidence was collected.A certificate was produced issued by Rajshree Shahu Institute, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad dt.22-03-2017, certifying that petitioner No.1 was present in their institute for delivering a lecture on that day between 1.00 p.m. To 3.00 p.m. Original complainant had contended that the offence took place at about 2.00::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: (7) Cri.WP 1665/2018 p.m. on 22-03-2017 in the house of the complainant.A person can not be present at two places at the same time.When he was not present at the sight, there was no question of commission of any crime by him.Both the Courts have also failed to consider that there was delay in lodging the FIR and that delay is not at all explained by the respondent No.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::When the said fact was not considered by the learned Magistrate, the Revisional Court ought to have corrected it.In stead of that, a cryptic order, that too not in format, has been passed.It needs to be corrected in this petition.Though there is dispute between both the::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: (8) Cri.The statements of witnesses support the story in the FIR.Accused No.2 will have a right to lead evidence to prove alibi.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::Learned APP has also supported the argument submitted on behalf of informant.The certificate issued by the institute is yet to be proved.Material was found to be sufficient and therefore, application for discharge has been rightly rejected.At the out set, it can be said that the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad has not given his decision in the Revision Petition in proper format.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::The contents of the order/decision are required to be considered here.It shows that all the points, those were argued on behalf of revision applicant, so also all the documents, were considered.Now turning to the points raised, it is to be noted that the application under Section 239 of the Code was filed by the present petitioners for discharge.Thus, if the Magistrate considers after::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: (10) Cri.In Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors v/s.At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: (11) Cri.WP 1665/2018 the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence".::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::There appears to be civil dispute pending between the real sisters in respect of property.WP 1665/2018 rejecting the revision application.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV fldr 16.1.20::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 01:36:57 ::: | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,507,440 | 3. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of these Appeals may briefly be stated thus:::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::cri.appeal.265.08 4 PW 9 Head Constable-Rajendra Supare who on 3.3.1992 was attached to Arni Police Station, received the report lodged by the Police Patil of village Bhandari (Jehangir).On receipt of said report, PW 9 Head Constable-Supare along with senior Police Officers, rushed to the scene of the incident.They noticed that the house of one Putlabai was burnt and noticed the dead body of deceased Putlabai and her daughter.Since Injured-Gaya had been admitted in the hospital, PW 9 Head Constable - Supare proceeded to the Government Hospital at Yavatmal and contacted the Medical Officer.In the said statement, Gaya had ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 5 stated that on the night of 2.2.1992 after taking the dinner, she, her mother and her younger sister had retired to bed.While they were sleeping at about 2.00 to 3.00 a.m. their house caught fire and, therefore, Gaya rushed out of the house and ran to the house of one Sundrabai who offered her change of clothing.PW 9-Supare, after recording the statement of Gaya at Exh.88, returned to the Police Station and handed over the necessary papers to the Senior Officer.On 6.3.1992, PW 8-Laxman had come to the Police Station and had submitted a written report.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::He accordingly recorded the supplementary statement of PW 8-Laxman and also recorded the statements of other witnesses.He had accordingly filed his report at Arni Police Station at Exh.109 and on the basis of the said report, an offence against the appellants and other accused was registered.The sketch map is at Article "A".Post-mortem on the dead bodies of deceased Putlabai, Gaya and Maya was conducted by PW 7 - Dr. Sisodiya who noticed that deceased-Gaya had sustained 38% burns all over the body and the burns were of Grade II and III.He opined that Gaya had died due to shock due to extensive burns and the post-The post-mortem report of Putlabai at Exh.77 discloses that Putlabai had sustained 100% burns and the cause of death was asphyxia due to shock due to extensive burns.brother of her mother Rajabai.Omission has been elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that accused no.1-Shankar and accused no.3-Ravi had stated that they had killed Putlabai and had asked PW 4- Deepabai not to raise any alarm.He states that he was present at the time of the quarrel.He further states that at that time, accused no.3-Ravi and accused no.1-Shankar had stated that they would "finish" PW 8-Laxman and deceased-Putlabai.He further states that he returned back to the village after about six days of the incident and, on his return, Deepabai had informed him about the incident.DATED : 30th July, 2012 JUDGMENT : (Per P. V. Hardas, J.) The appellants in both the Appeals who stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and rigorous ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 3 imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undego further simple imprisonment for fifteen days with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha by judgment dated 4.10.2006, in Sessions Trial No.2/2004 (old No. 46/1992), by these Appeals question the correctness of their conviction and sentence.Initially, Criminal Appeal No. 204/2009 had been filed by both the accused but since the appellant-Ravi had earlier filed Criminal Appeal No.265/2009, the name of the appellant-Ravi was deleted in Criminal Appeal No.204/2009 since both these Appeals question the correctness of the same judgment by which they are convicted and sentenced, this Appeals are being decided by this common judgment.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::sheet against the accused was filed.Subsequently, a charge was framed against original accused no.4 - Tulshiram for offences under Section 302 read with 34 and 436 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses, while accused in their defence, examined DW 1-Jagannath, the Police Patil of village Bhandhari who had lodged ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 7 the report at the Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::The post-mortem report at Exh. 77 in respect of Ku.Maya indicates that Maya had sustained 100% burns and the cause of death was asphyxia due to shock due to extensive burns.In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri O.Y. Kashid, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.265/2008 and Dr.(Ms)Kalsi, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 204/2009 and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 8 evidence of the prosecution witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::9. PW 3-Babarao states that on the day of the incident he was sleeping at his house and had heard the cries of Sundarabai that the house is on fire.Hearing the cries of Sundarabai, he rushed to the scene of the incident and extinguished the fire.One Vishwanath and Babarao had also assisted him in extinguishing the fire.He states that the house of Putlabai had caught fire.In cross-examination, he has admitted that PW 8-Laxman, husband of deceased-Putalabai, is his distant uncle.PW 4-Deepabai states that on the day of the incident, she was sleeping at her house and at night Gaya came to her house stating that her house was on fire.Deepabai, accordingly, came out of the house and went towards the scene of the incident.At that time, she had noticed accused no.1 -Shankar and accused no.3-Ravi standing near the house of deceased-Putlabai.The accused had said that they had killed ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 9 Putlabai and asked Deepabai not to raise any shouts else they would kill her also.She states that her husband-Tukaram had gone to another village and her statement was recorded after her husband returned to the village.In cross-examination, she has admitted that the police had recorded her statement only once, that is, eight days after the incident and two or three days after the arrival of her husband in the village.She has admitted that PW 8-Laxman is her relative as PW 8-Laxman is the step-::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::She has further admitted that her husband returned back to the village after about ten to twelve days of the incident.She has further admitted that when she had reached the house of Putlabai many persons were assembled there and were extinguishing the fire.She has admitted that she was present at the scene of the incident till the fire was extinguished.She could not say if Putlabai had lodged a report against PW 8-Laxman about ill-::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::cri.appeal.265.08 10 treatment and cruelty and if PW 8-Laxman was prosecuted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.PW 5-Tukaram, husband of PW 4-Deepabai, states that two months prior to the incident there was a quarrel between Dnyaneshwar s/o Dhrupatabai (accused no.2) and Gaya daughter of deceased-Putlabai.He has admitted that his statement was recorded ten days thereafter.He has admitted that he had disclosed what his wife-Deepabai had informed him in his supplementary statement.In cross-examination, omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that accused no.1-Shankar and accused no.3-Ravi had stated that they would "finish" PW 8-Laxman and deceased-Putlabai.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::cri.appeal.265.08 11 He has admitted that PW 8-Laxman, husband of deceased Putlabai, is relative of Deepabai.PW 6-Sundarabai states that on the day of the incident she was present in her house and heard the cries of Gaya and, therefore, had come out of the house.She noticed that the back of Gaya was burning and, therefore, poured water on Gaya.Gaya informed her that two or three other persons are in the house and, therefore, PW 6-Sundarabai went towards the house of Putlabai.She noticed that the house was burning.On reaching the house of Putlabai, she noticed the accused no. 1-Shankar, accused no.3-Ravi and accused no.4 -Tulshiram.The accused threatened her that they would kill her if she raised cries.In cross-examination, she was confronted with portion marked "A"from her previous statement that she had seen the three accused going away from the house of Putlabai.She has denied the suggestion that she had informed the Police Patil that the house of Putlabai had caught fire as the kerosene lantern had fallen on the ground.In further cross-examination, she had ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 12 admitted that she was on visiting terms with Laxman.She had admitted that there was no electricity connection and, therefore, the lantern was being used.She has admitted that the police had come to the village at about 10.00 a.m. and had met her.She has admitted that she was called at the time of drawing of the Panchnama.She has admitted to have shown the spot of the incident to the police.She has admitted that she was interrogated by the police but her statement was not recorded, but was recorded after one month.Omission has been duly proved that she had stated in her previous statement about presence of accused no.4 -Tulshiram at the scene of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::Omission has also been proved that she had not stated that the accused Tulshiram had threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone.She has then made a startling admission that she did not notice Deepabai at the scene of the incident.PW 8-Laxman, husband of deceased-Putalabai who was obviously not present at the time of the incident, stated that he returned to his village on 5.3.1992 and learnt about the ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 13 incident.He states that for about two months prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the accused no.3 and his daughter Gaya.He stated that accused no.1 Shankar and accused no.3-Ravi and others had threatened that they would "finish" us.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::He states that on 6.3.1992 he had lodged his report at the Police Station.Omission has also been duly proved in cross-examination that he has not stated in his statement dated 9.3.1992 that he was informed by Sundarabai and Deepabai that the accused had set his house ablaze.He has admitted that he was prosecuted by his wife deceased-Putlabai for an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.DW 1-Jagannath, Police Patil of village Bhandari states that Sundarabai had come to his house at 6.00 a.m. and had informed her that Putlabai and her daughter had died because of the fall of the lantern.He states that he had gone to the scene of the incident and had noticed that the house of Putlabai had been burnt.He has admitted that his statement was recorded by the Police.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::PW 3- Babarao who had extinguished the fire and was virtually present at the scene of the incident, makes no reference about the presence of PW 4-Deepabai or PW 6-PW 6-Sundarabai has categorically stated that she had not noticed PW 4-Deepabai at the scene of the incident.Deepabai also does not refer to the presence of PW 6-The statements of these witnesses were recorded extremely belatedly.Similarly, statement of PW 5-Tukaram was recorded on 7.4.1992 i.e. the supplementary statement.The witnesses whose statement was recorded earliest is PW 3- Babarao who makes no reference to the presence of the appellants or the assailants threatening PW 4-Deepabai or Sudnarabai.It is, therefore, obvious to us that the allegations of threat especially an admission by the accused that they had set the house of Putlabai ablaze is an afterthought introduction in the statements of these witnesses.There is no other evidence which would even remotely indicate that the ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 15 appellants were responsible for setting the house of Putlabai ablaze.Even if it is assumed that the appellants were present at the scene of the incident that by itself would be no indicator of the guilt of the appellants as the other villagers were also present at the scene of the incident.We, therefore, find that there is absolutely no reliable evidence which would implicate the present appellants in the commission of the offence with which they are charged.The conviction of the appellants in the face of this evidence is wholly unjustified and their conviction and sentence, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 265/2008 filed by Ravi Pradhane, is allowed.Since the appellants are in jail, they be released ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: cri.appeal.265.08 16 forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:59:36 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
695,146 | It was also found tampered. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
695,232 | On 11th May, 1997, at about 8.05 a.m., A.S.I.Shri Nazir, attached to the Mapusa Police Station, wasinformed by a letter by the doctor of the Asilohospital that one person by name Felix Felicio Monteirowas admitted in the hospital due to injury.A.S.I.Shri Nazir, on the basis of the said information madean entry in the Station register at serial no.7.P.W.22, Subhash Goltekar, who was attached to theMapusa Police Station as P.I., on receipt of the abovereferred information, proceeded to the Asilo hospitalalong with the staff.At the hospital, a guard wasposted to keep a charge over the body of the said FelixFelicio Monteiro and P.W.22, P.I. Subhash Goltekar,then proceeded to the house of the deceased andrecorded the complaint of Sebastian alias TinaMonteiro.The said complaint is at Exh.PW1/A. Fromthe house of the deceased, P.W.22, P.I. SubhashGoltekar, then proceeded to the Asilo hospital where hedrew an Inquest Panchanama at Exh.PW2/A in the presenceof P.W.2, Alima Monteiro and one Pilagio Marcelino.Bymemo at Exh.PW22/A, P.W.22, P.I. Subhash Goltekar,referred the dead body for post mortem.Thereafter,P.W.22, P.I. Subhash Goltekar, recorded the scene ofoffence panchanama vide Exh.PW22/A in the presence ofJose Monteiro and Rumalo DSouza.At the scene of theoffence, pickaxe, spade, crow bar, ghamelas, plasticpot, barbed wire, pair of rubber chappals, pair ofleather chappals, one tire and cutter were attached.The sample of the blood on the ground was also taken.Thereafter, P.W.22, P.I. Subhash Goltekar, arrestedAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes and Accused No.2, AnthonyDSouza vide Arrest Panchanama Exhs.P.W.16/A andP.W.16/B in the presence of P.W.16, Umesh Lotlikar,Anant Adelkar and Suresh Lotlikar.The Accused No.2 hada contused lacerated wound 2 mm x 1 mm at the foreheadcaused by blunt object less than 24 hours duration.The injury was simple in nature.The injurycertificate of Accused No.2 is at Exh.PW19/A colly.Bymemo at Exh.PW22/E the injured person namely PaulMenezes, Philomena DSouza, P.W.7, Conceicao Monteiro,Apolin DSa and P.W.5, Martha Dias were referred formedical examination at the Asilo hospital.By anothermemo at Exh.PW22/F, P.W.6, Remedios Salis Monteiro, wasalso referred to the Asilo hospital for examination.Their medical certificates are collectively marked asExh.PW19/A colly.P.W.22, P.I. Subhash Goltekar, thenrecorded the statements of the injured witnesses andhanded over the investigation to P.W.21, P.I.Chandrakant Salgaonkar.Before handing over theinvestigation, P.W.22, P.I. Subhash Goltekar, arrestedthe remaining Accused i.e. Accused Nos.3 to 5 on 12thMay, 1997 vide Arrest Panchanama at Exh.PW16/B. Theirclothes also came to be attached.On 13th May, 1997, P.W.21, P.I. ChandrakantSalgaonkar, took over the investigation from P.W.22,P.I. Subhash Goltekar.On the same day, he sent aletter to the Executive Magistrate to conductidentification parade.The blood group of the Accusedwas ascertained.On 19th May, 1997, the house ofAccused No.1 was searched vide house search panchanamaat Exh.PW3/A. During the course of the house search, aknife cover, live cartridges and a belt were recovered.At the instance of Accused Nos.3 and 4, knife(M.O.30)came to be discovered under discovery panchanamaExh.PW13/A. Vide panchanama at Exh.PW11/A at theinstance of Accused No.5, two bicycle chains(M.O.22)came to be attached.Accused No.1, in response ofquestion no.104 in the Statement under Section 313 ofCriminal Procedure Code has taken the followingdefence."On that day I had gone alongwith Anthony DSouza to thehouse of my mother-in-law.Itwas the birthday of mysister-in-law.Mymother-in-law and sister-in-lawhad gone to church.I saw abig crowd near the big gate.Ireversed my car and came to thesmall gate.I ran towards thehouse.The crowd came into thecourtyard.I went to the houseand closed the door.When Icame to the courtyard I heardAnthony shouting.Anthony wasbleeding from the forehead.Itook him to the P.S. and triedto lodge complaint.The panch witnesses are P.W.2, AlimaMonteiro, P.W.11, Suresh Matonkar,, P.W.12, IndrakantR.Salgaonkar, P.W.13, Ramprasad R. Joshi and P.W.16,Umesh Lotlikar.The medical evidence comprises ofP.W.3, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues, who performed the postmortem vide his report at Exh.PW3/A. P.W.8, Dr.Shanta Sardessai, who examined P.W.7, ConceicaoMonteiro and noticed a fracture vide report atExh.PW8/A, P.W.19, Dr. Vasco Teles and P.W.20, Dr.Ramakant Bhinge.The Junior Scientific Officersexamined by the prosecution are P.W.17, N.R.K. Rao,whose report is at Exh.PW17/A and P.W.18, N.R.Shankpal.P.W.9, R. V. Parab, is a Clerk in the Office of theMamlatdar who has proved the memorandum of theidentification parade at Exh.PW9/A. The Mamlatdar whohad conducted the identification parade, expired duringthe pendency of the trial.The prosecution has alsoexamined P.W.14, Manohar D. Joshi, who is working asScientific Assistant in the Crime Branch and who hadforwarded the samples for examination.7. P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro, widow of deceasedFelix Monteiro states that the deceased had retiredfrom the service but was working as the President ofthe Chapel at Bastora.She states that she knew oneRosalina Monteiro who resides at Bastora just behindthe Chapel.The property of the Chapel joins theproperty of Rosalina.The fencing put up was that of cement poles and for thepurposes of embedding the poles pits were being dug.They started digging the pits in the portion which wasfacing the house of Rosalina.According to P.W.1,Sebastiana Monteiro, within 5 minutes thereof, oneAntonetta, daughter of said Rosalina started abusingthem from her gate.After about 10 to 15 minutes, amaruti van of white colour came there and was parked infront of the gate of Rosalinas house.Accordingto her, Accused No.1 went to P.W.6, Salish Monteiro,who was standing near her husband and gave a fist blowon the mouth of P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, due to whichP.W.6, Salish Monteiro lost some teeth and beganbleeding from his mouth.According to P.W.1,Sebastiana Monteiro, the Accused No.1 then gave a slapon the face of deceased Felix Monteiro and threw himdown.The remaining four Accused i.e. Accused Nos.2to 5 came running towards them.According toP.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro, as her husband had fallendown, he was taken and brought to the road.To that,all the Accused went rushing towards them and AccusedNo.1 gave a slap on the face of P.W.1, SebastianaMonteiro.According to her, her husband was thereafterstanding on the road and at that time, Accused No.2dealt a knife blow on the left thigh of her husband.Accused No.2, removed the knife and went to the roadand she states that she saw Accused No.2 putting thatknife in its cover and thereafter, he went to P.W.6,Salish Monteiro.10. P.W.4, Julie Monteiro, wife of P.W.6, SalishMonteiro, after referring to the presence of the otherwitnesses at the scene of the offence states that whenthey were working, one Rosalina was talking.Shefurther states that after about 10 to 15 minutes, awhite car came.The persons who alighted the car werearmed with knives.According to P.W.4, Julie Monteiro,Accused No.1 then gave a slap on the face of Salish andalso a fist blow due to which Salish lost two teeth.P.W.4, Julie Monteiro, states that she questionedAccused No.1 as to why he had assaulted her husband.Thereupon, Accused No.1 gave a fist blow on her leftshoulder.According to her, Accused No.1 thenassaulted the other ladies who had rushed to the rescueof Salish by giving fist blows and slaps.According toher, Rosalina also came to the scene of the offence andattempted to throw and hit Julie with a stone.However, due to the intervention of one lady, Rosalinacould not hit Julie with a stone.She states that shesaw the deceased fallen on the ground and was bleedingfrom his left thigh.11. P.W.4, Julie Monteiro, in hercross-examination has admitted that they wanted toconstruct the compound wall to the Chapel therebyblocking the gate of Rosalina.She denied thesuggestion that Rosalina patiently told them not tomake the construction.13. P.W.5, Martha Dias, states that she alongwith the others had gone to work on being requested bythe deceased.She states that at that time Rosalinastarted giving abuses to them.In the meantime, awhite car came on the spot and Accused No.1 followed bythe other Accused got down from the car.She statesthat Accused No.1 attacked P.W.6, Salish Monteiro.Shestates that the Accused were having danda, belts andiron chains.She states that Accused No.1 gave a fistblow to P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, due to which P.W.6,Salish Monteiro, lost his teeth.She states thatAccused No.1 had pushed her and she was thrown on thestone as a result of which, she received an injury toher right leg near the knee.She further states thatAccused No.2 came with a knife and stabbed the deceasedat the thigh.According to her, the deceased was thentaken to the hospital.In the cross-examination, she has admittedthat she was not knowing Accused Nos.2 to 5 before thedate of the incident but had seen them on the day ofthe incident.She has admitted in thecross-examination that at the time of the incident, thework had not started at all.In the cross-examination,she has also admitted that there was no talk betweenAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes, and P.W.6, SalishMonteiro.Similarly, she also denied thesuggestion that because of a fall, she had sustainedthe injuries.Salish Monteiro is examined as P.W.6.According to him, a truck load of laterite stones wasbrought on 10th May, 1997, a day before the incidentand the Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes, by keeping hisMaruti Car behind the truck had not allowed theunloading of the stones.Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes, hittwo or three fist blows on his mouth due to which helost two teeth.He further states that in themeantime, four to five persons came from the car andattacked him with a chain.They were also armed withiron bar.He says they assaulted him on the leftshoulder, neck and back.He states that his wifeJulie, Conceicao and Tina rushed to his rescue.TheAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes, gave a fist blow on Julieand slaps on Conceicao and Tina.He states that whenhe saw the deceased, he was already stabbed and fallenon the ground.A car was arranged to take the deceasedbut the Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes, did not allow thedeceased to be taken.In the cross-examination, thiswitness has stated that on the day of the incident, hewas not knowing Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza but hadseen him on that day.He also admitted that he had notgiven the name of Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza, in hisstatement recorded by the Police.Omission was brought out in respect ofassertion of this witness that Accused No.1, RoyFernandes, assaulted others.This witness admits hedoes not remember what clothes Accused No.1, RoyFernandes, was wearing on that day.He further statesthat he was having a belt in his hand.The death of the deceased was homicide andnot accidental as is suggested to by some of the eyewitnesses.P.W.8, Dr. Shanta Sardessai, had examinedP.W.7, Conceicao Monteiro, on 11th May, 1997 afterP.W.7, Conceicao Monteiro, was referred by the CasualtyDepartment of the Asilo hospital for Radiologicalexamination.Accordingly, Xray was taken and theXray film is at Exh.PW8/B. According to P.W.8, Dr.Shanta Sardessai, P.W.7, Conceicao Monteiro, had rightwrist joint fracture.The witnesses had not describedeither the features or the clothes worn by the Accused.No incriminating articles have been recovered from theAccused Nos.3, 4 and 5 to connect their presence at thescene of the offence.The discovery memorandum inrespect of knife has been rejected by the learned TrialCourt and according to us rightly so.JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J.The conviction and sentencepassed against the Appellants/Accused is as follows:-By memo atExh.P.W.22/C, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were sent to the GoaMedical College for examination.After completion of the investigation, acharge-sheet against the Accused for an offencepunishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201 and323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code came to befiled.After committal of the case to the Session,charge at Exh.8 came to be framed against the Accusedfor an offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, and302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections323 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Codeand Section 201 r/w Section 149 of the Indian PenalCode.The Accused claimed to be tried by denying theirguilt.The prosecution examined 22 witnesses insupport of its charge.They didnot take my complaint.I wasarrested at 12.30 noon.Thecrowd was digging pits just 1/2metre from the gate where theroad is hardly 5 metres.I amproducing copy of complaint toI.G.P., Certificate of priestand Judgment of H.C.".The other Accused Nos.2 to 5 state that theyhave been falsely implicated.The learned Trial Courton consideration of the entire evidence convicted andsentenced the Accused as aforesated.The pivot of the prosecution case is theevidence of the injured eye witnesses who are(1) P.W.1,Sebastiana Monteiro, P.W.4, Julie Monteiro, (3) P.W.5,Martha Dias, (4) P.W.6, Salish Monteiro and (5) P.W.7,Conceicao Monteiro.The prosecution has also eexaminedone independent eye witness who is P.W.10, ShashikantKundaikar.According to her, on 11th May,1997, at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro,her husband deceased Felix Monteiro, P.W.4, JulieMonteiro, P.W.5, Martha Dias, P.W.6, Salish Monteiro,P.W.7, Conceicao Monteiro, one Poly Romeo and othershad gone to the property of the Chapel in order to puta fencing around it.To facilitate the putting of thefencing, the prosecution witnesses had taken with themspade, crow bar, cement, domillas and other articles.Accused No.5 was armedwith a chain.Accused No.2 was carrying a knife andAccused No.3 was having a broad belt.The other people rushed to the rescueof P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, while she remained alonewith her husband.According to her, her husbanddeceased Felix Monteiro succumbed at the very spotwhere he was lying.P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro,shouted for help and she requested one John, herneighbour to take the deceased to the Asilo hospitaland accordingly, the deceased was taken to the Asilohospital accompanied by P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro.According to her, in the hospital, the deceased wasdeclared dead and thereafter, she went home.ThePolice went at her residence and her complaint atExh.PW1/A came to be recorded.In the cross-examination, P.W.1, SebastianaMonteiro, has admitted that there is a litigationpending between her and Rosalina and on account of thelitigation, they are on enemical terms.She denied thesuggestion that due to the litigation, they were not ontalking terms.She volunteered and stated that thelitigation was not personally between her and Rosalina.She had stated that she had given the names of all the5 Accused in her complaint but later on, correctedherself by saying that she had stated the name ofAccused No.1 only and not the names of the otherAccused as she was not knowing their names.She hadalso admitted that she had not give the description ofthe other Accused nor details regarding their age,complexion etc.. She admitted that she had notdescribed the clothes which the Accused were wearing.She further stated in the cross-examination that shedoes not know whether permission was taken by herhusband for laying the foundation in the property ofthe Chapel.She denied the suggestion that in order todisturb the function of inauguration, her deceasedhusband had purposely brought goondas and someneighbours and dug the foundation in front of the gateto block the acccess of the house of Rosalina.In thecross-examination, she admitted that the daughter ofRosalina had not given bad words.She admitted thatshe knew that Accused No.1 was the son-in-law ofRosalina.She stated that she had stated in hercomplaint that Accused No.1 gave a fist blow on themouth of P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, whereas whenconfronted with the complaint it was noticed that shehad stated "they first attacked one Salish assaultinghim on his face with fist blows".Omission was broughtout regarding parking of the car in front of the gate.Similarly, omissions regarding P.W.1, SebastianaMonteiro, and P.W.4, Julie Monteiro, standing near thedeceased were brought on record.Similarly, omissionsregarding the loss of teeth by P.W.6, Salish Monteiro,after the blow were brought on record.Similarly,omissions regarding the Accused No.1 giving slap on theface of the deceased and throwing him down was alsobrought on record.Omission regarding Accused No.1slapping P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro, was also broughton record.However, the learned Trial Court hasrecorded in respect of the omission that the witnessdoes not know why it is not recorded by the Police inthe fashion in which P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteirodeposed.Omission was also brought on record ofAccused No.2 putting the knife in its cover afterstabbing the deceased.Some minor omissions regardingthe other person rushing to the rescue of P.W.6, SalishMonteiro, and P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro, remainingalone with her husband were brought on record.Similarly,she also denied the suggestion that the deceased wasinjured because of a pickaxe.PW1/A that P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro, has statedin her complaint that Accused No.1 and another personwere present and they first attacked one Salish andassaulted him on his face with fist blows and when thewife intervened she was also assaulted.According tothe complaint, the said two persons then moved towardsher husband and one of them slapped her husband due towhich, he fell on the ground.The omissions which havebeen brought out in respect of Accused No.1 giving fistblows to Salish and slapping the wife of Salish,according to us, are not material omissions.There isa reference to Accused No.1 and another Accused givingfist blows to Salish and slapping the wife of Salish.It has also to be remembered that the omissions havebeen brought out qua the report.It is well settledthat a report is not meant to be a detailed chronologyof the events.Minor omissions in respect of the FirstInformation Report would not adversely affect thecredibility of the witness.They came towards her husbandSalish and questioned her husband as to whether he hadbecome a "dada".P.W.4, Julie Monteiro, hasadmitted that they had dumped 4 cement poles in frontof the gate.Omission was brought out in respect offist blow on the face of Salish which resulted in theloss of teeth.She denied the suggestion that herhusband Salish had thrown a stone at Accused No.2 as aresult of which Accused No.2 received a bleedinginjury.In respect of this witness, some minoromissions have been brought on record which really donot discredit the veracity of this witness.Omission was brought out vis a vis herstatement that Accused No.1 had given a fist blow onthe mouth of P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, as a result ofwhich, his tooth was dislocated.Omission was alsobrought out in respect of Accused No.1 pushing her as aresult of which she fell on the stones.She deniedthe suggestion that she had falsely stated that AccusedNo.2 stabbed the deceased.Similarly, she denied tohave stated in her statement that the entire incidentlasted for two minutes.She was confronted with thesaid portion from her statement.Some omissions werebrought out in the testimony of this witness regardingthe length of the knife, the clothes which the deceasedwas wearing and the distance at which she was standingfrom the deceased when the deceased was stabbed.Shealso denied the suggestion that on 11th May, 1997, theydid not allow Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes, to take hiscar from the gate and at that time, they were workingon the spot.She also denied the suggestion that theyall threatened the Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes,and wentinside the house.She also denied the suggestion thatthe deceased while running fell on the pickaxe andsustained the injuries.He further states thatAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes, had also given threats andabuses.Because of the attitude of Accused No.1, RoyFernandes, the truck could not be unloaded.He furtherstates that on 11th May, 1997, they all went to thesite along with other villagers.At about 7.30 a.m.,Rosalina Monteiro started giving abuses.Accused No.1,Roy Fernandes, came in his car and parked the same inthe property of the Chapel at about 8.00 a.m. and gavea fist blow on him.He denied the suggestion thathe had not seen the Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza onthe day of the incident.Omission was proved in thestatement of putting up a new gate, a month prior tothe date of the incident.Similarly, an omission wasbrought out in respect of the parking of the car ofAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes behind the truck, a dayprior to the date of the incident.Omission was alsobrought out in respect of the inability of the truckdriver to unload the truck on the previous day.Omission was also brought out in his cross-examinationin respect of the fact that he was assisting the othersin mixing the cement and was bringing water.Omissionwas also brought on record in respect of RosalinaMonteiro giving abuses.Omission was also brought outin respect of Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes parking hiscar in the property of the Chapel.In thecross-examination, he admits that he had no artificialteeth.Omission was brought out in respect of theother four to five persons being armed with iron barsalso.Omission was brought out in respect of assaulton this witness on his left shoulder and left hand.Omission was also brought out in respect of his wifeJulie, Conceicao and Tina rushing to his rescue.Omission in respect of assault on Julie and givingslaps to Conceicao and Tina was also brought on record.Omission in respect of the hindrance caused by AccusedNo.1, Roy Fernandes to take the deceased to thehospital was also brought on record.He denied thesuggestion that he had hit a stone on Accused No.2,Anthony DSouza, causing bleeding injury to AccusedNo.2, Anthony DSouza.Shestates that she knew Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes.Shestates that the deceased had asked her to go for workto assist others in fencing the Chapel property.Shestates that while they were working, a car came to thespot and Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes, along with theother Accused got down from the car.She states thatAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes, gave a fist blow on P.W.6,Salish Monteiro, as a result his teeth were uprooted.She further states that when she went to the rescue ofP.W.6, Salish Monteiro, Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes,slapped her on her head.She also says that someonehit a danda blow on her right hand.She further statesthat when Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes went to assaultthe deceased, the deceased was on the road.She saysthat she saw someone removing a knife from the coverand stabbing it on the deceased on the left side.Shefurther states that when the Accused got down from thecar, the Accused were armed with a knife, belt andchain.She says that she does not know who stabbedP.W.6, Salish Monteiro.In the cross-examination, she admits that shehad not given the description of the other Accused.She also admits that she had not described the type ofclothes they were wearing.She states that the carcame to the spot at about 7.30 to 7.45 a.m. She deniedthe suggestion that they blocked the car of AccusedNo.1, Roy Fernandes and gave threats to Accused No.1.Roy Fernandes.Omission was brought out in respect ofthe fact that the injury of P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, wasbleeding.Omission was sought to be brought on recordof the witness rushing to the rescue of P.W.6, SalishMonteiro.The learned Trial Judge has recorded that inthe statement, it was stated that the ladies tried toseparate Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes and P.W.6, SalishMonteiro.Omission was also brought out in respect ofthe fact that when the Accused went to assault thedeceased, this witness requested the Accused not toassault the deceased and stretched her hands to wardoff the blow.The learned Trial Court has recordedthat as per the statement, the knife went below the armwhen the witness was trying to separate them.Omissionwas sought to be brought on record in respect of thefact that the other Accused were armed with chain andbelt.The prosecution has examined P.W.10,Shashikant Kundaikar who at the relevant time wasworking as a labourer, as an eye witness.He statesthat a day prior to the incident, the deceased and oneRomeo had asked him to come to work as a labourer nearthe Chapel.He states that accordingly, he went andafter taking crow bar and other articles came to thesite of the incident.He states that the deceased toldhim to dig pits for erecting cement pillars andaccordingly started digging the pits.He states thatthere were many persons.He, however, does not knowtheir names.He remembers one name of Martha Dias.Hestates that the deceased was present there and in themeantime, five persons came and started assaulting thedeceased and his wife.According to him, Accused No.1,Roy Fernandes, assaulted the deceased with a belt andthereafter Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza, gave a blowof a knife on the thigh of the deceased.According tohim, the deceased was then put in a Maruti car but theAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes, did not allow the car toproceed.In the cross-examination, an omission wassought to be brought on record that five persons hadcome and started assaulting the deceased, his wife andothers.He denied thesuggestion that Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza, had notgiven a blow of the knife on the thigh of the deceased.The Post Mortem was conducted by P.W.3, Dr.E. J. Rodrigues, and the Report of the Post Mortem isat Exh.P.W.3/A. P.W.3, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues, noticedfollowing injuries on the person of the deceased;-Injuries No.1: Abrasion of 3 x 4 mm.vertically oblique towards outer front of right elbow.2).Abrasion of 5 x 5 cms.x 4.m.m.upperouter part of right four arm with a gap of 1 cms.3).Abrasion of 5 x m.s. x 5.m.. upperouter part of right four arm, parallel and 8 ml.4).Two injection fixed marks on dorsem ofleft hand with effusion of blood 3 x 1 cms.underneath.These injuries are surgical in nature.5).Abrasion of 1 cm.x 3 mml.lower frontof right knee.6).Abrasion of 3.5 x 1.5 cms, lower frontof the left knee.7).Multiple small abrasion injury of 1 x 1cms.middle front of left knee.Injuries from 1 to 3 and 5, 6 and 7 arecaused by blunt surface and antimortem in nature.Incised stab bone of 2.7 cms.in lengthwith extension of 2.5 cms.in length in an invertedshape manner with a total length of 5.2 cms.presentin lower outer left of left thigh at junction of middlethird with lower third 58 cms.above left heel and 53cms.above outer part of left ankle.The stable woundpart is placed horizontally oblique, whereas extensionpart is placed vertically oblique.The margin part isinside.The inner middeal angle is acutely cut whereasthe outer angle has extended and its angle is acute.Then stab wound has made cut in subtutorious tissues of4 cms.The width of external injury is 1 cm.Furtherthe stab wound made cut into thigh muscle onthe back of3.5 cms.Under the entry bone and making acrack of 11 cms.depth extending behind left thighbone with tapering 1 cm.as it comes out of the muscleand cuts the femoral artery and again at the middlepart of thigh with complete bisection and further cutthe substantaneous tissue making exit wound 1.5 cms.x3 m.m. with ascute angle and clean cut margin.Obliquely horizontal inner part of left thigh at thejunction of middle third with lower third 59 cms.Thedirection is from left to right and slightly upward.Plenty of effusion of blood present inthe muscle andall over the course of premorel vessel in the thigh.The injury no.8 shows corresponding cut in the shortpant.The injury no.8 is the entry exit caused bypointed penetrating cutting weapon and anti-mortem innature.Inthe cross-examination, P.W.3, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues,has admitted that injuries no.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 7 weresimple in nature.According to him, these injuriescould be caused by a fall.He denied the suggestionthat thigh was not a vital part of the body.Hehas further stated in the cross-examination that injuryno.8 was a single injury but through and throughcompletely across the thigh with entry and exit.Thedepth of the injury was 11 cms.He denied thesuggestion that injury no.8 was not sufficient to causedeath in ordinary course of nature.He also did notagree with the suggestion that if timely medicaltreatment had been given to the deceased, he would havesurvived.He has also stated "apointed part of the pickaxe would not fit in an injuryof the width of 1 cm., breadth of 2.7 cms.and lengthof 11 cms.".He has admitted that incised wound wouldbe caused by weapons like pickaxe, spear, razor, sharpmaterial like broken glass, bottle etc.. He has,however, clarified that he did not find any foreignobjects in the wounds.He has again stated that thedeceased could not have been saved even if promptmedical facilities were made available.Thus,according to us taking into consideration the medicalevidence of P.W.3, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues, thepossibility of deceased having received the injury by afall on the pointed end of a pickaxe is completelyruled out.The Certificate issued by P.W.8,Dr. Shanta Sardessai, is at Exh.PW8/A.P.W.19, Dr. Vasco Teles, had examined P.W.7,Conceicao Monteiro.He had also examined Paulo Menezeswho had a linear abrasion on the left lower leg.Hehad examined P.W.5, Martha Dias, who had a bruise onthe right knee caused by hard and blunt object lessthan 24 hours duration and simple in nature.He hadnot noticed any injury to Apolina DSouza, P.W.4, JulieMonteiro and Philomena DSouza.He had examinedAccused No.2, Anthony DSouza, and had found a contusedlacerated wound 2 m.m. x 1 m.m. at the foreheadcaused by blunt object less than 24 hours in durationand simple in nature.The Certificates werecollectively exhibited as PW9/A colly.In thecross-examination, he has admitted that the injury toPaul Menezes, P.W.5, Martha Dias and P.W.7, ConceicaoMonteiro, could be caused by a fall.In respect ofinjury to Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza, P.W.19, Dr.Vasco Teles, has admitted that the said injury could becaused by a stone hitting his forehead.P.W.20, Dr. Ramakant Bhinge, Dental Surgeon,has stated that he had examined Remedios Monteiro on11th May, 1997 at 10.45 a.m.. Remedios Monteiro isP.W.6, who is also known as Salish Monteiro.P.W.6,Salish Monteiro, had an abrasion over the lower lip andbruise on the upper arm caused by blunt and hardobject.He had given history of assault by fist.According to P.W.20, Dr. Ramakant Bhinge, the incisorhad fallen and the second lateral incisor was shaky andhe was advised to extract.The Certificate is atExh.PW20/A. P.W.20, Dr. Ramakant Bhinge, has furtherstated that he had extracted the natural tooth.He hasfurther stated that in the Certificate by mistake incolumn no.2, he has written that the tooth "false"instead of writing tooth "falls".The said Certificateis at Exh.PW20/B. He has again reiterated that it wasa natural tooth which was extracted.According to him,one tooth had fallen and the other had become loosebecause of a fist blow.In the cross-examination, hehas admitted that the injury to P.W.6, RemediosMonteiro, could be caused by a fall.The prosecution has examined P.W.11, SureshMatonkar, a panch witness in respect of the disclosureand seizure of cycle chain at the instance of AccusedNo.5, Mervin Menezes.The panchanama is at Exh.PW11/A.In support of the same panchanama, the prosecution hasalso examined the other panch namely P.W.12, IndrakantSalgaonkar.The prosecution has examined P.W.13,Ramprasad Joshi, a panch in respect of the discoverymemorandum of knife, M.O.30 at the instance of AccusedNo.3, Domnic Fernandes, and Accused No.4, SandeepMorajkar.The panchanama at Exhs.P.W.13/B is inrespect of the House Search Panchanama of Accused No.1,Roy Fernandes, which yielded .32 revolver cartridges,eight in number and a knife cover of brown colour.The learned Trial Court in para 49 of hisJudgment has not accepted the Section 27 memorandum inrespect of discovery of knife.We have carefullyexamined the evidence on record and we see no reason todisagree with the finding recorded by the learned TrialCourt that the prosecution has not been able toestablish that the knife was discovered in pursuance tothe statement made by the Accused.The learned TrialCourt after appreciating the evidence of P.W.13,Ramprasad Joshi and that of the Investigating Officerhas recorded the finding.The learned Trial Court hasfurther held that failure on the part of theprosecution to prove the discovery would not cause"damage" to the prosecution because in view of thedirect evidence of the witnesses and the identificationof the knife by the prosecution witnesses.The learnedTrial Judge then referred to the evidence of P.W.18,N.R.Shankpal, who has opined that the cut marks on thetrouser of the deceased could be caused by the saidknife and has also opined that the knife, M.O.30, fitsin the cover recovered during the house search ofAccused No.1, Roy Fernandes.The prosecution has relied on the evidence ofP.W.9, R. V. Parab, a Clerk working in the Office ofMamlatdar, to prove the memorandum of identificationparade at Exh.PW9/A. The identification parade hadbeen conducted by one Shri Kantak, who was a Mamlatdarand an Executive Magistrate.During the pendency ofthe trial, Shri Kantak, expired and, therefore, theprosecution had examined P.W.9, R. V. Parab, who wasalso a panch witness to the identification parade forproving the said memorandum.Mr. Lalit Chari, the learned Senior Counselappearing for the Appellant No.1 has led a scathingattack on the testimony of P.W.9, R. V. Parab.Further, the learned Trial Court has also observed thatAccused No.4, Sandeep Morajkar, and Accused No.5,Mervin Menezes, in their Statements under Section 313of Criminal Procedure Code had raised a plea of alibibut since they had failed to establish and prove thesame, an inference could be drawn that they werepresent at the scene of the offence.Theyhad seen the said Accused for the first time on the dayof the incident.On one of the chains,P.W.17, N.R.K. Rao, in his report at Exh.PW17/A hasnoticed blood.However, none of the Medical Officershave opined that the deceased has received any injuriesas a result of blow by chain.Though, the witnessesare categorical in their statement that five personsincluding Accused No.1 had alighted from the car,according to us, the prosecution has not been able toestablish beyond reeasonable doubt that Accused Nos.3,4 and 5 were amongst those five persons involved in theincident.According to us, Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 areentitled to be given the benefit of doubt and deserveto be acquitted.At this juncture, it will be useful to make areference to the defence of Accused No.2, AnthonyDSouza.According to the statement of Accused No.1,Roy Fernandes, under Section 313 of Criminal ProcedureCode, he has stated that he along with Accused No.2,Anthony DSouza, were present and a stone had beenhurled which caused injury to Accused No.2, AnthonyDSouza.Roy Fernandes andAccused No.2, Anthony DSouza, had gone to the PoliceStation to lodge a report but the Police declined toaccept the report.P.W.22, Subhash Goltekar, hasadmitted that Accused Nos.1 and 2, Roy Fernandes andAnthony DSouza, had come to the Police Station tolodge a complaint in regard to the said incident.Inthe cross-examination, he has denied the suggestionthat he had seen Accused nos.1 and 2, Roy Fernandesand Anthony DSouza, at the Police Station at 8.45 a.m.He could not however say to this suggestion thatAccused Nos.1 and 2, Roy Fernandes and Anthony DSouza,had come to the Police Station at 8.10 to 8.20 a.m..He admits that he did not record the complaint ofAccused Nos.1 and 2, Roy Fernandes and Anthony DSouza.He further admits that the complaint lodged by AccusedNos.1 and 2, Roy Fernandes and Anthony DSouza, was notregistered since he was aware that both Accused Nos.1and 2, Roy Fernandes and Anthony DSouza, were involvedin the offence of murder and hence, he did not recordtheir complaint.He denied the suggestion that AccusedNo.2, Anthony DSouza had stated to him that P.W.6,Salish Monteiro, had pelted a stone on his head.Healso admitted that in the station diary entry no.28,there are instructions from the higher Officers not toregister the complaint of Accused No.1, Roy Fernandes.As he beingthe acc.in the abovementioned crime the matter wasdiscussed with S.D.P.O. toMapusa and in turn to S.P.Accused No.2, Anthony DSouza, in hisstatement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code,in response to Question No.104 whether he wanted to sayanything more has replied "nothing".In thecross-examination, it is suggested to the witnessesthat an injury was caused to Accused No.2, AnthonyDSouza, when P.W.6, Salish Monteiro, had pelted astone at him.Mr. Teles, the learned counsel appearingfor the accused no. 2 Anthony has also reiterated thesame defence before us by contending that accused no.2 Anthony was at the scene of the incident alongwithaccused no. 1, Roy and had received an injury on hisforehead as a result of pelting of stone by P.W.6,Salish.Thus, since the presence of accused no. 2Anthony at the scene of the offence is admitted byaccused no. 2 Anthony, the benefit of deficiency inthe identification parade cannot be extended to accusedno.2 Anthony.Be that as it may, merely going to thepolice station to lodge a complaint against theprosecution witnesses would not probabilize the defencetaken by the accused.In the face of the evidence ofthe eye witnesses, it is extremely difficult to holdthat only an incident of stone throwing by P.W.6 Salishhad taken place.The eye witnesses are categorical intheir statements that the accused no. 2 had stabbedthe deceased when he had come to the scene of offencealongwith accused no. 1 accompanied by three otherpersons.The attempt of accused nos. 1 and 2 of goingto the police station can at best be said to be anattempt to lay a foundation in the defence which hasbeen taken in the trial.That would not necessarilyprobabilize the defence that they have taken.Moreover, from the evidence of the InvestigatingOfficer, it does not emerge that accused nos. 1 and 2were in the police station at the time when theincident is alleged to have taken place.1 and 2 have not been able to probabilize theirdefence.Mr. Lalit Chari, the learned senior counselappearing for the accused no. 1, has urged before usthat the prosecution evidence is unreliable in view ofthe discrepant version of the prosecution witnessesregarding the overt acts attributed to the appellantno.According to the learned senior counsel thereare omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 SebastianaMonteiro in respect of giving of fist blow on the mouthof P.W.6 Salish.According to the learned seniorcounsel, the series of omissions in the evidence ofP.w.1 Sebastiana Monteiro renders her evidence doubtfuland no conviction could be based on such testimony.We have adverted to the examination-in-chiefand cross-examination of P.W.1 Sebastiana Monteiro.The First Information Report ExhibitP.W.1/A was lodged promptly with the police.We havealready pointed out in the earlier part of the Judgmentthat in the First Information Report she refers theyfirst attacked one Salish assaulting him on his facewith fist blows.P.W.6 Salish in his evidence states thataccused no. 1 had given him a fist blow due to whichone tooth was uprooted.In the cross-examination theversion of P.W.6 Salish remains intact.This versionof P.W.6 Salish is further corroborated by the evidenceof the other eye witnesses.Moreover, the omissionswhich have been brought in the evidence of P.W.1Sebastiana Monteiro are from the First InformationReport lodged by her.A First Information Report isnot meant to be an encyclopaedic documentation of theincident.Minor omissions not touching the core of theevidence do not destroy the evidence of a witness.There are omissions in the evidence of the other eyewitnesses which we have adverted to above.Infact, minorcontradictions and omissions in the evidence of eyewitnesses, particularly when prosecution examines alarge number of eye witnesses, lends assurance to theCourt regarding the truthfulness of the assertion anddispels the cloud of suspicion that the witnesses maybe got up witnesses.Mr. Chari, the learned senior counsel, hasalso urged that the Court should insist that a minimumof two reliable witnesses speak about the overt act ofthe individual accused.The prosecution has examinedP.W.1 Sebastiana Monteiro, P.W.4 Julie Monteiro, P.W.5Martha Dias, P.W.6 Salish Monteiro, P.W.7 ConsesaoMonteiro and an independent witness P.W.10 ShashikantKundaikar.From the evidence of the eye witnesses it isapparent that the accused 1 and 2 alongwith three otherpersons alighted from the car.The unlawful assembly,therefore, consisted of 5 persons.The common objectof the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder ofdeceased Felix.This is evident because accused no. 2did not use the knife to cause injuries to others.After he had stabbed deceased, accused no. 2 kept theknife back in its cover.The evidence on record pointsout that when accused no. 2 alighted from the car hehad a knife in his hand.The other members of theunlawful assembly were armed with belt and bicyclechains.The evidence also suggests that it was thedeceased who was attempting to construct the compoundto the Chapel property.Thus, the relations between thedeceased and accused no. 1 and his mother-in-lawRosalina were strained.All the accused had cometogether in the car of accused no. 1 and immediatelyon coming to the scene of offence they had proceeded toassault the deceased and the other eye witnesses.Insuch circumstances, the evidence unerringly points outthat the common object of the unlawful assembly was tocause the murder or to inflict such injuries to thedeceased as was likely to result in his death.Thus,in prosecution of the common object, accused no. 2 hadstabbed the deceased on his thigh.Since we haveacquitted accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the ground thattheir presence is not established, the question whicharises for our consideration is whether due to theacquittal of three accused, accused nos. 1 and 2 couldbe said to be members of the unlawful assembly.Wehave already recorded a finding that 5 persons alightedfrom the car.Out of the 5 persons, presence ofaccused nos. 1 and 2 has been proved by theprosecution.Accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 have beenacquitted because the prosecution is unable to provetheir presence at the scene of offence.The Apex court in Kartar Singh v. State ofPunjab, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1787, has held:-" Where the trial Court can legallyfind that the actual number ofmembers in the assailants party wasmore than five, the said party willconstitute an unlawful assembly evenwhen only three persons have beenconvicted.The First Information Report in respect ofthe incident was lodged by P.W.1 Sebastiana Monteiro.The evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses is categorical that alongwith accused no. 1,4 other persons also alighted from the car.The witnesses haveadmitted that accused nos. 2 to 5 were unknown to them.1 and 2 while holding that they were members ofthe unlawful assembly alongwith three other unknownpersons. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,525,879 | The appellant herein is the first among nine accused tried bythe trial Court.Pending appeal, one of the nine accused involved in the saidcrime of impersonation, forging documents and obtaining passport with falsedocuments.One of the accused by name, Sagayamari @ Geetha have left the country using the Indian Passport issued based on the false and fakedocuments.She being a Srilankan national, with connivance of the accusedpersons, was able to get Indian passport and flee away from India to join herhusband at London.Due to her abscondance, she has been split up and C.C.No.9 of 2007 has been arisen.This appellant is the first among the other eightaccused being tried by the trial Court.Before the trial Court, eight accused were charged.Pendingappeal, died and hence, the appeal got abated.The charge against this appellant is that he conspired withthe other accused persons to do an illegal act to obtain Indian passport byusing fake and forged documents such as ration card, school certificate,birth certificate and false verification certificate by illegal means.Inpursuant to the said conspiracy, he obtained passport bearing Nos.E0669282and E0669286 by submitting false documents and cheated the passport office by dishonestly inducing the passport office to deliver the passports.Further,he was charged for giving false information to get passport for Sagayamari,absconding accused and his daughter, Dharshini, who are Srilankan nationalsto get Indian passport by furnishing details of his wife Smt.Geetha and hisdaughter Miss.Though the appellant had two Indian passports in hisname, he had obtained another passport dishonestly by furnishing falseinformation.The trial Court after considering the evidence let in by theprosecution convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 120(B)r/w. 420, 448, 471 IPC; Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act,1967; Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;Section 420 IPC and Sections 12(1)(b) and 12(2)of the Passports Act, 1967.The trial Court sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo two months RigorousImprisonment for the offences under Sections 120(B) r/w. 420, 448, 471 IPC;Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967; Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; one year RigorousImprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo twomonths Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Section 420 IPC., oneyear Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, toundergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; one year Rigorous Imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo two months RigorousImprisonment for the offence under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967.Total fine amount imposed on the appellant is Rs.4000/- and the period ofsentence was ordered to run concurrently.The facts lead to this appeal is as follows:Based on reliable information the Inspector of Police/CBI/SCB,Chennai, Mr.G.Kalaimani registered First Information Report on 28.01.2005 tothe effect that some of the officials of passport office, Trichy has enteredinto criminal conspiracy with travel agents and individuals, and in pursuantto the said criminal conspiracy, passport applications were submitted infictitious names, accompanied with forged/fake family ration card,fake/false verification certificate and has obtained four passports in thename of Mr.Abdul Kadar Jamaludieen, Mr.J.Joseph, K.Geetha and Miss. K.Anusha.When the passports were sent to the address mentioned in the passport application form, they were returned to the passport office un-deliveredsince the addresses are false.However, the returned passports were keptunder safe custody at the passport office, Trichy, which were later removedby the officials of the passport office and handed over to the individuals.On completion of investigation final report was filedagainst this appellant and others for specific act pursuant to the conspiracyto get passport for Sagayamari and minor Dharshini in the name of Geetha andAnusha (wife and daughter of this appellant) by affixing the photograph ofSagayamari and minor Dharshini respectively, by furnishing fake ration cardand false address proof.Anusha showing that she is his daughter.Infact, thephotograph and other address were not that of Anusha, but it is ofMiss.A.(MD).No.377 of2009 respectively.Contention of the appellant in the appeal :The Prime contention raised by the appellant herein is that whenA3 and A4 were not found guilty and acquitted by the trial Court for all thecharges, this appellant cannot be held guilty for the offences under Sections120(B) r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.The prosecution has failed to proveforgery or using forged document as genuine as against this appellant.Discussion and decision:This is one of the classic case to understand how vulnerableIndian Sovereignty at the the hands of corrupt and dubious people, who occupyhigh public post.Sagayamari and her minor daughter Dharshini are Srilankannationals.They have entered into Indian soil without valid document andresiding at Chennai, Tamil Nadu.The application of Sagayamari under tatkal scheme has been enclosed with verification certificate issued by one S.Ragupathy, IAS, JointSecretary to Government of Tamilnadu.In the said certificate the officer ofIAS rank has attested the photograph of Sagayamari as Geetha, W/o.Kumar and also certified as a person residing at Ramnad District, S.Mariyur Village andknown to him for one year.She carry good moral character and reputation.Theother documents enclosed along with her applications are Photocopy of thefamily ration card in the name of Kumar, resident of 79, East Street,S.Mariyur, Kadaladi, which found to be a fake document.The staff atRegional Passport Office at Trichy has removed the passports dishonestly fromthe safe custody and handed over to the travel agent Senthil Kumar.He inturn delivered the passports to Mrs.Sagayamari.Later, Sagayamari and herdaughter Dharshini has left India with Indian Passport in the name Geethaand Anusha respectively.The crime has came into light when 112 passports kept in thesafe custody in the Regional Passport office, Trichy found missing.a) The applications for issuance of passports in the name ofSmt.The address of these applicants is mentioned as No 79, East Street, S.Mariyoor village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramnad District.Anusha was delivered in that address.In response to this query,Karuppasamy (PW-14) has written a letter Ex P-28 informing that there is nosuch address and no such person.The first passport Ex.The address in the firstpassport is No.25, Bharathiyar II-Street, Pazavanthangal, St.He has falsely declared thatthe person, who has applied for passport is his daughter and reside atNo.79, East Street, S.Mariyoor Village, Kadaladi.She never applied for passport.The Regional Passport office at Trichy has issued passport tothe appellant though he already possess a valid passport issued by thePassport Office at Chennai.The documents furnished by the appellant to get asecond passport are proved to be false and fabricated documents.He hasdishonestly induced the passport authorities to issue passport by furnishingfabricated document like ration card and false information regarding hisname, surname and address.The appellant has abetted foreign national (Smt.Hence, charge against him gotabated.The trial Court found this appellant-Kumar(A1) and MohamedIbrahim(A2) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420,468, 471 IPC; Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967; Sections13(2) r/w.Application for passport was made by the appellantfor Sagayamari and Dharshini by enclosing forged and fabricated documentsmentioned above.For the said purpose, the appellant has contacted oneMeeran-sub agent of Namakkal Lakshmi Travel Agency at Trichy and Chennai, who in turn introduced the accused/appellant to Senthil kumar-the proprietor ofNamakkal Lakshmi Travel Agency, Trichy.When the police verification wassought by the passport office, Sri.R.Pandian(A5)-the Sub Inspector of Police,attached to Sayalkudi Police station has issued a clear police verificationcertificate in favour of the appellant as if the appellant is the resident ofNo.79, East Street, S.Mariyur Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram.As faras the passport application in the name of Geetha and Anusha, for Sahayamariand her daughter Miss.Dharshini, one Shenbagakumar has arranged school certificate, birth certificate and also a verification certificate obtainedfrom S.Ragupathy, IAS-Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Labour and Employment Department to get passport under tatkal scheme.This appellant has enclosed his passport copy along with theapplication form of Miss.Dharshini, daughter of Sagayamari.The trial Court tried eight accused in this case for variousoffences including offence of conspiracy against all of them.This appellantshown as the first accused.This appellant and the second accused Ibrahimwere found guilty and other accused were acquitted of all charges.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence both A1and A2 preferred appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.376 of 2009 and Crl.Since A2-Ibrahim died pending appeal, his appeal inCrl.Theingredient of cheating to attract Section 420 IPC was not made out throughany of the prosecution witnesses.While so, when the conspiracy charge failsand the public servants A5 and A7 being acquitted for all charges, theconspiracy charge for committing cheating, forgery along with public servantsdo not sustain.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidenceof PW.20 is unreliable.While the trial Court has disbelieved his evidence asagainst A4, the same benefit ought to have been extended to this accused.10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and thelearned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases.Indian passport carrying the photograph ofSagayamari and Anusha has been issued by Trichy Regional Passport Office, based on the application made in the name of Geetha, W/o.Kumar and Anusha, D/o.Kumar, residence of No.79, East Street, S.Mariyur (village ), Kadaladi(taluk), Ramanad District, Tamilnadu.The application in the name of the minor girl Anusha carryingthe photograph of Dharshini is enclosed with an sworn affidavit of S.Kumarand Geetha duly notarized by an Advocate by name S.M.M.Hamid Hasan appointed by the Union Government of India under the Notary Act. In this affidavit,Kumar signed as father of the minor child Anusha and as mother of Anusha,Geetha has written her name in capital letters against the column deponents.The applications were prepared and submitted through travelagent Senthil Kumar.The Sayalkudi police station Sub Inspector of Police-Pandian has recommended to issue passports to them, though there was no such persons residing in the said address, the passports despatched to the saidaddress returned unclaimed and kept in the safe custody.Out of112 passports, 52 passports were unclaimed passports returned from S.MariyurPost office.Hence the Passport officer Thiru.Pandurangan has lodgedcomplaint to CBI.The trial Court has found Kumar(A-1) and Mohamed Ibrahim (A-2) the conduit, who facilitated to get passports with false documents.Sagayamari @ Geetha still absconding and case against her is split up.Restof the accused were acquitted of all charges.The State has not filed appealagainst acquittal.Pending trial Ragupathi,IAS, who gave verificationcertificate died.Pending appeal A.2-Mohamed Ibrahim died.As against otheraccused, who were acquitted by the trial court, CBI has not preferred appealfor reasons best known, though the records and evidence discloses concreteproof of their involvement in the crime.In the said background of the facts, this court, whiledismissing the appeal on considering the evidence available, is of theopinion that it is suffice to point out the incriminating evidence provedagainst this appellant to uphold the judgment of the trial court.The passport sent to that address was returned to sender (Trichy Passport office).In his testimony, PW-14 hasdeposed that the passport of Kumar was received by one Allahudeen claiming himself as friend of Kumar.The other two passports sent to Geetha andAnusha was returned to sender for want of proper address and claimant.Thisestablish the fact that the applications were made furnishing false address.PW.25-Geetha and PW.26-Anusha have deposed that they never applied for passport and the address is not their residential address.b) Two passports Ex.P-53, bearing No.Thomas Mount,Chennai-600 114, whereas the address in the second passport is No.37, Saveriyar Kovil Street, Ramnad Post and District, Tamilnadu.These twoexhibits and the depositions of Geetha(PW.25), wife of the appellant,Thiru.c) The affidavit Ex. P-32 accompanied with the application ofminor Anusha is signed by the appellant Kumar.Sagayamariand Miss.Dharshini) to get Indian passport by furnishing the documents of hiswife and daughter such as mark-sheet and birth certificate.He has given afalse sworn affidavit to the passport office regarding the identity andparentage of Dharshini.The fabrication of document and using it as genuineis well found through the exhibits in which the appellant has signed anddeposed by the witnesses, more specifically by his own wife and daughter.In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is unable to findany reason to interfere the trial Court finding.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.The convictionand sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.6 of 2007 dated 29.10.2009is hereby confirmed.The trial Court is directed to secure theappellant/accused-R.Kumar and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The bail bond executed if any shall stand cancelled.The II-Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Cases),Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police,C.B.I/SCB/Chennai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,554,472 | Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.This Criminal Misc.Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.12.2017 in Case Crime No. 171 of 2002, under Sections 193, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A/120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Chaubepur, District Varanasi and the entire proceedings of Misc.Case No. 1 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Guru Dev Singh and another) pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Varanasi and also the cognizance order dated 6.1.2018 passed by Special Judge, Varanasi, summoning the applicant to face trial under the aforementioned Sections.In brief the facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2, Loknath Verma, Inspector, Vigilance Department, Varanasi, had lodged an F.I.R. on 18.6.2002 at P.S. Chaubepur, District- Varanasi under the aforementioned sections alleging that in the establishment of 400KV Sub-station, Sarnath, Varanasi, in the year 1992, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused-applicant- Guru Dev Singh along with other co-accused named in the F.I.R. caused financial loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 12,46,969.55/-.Soon after the lodging of the said F.I.R, Crl.Writ Petition No. 3427 of 2002 (Guru Dev Singh Vs.The investigation proceeded in pursuance of the said F.I.R. and in parcha no. 16 dated 25.9.2006, it was recorded that no material was found showing involvement of the accused-applicant and other accused in the alleged offence and accordingly final report was submitted, which was approved by the State Government.The said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 8.3.2007 as regards the present accused-applicant.The final report dated 23.2.2017 was submitted in court below which was registered as F.R. No. 1 of 2007, (State of U.P. vs. Guru Dev Singh and others) and upon its consideration the same was rejected by the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Varanasi vide order dated 26.2.2014 directing for further investigation in the matter.In the meantime one of the co-accused Surendra Kumar Jain was arrested and apprehending his arrest, the applicant thereafter preferred Crl.Writ Petition No. 28522 of 2017 before High Court in which vide order dated 21.12.2017, his arrest was again stayed.However, the Investigating Officer continued re-investigation in place of further investigation against law.The Investigating Officer in S.C.D. No. II dated 7.9.2015 incorporated the order of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi vide order dated 26.2.2014, the estimate report, contents of advertisement inviting tenders as published in two newspapers, receipt of three tenders, comparative chart of three tenders prepared under the signature of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, minutes of the meeting dated 18.12.1991 of the High Power Committee (applicant not being its member), decision of the Committee to call for fresh minimum rates and extension of validity of tender period, comparative chart of new rates submitted by the tenderers and acceptance by High Power Committee of the tender of M/s Awadh Trading Company having quoted the lowest rates, complaint of one of the participants, who had submitted tender namely Gupta Brothers and the contract entered into with M/s Awadh Trading Company.Ultimately, the Investigating Officer concluded in Parcha No. SCD- XVI that Surendra Kumar Jain, Guru Dev Singh (applicant), Raghu Nandan Lal, Satyendra Bahadur Srivastava, Rajendra Awasthi, Upendra Kumar Singh and Yadu Nath, had together caused financial loss to the tune of Rs. 12,46,969.55/- by illegally making payment to Hasan Haidar, owner of M/s Awadh Trading Company, Faizabad.The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet no. 4 dated 30.12.2017 in the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi only against Surendra Kumar Jain and the applicant under the aforementioned sections stating that the investigation against the co-accused was still in progress.The Special Judge (Anti Corruption) vide order dated 6.1.2018 took cognizance and summoned the applicant under the aforementioned sections to face trial and thereby committed error because the same was not permissible as further investigation was going on.Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that as per the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, Store Purchase Committee comprising V.S. Mathur, Member Transmission, Sri V.V. Jindal, Member Finance and Accounts, D.N. Tiwari, Joint Secretary (Finance), Government of U.P. Sri O.P. Gupta, Chief Engineer in its meeting dated 18.12.1991 had decided to get revised rate from the tenderers by extending the date of tender and, thereafter on submission of new rates, accepted the bid of M/s Awadh Trading Company, Faizabad which makes it clear that the applicant had no role in accepting the said bid and there was not an iota of evidence available against the accused-applicant showing his involvement in the alleged offence.It was in the domain of higher officials to accept the tenders and take the material decisions and accordingly the acceptance of tender of M/s Awadh Trading Company, Faizabad, was not a decision of the accused-applicant, rather the same was taken by the High Level Committee.Further it is argued that the estimate rates were worked out on the basis of departmental schedule of rates for material and labour components, over head charges and the charges in connection with transportation & handling etc. and that for purposes of inviting tenders, standard practice was adopted.Further it is argued that the process of investigation against the co-accused named in the F.I.R. was still going on and yet the charge sheet had been submitted against the applicant and Surendra Kumar Jain by mentioning their names in the charge sheet which was against law because due to incomplete process of investigation, the charge sheet should not have been submitted separately against accused-applicant.He has no criminal history, hence the said charge sheet deserves to be quashed.Besides that accused Yadu Nath and Satyendra Bahadur Srivastava had expired on 24.12.2015 and 17.09.2011 respectively.The prosecution has found sufficient evidence against them on record in revising the rates of tender in a manner so that the said Company gets the contract. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 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. |
69,555,608 | Arguments heard.Perused the case-diary.This is first bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant.Applicant has been arrested on 06.04.2015 in connection with Crime No.115/2015 registered at P.S. Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 294, 341, 323, 506B, 326, 325, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the case of the present applicant is akin to the case of other co-accused, namely, Dharmendra who has been admitted to bail by this court vide order dated 13/05/2015 in Mcrc No.4042/2015 and Hariram who has been admitted to bail by this court vide order dated 13.05.2015 in Mcrc No.4376/2015, therefore, claiming the same benefit, it is prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the same set of facts and circumstances.Learned P.P. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid position.Considering the facts and circumstances of the 2 Mcrc.4652.2015 Heeralal Vs.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
6,955,612 | Counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the terms of Crl.M.C. No.3118/2014 Page 1 of 7 settlement, the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakhs has to be paid.The respondent, who is stated to be a graduate, is also present in Court.M.A. No.10799/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.108/2013 dated 11.03.2013 under Section 498-A/406 IPC registered at PS Subhash Place on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement on 26.08.2013 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.A copy of the settlement agreement between the parties has also been filed to the Court.Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been handed over to the complainant/respondent No.2 favouring the minor daughter of the first petitioner as well as the complainant namely, Deshna Talreja by way of a Demand Draft, bearing No.000016 dated 15.07.2014 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, in Court today.In addition, the remaining amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been handed over in cash to the complainant in court today.M.C. No.3118/2014 Page 1 of 7She states that her counsel is unavailable today; and she has handed over a copy of her driving license bearing No.DL-0920110154022 as proof of her identification.She approbates the settlement dated 26.08.2013 recorded before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.She further states that in keeping with the aforesaid Settlement Agreement, she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further, and that the said FIR, as well as all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed as prayed for by Crl.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.108/2013 dated 11.03.2013 registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at police station Subhash Place, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.10. Dasti. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
93,691,892 | Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439 Cr.He undertakes to cooperate in trial and would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party in any manner.He further undertakes to not to involve in any criminal activity.He further undertakes to serve the national cause by making contribution in PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App.On these grounds, prayer for bail has been made.Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of bail application.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions 4 of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.This Court expects that the applicant shall rise to the occasion to serve the society in this time of crises to discharge his fundamental duty of rendering national service when called upon to do so, as per Article 51-A(d) of the Constitution.Registry is directed to communicate about the passing of this order to the concerned District Magistrate for compliance.The District Magistrate concerned is directed to intimate this Court in case condition No.9 is not complied with and on receipt of any such intimation, Registry is directed to list the matter before appropriate bench as PUD.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 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.