id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
66,281,095 | 1 ANNEXURE-C High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore, Indore CONTINUATION ORDER SHEET Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.25002/2018 (Sagar Bhati s/o Vijay Bhati Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 11.07.2018 Shri Mahendra Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the bail application, with liberty to repeat the same after filing of the challan. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
66,283,108 | This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") has been preferred against the judgment dated 31/12/2018 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District Shajapur, in Cri.Appeal No.165/2016, wherein the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Shajapur, vide judgment dated 27/04/2016 in Criminal Case No.2168/2015, whereby the applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354(A)(II) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I, with a fine of Rs.100/- under each sections and usual default stipulation.Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on 03/09/2015 complainant lodged a complaint at Police Station-Bercha against the present applicant that on 02/09/2015, she was alone in her house, her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law went to Ujjain for work and her mother-in-law had gone out to purchase vegetables.At that time, the present applicant came inside her house and told her that when she is in need of money she can take it from him.Thereafter, he caught hold of her hand, pushed her down on the bed and pressed her chest in order to outrage her Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 01/10/2019 14:40:58 Cr.R. No.123/2019 2 modesty.When the complainant raised alarm, then her aunt Geetabai came there and on seeing her aunt, the applicant fled away from the spot.Thereafter complainant informed the incident to her mother-in-law and when her husband & father-in-law returned back home from Ujjain on 03/09/2015, she narrated them about the incident.During investigation, Police reached the spot, prepared spot map, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the applicant.R. No.123/2019 2Trial Court, after undertaking full-fledged trial found the accused guilt for offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354(A)(II) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I, with a fine of Rs.100/- under each sections and usual default stipulation.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicant approached the Sessions Court by filing an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 31/12/2018, affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.R. No.123/2019 3It is clear from the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) that the applicant entered into her house, offered her that when she is in need of money, she can take it from him and thereafter, with intend to outrage her modesty, he caught hold of her hand, pushed her down on her bed and pressed her chest.When the victim raised alarm, her aunt Geetabai came and on seeing her aunt, the applicant fled away from the spot.Her statement was also found corroborated with the statement of Geetabai (P.W.2).FIR was also recorded without any unreasonable delay.Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.123/2019 is hereby dismissed.R. No.123/2019 4The record of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court be sent back along with the copy of this order for necessary information and compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 01/10/2019 14:40:58 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
66,286,843 | Date when arguments were concluded : 28th September, 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 ::: apeal313.14 2 Date when judgment is pronounced : 21st October, 2016 J U D G M E N T [Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.] :::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::By the present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appellant takes exception to his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 3(a) as well as for the offence under Section 5 (j) (ii) and 5 (l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short "the said Act"].The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "the Penal Code"].He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.Case of the prosecution is that the appellant, who was serving as a driver, was acquainted with one "S" - the prosecutrix.The appellant developed friendship with "S" and both had decided to get married after "S" attained the age of majority.In November, 2010, when the prosecutrix was studying in VIIIth Standard, the appellant had been to her place and had stated that as they had decided to marry, he had sexual intercourse with her.This continued for some ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 ::: apeal313.14 3 more period.As a result of said relationship, the prosecutrix became pregnant and on 15th June, 2013, a report was lodged in that regard.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::On the basis of investigation carried out by the police authorities, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant for offences under the said Act as well as under Sections 376 and 417 of the Penal Code.The appellant did not plead guilty and was, thus, tried.At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was held guilty and was accordingly convicted in the manner stated herein above.Hence this appeal.The Radiologist, who was examined as PW 5, had opined in his report at Exh.19 that the age of the prosecutrix was not less than sixteen years and not more than eighteen years.According to him, a margin of error in the assessment of the age by the Radiologist was two years on either side.The defence was entitled to rely upon the higher age as assessed by the Radiologist.The Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix had not been placed on record.It was urged that initial burden to prove the age of the prosecutrix was on the prosecution and having failed to do so, the ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 ::: apeal313.14 4 appellant could not have been convicted under the provisions of the said Act by treating the prosecutrix as a child.He referred to the deposition of the Investigating Officer - PW 11 who had stated that the Birth Certificate of "S" had not been collected from the Nagar Parishad.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::Referring to the case of the prosecution itself, it was submitted that the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual.The report, in question, was belatedly lodged on 15th June, 2013 and till said date, the prosecutrix remained silent.In the alternate, it was submitted that if it is found that the prosecutrix was not a child and the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code was made out, the appellant would be entitled for a lesser punishment than the one awarded by the Sessions Court.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-[a] Kaini Rajan Vs.State of Kerala [(2013) 9 SCC 113], [b] Ganga Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh [(2013) 7 SCC 278], [c] Musauddin Ahmed Vs.State of Assam [AIR 2010 SC 3813], [d] Ram Suresh Singh Vs.Prabhat Singh alias Chhotu Singh & another [(2009) 6 SCC 681], ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 ::: apeal313.14 5 [e] Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Vs.State of Bihar [(2005) 1 SCC 88], [f] State of U.P. Vs.Nahar Singh (dead) & others [(1998) 3 SCC 561], and [g] Jaya Mala Vs.Home Secretary, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir & others [(1982) 2 SCC 538].::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::Shri M.J. Khan, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the appellant's conviction.He submitted that there was no question of either adding or reducing the age from the one assessed by the Radiologist.He submitted that the appellant had, in fact, not questioned the prosecutrix about her age as deposed by her.He referred to the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the said Act, to urge that the prosecutrix being a person below the age of eighteen years, she was a child and hence appellant-accused was rightly charged under the said Act. He referred to the report at Exh.43 which showed the appellant to be the biological father of the daughter born to the prosecutrix.He also referred to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well as ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 ::: apeal313.14 6 Rule 12 (3) (b) of the Rules framed thereunder.The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since the inception of the relationship, the appellant had promised to marry the prosecutrix and had continued the relationship.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::We have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance, we have also gone through the records of the case.Before considering the submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the parties, reference can be made to certain factual aspects that have come on record and which have not been duly challenged by the appellant.The prosecution had conducted the parentage test of the child born to the prosecutrix by collecting the blood samples of the appellant, the prosecutrix and the child.It was clearly opined therein that the appellant and the prosecutrix were the biological parents of the child born to the prosecutrix.This report was brought on record in the deposition of Investigating Officer - PW 11 and there was no challenge by the appellant to this report.Even before us, there was no such challenge raised to the said report.It is, thus, clear from the aforesaid report that on account of the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix, a child was born to them.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::In her deposition, she has stated that the appellant was serving as a driver and that he used to intermittently come to their house as her parents were also working at Anandwan where the appellant was serving.She has stated that while she was in IXth Standard, the appellant had stated that he would marry her and had started having sexual relations with her.After her menstrual cycle had stopped, she had told the appellant about the same.The appellant, instead, got engaged with another girl on 3rd July, 2013 and got married with said other girl.She deposed that her date of birth was 5th January, 1997 and that on 23rd September, 2013 she had given birth to a female child at Chandrapur ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 ::: apeal313.14 8 Govt. Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::In her cross-examination, it was suggested to her that in the year 2012, she was in IXth Standard.He stated that after such examination, the expected date of delivery was given to be 16th September, 2013 and that her age on radiological examination appeared to be sixteen to eighteen years.In his cross-examination, he stated that the "Crest Ilium Test" was not conducted because the patient was pregnant.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:45 :::The Investigating Officer - Ms. Shubhangi Aagase, examined as PW 11, admitted that the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix had not been collected nor was the date of birth verified from the Nagar Parishad.The mother of the prosecutrix had given the School Leaving Certificate of the prosecutrix.There is no cross-examination, whatsoever, to this specific assertion made by the prosecutrix in her Examination-in-Chief.Her said statement has gone totally unchallenged.Nahar Singh (dead) & others [(1998) 3 SCC 561] which are quoted below:-::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 :::although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to incriminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.This report is dated 18th June, 2013 and if it is the unchallenged version of the prosecutrix that her date of birth was 5th January, 1997, this report at Exh.19 corroborates her said statement.If she was born on 5th January, 1997, she would be aged about sixteen years and five months on 18th June, 2013 when the said test was conducted.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 :::In any event, the conclusion as to her age is not arrived at solely on the basis of the Ossification Report at Exh.19, but on the basis of her unchallenged deposition.The report at Exh.19 merely corroborates her oral deposition.The baby was actually born on 23rd September, 2013 through a normal delivery.It is, thus, obvious that the prosecutrix was hardly aged 16 years when ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 ::: apeal313.14 14 on account of sexual intercourse by the appellant, she had conceived.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 :::Once her date of birth is accepted to be 5th January, 1997, it is clear that on 5th January, 2013 she was aged sixteen years of age.It is, thus, clear from the evidence on record that she was less than sixteen years of age when the appellant had sexual intercourse with her.For the same reason, the alternate argument made on behalf of the appellant by referring to Section 42 of the said Act that a lesser punishment as per the provisions of Section 376 of the Penal Code deserves to be imposed, also cannot be accepted.Once it is found that "S" was a child below eighteen years, coupled with the admitted position that the report at Exh.43 proved ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 ::: apeal313.14 15 the appellant to be the father of the said child, the conviction of the appellant for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 (a), 5 (j) (ii) and 5 (l) of the said Act cannot be faulted.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 :::In the passing, conduct of the appellant also needs to be noticed.As per the evidence on record, the appellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix when she was less than sixteen years of age.The only defence sought to be raised by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code is his answer to Question No. 43, in which he stated that the mother of the prosecutrix asked him whether he would marry "S" and as he refused to marry her, false allegations were made against him.In the light of the evidence on record, the defence as raised does not deserve acceptance.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court.Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.The sentence of conviction handed down by the learned Special Judge, Warora, in Special [POCSO] Case No. 3 of 2013 is maintained.The ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 ::: apeal313.14 16 seized property be destroyed after the period of appeal.There would be no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 01:07:46 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,064,964 | On the complaint lodged by Kunjaram, the respondent police registered acase in Crime No.73 of 2012 and after completing the investigation, filed acharge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur for theoffences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 447, 427, 307 IPC and 3 of PPDLAct against Arockiam and 15 others.The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.122 of 2016 and is pending trial before the learnedPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.While so, Arockiam (A-1)filed Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2016 in S.C.No.122 of 2016 under Section 227 of theCode of Criminal Procedure for discharge.It appears that the Trial Court hasdismissed Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2016 in S.C.No.122 of 2016 on 27.04.2017, challenging which, this revision has been filed with a delay of 141 days.This Court has condoned the delay of 141 days in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.870 of 2018today.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the TrialCourt had not passed a speaking order in Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2016 and that adocket order alone has been passed.He took this Court through Page No.51 ofthe typed-set of papers, wherein, the Trial Court has passed the followingorder:"Crl.M.P.No.2260/2016 in S.C.No.122/2016 Date: 27.04.2017 Order pronounced.In the result, this petition is dismissed.(sd/-........) Sessions Judge, Sivagangai."On a reading of the above order, it is obvious to this Court that inthe 'A' Diary, only the cryptic order will be noted, but, there will be adetailed order on the file of the Court.However, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the Sessions Court had not passed any detailedorder.Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner,this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, is entitled to do complete justice to the partiesin a given case.Therefore, this Court wanted to satisfy itself whether thereare prima facie materials against the petitioner for framing charge.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FirstInformation Report in this case has been given by Kunjaram, the wife ofRamalingam and that in the First Information Report, she has stated that theoccurrence in the case had taken place at 03.00 p.m., on 23.09.2012, but,whereas, the AR copy shows that Ramalingam, the husband of the defacto complainant, who is said to have suffered injuries, was admitted in thehospital at 12.05 p.m., on 23.09.2012 and, therefore, the First InformationReport is false.In theFirst Information Report, the defacto complainant has stated that there werecivil disputes between their family and one Ariyaputhiran and Thiyagarajanpending in the Civil Courts and that on 23.09.2012 around 3 'O' Clock, thefirst accused and 15 named persons came to her house, armed with deadly weapons and also brought a JCB with which they razed to the ground her house and also the dwelling units of Parvathi, Prema, Vadivukarasi, Ananthi,Gajendran, etc. She has also stated that the estimated loss would beRs.50,00,000/-.She has further stated that in this incident, her husbandRamalingam, Prema, Arumugam, Mariappan, Karuppiah and others also suffered injuries and they were admitted to the hospital.On a careful reading of the statement of Ramalingam, he has statedthat there were civil disputes between his family and the family of oneAriyaputhiran pending in the Civil Courts in Karaikudi, Devakottai andSivagangai; that on 23.09.2012 around 10.00 a.m., while he and his wifeKunjaram were in their house, the accused came there under the leadership ofArockiam (the petitioner herein) and they started demolishing their house;that they rushed to the residence of Ananthi, the Councillor of Ward No.20and asked her to intervene; that when all the people in the Street gathered,the accused went away and that at 10.30 a.m., when he, his wife and hisbrother Mariappan and others were going on to the main Road, Arockiam and his group intercepted them and attacked them, in which, he and Prema, were injured.In that statement, Ramalingam has implicated this petitioner and hasnamed the others also in the assault.He has further stated that after theassault, he was admitted to the hospital and while he was in the hospital, at03.00 p.m., he learnt that Arockiam, the petitioner and others had gone tohis house with bulldozer and JCB and have completely demolished the houses.On the same lines, it is the submission of Prema, who also suffered injuries and was admitted to theHospital.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the policehave not been able to show the actual damage to the demolished houses and, therefore, a charge under Section 3 of PPDL Act cannot be framed, since itrequires that the damage should be more than Rs.100/-.In this case, even inthe First Information Report, Kunjaram has stated that the damage is aroundRs.50,00,000/-.Whether she has given an exaggerated version or not is aquestion of fact which can be tested only in the cross-examination ofKunjaram and not in a discharge application or in a revision under Section397 Cr.P.C. In the light of such overwhelming materails against thepetitioner, it cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials forframing charge.In the result, this revision is devoid of merits and accordingly,the same is dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition isclosed.If he absconds, a fresh Information Report can be registeredagainst him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.2.The Inspector of Police, Natchiyarpuram Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,070,747 | Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for hearing.Umesh Prasad Bega.The revision has been preferred by the applicants against judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisinghnagar, District-Shahdol in Criminal Appeal No.11/2017, whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and conviction order dated 06.02.2017, passed in Criminal Case No.78/2011 passed by Presiding Judge, J.M.F.C.Jaisinghnagar, District-Shahdol.Applicants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months each with fine of Rs.500/- each, Section 323/149 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months each with fine of Rs.500/- each and Section 325/149 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulations respectively.A s per prosecution case, on 09.02.2011 at about 10:00 a.m. complainant Kaushalya Bai was coming her home with water.Applicants/accused came there and started stoning to her, they abused Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 30/09/2019 10:56:48 2 CRR-4150-2019 obscene and threatened her to dire consequences.On that basis, complainant lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants/accused u/s. 148/, 323/149, 325/149, 294 and 506-II of Indian Penal Code.He further submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case.The final hearing of this revision will take time.If the applicants/accused is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be frustrated.Therefore, the application filed o n behalf of the applicants may be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence may be suspended and they may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the said application.They are first offenders.The custodial sentence awarded to the Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 30/09/2019 10:56:48 3 CRR-4150-2019 applicants/accused shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision.Umesh Prasad Bega be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicants/accused shall appear and mark their presence before the trial Court on 13.12.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the revision for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Nitesh Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 30/09/2019 10:56:48 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,071,263 | P/24 at Police Station Saikheda, CRA No. 1133/2005 2 DistrictBetulthathewasafarmerofVillageDehgud,hewasmarried withthedeceasedUrmilaon13.5.1995and hadtwosonsandone daughterinthefamily.On19.12.2004atabout7.00p.mhereached his house and started listening his radio.The deceased Urmila quarreled withhimthathehadtobringsomebooksandcopiesfor thechildrenandhewasnotperforminghisdutytowardshischildren.At9.30p.mwhenthedeceasedUrmiladidnotprovideanyfoodto himhebeatthedeceasedUrmilaandthrewherontheground.He then placed his foot on her neck (throat) until she expired.He thereafter, wenttohisfield.Aftersometimehecamebacktohis house and intimated about the incident to his parents, Kotwar Anandidas(PW1)andPatelJhabburao(PW5).Thereafter,hewentto thePoliceStationSaikhedaalongwithKotwarAnandidasandlodged FIR Ex.The case was registered.The dead body of the deceased Urmila was sent for post mortem.Dr. Udenia (PW14) performedpostmortemonthebodyofthedeceasedUrmilaandgave hisreportEx.Contusionon top of nose dark purplish colour .5 cm x .5 cm.Planterflexionon boththefoot.Nothing could be brought in the cross examination of Dr. Udeniasothathisopinion maybe disbelieved.Undersuchcircumstances,Dr.Udeniahasprovedthatthedeathof thedeceasedwashomicidalinnature.Theprosecutionhasexaminedsomanywitnessestoprove its case.However, Suryabhan (PW3) brother of the appellant, Santribai(PW4)motheroftheappellantandTumdu(PW9)fatherof theappellantwereexaminedtoprovetheextrajudicialconfession madebytheappellantbut,theyturnedhostile.However,theyhave provedthattheywerenotresidingwiththeappellantatthetimeof incidentandinthatportionofhousetheappellantwasresidingwith his wife and small children.They have also proved that on intimation given by the appellant they went inside the room and foundthedeceasedUrmilatobedead.Hencethesewitnesseshave proved that the deceased was found dead inside the room of the CRA No. 1133/2005 5 appellantandexcepttheappellanttherewasnooneincompanyof thedeceasedinthenight.Thoughthesewitnessesweredeclared parthostile,butacceptabletestimonyofthehostilewitnesscanbe relied.Actually the witnesses Suryabhan, Santribai and Tundu wereexaminedtoprovetheextrajudicialconfessionoftheappellant.However,theydidnotcorroborateinthisregard.InFIREx.P/24 which was lodged by the appellant himself the appellant had confessedhisguilt.However,thatconfessionisnotadmissibleunder Section24oftheEvidenceActbecauseitwasdonebeforethePolice. InthiscontextAnandidas(PW1)KotwaroftheVillageandJhabburao (PW5) Patel of the Village have stated that on information of the appellanttheywenttothespotandtheysawthedeadbody ofthe deceased.The prosecution has proved the circumstances that the deathofthedeceasedUrmilawashomicidal.Soonaftertheincident theappellantconfessedbeforethevillagePatelandKotwarthathe committed murder of the deceased and also the dead body of the deceasedwasfoundintheroomwheretherewasnopossibilityof entryofanypersonexcepttheappellantandhischildren.Children wereofthetenderageandtherefore,theappellantwastheperson who, stayed with his wife in the house for the entire night and therefore,itwasforhimtoexplainastohowhiswifewaskilled.Itis notacaseofrapeandmurderorrobberyandmurder.(13/08/2014) ThefollowingjudgmentoftheCourtwasdeliveredby: N.K.Gupta,J:The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrievedwiththejudgmentdated14.3.2005passedbythelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in ST No.2/2005 whereby,hehasbeenconvictedofoffencepunishableunderSection 302ofIPCandsentencedtolifeimprisonmentandfineofRs.1000/; indefaultofpaymentoffine,oneyear'srigorousimprisonment.Theprosecutionscase,inshort,isthaton20.12.2004the appellant had lodged the FIR Ex.Hefoundsixabrasionsandcontusionsonthe faceandneckofthedeceased.Therewasswellinginthewindpipe andmusclesoftheneck.Heopinedthatthedeceaseddieddueto suffocationcausedbypressingherthroat.Deathwashomicidalin nature.AfterinvestigationachargesheetwasfiledbeforeJMFC, Multai who, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Betul and ultimatelyitwastransferredtoAdditionalSessionsJudge,Multai.CRA No. 1133/2005 3The appellant abjured the guilt.He did not take any specific plea but, has stated that he was falsely implicated.No defencedevidencewasadduced.After considering the prosecutions evidence the learned AdditionalSessionsJudgeconvictedandsentencedtheappellantas mentionedabove.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Inthepresentcase,thechildrenofthedeceasedwerenot examined by the prosecution and therefore, there is no ocular evidence against the appellant.Dr. Udenia(PW14) performed post mortemupon the deadbodyofthedeceasedandgavehisreportEx.Antimortemabrasionsleftclavicularregion3cm x2cm.(2).2 cm.X .5 cm.Same line on neck clevicular region.(3).X .5cm.CRA No. 1133/2005 4 (4).Contusiononleftzygomatearchregionfaceside 2cmx1.5cm.(5).Abrasionrightsideoffacebelowcheek.5x.5cm alsocontusionrightside.5cmx.5cm.Therewasnoenmityofthe appellant with either Anandidas or Jhabburao and therefore, their testimonyappearstobebelievable.AnandidasandJhabburaohave provedbeyonddoubttheextrajudicialconfessionoftheaccusedthat he killed hiswife bythrottlingherwithhisfoot.Hismethodof throttling is duly corroborated by the symptoms found in the post mortemreportpreparedbyDr.Udenia(PW14)andtherefore,itis CRA No. 1133/2005 6 provedagainsttheappellantthatsoonaftertheincidentheconfessed hisguiltbeforethereputedpersonsofthevillage.Therefore,no doubtiscreatedthatanystrangerwouldhavecometothehouseand killed the deceased Urmila and hence the appellant was the only personinthehousewhoremainedwiththedeceasedfortheentire nightthenthepresumptionshallbemadeoutthattheappellantwas thepersonwho,killedhiswife.Thoughtheappellantcouldrebut thepresumption.InthiscontextthejudgmentspassedbyHon'bletheApex Courtinthecaseof"NikaRamVs.TheStateofHimachalPradesh" (AIR1972SC2077),"GaneshlalVs.StateofMaharashtra"[(1992) 3 SCC 106] and "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs.State of Maharashtra"[(2006)10SCC681] maybereferred.Itisheldby CRA No. 1133/2005 7 Hon'bletheApexCourtthataccordingtotheprovisionsofSection3 oftheEvidenceActifitisfoundthatthehusbandwasinthecompany ofthedeceasedwife inthedwellinghouseandhusbanddoesnot offeranyexplanationastohowtheinjuriesreceivedbyhiswifeorhis explanationisincorrectthenitisastrongcircumstanceagainsthim would be available that he committed the crime.The relevant portionofthejudgmentpassedinthecaseofTrimukhMarotiKirkan (supra)maybereadasunder:"Where anaccusedisallegedtohavecommittedthe murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husbandalsonormallyresided,ithasbeenconsistently heldthatiftheaccuseddoesnotofferanyexplanation howthewifereceivedinjuriesoroffersanexplanation whichisfoundtobefalse,itisastrongcircumstance whichindicatesthatheisresponsibleforcommission ofthecrime.Undersuchcircumstanceswheretheappellantcouldnotgive anyexplanationastohowsuchinjurieswerecausedtohiswifeand astohowshediedahomicidaldeath,astrongcircumstanceisproved by the prosecution against the appellant that he committed the murderofhiswife.,11. AlsotheprosecutionhadexaminedPardi(PW2),fatherof CRA No. 1133/2005 8 thedeceasedandJhaliabai,motherofthedeceased,whohadseenthe deadbodyofthedeceasedandstatedthattheappellantwasinhabit ofassaultingthedeceasedafterconsumingliquor.Thesewitnesses didnotallegeanythingagainsttheappellantaboutdowrydemandor any other similar allegation.Therefore, their testimony may be acceptedrelatingtothepreviousconductoftheappellant.Onlyafterconsumingliquor,hewasprovokedbyhiswifethat she did not provide him food for dinner therefore, the crime committedbytheappellantshallfallwithinthepurviewofSection 304ofI.P.C.Thecontentionadavancedbytheleanedcounselforthe appellantisnotacceptablebecausethereisnoevidencetoshowthat CRA No. 1133/2005 9 theappellanthadconsumedsomeliquorbeforecommitingthecrime.Accordingtohisconfession,hecametothehouse,hedidnotgive attentiontothecomplaintmadebythedeceasedthathehadtobring books and copies for the children.He remained indifferent and listened his radio and in later hours, he demanded dinner and quarrel took place.Ifthe deceaseddid not give anyfoodtothe appellantthenitcannotbeheldthatshegaveareasonforstrongor graveprovocationtohim.Theappellantdraggedhertothedoorand thereafter,fellheronground.Hethenforciblypressedhisfooton herchestandthroattillshedied.Afterconsideringtheconductof theappellant,itisclearthatheintendedtokillthedeceasedandthe casesquarelyfallswithinthepurviewofSection302ofI.P.C. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section302ofI.P.C.However, the trial Court has given minimumsentencetotheappellantforoffenceunderSection302of I.P.Candtherefore,thereisnoscopeofanyfurtherleniencytowards the appellant.There isnopossibilitytointerfere inthe sentence directedbythetrialCourt.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant CRA No. 1133/2005 10 couldnotshowanyreasonsothatanyinterferencecanbedoneinthe orderofconvictionaswellasthesentencepassedbythetrialCourt. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,107,405 | (for using criminal force to Parsadi as well as Shripat Kushwaha to deter them from duty as Line-helper in MPEB) with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrentlyThe prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus -(i)On 27.6.1993 at about 11 a.m., Parsadi Raikwar (PW1) and Shripat Kushwaha (PW3), who were posted as Line-helpers in the office of MPEB at Maharajpur, were deputed to attend to the complaint made by Omprakash Arjaria, a resident of Didonia Haar.At about 2:30 p.m., after carrying out necessary repairs, as they were checking the electric lines located near the well belonging to Omprakash, the appellant :: 2 ::Criminal Appeal No.74/1996 not only dragged Parsadi by the towel worn round his neck but also twisted his left hand uttering that he was responsible for causing death of his buffalo.Shripat tried to intervene but the appellant, taking up a stick, was bent upon hitting both of them.However, they were able to run away.(ii)Parsadi and Shripat submitted a report (Ex.P1) before the Junior Sub-Engineer Balendra Singh (PW4), who forwarded the same, by way of letter (Ex.P-6), to the SHO of P.S. Maharajpur.(22.3.2011) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 4.1.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.132/93 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under -(for causing grievous hurt to Parsadi pay fine of Rs.500/- and in Raikwar in the discharge of his duty default, to suffer R.I. for three as Line-helper in MPEB) months.353 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 6 months.Ultimately, ASI N.K. Gautam registered a case under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC by recording the FIR (Ex.P-8).(iii)Noticing contusion on whole of Parsadi's left palm, Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW6) advised X-ray examination.Radiologist M.K. Khare (PW2) found a fracture in the proximal phalanx of the ring finger.Accordingly, the case was converted into one under Section 333 of the IPC.After due investigation, charge- sheet was submitted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naugaon who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.On being charged with the offences punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 506 of the IPC, the appellant pleaded false implication at the instance of Parsadi as a counter blast to his report suggesting that death of buffalo was caused due to improper maintenance of electric wires by the officials of MPEB.According to him, it was Parsadi only who had restored the supply of electricity overlooking the fact that snapped wires were still lying in the field and in such a situation, his buffalo had come in contact with the live wire and died of instantaneous electrocution.He further asserted that on being reproached, Parsadi had tried to run away and, in the process, had fallen down.:: 3 ::Criminal Appeal No.74/1996The prosecution sought to prove the charges by examining as many as 6 witnesses including the complainant and the medical experts.The defence also called 3 witnesses including Veterinary Surgeon Dr. Umashankar Saxena (DW3), who had the occasion to conduct post-mortem on the body of his buffalo.Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the judgment, proceeded to acquit the appellant of the offence under Section 506 of the IPC but further concluded that his guilt in respect of the other charges was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Legality and propriety of the impugned convictions have been challenged mainly on the ground of what has been termed as mis- appreciation of the evidence on record.In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that convictions are well merited.In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it is necessary to first advert to the medical evidence available on record.According to Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW6), finding diffused swelling on Parsadi's left palm and all the fingers, he had advised x-ray examination whereas Dr. M.K. Khare (PW2), testified that, in the radiological examination, he had found a fracture in the proximal phalanx of Parsadi's left ring finger.Even though, the Radiologist clearly admitted that fracture could have been sustained due to fall on a rough surface yet, in absence of corresponding suggestion in the cross-examination of Parsadi, the defence story regarding fall was rightly rejected as absolutely an afterthought.Coming to the other evidence, it may be seen that the following facts were not in dispute -:: 4 ::Criminal Appeal No.74/1996(a) the appellant's buffalo had died of electrocution after coming into contact with the live wire snapped in an storm.(b) On 28.6.1993 at 9.20 a.m., the appellant informed the police that his buffalo had died as a result of coming into contact with the live electric wire lying near his well and this information was recorded by Head Constable Shyamlal (DW1) in the Roznamcha.(c) Dr. Umashankar Saxena (DW3) conducted the autopsy and confirmed that buffalo's death had occurred on 27.6.1993 due to electrocution only.(d) On 28.6.1993 at 5.10 p.m., the report (Ex.P-1) made by Parsadi & Shripat and forwarded by the Junior Engineer was received in the Police Station.(e) In the medical examination, conducted on 28.6.1993 at 5.30 p.m., Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW6) had opined that the injury was received by Parsadi within 36 hours.It is relevant to note that even on 28.6.1993, the day following death of his buffalo, the appellant had made no specific allegation against any particular official of the Electricity Board.All these facts were clearly suggestive of the inference that report leading to registration of the case was not in the nature of a counter blast.9. Parsadi (PW1) categorically asserted that the appellant had caused the fracture by twisting his fingers and his evidence drew ample support from the statement of Shripat.Although, the defence was able to elicit certain inconsistencies with reference to the version recorded in their report (Ex.P-1) yet, there was consensus as to the substratum of the case.:: 5 ::Criminal Appeal No.74/1996However, it was not possible to hold that Parsadi and Shripat were assaulted at the time when they were performing duty as line- helpers in view of these infirmities in the prosecution evidence -(i) The report (Ex.P-1) indicated that appellant had assaulted Pasradi at the time when he was checking the electric line at the well of Omprakash Arjaria whereas both Pasradi and Shripat were emphatic in deposing that Pasradi was manhandled near the appellant's well where he had called them at the time when they were returning home after making necessary repairs at the well of Rakesh Arjaria.(ii) No duty certificate or any other document pertaining to duty hours was produced.(iii) Neither Om Prakash nor Rakesh Arjaria was examined by the prosecution to prove that Pasradi and Shripat have gone to attend to the complaint made by him as well as to give information regarding exact time of their departure.This apart, even if the statement of Pasradi and Shripat that they were assaulted while undertaking return journey to the office is taken at its face value, no offence under Section 353 of the IPC would be made out as travelling by virtue of office is not a part of duty (See.In such a situation, learned trial Judge completely misdirected himself in arriving at the conclusion that Parsadi and Shripat were assaulted in the execution of their duties as the public servant.Thus, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the appellant ought to have been convicted for offences under Sections 325 and 352 only for causing grievous hurt to Parsadi and for using criminal force to Shripat.This apart, the impugned sentences passed against the appellant for the offence under Section 353 for using criminal force to Parsadi was also not legal as being violative of S.71 of the Code.This brings me to the question of sentence.A considerable period of nearly 18 years has already elapsed after the incident in question and in the meanwhile, the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for a period of 2 months and 3 days.Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant aspects of the sentencing policy, interests of justice would be met if the custodial sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.:: 7 ::Criminal Appeal No.74/1996In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 11.5.2011 for depositing the remaining fine amount or for being committed to custody for undergoing the default sentence.Appeal partly allowed. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,074,873 | This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.216/2018 registered at Police Station Chaurai Distt.Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant-Tinku @ Rajnikant Sharma be released from custody subject to his fur- nishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satis- faction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the con- cerned court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the court concerned during trial. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,082,202 | Shri Himanshu Mishra, Advocate for the complainant.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.The applicants have filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4/12/2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicants have been arrested by Police Station Sehor, District Shivpuri, in connection with Crime No. 11/19 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 325, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant and other co-accused in short HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 21205/2020 ( Banti @ Ramniwas & another Vs.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that applicant no.1 Banti alias Ramniwas has allegedly hit Ramhet, while grevious injury suffered by injured Prakash is attributed to co-accused Banti alias Raghunath.As such, offence under section 307, IPC would not be made out.Similarly placed co-accused Jahendra Singh has already been given the benefit of bail vide order dated 22/6/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16281/2020 and the applicants seek parity in treatment.However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,840,411 | Navi Mumbai.2 The FIR was lodged by Prakash MadhukantChandebhamar.The complainant is the Finance Manager withA.P.M. Terminal India Pvt. Ltd. The head ofice of the Company issituated at Lower Parel, Mumbai.The CFS of the Company issituated at Plot No. 100, Sector 2, Dhronagiri, Uran and Plot No.5/18, Sector 6, Dhronagiri, Uran.Since 2012 to 2019Yogesh Agarwal was working as Head of Finance Division of theCompany.The containers of import and export of the Companyare kept after custom clearance of the goods C.H.A. on paymentof charges.The goods are delivered by persons working in both ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 ::: Ethape 3/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docxthe Departments of the Company.There are various departmentslike import and export, admin, security, fnance etc. in thecompany.Some of the workers are outsourced from anotherCompany.Documents are annexed to the interventionapplication.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 ::: Ethape 4/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docx5 Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No. 260 of 2020 submitted that, the Applicant hasbeen falsely implicated in this case.The FIR mentions that, thealleged irregularities were prior to his joining.The Applicant hasnot participated in this crime.The Applicant has not played anyrole in the misappropriation.The Applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation.The custodial interrogation of theApplicant is necessary.Misappropriation is to the tune of crores ofrupees.The accused are involved in forgery of documents.It is submittedthat, the transaction involved huge amount.The documentsrelating to PDA adjustment entries were also produced to showthe complicity of the accused.8 Learned counsel for the intervener placed reliance onthe documents annexed to the intervention application andcertain documents tendered during the course of his submissionswith regard to pre-deposit, advances etc. It is submitted that, inDecember 2018 the complainant carried out internal audit anddiscrepancies were identifed in Container Management andAccounting System.Thus, the payment were received in the form of cash or incheques.DATE : 20th FEBRUARY 2020PC.1 The Applicants are apprehending arrest in connectionwith C. R. No. 277 of 2019, registered with Uran Police Station,Dist.Navi Mumbai, under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 477 Aread with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").First Information Report (for short "FIR") was registered on 11 thDecember 2019 with Uran Police Station, Dist.Applicant Sharukh Shaikh, Yatin Kadam and others areworking in the Company.It was noticed that, the accused hadacted in connivance with M/s. Shubham Clearing andForwarding Agency and by way of false advances, huge amountis siphoned.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::4 The complainant has intervened and preferredInterim Application No. 01 of 2020 opposing grant ofanticipatory bail.The cash amount was collected by the co-accused.It was not stated that Applicant has collected the cash.Statement made to the Chartered Accountant incriminating theApplicant is not admissible in evidence.Itis submitted that, co-accused has admitted that he used user IDof Applicant and other persons.The co-accused has takenresponsibility of fraudulent activities committed by him in theletter to APM Terminal India Pvt. Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::6 Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No. 328 of 2020 submitted that, the interventionapplication and its connected documents relied upon by theintervener is based on audit and internal inquiry.It is allegedthat the confessional statement, during the inquiry, was notrecorded in free atmosphere.The confessional statement runsinto 20 pages.It cannot be considered as incriminating evidenceagainst him.It is not admissible in evidence.The Applicant iswilling to produce bank statement.The provisions of theInformation Technology Act were not invoked.The Applicant is ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 ::: Ethape 6/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docxwilling to explain the entries and transaction by appearingbefore the investigating oficer.The ofence is of technicalnature.The Applicant would be in a position to tenderexplanation to the investigating oficer.Adverse inference cannotbe drawn against him on the basis of allegation withoutunderstanding the scope of nature of allegation.The Applicantneed not be subjected to custody.The Applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation.No ofence is made out in the FIR.7 Learned APP submitted that, ofence is serious innature.Both Applicants have played vital role inmisappropriation of amount.The Accused had acted in connivancewith each other.The crime was committed during the tenure ofthe Applicants.Bank statement of the ApplicantSharukh Shaikh for a period between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015is produced for perusal.Learned APP pointed out the transactionin the said account.Similarly the bank statement for a period of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 ::: Ethape 7/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docx01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018 and01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 were also produced.Statements of witnesses recordedduring the course of investigation were pointed out.The saidwitnesses have disclosed the involvement of the Applicants andthe manner in which the transaction is executed.Theinvestigation conducted by the Police refects complicity of theApplicant.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::The cash component was never deposited by Applicantsand others in the bank and was siphoned of.It was suspectedthat, the accused had forged the entries and misappropriated thefunds of the Company.The accused had confessed the crime.Upon conducting a thorough analysis of the containermanagement system.Auditors have identifed that around 314customers invoices have been adjusted against forged and fakeadvance entries amounting to Rs.6,33,00,000/- by fve cashiersincluding the Applicants, in collusion with the Clearing HouseAgents.It is further submitted that the Auditors conducted aninquiry and the cashiers were interrogated and afterinterrogation the Applicants admitted that cash was siphonedaway with the help of Clearing House Agents.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::9 I have perused the documents and also perused theinvestigation papers.Thorough investigation is required to beconducted.Prima facie it appears that, fraud has beencommitted by the Accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 260 of 2020and Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 328 of 2020 arehereby rejected.Interim Application No. 01 of 2020 is disposed of.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:41 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,841,381 | And In the matter of : Jayanta Deb Petitioner.Mr. Partha Pratim Das Mr. Raju Mondal...... For the Petitioner.Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan....... For the State.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Gaighata Police Station FIR No. 273 of 2017 dated 27.3.2017 under sections 294/ 354D/506/509 of the Indian Penal and section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary, more particularly the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the statements of three witnesses recorded under section 161 thereof.Having regard to the gravity of allegations under investigation and the level of complicity of the petitioner, as revealed from the case diary, we are of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective and meaningful progress of investigation of the FIR and that he is not entitled to direction as prayed for in the application.The application, thus, stands rejected.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.) | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,884,227 | Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. NO. 567 of 2008 Sri Subrata Kumar Mishra & Anr.Versus M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr.In this criminal revisional application invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenged the order dated January 17, 2008 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, in connection with M.P. Case No. 157 of 2008 whereby the Learned Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed the complaint made to the Court by the opposite party no. 1 against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, be forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Durgapur Police Station with a further direction that same be treated as a First Information Report and to cause investigation.Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, the Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in support of his prayer for quashing urged as follows;(a) The allegations contained in the complaint has not disclosed any offence and the Learned Magistrate mechanically passed the impugned order.(b) The complainant made a wrong and false statement because as per the award the complainant is only entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,88,677/- plus interest @ 18% P.A. from March 22, 2007 till the realization, with costs and other incidental charges.(c) In the said award there was no direction for return of the vehicles but in the complaint it has been falsely alleged that complainant succeeded to get an arbitration award and also entitled to sell the said vehicle after obtaining the possession of the same from the petitioners.(d) In the complaint it has not only been falsely alleged as regards to the possession of vehicle as per the award but a deliberate false statement has been made alleging that the petitioners were intending to sell the vehicle for their wrongful gain. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,852,890 | "1) As per section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. accused no.2 Janardhan Waghmare, accused no.3 Rafique Sk., accused no.4 Anil Mohankar, accused no.5 Dilip Wagh, accused no.6 Omprakash Bhatkar and accused no.11 Tanaji Bhosale alias Tanaji Bhole are hereby convicted of the offence punishable under section 3 (1)(ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under sections 397, 120-B of I.P.C.(As offence under section 120-B of I.P.C. is included in section 3(2) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for that offence.).5) Accused nos.2 and 6 are convicted of offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 read with section 25 of Arms Act and each of them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months each.6) All the sentences shall run concurrently.7) Accused no.8 Nasreenbano Rafique Sk.is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 ::: apeal472.14.odt 8 Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::8) Accused no.10 Anjali Janardhan Waghare is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.9) Accused no.1 Dilip Korde and accused no.7 Shivaji Bhosale are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and of offence punishable under section 414 of I.P.C.10) Accused no.9 Sk.15) Seized gold bangles of 123-grams 34-allegedly seized from one Vikram Kankute, be confiscated in favour State and so also rest of the seized gold material be confiscated in favour of State and all such gold be sent to Mint after expiry of one year.and motorcycle no.MH-27/AF-6907 be auctioned and sale proceed be credited to State, all after expiry of one year.18) Seized motorcycle no.MH-29/L-6591 which was given on supratnama to P.W.31 Rupreshkumar Banait of Mangala Devi Ner, Tq.Ner, Distt.Yavatmal stand confirmed after expiry of one year.According to the prosecution, the accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are members of organized crime syndicate.They have committed organized crime, i.e., dacoity on 31/8/2010 at Khandelwal Jewellery Shop at Amravati.The prosecution came with a case that on that day at about 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. three dacoits came in the shop as customers and out of them two looked for gold::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 ::: apeal472.14.odt 11 finger ring.It is also alleged that one of them spoke on mobile phone and thereafter three more dacoits entered in the shop as customers.One of them pressed the neck of the gate-man and another dacoit gave blow of knife to the shop owner.Some of them have shown pistol and other weapons and by terrorizing the employees and owner of the shop, they detained them in another adjoining room and looted 82 gold bangles and went away on two motorcycles.Thereafter, one of the employees, namely, Shri Kishor Pohokar lodged the report in the police station.Police registered the offence vide Crime No.325/2010 for the offence punishable under sections referred above.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::In the investigation, the police collected CCTV footage and seized hard-disk of the computer.On the basis of the said CCTV footage they carried out the investigation and taken raid on the house of one Vijay Bhatkar who then identified two offenders.During the course of investigation, police arrested accused nos.1 to 6 from different places.Thereafter, other accused were also arrested.In the investigation, the accused made confessional statement and at their instance the police seized some gold ornaments.Police also seized some gold ornaments at the instance::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 ::: apeal472.14.odt 12 of accused nos.8 and 10 from the disclosure from the accused persons.Accused no.8 - Nasreenbano is wife of accused no.3 - Rafique Shaikh and accused no.10 - Sau.The accused nos.8 and 10 were knowing that the properties are of the same organized crime committed by the members of the said syndicate.The police obtained necessary permission from the Commissioner of Police, Amravati for registration of offence under the MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::During the course of investigation, the accused persons were identified in test identification parade by the witnesses, who were present in the Khandelwal Jewellers on the day of incident.The police also collected necessary documents during the investigation and obtained necessary sanction for prosecution from the Additional Director General of Police.After completing the necessary investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons.The accused persons appeared in the proceedings before the Special Court.He was also cross-examined but nothing is brought on record to disbelieve him.P.W.5 - Anil Narayanrao Uprikar is also present in the shop and deposed about the incident.He has also identified accused persons, i.e., Anil Mohankar (A-4), Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3), Dilip @ Kalya Wagh (A-5) and Tanya @ Tanaji Vithal Bhosale (A-11).In his evidence he has deposed that at the time of incident there were 16 CCTV cameras and he was present in the shop.The police asked him to show footage of CCTV cameras and accordingly he has shown the footage of CCTV cameras and police prepared the panchanama and seized the articles.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5/8/2014 passed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) Amravati in Special (MCOCA) Case No.1/2011 the appellants/original accused nos.2 to 6, 8, 10 and 11 have filed the present criminal appeals.All these accused were convicted by the Special Court by the impugned judgment and order, which reads as under :-2) Accused nos.2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twelve years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.(As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3 (4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 ::: apeal472.14.odt 7::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::3) Accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.(As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3 (4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)4) Accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (2) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.Salim is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under section 412 of I.P.C.entitled to set off for the period of detention already undergone during trial.13) Seized gold bar of 40-grams andbe returned to Govind Varma P.W.28, of Varma Jewellers, Sarafa Lane, Risod after expiry of one year.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::Khandelwal on supratnama, stands confirmed after expiry of one year and intimation to that effect be given to insurer of that shop.MBZTSOSEGA9H055 35 be returned to Baliram Jagtap.20) Seized country made pistol be sent to District Magistrate, Amravati for its disposal, after expiry of one year.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::worthless, same be destroyed after a year."The appellants/original accused nos.5 and 6 have filed joint Criminal Appeal No.91/2015 and also filed individual Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014, therefore criminal appeals filed by them, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014 will have to be disposed of.Charge came to be framed against them for the said offences.The contents of the charge were read over to them in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::After recording the evidence in the matter and on hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of the MCOC Act and also for the offence punishable under Section 397, 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code.The accused nos.8 and 10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act. The learned Special Judge also passed order regarding seized muddemal.The seized gold bar of 40 grams and 80 mg.were directed to be returned to Govind Varma (P.W. 28) of Warma Jewellers, Sarafa Lane, Risod after expiry of one year and 36 gold bangles weighing 719 grams and 550 mg.which were given to Deepak Khandelwal on supratnama stand confirmed after expiry of one year.However, the learned Special Judge directed the seized gold bangles of 123 grams and 34 mg.allegedly seized from one Vikram Kankute be confiscated in favour of the State and also rest of the seized gold material be confiscated in favour of the State and all such gold be sent to Mint after expiry of one year.The learned Special Judge also passed the order in respect of seized motorcycles and seized country made pistol.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:29 :::We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in respective criminal appeals, Shri R.P. Thote, learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellants in respective criminal appeals and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J. Khan for the respondent - State in all criminal appeals at length.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons.The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused persons.The impugned judgment thus requires interference of this Court and is liable to be quashed and set aside.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that the accused were arrested on 9/9/2010 and since then they are in custody.He further submitted that the learned Special Judge has directed the sentences to run concurrently.The accused nos.2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 15 and accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine and the accused had undergone around ten years of imprisonment including remission.He further submitted that the accused had already undergone substantial period of imprisonment in custody and looking to their poor financial condition and liability to maintain their families, a lenient view may be taken for reduction of sentence.So far as accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are concerned, he further submitted that the accused nos.8 and 10 are sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and rigorous imprisonment is awarded for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months.The accused nos.8 has already undergone more than three and half years imprisonment and now she is on bail.Therefore, on undergone sentence, she may be released.In default of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- she is sentenced for nine::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 16 months and therefore, the said sentence be reduced.The accused no.10 has already undergone substantive sentence and therefore, the in default sentence of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- may be reduced.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::Shri Thote, the learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellants in respective criminal appeals has adopted the said arguments for the other accused.The criminal appeals filed by the appellants therefore be dismissed.Shri Wakode, the learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application (APPA) No.1057/2017 in Criminal Appeal No.595/2014 appearing for Khandelwal Jewellers has submitted that by allowing this application the seized gold articles of 370.010 grams recovered in the present offence bearing F.I.R. No.325/2010 be given on supratnama to the applicant.He submitted that the Special Judge while passing the order confiscated the gold bangles of 123 grams 34 mg.in favour of the State as well as rest of the seized gold were also confiscated in favour of the State and::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 17 therefore he prayed to return the same.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::Shri Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor however objected for the same and submitted that the applicant has a remedy to file separate appeal claiming the said property.The criminal application therefore be rejected.We have gone through the evidence on record with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties.From perusal of the material on record, it appears that the alleged incident took place on 31/8/2010 in between 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Khandelwal Jewellers Shop at Amravati.These accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and by causing injuries to the persons present in the shop including the owner, looted the gold ornaments.It has come in the evidence that there were 16 CCTV cameras inside the shop of Khandelwal Jewellers, Amravati.The defence has not challenged the said facts during the course of trial.During the course of investigation, police have seized C.D. and C.P.U. under panchanamas.It has come in the evidence that the CCTV footage clearly shows picture of three offenders, i.e., accused no.3 - Rafique Shaikh, accused no.4 - Anil Mohankar and accused no.6 - Omprakash @ Omya and later on three more accused arrived in the::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 18 shop and then they looted the gold.Subsequently, three accused arrived in the shop and were seen in the CCTV footage.However, all these accused were identified during the test identification parade by the witnesses and their close relatives.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::P.W.1 - Deepak Harishchandra Khandelwal is the owner of Khandelwal Jewellers.In his deposition, he deposed that his shop "Khandelwal Jewellers" is situated at Jaisthamb Chowk.The incident took place on 31/8/2010 at about 2:30 p.m.. On that day 14 salesmen were working in his shop and the shop was open at 11:30 a.m. He has also deposed that he was present in the shop.He heard some suspicious noise and the accused persons giving dash to Jawanjal, who was at gate of the shop, entered in the shop and tried to assault him and he sustained injury on his hand.He also gave details of the incident in this evidence of dacoity and according to him, there was a robbery of 79 bangles and golden bar and his servant Shri Kishor Pohekar has lodged the report in the police station.In the evidence he has also stated that he has identified the accused persons at the time of test identification parade which was taken in the Central Prison, Amravati on 23/9/2010 and identified the accused.He was cross-examined at length by the defence.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::apeal472.14.odt 19 However, nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.He being the owner of the shop his presence at shop is not doubted.He also sustained injury in the said incident.In the cross-examination, he admitted that all ornaments in the shop were insured on the day of incident and he has put up the claim of robbed ornaments with the Insurance Company.His evidence is on the same line of the owner of the shop.In his evidence he has stated that 79 bangles and one golden bar was stolen in the said incident valued about Rs.50,00,000/-.He was cross-examined at length.However, nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.He has proved the contents of the report.He has also identified the accused persons.The fact that 79 gold bangles and one golden bar were stolen away from the shop on the date of incident is also proved through his evidence.18. P.W.3 - Jagdish Kisanlal Shrivas is one of the salesmen at Khandelwal Jewellers whose evidence indicates that he was::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 20 present on that day and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 - Deepak Khandelwal and P.W.2 - Kishor Pohekar on material counts.There is no reason to disbelieve him.He has also identified the accused persons in the test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::19. P.W.4 - Bhujang Himmatrao Jawanjal is the gatekeeper.He has stated that on 31/8/2010 the incident took place.He has also given details of the incident and also identified accused no.5 - Dilip @ Kalya Kisanrao Wagh who pressed his neck and put knife on his abdomen.20. P.W.6 - Sachin Devidas Deshmukh was working in the Khandelwal Jewellers.He has deposed about the incident and also identified the accused Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3) and Janya @ Janardhan Ramrao Waghmare (A-2).21. P.W.7 - Sudam Somaji Sonule has also deposed about the incident and in the test identification parade identified Dilip @::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 21 Kalya Kisanrao Wagh (A-5), Janya @ Janardhan Ramrao Waghmare (A-2), Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3) and Omprakash @ Omya Bharat Bhatkar (A-6).::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::P.W.8 - Suchit Balkrushna Kusare was working as a Computer Operator at Khandelwar Jewellers on the date of incident.He was cross-examined at length.However, nothing is brought on record in his cross- examination to disbelieve him.The seizure of C.Ds.and CCTV footage is established through his evidence and he has proved the seizure panchanama (Exh.158) drawn by the police.The prosecution has also proved the recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the accused persons.In the evidence it has come on record that the gold ornaments were seized at their instance and panchanamas under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are proved.Besides this evidence the accused have also made confessional statement.The::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 22 accused nos.8 and 10 are wives of accused nos.3 and 2 respectively and gold ornaments are seized from their custody.The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication.The evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.The learned Special Judge, therefore, has not committed any error while convicting the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused therefore cannot be accepted.The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the test identification parade and the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not proved also cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::The learned Special Judge has already considered their case and taken a lenient view and awarded sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused nos.2, 3::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 23 and 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii) of the MCOC Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each.The accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each.So far as accused nos.8 and 10 are concerned, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months each.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::So far as the next submission of reduction in the sentence in default of accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 is concerned, the learned Special Judge has awarded, in default of payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon ruling, reported in (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 243 (Shantilal...Versus...State of M.P.).In the above ruling, the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Sections 64 and 53 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence.It is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine.In the said case, the Apex Court ordered that in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months instead three years, as ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.Considering the ratio laid down in the above ruling and considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, we are of the considered view that the appellants/accused nos.2, 3, 11 and 4 to 6 are not entitled to get reduced the in default sentence of fine of Rs.5,00,000/- passed by the Special Judge.The offence committed by them is under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the MCOC Act and also under Sections 397, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, these appellants/accused are not entitled for reduction of in default sentence.Their appeals are liable to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::So far as the sentences of accused no.8 - Nasreenbano and accused no.10 - Sau.Anjali alias Arati are concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused no.8 - Nasreenbano has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for four years and also undergone in default sentence of nine months and she is released.The appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.Considering the submissions of the respective sides, we are of the view that so far as appellant/accused no.8 - Nasreenbano::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 26 is concerned, she has already undergone substantive sentence as well as in default sentence and therefore, her appeal will have to be dismissed.So far as the appeal filed by the appellant/accused no.10::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::- Sau.Anjali alias Arati is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the undergone sentence of three years and eight months by her is sufficient one, considering the nature of the charges levelled against her.The appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.To that extent, her criminal appeal could be allowed.So far as the order regarding muddemal property is concerned, in the operative part of the judgment, particularly paragraph nos.13 and 14 the gold ornaments were returned to the Varma Jewellers and Khandelwal Jewellers.The said order is not challenged by the accused persons and others and therefore, the::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 27 said order is required to be maintained.The person who claims the property has to establish the ownership and identify the said property.The learned Counsel for the applicant could be directed to approach the Special Judge by filing separate application claiming the property and after receipt of the application, all the concerned persons to be heard and necessary order to be passed of handing over the said property or confiscation, if any, on merit.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and for the reasons stated above, we pass::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: apeal472.14.odt 28 the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeal nos.472/2014, 581/2014, 595/2014, 91/2015, 187/2015 and 188/2015 are hereby dismissed.(ii) Criminal Appeal No.475/2014 filed by the appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.Anjali @ Arati is partly allowed.The appellant/accused has already undergone sentence of three years and eight months and therefore the said sentence is sufficient.The sentence passed against her of four years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to already undergone sentence by her.The appellant/accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for nine months.The in default sentence of nine months is reduced to two months simple imprisonment.The appellant/accused is on bail and therefore, she is required to undergo the in default sentence of two months simple imprisonment and therefore, she will have to be surrendered for the said sentence to be served.(iii) The order regarding disposal of muddemal, except paragraph no.15 in the operative part of the judgment, is confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 :::(iv) So far as the disposal or confiscated property in paragraph no.15 of the judgment is concerned, the applicant - Khandelwal Jewellers is directed to file an application before the Special Judge for claiming the said property.The learned Special Judge, after hearing all concerned, shall dispose of the said application after giving opportunity to all parties.Criminal Application (APPA) No.1057/2017 stands disposed of.(v) Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014 are disposed of.(vi) Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellants are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:30 ::: | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,853 | She was brought to thehospital by her in-laws on 27.2.2000 at about 7 p.m. in aburnt condition.Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment andorder dated 9.7.2008, passed by High Court of MadhyaPradesh, at Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.2304/2000 bywhich the High Court has dismissed the said appeal, affirmingthe judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Sagar, dated31.8.2000 in Sessions Trial No.180/2000 and convicted theappellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called "IPC") and sentenced him to lifeimprisonment.Dr. Subhash Jain informed the PoliceStation, Gopalganj, about the arrival of the deceased, Smt.Savita, and a police party arrived at the hospital.The dyingdeclaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Smt.Madhu Nahar (DW.1), vide Exh.D/2, wherein, the deceasedstated that when she was cooking, kerosene oil had been putbehind her back, and when she moved herself back, her Sareecaught fire.On 29.2.2000, ASI, Damodar Prasad Mahure (PW-19), on the instructions of the Superintendent of Policerecorded the second dying declaration (Ex.P/2), wherein, thedeceased stated that appellant brought a kuppi (a metalliccontainer for lighting) full of kerosene and poured it on herbody and as a result of which kerosene oil spread all over herbody.Thereafter, the fire was lit by chimney by him and she 2 was burnt.She also stated that she had been brought to thehospital by her in-laws.After recording the dying declarationdated 29.2.2000, ASI Damodar Prasad (PW-19), recorded theDehati Nalishi (Ex.P/14), at 10.40 p.m. on its basis.Smt. Savita died on 20.3.2000, and thus, there was analteration of offences from 307/201 IPC to 302 IPC.Aftercompleting the investigation, charge sheet was filed againstthe appellant before the court and the case was committed tothe Court of Sessions where the appellant was tried.Duringtrial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses andin the form of documentary evidence, reliance was placed onthe statement of Savita, deceased, in the form of dyingdeclaration dated 29.2.2000 (Ex.P/2), Dehati Nalishi(Ex.P/14), FIR (Ex.20), deposition of ASI (PW-19) dated29.2.2000 and case diary etc. In defence, appellant placedreliance on the statement of the deceased dated 27.2.2000(Ex.D/2), and examined Smt. Madhu Nahar (DW.1).Theappellant made a statement under Section 313 of the Code of 3 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "Cr.P.C."), thathe was, by no means, involved in the case.However, theappellant did not explain under what circumstances his wifewas burnt.The trial Court, vide judgment and order dated31.8.2000, found the appellant guilty of offence under Section302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment forlife.Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal AppealNo.Hence, this appeal.Shri Sudhir Kulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing forthe appellant, has submitted that it is a case of circumstantialevidence as no eye-witness has been examined by theprosecution in support of its case.There has been noallegation of a demand of dowry, though the marriage hadtaken place only 9-10 months prior to the death of thedeceased, Savita.The only allegation against the appellanthad been of harassment, as alleged by the parents of thedeceased, who were examined as prosecution witnesses before 4 the trial Court.There were two dying declarations in the case.The first was recorded by Ms. Madhu Nahar, the ExecutiveMagistrate (DW.1), which should have been accepted in toto,without raising any doubt to its veracity as compared to thedying declaration, unauthorisedly recorded by Shri DamodarPrasad Mahure, the ASI (PW.19), subsequently.Where thereare two dying declarations, the first dying declaration recordedby the Magistrate should have been relied upon, particularlywhen both the witnesses to the second dying declaration hadbeen declared hostile.Therefore, the appeal deserves to beallowed.Per contra, Shri Siddharth Dave along with Ms. VibhaDatta Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent-State, hasvehemently opposed the appeal contending that the first dyingdeclaration had been recorded by the Executive Magistratewhen the deceased, Savita, had been tutored by her in-lawswho had brought her to the hospital.At that time thedeceased was under duress/influence of her in-laws.However, there cannot be any doubt regarding contents of thesecond dying declaration recorded by the police officer, 5 particularly when it stands corroborated with other relevantevidence.The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made bylearned counsel for the parties."The circumstances surrounding the dying declaration, though uninspiring, are not strong enough to justify the view that officers as high in the hierarchy as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Civil Surgeon and the District 9 Magistrate hatched a conspiracy to bring a false document into existence.The Civil services have no platform to controvert allegations, howsoever grave and unfounded.It is therefore, necessary that charges calculated to impair their career and character ought not to be accepted except on the clearest proof.While recording thesecond declaration, the Judicial Magistrate asked her why shewas changing her statement.The deceased replied that herMother-in-Law had told her not to give any statement againstthe family members of her in-laws and that was the reason,why she had not involved any person in the earlier statement.But, in fact, it was her Mother-in-Law who threw the kerosenelamp on her and thus, she was burnt.However, the subsequentdeclaration was recorded by another Magistrate and a contrarystatement was made.This Court set aside the conviction afterappreciating the evidence and reaching the conclusion that thecourts below came to abrupt conclusions on the purportedpossibility that the relatives of the accused might havecompelled the deceased to give a false dying declaration.When I turned back on my knee, my sari caught fire"The second dying declaration was recorded by ShriDamodar Prasad Mahure, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police(PW.19).He was directed by the Superintendent of Police ontelephone to record the statement of the deceased, who hadbeen admitted in the hospital.In that statement, she hadstated as under :-"On Sunday, in the morning, at about 5.30 AM, my husband Lakhan poured the kerosene oil from a container on my head as a result of which kerosene oil spread over my entire body and that he (Lakhan) put my Sari a fire with the help of a Chimney, due to which I got burnt."She had also deposed that she had written a letter to herparents requesting them to fetch her from the matrimonialhome as her husband and in-laws were harassing her.1 The said dying declaration was recorded after getting aCertificate from the Doctor stating that she was in a fitphysical and mental condition to give the statement.As per the Injury Report and the medical evidence itremains fully proved that the deceased had the injuries on theupper part of her body.The Doctor, who had examined her atthe time of admission in hospital, deposed that she had burninjuries on her head, face, chest, neck, back, abdomen, leftarm, hand, right arm, part of buttock and some part of boththe thighs.The deceased was 65% burnt.At the time ofadmission, the smell of kerosene was coming from her body.After appreciating the evidence on record the High Courtobserved as under :-"It is a matter of common knowledge that if a person would move back and his/her body comes in contact of some burning object, on the front side of the body i.e. chest, abdominal region, face etc. would not burn.In the first dying declaration, the deceased has said that while moving back, her Sari caught fire.Undoubtedly, the first dying declaration had beenrecorded by the Executive Magistrate, Smt. Madhu Nahar(DW.1), immediately, after admission of the deceased, Savita,in the hospital and the Doctor had certified that she was in afit condition of health to make the declaration.However, asshe had been brought to the hospital by her Father-in-Lawand Mother-in-Law and the medical report does not supporther first dying declaration, the trial Court and the High Courthave rightly discarded the same.Even before us, ShriKulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,has not been able to explain under what circumstances in theaccident case as disclosed by the deceased in her firstdeclaration, the deceased could get the injuries only on theupper part of the body and smell of kerosene was coming fromher body.The second dying declaration fully standscorroborated not only by the medical evidence but oral dyingdeclarations made by the deceased to her parents, i.e. PhoolSingh (PW.1) and Sushila (PW.3) who were examined in thecourt.Therefore, there was no reason forhim to ask the deceased about the same.Thus, in view of the above, we reach the followinginescapable conclusions on the questions of fact :-(a) After having the burn injuries, Savita, deceased, was brought to the hospital by her Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law and they had tutored not to give any statement against her family members.(b) The first Dying Declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Smt. Madhu Nahar (DW.1), after getting a Certificate from the Doctor, in which Savita did not make allegation against any of her family members, rather, she said that it was an accident.However, such a statement is not supported by the medical evidence for the reason that the injuries on her body were found on the upper part of her body and it was not possible to have such burn injuries in case of the kind of accident as she had disclosed in the first Declaration.(c) The second Dying Declaration was recorded by a Police Officer on the instruction of the Superintendent of 2 Police after getting a Certificate of fitness from the Doctor, which is corroborated by the medical evidence and free from any suspicious circumstances.More so, it stands corroborated by the oral declaration made by the deceased to her parents, Phool Singh (PW.1), father and Sushila (PW3), mother.(d) A kuppi, the container, was recovered by the Investigating Officer from the house of the appellant.(e) Savita, deceased, died on 20.03.2000, after about 21 days of recording of the second Dying Declaration.The appeal lacks merit and is accordinglydismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
988,555 | Its purpose as given in the preamble is, "to establish and develop local self-government in the rural areas of the United Provinces and to make better provision for village administration and development."JUDGMENT Beg, J.It appears that Shankar Singh, the applicant/accused before the lower Court, and 12 others, were prosecuted under Sections 147 and 308, Penal Code.The trial of the case proceeded before the learned Magistrate up to its termination.At the time of writing the judgment the trial Court came to the conclusion that none of the accused were guilty of the offence under Section 147, Penal Code.He accordingly acquitted all of them of the said charge. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,862,390 | (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE julie | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,864,228 | 2.The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner and some other accused had trespassed into the de facto complainant's house and impersonated as if they were the Officials of Commercial Tax Department and had taken away Rs.70,000/-.3.The trial Judge has taken the charge sheet on file and framed charges under Sections 147, 451, 385 and 420 of IPC against accused 1 to 3 (A-1 is the revision petitioner herein) and under Sections 147, 385 r/w 149 and 420 r/w 149 of IPC against 4th accused and under Sections 385 r/w 149 and 420 r/w 149 of IPC against 5th accused.4.The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and P.W.1http://www.judis.nic.in to PW.13 and marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put before the accused, the accused denied them as false and no witness was examined and no document was marked.5.After completing the trial and considering all the materials placed on record, the Judicial Magistrate, convicted accused 1 to 3 for the offences committed under Section 147, 451, 385 and 420 of IPC and convicted 4th accused for the offence under Sections 147, 385 r/w 149 and 420 r/w 149 of IPC and convicted 5th accused under Sections 385 r/w 149 and 420 r/w 149 of IPC and imposed sentences for each offence on each accused.I, Tirunelveli and since all the appeals arose out of one judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge all the three appeals together and after hearing either side and considering the materials placed on record, disposed of the appeals by a common judgment dated 16.11.2011, wherein the appeal filed by the revision petitioner in CA No.119 of 2011 was dismissed.Against which the present revision case has been filed by the revision petitioner/ accused No.1 beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in this Court.Subsequently, when the matter was taken on 10.12.2018, no one has appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner.9.The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the revision petitioner along with 4 other accused, on the occurrence day had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and impersonated as if they are the Officials from the Commercial Tax Department and alleged that the de facto complainant printed contraband currency and hence they wanted to effect search in the house and as such they had taken away Rs.70,000/- from the bureau and asked the de facto complainant tohttp://www.judis.nic.in meet them in the address given by them.Hence the de facto 5 complainant preferred a complaint to the respondent Police and based on the complaint the respondent police conducted enquiry and PW.1 to P.W.4 have clearly stated about the the occurrence.Though they have not mentioned the identity of the accused in the evidence, PW.1 to PW.3 identified all the five accused in the two identification parades.So the prosecution has proved its case and both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire evidence and rightly convicted the revision petitioner.10.Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.13.A reading of the entire materials shows that PW.1 to PW.3 have clearly narrated about the incident that the accused including the revision petitioner have trespassed into the house and acted as if they were officials of Commercial Tax Department and taken away Rs.70,000/- from the de facto complainant.PW.1 to PW.3 have identified the accused in the identification parade.PW.8 and PW. 9 the Investigating Officers have stated that the accused had admitted his involvement in the offence.14.When PW.1 to PW.3 have all clearly stated about the offence committed by the accused and they identified them in the identification parades, it is evident that the accused has committed the offence.Both Courts below have considered all the materials placed on record and appreciated the evidence in the manner known to law.Therefore, there is no valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the Court below.15.There is no merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.The judgment dated 16.11.2001 rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.http://www.judis.nic.in 10.12.2018 7 ToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelvlei.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.3.The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN, J., dsk Crl RC(MD)No.100 of 2012 10.12.2018http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,359,559 | And In the matter of: Shib Narayan Mahato Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bitasok Banerjee For the Petitioner Mrs. Purnima Ghosh For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 71 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 under sections 379/411/313/414 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 32 of the Coal Mine Act, has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner as well as the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,361,444 | The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to direct the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, to consider to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the same day of his surrender in Crime No.524 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police.The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b),323, 506(i) IPC r/w 109 IPC and 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST/POA Amendment Ordinance Act 2014.P.N.PRAKASH,JdsThe learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent.Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the nature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Sections 294(b),323,506(i) IPC r/w 109 IPC and 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2) (Va) that the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioner filing such petition in Crime No.524 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law on the same day.5.With this observation, this petition is disposed of accordingly.1.The Inspector of Police, B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P. No.15384 of 2015 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,362,558 | Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the lower Court.Also heard on I.A.No.5155/2015 which is first application under Section 397 read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant- Ajay Sharma S/o Ghorishankar Sharma.The present applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16.09.2015 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.C.C.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,336,507 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this third application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06/07/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 20167/2020 and second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01/09/2020 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 12/06/2020 by Police Station Kadwaya District Ashoknagar (M.P.) , in connection with Crime No. 69/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under sections 354, 457 and 506-II of the IPC.It is further submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID 19, detention of the applicant in already congested prison may be detrimental.He is permanent resident of Village Gahora Police Station Kadwaya, District Ashoknagar (M.P.).Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail.On these grounds, he may be released on bail. | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,366,313 | [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.4/Goonda/Salem City/2017 dated 02.02.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Pallumani @ Manikandan @ Gunaseelan, aged 21 years, S/o.Murugesan, residing at No.144, Narayana Nagar, Kalidoss Street, Housing Board, Kitchipalayam, Salem and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:i) Ammapet Police Station, Crime No.685 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 394 r/w. 397, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code;ii) Ammapet Police Station, Crime No.687 of 2016, registered under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code; andiii)Ammapet Police Station, Crime No.692 of 2016, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code;3.Further it is averred in the affidavit that on 23.12.2016 at about 8 hours, one Sarathkumar, aged 23 years, S/o.Shanmugam, Mannarpalayam Pirivu Road, Allikuttai, Salem, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint against the detenu wherein it is alleged that by showing a deadly weapon, the detenu has snatched gold chain of the defacto complainant and also created panic in the minds of the general public.Under such circumstance, a case has been registered in Crime No.441 of 2016 under Sections 341, 392 r/w.397 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority, after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected papers, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as "Goonda" by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, as petitioner.Despite repeated adjournments, counter has not been filed on the side of the respondents.As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention order in question is liable to be quashed.In fine, this petition is allowed.The Detention Order dated 02.02.2017 passed in C.M.P.No.4/Goonda/Salem City/2017 by the second respondent against the detenu by name, Pallumani @ Manikandan @ Gunaseelan, aged 21 years, S/o.Murugesan, residing at No.144, Narayana Nagar, Kalidoss Street, Housing Board, Kitchipalayam, Salem is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,375,250 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.384 of 2013 pending on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.Mr.P.L.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 submits that a false complaint has been preferred in order to support the brother of the defacto complainant who is a tenant by himself and who could be vacated only by due process of law and not by intimidation or through foisted complaint.The defacto complainant suppressed the vital fact that he is none other than own brother of Mr.M.George the alleged owner of the building.The brother of the defacto complainant admitted that an agreement of sale dated 14.03.2005 entered into between him and late one C.Pandurangan and it is purely a civil dispute.Further he submitted that the civil disputes which are already pending before the Civil Courts, the rent control proceedings which are prior to the filing of the present complaint and as such the present criminal proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.The materials collected by the first respondent did not disclose any cognizable offence as against the petitioner and as such the continuation of trial would cause prejudice to the petitioner.While the second respondent was running an Ice Cream Parlour in the name and style of 'Amma Kudineer Valagam' in the rented premises owned by Mr.M.George, on 08.03.2011, when the second respondent was in his shop, the accused persons trespassed into his shop and had beaten the second respondent and also threatened him with dire consequences stating that there is an agreement of sale in favour of their one of the sisters.Thereafter, they took all the valuables from the shop and locked it with another lock.Further he submitted that there is incriminating materials to attract the charges as against the petitioners.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are totally 5 accused persons in which the petitioner is arrayed as third accused.They completed investigation and filed final report and trial court has taken cognizance under Sections 452, 397 r/w 427, 336http://www.judis.nic.in 4 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. in S.C.No.384 of 2013 and it is pending for trial.He further submitted that to attract the offence taken cognizance by the trial court there are statements and materials to connect the petitioner for the offence.Though there is a civil dispute, the occurrence took place on 08.03.2011 constitutes offence and as such it cannot be quashed at this stage and he prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.Heard Mr.P.L.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Balaji, the learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent Police.It is seen from the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.14711 of 2010 before the City Civil Court, Chennai wherein it is averred as follows:The plaintiff most respectfully submits that the third defendant and one Mr.And hence only balance of Rs.1,00,000/- is due to the 3rd defendant.Possession of the entire land and building was handed over even prior to 14.03.2005 itself to C.Pandurangan through his Power Agent by the 3rd defendant.The extent of the land is 1675 sq.ft.And the building therein is 5150 sq.ft.the possession of which was given to C.Pandurangan.Subsequently, at the request of the 3rd defendant, he became one of the tenants under C.Pandurangan with respect to the Shop No.3 in the second floor of the above premises and the 3rd defendant also executed fresh tenancy agreement in favour of this C.Pandurangan.”The owner of the building namely one, Mr.M.George handed over the possession of the disputed property to one Mr.C.Pandurangan and as such he became the tenant.Even then, Mr.M.George instigated other persons and attempted to dispossess him from the suit property.Therefore, it clearly shows that to evict thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 second respondent from the premises with the false and frivolous particulars, the petitioner initiated civil suit and trespassed into second respondent shop and looted all the materials.Further there are materials to prove the charges as against the petitioner.At this stage, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed by this Court and all the documents produced by the petitioner have to be tested before the trial court during the trial.On perusal of charges and statements, it discloses prima facie offences that are alleged as against the petitioner.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be tested only during the trial.Further the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be civil in nature.Further the judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not help the case of the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings.In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.03.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 ToThe Inspector of Police, R-10, MGR Nagar Police Station, Chennai-78The learned V Additional City Civil Court, ChennaiThe Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lok Crl.O.P.No.3856 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 22.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,376,523 | I. The anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, 1) Mohan Parvati Sul and 2) Rajabai Mohan Sul in connection with crime no. I-228 of 2018 registered::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2019 04:00:43 ::: 21-ABA-1419-2018 -4- with Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each with one surety each of the like amount on the following conditions;::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2019 04:00:43 :::b. The applicants shall make themselves available as and when required by the Investigating Officer for carrying out further investigation into the crime, if any.The anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2019 04:00:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2019 04:00:43 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,379,298 | These appeals are directed against judgment dated 26 th November, 2001 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.24/99 arising out of the FIR No. 128/99 registered at Police Station (PS) Pratap Nagar convicting Jaiveer Singh @ Jagira (A-1), Ashok Kumar @ Manoranjan Mehto (A-2) and Bal Vikas (A-4) for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201/34 IPC.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 2 of 16On the basis of the said information, Sub-Inspector (SI) Ishwar Singh (PW-14) accompanied by HC Prem Singh (PW-4) and Ct.Dharamvir (not examined) proceeded to the spot.The tehrir recorded below the DD No. 17 by PW-14 noted that the manhole had been blocked with a heavy stone.The dead body inside it was visible through a grill on the pavement.The tehrir also noted that the dead body was taken out and a photographer was called to the spot.Significantly, the tehrir did not make any reference to any person coming forward to identify the dead body.It referred to the visible injuries on the dead body.The FIR came to be registered at the PS at around 7.30 pm on the same date.According to the prosecution on that very day i.e. 11th August, 1999, after the FIR was registered, the investigation was taken over by Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW-19) who claims that on the same date Ram Pal (PW-1) and Ram Niwas (PW-2), both of whom were running tea stalls, came to the PS and volunteered that they had, on the morning of 10th August, 1999 at around 6.30 am seen the deceased Vikram @ Gujarati being beaten by three persons whom they named as Jaiveer Singh @ Jagira (A-1), Ashok Kumar @ Manoranjan Mehto (A-2) and Bal Vikas (A-4).At that stage they did not name Irfan (A-3)."There was haemorrhage underneath the back of the scalp of head and depressed communicated fracture of right side pari- occipital bone 10 x 4 cms.Membrane of the brain was ruptured below the fracture line.Brain was semi-liquefied.The neck and its structure were intact.Chest showed fissure fracture of posterior part of 5th and 6th ribs, right side and near vertebral collar.Chest cavity contained half litre of blood and clots.The lungs were contused.Abdominal visceras showed early decomposition and stomach contained semi- liquid semi digested food.Urinal bladder and rectum were empty.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 4 of 16Opinion: Cause of death was head injury and haemothorax consequent to multiple injuries inflicted by other party.Injury No.1, 3, 7 & 9 were caused by sharp cutting straight weapon like knife.All other injuries were caused by kicks and hard cylindrical weapon like lathi.All injuries were ante mortem in nature and head and chest injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."PW-12 opined that the head and chest injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.On the very same date i.e. 11th August, 1999, a rough site plan (Ex. PW 19/A) was drawn up purportedly by PW-19 which indicates two spots.Mark A shows the manhole from which the dead body was extracted, towards the Kishan Ganj Railway Colony side.Mark B shows a tree near the manhole.The scaled site plan showed only three locations.A was the spot where the manhole was located, B where blood was found and C the location of a tree.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 5 of 16A-2 also volunteered to get the knife which he had hidden in the earth in front of the gutter at 2/6 Railway Quarters recovered.He then proceeded to do so after lifting some of the earth in front of the gutter itself.This was then taken into possession and sealed in a pulanda.14. A-2 offered to get his blood stained pant and T-Shirt recovered from his village in Begusarai in Bihar.It is stated that PW-14 was deputed for this purpose.The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 27th November, 2001 whereby for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC A-1, A-2 and A-4 were sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 3 months and for the offence under Section 201 read with 34 IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 2 years with a fine of Rs.250/- and in default to undergo SI for 2 months.At the outset it requires to be noted that charges were originally framed against four accused i.e. the aforementioned three accused as well as Irfan (A-3).Case of the prosecutionThe prosecution case begins with DD No. 17 recorded at PS Pratap Nagar which noted that Constable (Ct.) Avtar Singh (PW-6) while on patrolling duty on 11th August, 1999 on a motorcycle along with Head Constable (HC) Som Nath (not examined) reached Block No. 6, Quarter No. 596, Kishan Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 2 of 16 Ganj, Railway Colony, Old Rohtak Road at around 4.45 pm and noticed that a dead body was lying in a manhole.HC Som Nath then alighted from the bike and waited there to preserve the spot while PW-6 proceeded to the PS to give the information.Both PWs.1 and 2 are stated to have identified the dead Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 3 of 16 body after it was taken out from the gutter/manhole and even before it was sent for post-mortem.It must be mentioned at this stage that Bal Vikas (A-4) was arrested subsequent to the arrest of A-1 to A-3 and charged separately with the same offence more than 6 months after the other three (A-1 to A-3) accused were charged.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 3 of 16The post-mortem of the deceased was performed at around 12 noon on 14th August 1999, three days after the recovery of the body.Dr. K.L. Sharma (PW-12) who performed the post-mortem noted the following external injuries in the post mortem report (Ex. PW 12/A):1. "incised wound left side lip 4x .5 cm transverseBruise 2 x .5 cm over left side faceCut-wound 1x .5 cm over left nostrilDeformity nasal, bridge with under line fracture of the bone.Bruise with swelling over back of the left side ear 4 x 4 cmsLacerated wound 2 x .1 cm over right parietal base of the skullPartial skin cut 10 cm long over right side neckExtensive bruising 10 x 7 cms over upper outer part of right arm.Incised wound 4 x .5 cm over right side palm of the hand below the index finger (defence wound)10.Extensive bruise over back of the chest."On internal examination, PW-12 made the following observations:It was noted that injuries 1, 3, 7 and 9 were caused by sharp cutting straight weapon like a knife.The statements of both PWs 1 and 2 under Section 161 Cr PC were purportedly recorded by PW-19 on 11th August, 1999 itself.Both statements were identically worded.Both the statements speak of A-1 beating the deceased with a rubber pipe and A-2 beating him with a danda (wooden stick) and A-4 slapping him while taking him towards Mehta Chowk.With the assistance of PW-1 the police managed to arrest A-1 on 14th August, 1999 from the R.K.P Transport Garage No.4 Sanjay Truck Market.He is supposed to have made a disclosure statement to the effect that he could get recovered the plastic pipe with which the deceased was beaten by him.It appears that on 15th August 1999, while in police custody, A-1 got the plastic pipe recovered from a tea stall run by Janak Raj (PW-11).Even PW-11 from whose shop the plastic pipe was recovered at the instance A-1 has not signed the seizure memo of the plastic pipe as a witness.12. A-1 also purportedly took the police to the following three spots:(i) Where the manhole was located.(ii) Where purportedly the accused persons were beating the deceased.(iii) The spot where the deceased was lying unconscious next to a urinal Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 6 of 16 on one side and a heap of Kadi patta (curry leaves) on the other.It must be mentioned at this stage that according to PW-1 and PW-2 when the deceased was beaten by A-1, A-2 and A- they purportedly heard the accused accuse the deceased of having stolen their curry leaves and cash.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 6 of 16The danda and the curry leaves were taken into possession.The pant and shirt that were recovered from Bihar were also deposited in the malkhana in a sealed pulanda.A- 3 purportedly also pointed out the gutter and the place where they had washed off the blood.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 7 of 16On behalf of the prosecution 19 witnesses were examined.In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr PC the accused denied their involvement as well as the circumstances against them.They claimed to have been falsely implicated after having been subjected to beatings by the police.They claimed that the arrest was false and that the articles seized had all been planted on them.On behalf of A-1, Ramesh (DW-1) and Jagbir Panja (DW-2) were examined.He stated that A-1 did not sell curry leaves in Delhi and that A-1 had been arrested from his village in Rohtak.He too stated that the police had taken A-1 away on 11th August, 1999 from the village.In the impugned judgment dated 26th November, 2001 the Trial Court came to the following conclusions:(i) The deceased was last seen with the accused persons.The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was believed and taken to prove not only the above circumstance but also fact of the deceased was beaten by A-1, A-2 and A-4 with rubber pipe, danda and bare hands respectively.The trial Court also held that their evidence proved that the accused took the deceased towards Mehta Chowk.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 8 of 16(ii) As far as A-3 was concerned since no eye witness had assigned any role to him having taken any part in assaulting the deceased, he could not be said to have shared any common intention with the remaining accused.A-3 was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.(iii) One day after the beating, the body of the deceased was found dumped to the gutter close to Mehta Chowk.From this it could safely be concluded that it was only A-1, A- 2 and A-4 who had murdered him as he was in their custody when he was being taken towards Mehta Chowk.It was only within their knowledge as to what had happened to the deceased.(iv) The recovery of the weapons of the offence at the instance of A-1 and A-2 stood proved.The medical evidence proved that the death was homicidal.By throwing the body in the manhole the three accused had sought to destroy the evidence of the offence and screen themselves.The trial Court accordingly held that with the above circumstances having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it could be safely concluded that it was only A-1, A- 2 and A-4 who had committed the offence of murder of the deceased and no one else.By a separate order on sentence the accused were sentenced in a manner already indicated.This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and of Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned APP appearing for the State.Circumstance of last seenCrl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 9 of 16As already noticed both the PWs-1 and 2 have given virtually identical statements to the police under Section 161 Cr PC.They had attributed to A- 1 the act of beating the deceased with the rubber pipe and to A-2 the act of beating the deceased with a danda.According to them A-4 also joined in the beating by slapping the deceased.Both PWs 1 and 2 claim to be running tea stalls within 15 to 20 yards of the manhole and close to where the beating of the deceased by the accused took place.And yet, as already noticed, in the scaled site plan that was prepared more than two months after the date of the incident at the instance of PW-14, there is no indication whatsoever as to where these tea stalls are located.The exact spot from where the two eye witnesses witnessed the three accused beating the deceased is also not indicated.This is, as has already been noted, a serious lapse in the investigation.The depositions of PWs 1 and 2 in Court raised more questions than they answered.PW-1 states that he saw the accused persons coming from the side of the station along with the deceased and they were quarrelling with him.PW-1 states as under:"I saw accused persons coming from the station side along with the deceased and they were quarreling with him.Station was about 100 m away from the place where the accused were first seen by me, coming.I saw Ashok giving danda blow on the deceased on his back, neck and stomach.I did not pay much attention to note down as to on what particular places, danda blow were given by Ashok.I cannot say Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 10 of 16 on what part of body of deceased first danda blow was given by the accd.I did not see accd, Jaibir beating deceased by rubber pipe.I saw Jaibir standing with rubber pipe in his hand while accd.Ashok was giving beatings with the danda to the deceased."Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 10 of 16Strangely, although in his examination in chief PW-1 stated states that he saw A-1 beating the deceased with a rubber pipe, in his cross examination he stated "I did not see the accused Jaiveer beating the deceased by a rubber pipe.Then he made a very significant improvement in his deposition in Court.He stated "I separated accused persons and deceased thereafter they ran towards the Mehta Chowk." This was not stated by him in his earlier statement to the police.If indeed PW-1 had separated the deceased from the accused, it was unlikely that the accused and the deceased went together towards Mehta Chowk thereafter.This is particularly relevant because according to PW-1, whilst they were beating him the accused were accusing the deceased of having stolen their curry leaves and cash.It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the deceased went with the accused particularly since PW-1 does not state that they forcibly took him away from that spot towards Mehta Chowk.What is even stranger is that the medical evidence shows that there were lacerated and other wounds and bruises on the body of the deceased and injuries on the head and chest that were severe enough to be sufficient cause of death in the ordinary course of nature.If PW-1 was able to separate the accused from the deceased and they then walked away, clearly the deceased was not so severely beaten at that stage.Those fatal injuries obviously were Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 11 of 16 inflicted subsequently.This also makes it highly improbable that PW-1 is speaking the truth when he says that he saw the accused beat the deceased with the rubber pipe and danda and yet he was able to separate them and they just walked away.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 11 of 16In his cross-examination PW-1 stated "I open my tea stall about 6/06.30 pm"."I sleep in my tea stall".Yet he states that on 10 th August 1999, when he saw the three accused i.e. A-1, A-2 and A-4 beating the deceased it was 6.30 am in the morning.As already noticed, the tehrir prepared by PW-14 makes no mention of any eye witness coming forward to either identify the dead body of the deceased or inform the police at that stage as to what had transpired.If PW- 1 had a tea stall as claimed by him and it was located only 15 to 20 yards away from the manhole, it is unlikely that he would not have come forward then and there to make a statement to the police that is even before the rukka was sent to the PS for registration of the FIR.The evidence of PW-2 is equally unconvincing.He deposes identically as PW-1 on facts and makes an identical improvement about having separated the deceased and the accused after seeing the accused beat the deceased.He too in an identical fashion in his examination in chief says that he noticed A- 1 beating the deceased with the rubber pipe but in his cross- examination he says "I did not see accused Jaiveer beating with a rubber pipe".In his examination in chief he talks of A-2 giving danda blows but in Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 12 of 16 his cross-examination he states "I did not see accused giving danda blows to the deceased"."I only saw mark of injuries on the back of the deceased." It is not plausible to trust such a witness who cannot even on the same day maintain his version and is able to contradict himself in the cross- examination.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 12 of 16Again the location of tea stall of PW-2 is not indicated in the scaled site plan prepared more than 2 months after the incident.Interestingly although both PWs 1 and 2 claim to have witnessed the incident of beating at the same time i.e. 6.30 am on the morning of 10 th August and from more or less the same distance, neither mentions the presence of the other.This despite both stating that they tried to intervene and in fact separated the accused from the deceased.On a careful evaluation of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 the Court is not satisfied that they are either natural witnesses present in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence or that they are speaking truthfully of what they saw, if at all they saw it.Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 can be stated to be reliable witnesses to prove the circumstance of accused being last seen with the deceased.Consequently the Court is unable to concur with the trial Court that the circumstance of last seen has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.If the circumstance of last seen is taken out of the reckoning, then the prosecution has to fall back on the circumstances arrests and recoveries at the instance of the accused.In Mani v State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 17 SCC Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 13 of 16 273 the Supreme Court observed that a conviction could not be based on recovery of common objects like blood stains weapon of offence and blood stain clothes.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 13 of 16In the present case, the arrest and recoveries made at the instance of the accused do not at all inspire confidence.Despite the police being present at the manhole from which the dead body was recovered in the evening hours of 11th August, 1999 itself and having inspected the place, they supposedly did not notice the blood stained knife lying in the heap of dirt just in front of the manhole.How the police could have missed such an obvious location for the knife is not explained.It must be remembered that the knife was recovered at the instance of A-2 only on 18th August, 1999 i.e. more than seven days after the police had already inspected that spot.This renders the recovery pointless.Even the recovery of the danda from the heap of the curry leaves in an open place next to a urinal, which had already been inspected on 15th August, 1999 when A-1 took the police there, is again totally unbelievable and meaningless.Recovery of these kinds of objects from open places which the police have already visited prior to the recovery cannot inspire confidence at all.In similar circumstances in Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Supreme Court observed that such recoveries were a farce and could never be accepted.The recovery of the plastic (and not rubber) pipe from the tea shop of PW-11at the instance of A-1 is again unbelievable.For some reason, PW-11 was not a witness to corresponding seizure memo.The strangest of course is Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 14 of 16 the recovery of the blood stained clothes.The prosecution wants the Court to believe that A-2 sent his blood stained clothes all the way to Bihar for preservation and for the police to recover it from there on 21st August, 1999 more than eleven days after the occurrence.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 14 of 16In any event, the report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (Ex.PW18/A) as regards those clothes was of no help to the prosecution.No blood could be detected on the clothes.The clothes were also not identified by PWs 1 and 2 as having been worn by the accused.Three of the four accused were purportedly in and around in the same area when they were arrested.A-1 has sought to prove through DWs 1 and 2 that he was in fact arrested from his village.A-3 has been acquitted by the Trial Court.In any event the mere fact of the arrest of the accused being proved can hardly be sufficient to unerringly prove the guilt of the accused and no one else.Case against the accused not provedThere are too many gaping holes in the prosecution evidence which have not been satisfactorily explained.Crl A Nos. 235, 261 and 270 of 2002 Page 15 of 16The circumstances put forth by the prosecution have not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt much less has every link in the chain of the circumstances been proved.Consequently, the impugned judgement of the trial Court and the impugned order on sentence are hereby set aside.The three Appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,380,652 | O.P.(MD)No.14325 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.6415 of 2018 21.11.2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 44 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14325 of 2018The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 44 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 420,468,120(B), 423,470,474 and 34 of IPC as against the petitioner.He would further submit that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the property for valid sale consideration.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Considering the above facts the petitioner is directed to produce all relevant documents before the first respondent and the first respondent police on receipt of the same, is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14325 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, aav Crl. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,354,997 | It is that fear which has necessitated this application.” From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that Haridath was theChief Investigating Officer.After the investigating team was constitutedby the higher officer, the High Court, as the order would further unveil,had given immense protection to Haridath as far as investigation isconcerned. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
893,563 | The accused is in appeal against the conviction andsentence imposed by the High Court in affirmation of thefinding of guilt under Section 304 Part-I, IPC andsentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears.During the course of hearing learned Advocateappearing for the respondent-State, contended that theappeal should be restricted to the question of sentenceonly: The learned Advocate appearing for the appellanthowever, contended that question of treating the appeal inany restricted manner does not and cannot arise by reason ofsubsequent grant of leave without attaching any conditionthereto.The records depict that on 20th March, 1998, thisCourt directed issuance of notice limited to the question ofsentence only.Subsequently, however, after about eightmonths, the matter was placed in the list for hearing but byreason of the objection this Court was pleased to grantspecial leave in the matter.The learned Advocate appearingin support of the appeals contended that once the leave hasbeen granted the matter is open for all the issues to beagitated otherwise the Court would have specified in theorder itself while granting leave.Reliance however hasbeen placed on the decision of this Court in the case ofHarbans Singh v. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No.659 of2000] which inter alia is an authority for the propositionthat the Leave, as granted by this Court, is to be treatedlimited to the question of sentence only and as such theappeals were directed to be heard on the question ofsentence only.The case of the prosecution as the recorddepicts appears that the deceased Vinayagam purchased 2/3rdshare in the Well as well as the pump- set belonging to thePankal (the accused).On the date of occurrence that is on5th March, 1990 at about 6.15 p.m. the deceased was in hisTea shop, the accused went there and according to theprosecution stabbed on the stomach of the deceased.When PW1 Gopal intervened, the latter also suffered injuries.Theprosecution case further goes on to record that the accuseddragged the deceased inside the room in the business placeand bolted the door from inside and thereafter assaulted onthe head of the deceased with iron pipe and stabbed himindiscriminately with a knife and caused his death.Though,strictly speaking, there cannot be eye-witnesses since thefatal blow was given admittedly inside the bolted room butprosecution examined PWs.1,2 and 3 as eye-witnesses to theoccurrence though were present outside the room.Theprosecution case however, further depicts that the door wasopened after some time by the accused and he came out of theroom with a blood-stained knife in his hand and the accusedmade his escape inspite of resistance.It is onlythereafter that the body of the deceased was discovered inthe room.The full factual analysis has been dealt with bythe trial judge as also the High Court and as such we neednot deal with the same in extenso, more so by reason of thefact that the appeals are heard on the question of sentenceonly.Significantly one aspect of the matter which standshigh-lighted by the learned Advocate appearing for therespondent- State is that circumstantial evidence as amatter of fact clinches the issue since there is existing acategorical statement from PW 2 that the accused opened thedoor and came out of the room and was holding Vinayagam withleft hand and holding the knife in his right hand.It is atthat juncture that PW2 Sundaram took two tender coconutwhich lay there and threw them at the accused, the accusedhowever moved aside and escaped.More or less identical isthe deposition of PW3 without any element of contradiction.It is on this piece of evidence that the learnedState-Advocate contended that no exception can be taken tothe finding and the sentence passed by the Sessions judge orthe High Court.As a matter of fact, the Learned AdditionalSessions Judge has been quite lenient while dealing with thematter and has changed the conviction from Section 302 IPCto Section 304 Part I, IPC and recorded a punishment of fiveyears rigorous imprisonment. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,361,571 | In this view of the matter, the core question which needs determination in the present appeal is : whether the deceased suffered accidental burn injuries as pleaded by the defence or whether the deceased was set on fire as pleaded by the prosecution.Criminal law was set into motion when at around 02:57 hours on August 03, 2006 appellant Anand Sharma made a call to the Police Control Room informing that his wife has suffered burn injuries at their Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 1 of 29 matrimonial House No.47, Bhagwan Park, Main Road Jharoda.The aforesaid information was flashed to Police Station Timar Pur where Ct.Jitender recorded DD No.3A, Ex.PW-21/A, noting the aforesaid information.A.No.937/2012 Page 1 of 29PCR Van S-67 present near the house also picked up the wireless message flashed and proceeded to the house, where HC Kailash Yadav PW-16, in-charge of the PCR Van found the deceased in a burnt condition and thus removed the deceased to LNJP Hospital.On the way to the hospital, HC Kailash Yadav PW-16, made an entry at point DX in the log book register, Ex.PW-16/A of the PCR van as under:-"S-67 Note condition."Alleged case of burn by a candle burner at home as said by Pt.herself on 3/8/06 at around 2:30 AM.History told by Pt. herself.Note: - Smell of kerosene oil - Present L/E - There is superficial to deep burn over the neck, chest, abdomen & B/L lower limbs and some part of the B/L forearm.Approx. % of burn area - 70 - 80% of burn area." (Emphasis Supplied)In the meantime, on receipt of DD No.3A, accompanied by HC Gulzar Singh PW-19 and Ct.Satyavrat PW-14, ASI Om Pal Singh PW- 15, proceeded to the house where the deceased suffered burn injuries and Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 2 of 29 learnt that the deceased has been removed to LNJP Hospital.Leaving HC Gulzar Singh and Ct.Satyavrat at the house, ASI Om Pal Singh proceeded to the hospital.A.No.937/2012 Page 2 of 29On reaching the hospital, ASI Om Pal Singh collected the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased.Thereafter ASI Om Pal Singh called Yogesh Pratap PW-2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to the hospital to record the statement of the deceased.The SDM reached the hospital but could not record the statement of the deceased since the doctor on duty declared the deceased to be unfit for making a statement at about 06:20 hours on August 03, 2006, as endorsed on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased, upon which Yogesh Pratap left the hospital.Yogesh Pratap again visited LNJP Hospital at about 10:20 hours to record the statement of the deceased but the doctor once again declared the deceased to be unfit for making a statement as endorsed on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A.In the meantime, the Crime Team reached the house and inspected the same, in particular the room on the first floor of the house where the deceased suffered burn injuries.HC Sunder Pal PW-20, took four photographs Ex.PW-20/A-1 to Ex.PW-20/A-4 of the room; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-20/A-5 to Ex.The photographs Ex.PW- 20/A1 to Ex.PW-20/A4 show that the deceased suffered burn injuries on a bed lying in a bedroom of her matrimonial house.The bed sheet spread on the bed is partially burnt.At around 11:15 hours on August 03, 2006, the deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital.Before the deceased was discharged from LNJP hospital, Ms.Neelam Verma, a nurse at LNJP hospital, handed over Crl.My sister-in- law Geeta can do this.Since I was sleeping I cannot tell clearly.Question What are your educational qualifications and do you have a child and what is your age?Answer I have studied upto class seventh and I have a daughter and my age is about 28 years.The above statement has been given by me truthfully and in fully conscious state and I have been read over the same and I have understood the same."PW-2/B of the deceased and took the same to the Police Station for registration of an FIR, where HC Rakesh Kumar PW-10, registered FIR No.364/2006, Ex.PW-10/A, under Sections 307/498-A/34 IPC against appellant Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased), Om Prakash (father-in-law of the deceased), Shakuntla (mother-in-law of the deceased) and Geeta (sister-in-law of the deceased).Thereafter ASI Om Pal Singh PW-15, proceeded to the house and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-15/B of the house where the deceased was found in a burnt condition.ASI Om Pal Singh inspected the room and saw a plastic bottle having smell of kerosene oil, some burnt pieces of cloth and match box lying in the room, which articles were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-15/C in the presence of HC Gulzar Singh PW-19 and Ct.(Be it noted here that the seizure memo Ex.PW-15/C records that the plastic bottle having smell of kerosene oil found in the room where the deceased was burnt also contained little kerosene oil).A.No.937/2012 Page 5 of 29On August 04, 2006 SI Samarpal PW-25, took over the investigation of the case.Since the deceased has implicated her husband and in-laws as the persons who had poured kerosene oil on her in her statement Ex.PW-2/B, the police arrested Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased), Om Prakash (father-in-law of the deceased), Shakuntla (mother-in-law of the deceased) and Geeta (sister-in-law of the deceased).On being interrogated by SI Samarpal PW-25, accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) got recovered a bed sheet, blanket and pillow from a room on the ground floor of his house, which articles were seized by SI Samarpal vide memo Ex.PW-25/B.Consultant, Department of Plastic Surgery, Apollo Hospital prepared the death summary Ex.PW-6/A of the deceased, the relevant portion whereof reads as under "SUMMARY:-Mrs. Shruti Sharma 27 years old married lady was admitted through Emergency Triage to Surgical Intensive Care Unit on 03/08/06 at 11.15 am.with alleged history of burns at her residence at 2.30 AM.Patient was first taken to IRWIN hospital where primary care was given and dressing of wounds was done.Patient was then brought to Apollo Hospital for further management.Patient was dressed all over body below neck when she was received in Triage.On Examination was:-Sedated, but arousable Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 6 of 29 Temp :- 98.6F HR :- 152/min PR :- 19/min BP :- 90/46 mm of Hg Assessment of the patients condition was done and fast IV fluids started.Necessary blood investigations were sent, Oxygen by mask was started @ 5lit/m, urine output kept under rigorous surveillance and after explaining extreme critical condition and imminent threat to life to parents, patient was shifted to Surgical ICU.A.No.937/2012 Page 6 of 29In Surgical ICU central line was put, plasma expanders and FFP were given along with IV fluids as needed.Dressing was done and wound swab cultures were sent.Burn wound assessment was done at 80% burn, most of which were deep.Almost whole body was burnt except left foot and front of left leg, (Rt.) sole and part of (Rt.) Shin, most of (Rt.) hand on both upper limbs, head, part of face and patches on back.At about 10.30 PM on 03.08.2006 patient developed difficulty in breathing and hence was intubated with 7.5 size ET tube and connected to ventilator.Initially patient was responding to the treatment but from about 2am she developed hypotension and fast IV fluids were given including colloids....Patients relatives were informed about the deteriorating condition of the patient from time to time........However, she continued to deteriorate and fever persisted and kept increasing.Also her FiO2 continued to gradually increase to 190%.On 16.08.2006, she had a cardiac arrest at 9.35 PM and despite all resuscitative measures could not be revived and was declared dead.CAUSE OF DEATH:A.No.937/2012 Page 7 of 2980% deep burns with septic shock and multiorgan failure." (Emphasis Supplied)On August 17, 2006 the body of the deceased was sent to the Subzi Mandi Mortuary where Dr.Ashok Jaiswal PW-4, conducted the post- mortem and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-4/A recording therein that the burn injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature involving 70% of body surface area and death of deceased was caused due to septicaemic shock consequent to burn injuries.After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the scalp hair of the deceased to SI Samarpal PW-25, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-25/H.On August 24, 2006 Insp.Satyavir Singh PW-22, took over the investigation of the case.On September 29, 2006 the afore-noted articles/exhibits seized were sent to FSL, Delhi for forensic evaluation which returned the same informing that FSL Delhi does not have facility to test hydrocarbons.Thus on October 15, 2006 the exhibits were sent to FSL, Hyderabad which returned the same informing that it had enough work at hand and thus on January 31, 2007 the exhibits were sent to FSL, Gandhinagar, Gujarat where they were tested.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-22/B it was opined that hydrocarbons of kerosene were detected in the plastic bottle seized from the room where the deceased suffered burn injures; residual hydrocarbons of kerosene were detected in the clothes worn by the deceased at the time when she suffered burns; burnt pieces of clothes seized from the room where the deceased suffered burn injuries, the blanket, the pillow and the bed sheet Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 8 of 29 recovered at the instance of appellant Anand Sharma and scalp hair of the deceased.A.No.937/2012 Page 8 of 29The statements of Mahender Sharma, Manju Sharma, Jayant Sharma and Sudhakar Sharma, the father, the mother, the brother and the uncle of the deceased were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they implicated the husband and the in-laws of the deceased for having treated her with cruelty and demanding dowry.Manju Sharma PW-1, the mother of the deceased deposed that on January 29, 2003 the deceased got married to appellant Anand Sharma.A sum of `8,00,000/- was spent by them in solemnization of the marriage.A maruti car was given at the insistence of Om Prakash, the father-in-law of the deceased even though their family did not have the financial capacity to give a Maruti car.Few months after the marriage the accused persons started harassing and torturing the deceased for dowry.The accused used to beat the deceased on account of dowry.In the month of July/August appellant Anand Sharma took a sum of `50,000/- from her on the pretext that he would return the same but never returned the amount to her.After sometime appellant Anand Sharma demanded a sum of `2,00,000/- from her but she refused to give said amount whereupon the accused persons started harassing the deceased even more.On March 17, 2004 the deceased gave birth to a daughter.The accused did not take proper care of the deceased during her pregnancy.After the birth of the daughter, the accused got more annoyed with the deceased.The accused were never satisfied with the gifts given by them and their demands Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 9 of 29 increased day by day.In the month of August, 2004 the accused pressurized the deceased to bring her share from the property owned by them.When the deceased refused to oblige, the accused turned out the deceased from her matrimonial house and told her to never return.At about 01:00 AM on said day the deceased reached their house and narrated the entire incident to her.The deceased stayed with them for about five/six months and thereafter returned to her matrimonial house when appellant Anand Sharma apologized for his actions.On August 02, 2006 at about 08:00/08:30 PM she talked to the deceased over the telephone.During the conversation the deceased informed her that she was being tortured by the accused and was apprehending danger to her life.On August 03, 2006 the accused Om Prakash gave a telephonic call to them and informed them that the deceased has been admitted in RML hospital in a burnt condition.Seeing the critical condition of the deceased they shifted her to Apollo Hospital.In the evening of August 03, 2006 the SDM had recorded the statement of the deceased.The deceased was conscious at that time.PW-2/B, which was a part Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 17 of 29 of the charge sheet, was to be believed, it was a case of murder for the reason in the statement the deceased has said that when she was sleeping, somebody out of the accused threw kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.The FSL Report showed hydrocarbon residue in the bed sheet and the pillow cover lifted from the bed on which the deceased was sleeping.The photographs of the bed evince the bed sheet partially burnt.Thereafter at about 11:15 hours the deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital.The death summary Ex.PW-6/A of the deceased gives us insight into the condition of the deceased at the time when she was admitted in Apollo Hospital.The death summary Ex.PW-6/A records that the pulse rate was 19 per minute and the blood pressure was 90/46 Hgmm when she was admitted in Apollo Hospital.It shows that the condition of the Crl.(iii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassed by the husband or concerned relative of husband soon before her death;(iv) The woman was subjected to harassment or cruelty for or in connection with any demand for dowry.The aforesaid explanation furnished by accused Anand Sharma is most flimsy and unsatisfactory.As per accused Anand Sharma himself, he i.e. accused Anand Sharma was sleeping by the side of the deceased on the bed where the deceased was burnt.the deceased sustained extensive burn injuries to the extent of 80% of total body surface area but accused Anand Sharma who was sleeping next to Crl.Shruti Sharma w/o Anand Sharma Age 25 address stated above who has been burnt has told that when she was sleeping a candle fell upon her due to which she was burnt...illegible....She is being removed to LNJP hospital." (Emphasis Supplied)Deepak examined the deceased and prepared her MLC Ex.PW-2/A, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-A.No.937/2012 Page 3 of 29 the clothes worn by the deceased to ASI Om Pal Singh who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-8/A.A.No.937/2012 Page 3 of 29At around 16:00 hours on August 03, 2006 Yogesh Pratap again visited Apollo Hospital to record the statement of the deceased and recorded the statement Ex.PW-2/B after obtaining an endorsement on the MLC of the deceased that she was fit for statement.The statement Ex.PW-2/B of the deceased, in Hindi, loosely translated reads as under:-"Question (SDM) What is your name? When did you get married and what is the name of your husband? Answer (Shruti) My name is Shruti Sharma.About three and half years ago I was married to Shri Anand Sharma s/o Om Prakash Sharma.Question (SDM) What is the name of your father and what is his residential address?Answer (Shruti) Shri Mahender Sharma r/o D-504, Maple Cresent, Sushant Lok-I Gurgaon Haryana.Question Did your in-laws asked you to bring dowry after the marriage? Did they demand it?Answer Yes, after marriage my in-laws used to demand dowry and they used to say that I should bring money or some other things from my father.Question How was the behavior of your in-laws and husband? Did they ever give beatings to you? Answer The behavior of my in-laws was not good towards me right from the beginning.My mother-in-law used to get me beaten from my husband.Question How did this incident happen with you? Answer I was sleeping.My in-laws poured kerosene oil on me and burned me.A.No.937/2012 Page 4 of 29Question Who was involved in this incident and who all is responsible?My husband Anand can do this.My mother-in-law can do this.ASI Om Pal Singh made an endorsement Ex.PW-15/A beneath the statement Ex.On August 16, 2006 at about 09:35 PM the deceased succumbed in the Apollo Hospital to the burn injuries suffered by her.Kuldeep Singh PW-6, Sr.Sent for trial charges were framed against the appellant, his parents and his sister for offences punishable under Section 304B and Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.At the trial, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses.After her statement was recorded by the SDM, the deceased told her that the accused had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her.A.No.937/2012 Page 9 of 29Yogesh Pratap PW-2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate deposed that on August 03, 2006 at about 04:15 PM he recorded the statement Ex.PW- 2/B of the deceased at Apollo Hospital.Before recording the statement he had obtained fitness of the deceased as per endorsement made to said effect in the MLC Ex.PW-2/A. Being relevant, we note the following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-"It is correct that on the statement of deceased Ex.PW-2/B, I did not obtain signatures of any Doctor or medical certification or signatures of any other official of Apollo Hospital.I alone was present when statement Ex.PW-2/B was recorded Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 10 of 29 and certification from Doctor was obtained on the MLC of LNJP Hospital.In Apollo Hospital, Shruti was found admitted in single bed room but I do not know which Ward.I do not know the number of that room also.I do not remember on which floor that room was.When I reached that room, one Nurse only was present there.No oxygen mask was put on Shruti but drip was there.On reaching Apollo Hospital, I had talked to Doctor on duty whose name I do not know, who was present outside near the room on a counter....It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely about my visit to Apollo Hospital or that oxygen mask was started as soon as Shruti was admitted in Apollo Hospital.It is incorrect to suggest that Shruti was admitted in surgical ICU and not in single bed room in the Apollo Hospital....A.No.937/2012 Page 10 of 29Nitin PW-3, deposed that the MLC Ex.PW2/A of the deceased was prepared by Dr.He had not examined the deceased but had merely countersigned the MLC Ex.PW-2/A.Jayant Sharma PW-5, the brother of the deceased and Mahender Sharma PW-11, father of the deceased, deposed on similar lines as the mother of the deceased i.e. Manju Sharma.Kuldeep Singh PW-6, deposed that he prepared the death summary Ex.PW-6/A of the deceased.Being relevant, we note the following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-"As per death summary, Shruti was put on Oxygen mask on 03.08.06 itself by the hospital everyday.The oxygen mask covers only mouth and nose of patient.The oxygen is given in almost all cases of extensive burns."Sudhakar Sharma PW-7, the parental uncle of the deceased, deposed that the accused persons used to harass and torture the deceased Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 11 of 29 for dowry.Additionally, he proved the Registration Certificate (RC) Ex.PW-7/A of Maruti car given by the family of the deceased to the deceased at the time of her marriage, which certificate records that a Maruti car having registration No.DL 9CE 9512 was registered in the name of the deceased.A.No.937/2012 Page 11 of 29Satyavrat PW-14, deposed regarding the role played by him in the investigation of the present case as noted by us in the foregoing paragraphs.Be it noted here that neither any question was put nor any suggestion was given to the witness in his cross-examination by the accused persons with regard to his deposition that he had seized a plastic can, matchbox and burnt pieces of clothes from the room where the deceased was burnt.34. HC Kailash Yadav PW-16, deposed that entry at point DX in the log book register Ex.PW-16/A was made by him.On being questioned about the presence of accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) at the time when she was being removed to the hospital, the witness stated that (Quote): At the time, the injured was being taken to LNJP Hospital, her husband was with her.A.No.937/2012 Page 12 of 29A.No.937/2012 Page 12 of 29HC Gulzar Singh PW-19, deposed regarding the role played by him in the investigation of the present case as noted by us in the foregoing paragraphs.Being relevant, we note the following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-"....The matchbox contained some burnt matchsticks as well as some unburnt.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely or that the matchbox was not having burnt matchsticks....It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely or that the entire proceedings of this case have been manipulated to falsely implicate the accused persons." (Emphasis Supplied)Be it noted here that neither any question was put nor any specific suggestion was given to the witness in his cross-examination by the accused persons with regard to his deposition that ASI Om Pal Singh PW-15, had seized a plastic can, matchbox and burnt pieces of clothes from the room where the deceased was burnt in his presence.HC Samarpal PW-25, deposed regarding the role played by him in the investigation of the present case as noted by us in the foregoing paragraphs.On being questioned about the hands of accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) at the time when he was arrested, the witness stated that (Quote): It is correct that hands of Anand Sharma were partly burnt and we had got medical examination of Anand Sharma conducted.Janmahmed Fakirbhai Mansuri PW-27, Scientific Officer, FSL, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat deposed that the FSL report Ex.PW-22/B was prepared by him.During the trial, accused Geeta expired, as a result whereof qua her the proceedings abated.A.No.937/2012 Page 13 of 29In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased), Om Prakash (father-in-law of the deceased) and Shakuntla (mother-in-law of the deceased) pleaded innocence and false implication.They denied that they used to torture and harass the deceased for dowry.Being relevant, we note the following portion of the statement of accused Om Prakash (father-in-law of the deceased) under Section 313 Cr."Q.10 It is in evidence against you that at the time of incident you were present at the place of incident.What have you to say?Being relevant, we note the following portion of the statement of accused Anand Sharma (husband-in-law of the deceased) under Section 313 Cr."It is in evidence against you that on 3/8/06 at around 3.45 am, deceased Shruti Sharma was taken to LNJP Hospital with 80% burnt injuries, as per MLC Ex. PW2/A and was admitted with the history of candle burn, however, smell of kerosene oil was present as per medical records.What have you to say?A: I had taken my wife to hospital with burn injuries.I was sleeping so I do not know, how Shruti got burnt."Being relevant, we note the following portion of the statement of accused Anand Sharma (husband-in-law of the deceased) under Section 313 Cr."She was taken to hospital with burn injuries.I was sleeping downstairs at the time of incident."In defence, the accused persons examined two witnesses viz. Ishwar Singh and Mahender Kumar as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively, the Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 14 of 29 testimonies of which witnesses is not germane to the present case.As regards documentary evidence, the accused persons produced the letter Ex.DW-1/A dated April 23, 2010 issued by Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi to accused Anand Sharma, the letter whereof reads as under:-A.No.937/2012 Page 14 of 29Chemical tests, TLC & Gas Chromatography methods are being used in this laboratory for detection of Residue of Kerosene on articles/clothes.The examination of Arson cases was started in this laboratory since year 2000."Holding the statement Ex.PW-2/B made by the deceased to the SDM inspires confidence; the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased establishes that the accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) and Shakuntla (mother-in-law of the deceased) used to harass the deceased and subject her to cruelty for dowry; accused Anand Sharma and Shakuntla have not offered explanation as to how the deceased sustained extensive burns involving 80% of the total body surface and the conduct of accused Anand Sharma of not immediately taking the deceased to the hospital on her being burnt and of waiting for the PCR van to come to the house and the removed the deceased to the hospital is most unnatural, vide impugned judgment dated May 18, 2012 the learned Trial Judge has convicted appellant Anand Sharma and Shakuntla for having committed offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Accused Om Prakash (father-in-law of the deceased) has been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge essentially on the ground that the deceased has not named her father-in-law in her statement Ex.PW- 2/B.A.No.937/2012 Page 15 of 29The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge to conclude that the statement Ex.PW-2/B made by the deceased inspires confidence is as under:-On examining all the aspects relating to dying declaration EXPW-2/B, I find that the same has been sufficiently proved on record.There is no force in the arguments that dying declaration is fabricated or manipulated.The dying declaration inspires confidence and entitled to great weight and therefore is accepted for the following reasons:-(i) This is single dying declaration recorded by competent, independent official witness in proper manner in the form of questions and answers, few hours after the incident.(ii) It is recorded after the deceased was declared fit by the doctor on duty as well as the SDM himself was satisfied about her fitness.(iii) The statement is clear and concise about the facts as well as about the incident and suffers from no infirmity.(iv) The dying declaration is consistent with medical and scientific evidence.(v) It stands corroborated with the testimony of parents.(vi) Last but not the least, and most importantly the dying declaration is found consistent with the circumstantial evidence appearing on record."Vide order dated May 18, 2012, the learned Trial Judge has sentenced appellant Anand Sharma to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months.For the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, accused Shakuntla has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine in sum of `10,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.For the offence Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 16 of 29 punishable under Section 498-A IPC, appellant Anand Sharma and Shakuntla have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine in sum of `5,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.A.No.937/2012 Page 16 of 29Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the appellant Anand Sharma and Shakuntla filed separate appeals challenging the conviction.Before the two appeals could be heard Shakuntala expired and thus proceedings qua her stood abated.That the place where she suffered the burn injuries is the bedroom of her matrimonial house where she and appellant used to sleep is also not in dispute.The only question is : whether deceased suffered accidental burns when a candle fell on her or whether kerosene oil was thrown on her followed by she being set on fire.The link issue would be whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of a dowry demand.It is not in dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage.Whereas the prosecution contends that the deceased was set on fire in her matrimonial house after kerosene oil was poured on her and heavily relies upon the dying declaration Ex.PW-2/B, the defence relies upon the MLC Ex.PW-2/A and the log book register Ex.PW-16/A.Before analyzing the evidence, we note with pain that the learned Trial Judge who framed the charge has not bothered to correctly appraise himself of the charge sheet and the material placed along therewith by the prosecution for the reason if the statement Ex.To some extent even the Investigating Officer is at fault because he filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.A.No.937/2012 Page 17 of 29In the absence of either accused being charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, it is our compulsion to deal with the evidence with reference to the charge being for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.The prosecution heavily relies upon the dying declaration Ex.As noted above at about 03:45 hours on August 03, 2006 the deceased was admitted at LNJP Hospital.Her condition was very critical as she had suffered burns involving 80% of total body surface.Two times on August 03, 2006, firstly at about 06:20 hours and thereafter at about 10:20 hours she was not fit for statement when Yogesh Pratap visited LNJP Hospital.A.No.937/2012 Page 18 of 29 deceased was extremely critical and an oxygen mask was put on her face to facilitate absorption of oxygen in the lungs.A.No.937/2012 Page 18 of 29Yogesh Pratap claims that at 16:00 hours on August 03, 2006 the deceased was declared fit for making a statement and for which the prosecution relies upon an endorsement to said effect on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A.We note firstly that the doctor making the endorsement on the MLC has not been examined.The pulse rate was 19 per minute and her blood pressure was 90/46 Hgmm.An oxygen mask was put on her mouth when she was admitted in the Surgical ICU.At about 22.30 hours her condition deteriorated and she was put on a ventilator.What magic happened at around 16:00 hours on August 03, 2006 which improved the condition of the deceased and made her fit enough to make a statement? There is nothing in the death summary Ex.PW-6/A of the deceased to show that her condition improved around said time.The doctor who had purportedly declared the deceased fit to make a statement has remained a mystery inasmuch as his identity has not surfaced.The normal pulse rate and blood pressure is 72 per minute and 120/80 Hgmm respectively.It is impossible that the deceased, having pulse rate of 19 per minute (nearly one-fourth of normal pulse rate) and blood pressure Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 19 of 29The most tell-tale circumstance which goes to show that the deceased never got fit enough to make the statement Ex.PW-2/B is the cross-examination of Yogesh Pratap PW-2, the scribe of the statement Ex.PW-2/A.Yogesh Pratap has deposed that he had recorded the statement Ex.PW-2/B of the deceased after she was declared by the doctor to be fit to make a statement in his presence.Most significantly, Yogesh Pratap has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was admitted in a single bed room in Apollo Hospital and he had recorded her statement Ex.PW-2/B in said room.This statement is palpably false.The deceased was admitted in the Surgical ICU in Apollo Hospital (and not a single bed room) as clearly mentioned in the death summary Ex.PW- 2/B was not made by the deceased and was prepared by Yogesh Pratap at the dictates of the family members of the deceased.The statement Ex.PW-2/B has thus to be ignored.What about the two dying declarations which are exculpatory of the appellant contained in the log book register Ex.PW-16/A and MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased.Both record that as told by the deceased she suffered the burn injuries when a candle fell on her.A.No.937/2012 Page 20 of 29Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no reason to disbelieve the two dying declarations.It has come in evidence that the appellant was present with his wife and had accompanied her to the hospital.It looms large in the realm of reality that the deceased was threatened to speak a lie and the reality is the tell-tale circumstances : (i) The recording contained in the MLC Ex.PW-2/A that smell of kerosene oil was noticed by Dr.Deepak who authored the MLC.If Dr.Deepak truthfully wrote what was told to him by the deceased, there is no reason why he would write a false fact i.e. that smell of kerosene oil was noticed by him when he examined the deceased; (ii) The plastic can having smell of kerosene oil and a match box being recovered from the room where the deceased suffered burn injuries as deposed to by ASI Om Pal Singh PW-15, HC Gulzar Singh PW-19 and Ct.The defence has not controverted the depositions of ASI Om Pal Singh PW-15 and HC Gulzar Singh PW-19, that a plastic can having smell of kerosene oil and a match box were recovered from the room where the deceased was burnt inasmuch as neither any question was put nor any suggestion was given by the defence to said witnesses in their cross-examination.In fact, it was suggested to HC Gulzar Singh PW-19, that the match box found in the room where the deceased was burnt contained only unlit matchsticks and no lit/burnt matchsticks, implying thereby that the presence of a match box in the room where the deceased was burnt was admitted by the defence.The deposition of Ct.Satyavrat PW-14, that a plastic can having smell of kerosene oil and a match box were recovered from the room where the deceased was burnt was challenged by the defence.Satyavrat was examined at length but nothing tangible could be extracted thereof which Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 21 of 29 could discredit his deposition that a plastic can having smell of kerosene oil and a match box were recovered from the room where the deceased was burnt; (iii) The absence of a candle and/or wax marks in the room where the deceased was burnt.No candle and/or wax marks were found in the room where the deceased was burnt.(Significantly, the defence has not suggested to the police officials who had inspected the room where the deceased was burnt viz. ASI Om Pal Singh PW-15, HC Gulzar Singh PW-19 and Ct.Satyavrat PW-14, that a candle and/or wax marks were present in the room where the deceased was burnt); and (iv) The deceased suffered burn injuries at around 02:30 hours i.e. past midnight when people are asleep.Nobody lights a candle when sleeping.The deceased was on the bed when she suffered the burn injuries.The photographs show that the bed sheet is partially burnt.If the deceased got up in the middle of the night and finding no electricity struck a matchstick to light a candle and accidentally got burnt, the place would be somewhere in the bedroom floor and not on the bed.The fact that kerosene oil was thrown on the deceased completely negates the theory of deceased suffering accidental burn injuries when a candle fell on her.In any case, the question of any candle causing burn injuries when it fell on her does not arise because this would mean that when the deceased was sleeping a burning candle was illuminating the bedroom; a most unnatural thing.A.No.937/2012 Page 21 of 29The afore-noted circumstances, when seen cumulatively, establish beyond any doubt that the deceased was burnt by throwing kerosene oil on her and then setting her on fire and negates the recording contained in the log book register Ex.PW-16/A and MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased that the deceased got burnt when a candle fell upon her while she was sleeping.A.No.937/2012 Page 22 of 29Learned counsel for the appellant had questioned the FSL Report Ex.PW-22/B by relying upon the letter Ex.DW-1/A from the FSL Delhi as per which the laboratory had the facility to test for hydrocarbon.Counsel urged that it was an obvious case of the prosecution manipulating an opinion from an FSL Laboratory which was convenient.PW-2/B was contrived and urged that if the SDM could be manipulated, so could the FSL Laboratory be manipulated.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that Om Prakash, father of appellant Anand Sharma had retired from the post of Inspector in Delhi Police.The possibility that Om Prakash used his contacts/influence in FSL, Delhi and made the FSL officials return the articles/exhibits seized in order to avoid the testing of the articles is writ large.In essence, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the return of articles/exhibits seized by the FSL, Delhi was not the handiwork of father of the deceased but was that of father of appellant Anand Sharma.We need not dwell on this aspect of the matter, for de-hors the FSL report Ex.PW-22/B, we have concluded that it stands established that the deceased got burnt by kerosene oil.Firstly from the fact that Dr.Deepak who gave medical treatment to the deceased recorded that he had detected smell of kerosene from the clothes of the deceased and secondly from the fact that ASI Om Pal Singh, HC Guljar Singh and Ct.Satyavrat have consistently deposed that even they detected smell of kerosene from the bed on which they saw a burnt bed sheet i.e. the bed on which the deceased was sleeping when she was burnt after kerosene oil was thrown on her.A.No.937/2012 Page 23 of 29It is apparent that appellants presence with the deceased when she was removed in the PCR van and when she spoke of Dr.Deepak was the cause which led the deceased to not tell the truth.Her statements recorded in Ex.PW-16/A and the MLC Ex.PW-2/A have thus to be discarded.In the decision reported as 1986 SCC (Cri.) 2 State Vs.It is the duty of a Court at every criminal trial to find the truth.Intrinsic as well as extrinsic contradictions in dying declarations are extremely important and need to be captured while analyzing the evidence before believing or rejecting the dying declarations.The deceased got burnt when kerosene oil was used.It is not the case of either the prosecution or defence that the deceased had poured kerosene oil on herself to commit suicide.The only alternative which remains is that the kerosene oil was poured on the deceased while she was sleeping and she was burnt.A.No.937/2012 Page 24 of 29Now, who had poured kerosene oil upon the deceased? Three persons viz. accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased), Om Prakash (father-in-law of the deceased) and Shakuntla (mother-in-law of the deceased) were present in the house in question at the time when she was burnt.(The said fact has been admitted by the aforesaid three persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.) Either all of three accused persons or one/two of the (three) accused persons poured kerosene oil on the deceased and burned her to death.No evidence has emerged regarding the identity of the person (s) who had burnt the deceased to death for the death of the deceased has been burnt within the four walls of her matrimonial house.The ocular evidence of the family members of the deceased who stepped into the witness box establishes that the deceased was being harassed by her husband Anand Sharma (and other in-laws) in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death.(The ocular evidence of the family members of the deceased on the aspect of harassment faced by the deceased at hands her husband Anand Sharma (and other in-laws) in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death has not been seriously controverted by the defence).Thus, all four conditions laid down under Section 304B IPC for raising the presumption that husband of the deceased Anand Sharma had caused dowry death of deceased stand fulfilled in the present case.As a result, the onus now shifts upon accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) to rebut the presumption that he had caused the dowry death of the deceased.A.No.937/2012 Page 26 of 29The explanation given by accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he does not know as to how the deceased got burnt as he was sleeping at the time when the deceased got burnt.A.No.937/2012 Page 27 of 29 the deceased did not come to know as to how the deceased got burning.It is not as if the deceased got burnt in thin air.A.No.937/2012 Page 27 of 29We have already noted herein above that the dying declarations contained in the log book register Ex.PW-16/A and MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased was most probably made by the deceased at the instance of her husband accused Anand Sharma.The photographs Ex.PW-20/A1 to Ex.PW-20/A4 show that the deceased was burnt on a bed lying in a bedroom of her house inasmuch as the bed sheet spread on the bed in question is burnt.In view of the fact that the deceased was burnt on a bed lying in a bedroom of her house it became compulsion for accused Anand Sharma to make the deceased speak that she got burnt when a candle fell upon her "while she was sleeping" instead of saying that she got burnt while lighting the candle for had the deceased burnt while lighting the candle she would have gotten up from the bed and bed sheet spread on the bed where the deceased was sleeping would not have burned in said case.In these circumstances, it has to be held that accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) failed to rebut the presumption arising against him that he had caused dowry death of the deceased.Further, we note that the conduct of accused Anand Sharma was most suspicious at the time when the deceased got burnt.The condition of the deceased was extremely critical.In such a situation, the first instinct of a husband would be to immediately take his (burnt) wife to the hospital.However, in the instant case, accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) did not take the deceased to the hospital but instead waited for a PCR van to take the deceased to the hospital, despite the fact that he i.e. accused Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 28 of 29 Anand Sharma owned a car.The relatives of the deceased who have stepped into the witness box viz. Manju Sharma PW-1, mother of the deceased, Mahender Sharma PW-11, father of the deceased, Jayant Sharma PW-5, brother of the deceased and Sudhakar Sharma PW-7, parental uncle of the deceased have deposed that a Maruti car was gifted to the deceased at the time of solemnization of her marriage with accused Anand Sharma, which deposition has not been seriously controverted by the defence.A.No.937/2012 Page 28 of 29The net result of the above discussion is that accused Anand Sharma (husband of the deceased) is guilty of causing dowry death of the deceased and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.(We are not dealing with other in-laws of deceased viz. her father- in-law Om Prakash, mother-in-law Shakuntla and sister-in-law Geeta for the reason Geeta and Shakuntla died during the pendency of trial and appeal respectively.Om Prakash, father-in-law of the deceased, has been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge, which acquittal has not been challenged by the State).The conviction of the appellant as also the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life is upheld.TCR be returned.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 29, 2014 mamta Crl.A.No.937/2012 Page 29 of 29A.No.937/2012 Page 29 of 29 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,364,579 | C.R.M. 6865 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29/08/2018 in connection with Bidhanngar Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 dated 28/02/2018 under Sections gd 379/420/463/464/465/467/471/473/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sikha Tiwari.....petitioner.Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee Mr. Anjan Dutta Mr. B.P. Singh ...for the petitioner.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the 2 petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,366,892 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39575/2019 (Ramchandra s/o Madanlal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 24.09.2019 Mr. Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.As per prosecution case, allegations of abduction and rape on a child have been made against the present applicant.Hence, the present case has been registered against him.Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew his prayer after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix.However, after giving ample opportunity by the trial Court to record statement of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix failed to produce her evidence before the trial Court.Non bailable warrant of arrests were also issued against the prosecutrix and her mother for the purpose of recording their evidence, even then, they did not turn up, which indicates that they are avoiding to given their evidence before the trial Court.Therefore, conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application by contending that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he prayed for rejection of the application.From perusal of proceeding dated 16.09.2019 recorded by the trial Court, it appears that sixteen opportunities have already been granted to the prosecutrix for recording her evidence, but she did not appear before the trial Court; and non-bailable warrant of arrests issued against the prosecutrix and her mother received un-served with the report that they are not residing on the given address, therefore, it is clear that conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 3 and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,367,641 | 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.8510/2020 (Sonu @ Kanhai Shakya Vs.The State of M.P.) Gwalior, Dated : 02.03.2020 Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ankit Saxena, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew his prayer after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2020 in M.Cr.It is submitted that an F.I.R. has been registered against unknown persons and there is no seizure of looted property against the present applicant.No TIP has been conducted in the matter.The investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed.Under theses circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.8510/2020 (Sonu @ Kanhai Shakya Vs.The State of M.P.) the applicant.It is submitted that although there is no TIP conducted in the matter but the fact remains that stolen property has been identified by the complainant and the most important factor is that finger prints of the present applicant are matching with the finger prints on the articles which have been looted.Finger print report has submitted alongwith the charge sheet.It is further contended that there are two criminal cases registered against the applicant apart from the present case.Both the cases are similar in nature.(Vishal Mishra) Judge AK/- | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,368,197 | None for the victim though served.It is directed against order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jabalpur.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was a 17 years old minor girl.About a year and half before the date of lodging of the first information report on 23.03.2017, main accused Raju Prajapati, son of appellant Shyama had promised to marry the prosecutrix and took her to a secluded place near Jhiriya Nalla, where he raped the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage.He threatened that if the prosecutrix informed the matter to anyone, he would kill her.Thereafter, co- accused Raju repeatedly raped the prosecutrix.As a result, the prosecutrix became pregnant.In the eighth month of the pregnancy, she informed the matter to her parents.They spoke to main accused Raju.Thereafter, Raju took the prosecutrix to his home and kept her there as his wife.After the birth of the son of the prosecutrix, main accused Raju and his family members including the present prosecutrix used to abuse and torture the prosecutrix and used to ask her to leave their home.They also used to threaten to kill her.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no specific allegations against the appellant Shyama.Even her name does not figure in the first information report.She has been in custody since 02.04.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the appellant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that there are no specific allegations against the appellant, as also the fact that she has been in custody since 02.04.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, in the opinion of this Court, appellant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed.It is directed that the appellant Shyama shall be released on bail on 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 her 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,936,832 | Perused the charge-sheet.3] The First Information Report is lodged by Mr.Sumit Arup Das.The prosecution case in brief is that, the applicant along with hisfriends were consuming liquor in open space near the house of Mr.Bharat 1/4 osk 3-ba-3251-2019.odtBhariya.The said Mr.Bharat Bhariya and his son Shailesh Bhariya tookobjection for the same, upon which the applicant along with co-accused Rahul@ Mulla Singh started assaulting them.The injured in the present crime i.e.Vaibhav Gawde along with his friend Mr.Criminal Procedure for bail in C.R. No. 211 of 2017 registered with SamtaNagar Police Station under Section 307, 506(2), 504, 34 of Indian Penal Codeand under Section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.2] Heard Ms.Patil, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Kapadnis,learned APP for the respondent-State.Sumit Das (informant) tried tointervene in the matter.They were successful in separating the said scuffle.Atthat time, the applicant threatened Vaibhav Gawde and Sumit Das that, theywill face serious consequences for their invention in their personal matter.Atabout 08.30 pm on the same day i.e. on 13 th May 2017, the applicant alongwith his friend Rahul Chavan came at the scene of offence.Rahul Chavancaught hold Vaibhav Gawde from backside and the applicant inflicted a blow ofa sharp edged weapon on the neck of Vaibhav Gawde.The applicant alsoinflicted two other blows on the body of Vaibhav Gawde.When Sumit Das triedto save Vaibhav Gawde, he was also assaulted by the applicant.Vaibhav Gawdewas subsequently admitted to the hospital, after undergoing medical treatmentwas discharged after 10 days.After completion of investigation, policehave submitted charge-sheet.4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in the historygiven to the Medical Officer by Vaibhav Gawde (injured witness) he has statedthat, he has assaulted on 13th May 2017 at about 7.30 pm at Santacruz in ascuffle.That the present incident has taken place at Samta Nagar Kandivali. 2/4osk 3-ba-3251-2019.odtThere is vast distance between the said two places and therefore, the version ofthe first informant may not be believed.Shetherefore prayed that, the applicant may be released on bail.5] Per contra, Mr.Kapadnis, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed theapplication and submitted that, the applicant is a habitual offender.That for atrifle reason, the applicant assaulted Vaibhav Gawde with a sharp edgedweapon on his neck.The first informant Sumit Das has also sustained one CLW ad-measuring 10 x 2 x 1 cm on his right side root of neck.The weapon of assault used by applicant has been recovered from him.There are four eye witnesses to the present crime.The applicant is also involved in four other crimes within the jurisdiction of Samta Nagar Plice Station, namely, (i) C.R. No. 248 of 2013 u/Section 457, 380 IPC (ii) C.R.No.75 of 2015 u/Sec. 353, 332, 323, 504 IPC(iii) C.R.No.495 of 2016 u/Sec. 324, 323, 384, 506(2), 34 IPC.The record indicates that, when the applicant was on bail in the earlier crime, has committed the present crime. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,369,450 | These appeals are against the conviction of the appellants.The Sub-Inspector of Police, SPE: C.B.I: GOW, Madras received complaint on 31.7.1986 that between 1983 April and July 1985, K.Sankaranarayanan-A.1, Manager, Indian Bank, Hasthinapuram Branch, Madras, who had the power of sanctioning various loans, entered into a criminal conspiracy along with K.Chellappa-A.2 and Chandran-A.3 and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, committed various acts of commission and omission under the guise of sanctioning loans to some ten individuals referred to in the complaint.The loan amounts were not paid to the loanees; A.2 and A.3 acted as middlemen and withdrawn the amounts from the bank.They also stood as guarantors in some of the loan transaction.The guarantor was one Rose Mary and the amount was received through K.Chellappa and the amount of Rs.305.20 was repaid by Ex.(iii) Alim was introduced by J.Mohan for the business of rope making business; His A/c No. was 3157; guarantor was P.Karmegam; the amount Rs.481.90 was received through K.Chellappa.(iv) Nathan was introduced by V.Kandasami; His A/c No. was 2476; He sought loan for the purpose of manufacturing table salt.Guarantor was R.Gopal; amount of Rs.320/- was received by Masilamani through Ex.(v) J.Kuppan, A/c No.3179 was introduced by Kaliaperumal; he sought loan for starting a bunk shop.(vi) M.Mohan, A/c No.1577 was not introduced by anybody.He sought loan for the purpose of having a tea stall and manufacturing biscuits.The amount was received by Mohan.Rs.1,000/- was received by Mohan.(vii) R.Radha, A/c No.1578 was not introduced by anybody.He sought loan for the purpose of starting a biscuit stall and general store.No amount was repaid by him.(viii) K.Chellappa, A/c No.387 was introduced by J.R.Chandran.He sought loan for having automobile shop.No amount was repaid by him.He sought loan for the starting confectionary and no one introduced him.No amount was repaid.14. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he along with Thayumanavar, Palaniappa and the first accused went to the addresses of these loanees; He came to know that all these seven persons were not in the addresses that were furnished in the loan applications.Not even a suggestion was put to him that those seven persons were residing in the very same address.He has further stated that Savings Bank Account in the name of Masilamani who was working under A.2 and A.3 was opened by the first accused.He never signed as guarantor for Radha.He denied the suggestion that the signature found in Ex.P.74 is not his signature.The lower Court after comparing the signature in Ex.JUDGMENT A.K. Rajan, J.A.1 caused undue pecuniary advantage for himself and A.2 and A.3 and all the three accused cheated the Indian Bank, Hasthinapuram Branch, Madras.The above said acts of the accused constitutes offences under Section 120-B, read with Sections 409, 467, 465, 471 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras by order dated 7.8.1986, granted permission to C.M.Dhanapal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, SPE: C.B.I: G.O.W., to investigate the above case.The trial Court framed 19 charges under Sections 120-B, read with Sections 409, 467, 465, 471 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. To prove the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 29 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.110; no Material Objects were marked.The Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act who tried the case found the accused-1 to 3 guilty under charges 120-B, read with Sections 409, 465, 467, 471 and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.(i) A.1 was convicted under Section 409 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of six months R.I and a fine of Rs.100; he was also convicted under Section 465 read with Section 471 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-; and further he was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act;(ii) A.2 was convicted under Section 409 read with 109 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three months R.I., and also imposed a fine of Rs.200/-; he was also convicted under Section 471 read with 467 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of three months R.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-;(iii) A.3 was convicted under Section 409 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-; he was also convicted under Section 465 imposed a sentence of three months R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.100/-, he was convicted under Section 467 (5 counts) I.P.C. and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- for each count; he was also convicted under Section 467 read with 471 (5 counts) and imposed a sentence of one year R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- for each count; and further convicted under Section 467 read with Section 471 (5 counts) and imposed a sentence of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- for each count.Sentences were directed to run concurrently.With respect to other charges, they were acquitted.Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they were heard together and common judgment is passed.P.W.3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused.It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated.A.3 had a current account in the name of Vinodh Traders under the Employment Scheme and he has been given loan.In the cross-examination, he has stated that A.2 and A.3 were having fixed deposits in that bank.From these evidence, it is proved that A.1 sanctioned the loan for all these seven persons.The case of the prosecution is that they are the seven persons are not real persons and these loans were not real loans.According to the addresses furnished in the account opening form and other documents, Kandasamy was residing in No.191, G.S.T. Road, Chromepet, Madras-600044; he was said to be carrying on business in manufacturing pickles and appalams for ten years.But, P.W.26, V.Kandasamy has stated in the evidence that he was working under the accused-2 and 3 for some time.They were having a company by name, "Vinodh Traders" at No.191, G.S.T. Road.They were carrying on business in hardware and also carrying on business in running tourist taxis.There is no evidence that V.Kandasamy was carrying on business in that; It was A.3 who introduced Kandasamy to the bank.If really any person by name Kandasamy was carrying on business in the shop of A.3, then A.3 should have produced him before the Court.The address given while opening the account in the name of Ganesh, is 27, Station Road, Chromepet, Madras.But P.W.10, owner of the premises had stated in his evidence that his house contains three parts and it has been rented to Sivaraman, Rajagopal and in one part his son-in-law, R.Sundaresan was residing and no such person by name R.Ganesh was ever residing in that house.P.W.10, retired as Under Secretary to Government.There is no reason to reject his evidence.Further, P.W.10 was not cross-examined at all.P.W.12, Postman attached to Chromepet Post Office has stated that at No.27, Station Road, Chromepet, nobody by name R. Ganesh was residing in that house.From the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 12, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that no person by name, R.Ganesh was residing at No.27, Station road, Chromepet, and the loan has been given by A.1 to a person.Loan was granted by A.1 to Alim who was said to be residing at No.11, Bhuvaneswari Nagar, Madras-54. P.W.3, owner of the house at No.11, Bhuvaneswari Nagar has stated that it was his own house; he constructed the house in 1975 and it was never rented to any person and it was under owner's occupation right through.P.W.13, the postman attached to that area has stated that P.W.3 is residing in that house and no person by name Alim was ever residing.P.W.14, Postman of that area who is working from 1981 has deposed that at the address at No.15, N.S.K. Nagar, there was no house at all.In that street, only numbers upto 14 are found.This witness was also not cross-examined.Therefore, the lower Court has come to the conclusion that no person by name Nathan was ever residing in that place.P.W.14, Postman attached to that area has stated that at No.9, Agananuru Street, no person by name J.Kuppan was ever residing.This witness was not examined.Kuppan was never his tenant.Only Kandasamy and Rajaram were living in that house.This witness was not cross-examined.Lower Court has come to the conclusion that no person was residing by name Kuppan in the given address.That house belongs to one Elumalai.P.W.21 has stated that No.40E, Rajendra Prasad Street, Madras-64 is a shop and he is a tenant of that shop.He purchased the shop from one Subramania Iyer.He was residing in a hut behind the shop.No one by name Mohan was ever residing.There is nothing to disbelieve this evidence.Therefore, from this evidence, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the address given in the loan account of Mohan was not real.Another person by name R.Radha said to be residing at No.72, Hasthinapuram Road, Madras-44.P.W.15, the Postman of that area has stated that there was no building at all at No.72 and no person by name, Radha was ever residing in that area.He has also stated that in that area Door Nos.1 to 13 alone were in existence.No materials were brought to the notice of this Court to alter those findings or to reject this conclusion.The trial Court has further found that the guarantor Ramu was not residing in the address given.Similarly, the guarantor for Ganesan by name Rose Mary was also found to be false.The guarantor Karmegam for the loan account of Alim has stated he never knew Alim and he signed only as a guarantor to his friend's wife, Dhanammal.Therefore, the guarantee letter given by Karmegam was used for the grant of loan to Alim.Gopal was the guarantor of Nathan who is said to be working as Tourist Guide in Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation and it is stated that his monthly salary was Rs.1,040/-.It is also said to have been issued by the Accounts Officer, Tourism Development Corporation.He has stated that there is no such post as Accounts Officer and there is no post as Tourist Guide.P.40 is the certificate said to have issued by their office; but no such person by name R.Gopalan was working in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation.Therefore, false documents in the name of Gopalan have been issued for granting loan to Nathan.(P.W.28, the hand-writing expert has stated that Ex.P.40 is the letter written in the letter-head of Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation.Murugan has signed as guarantor for the loan account of Mohan.Mohan was said to be an Assistant in Connemara Hotel.But the witness Kumar, P.W.6 working as Accountant in Connemara Hotel has stated that there was no post as Senior Accounts Officer in the hotel and Ex.This evidence was not cross-examined at all.Reading the evidence of P.W.6 with P.W.11 Postman, the lower Court has come to the conclusion that Murugan who is the guarantor was a fictitious person and the documents filed through him are false documents.Selvam was a guarantor for Radha.He has stated in his evidence that he stood as a guarantor for his wife Chandra for getting a lona of Rs.3,000/-.From the evidence available on record, the lower Court has come to the conclusion that A.2 and A.3 along with A.1, have created documents for the purpose of granting loans in the name of seven persons and they have withdrawn the amount from the bank.There is no reason for them to speak against these fictitious persons.This conclusion of the trial Court cannot be said to be incorrect.There are minute details relating to the issue of challans, getting the money, submitting the documents etc., to prove that the amounts were received by those persons.The hand-writing expert P.W.28 has compared the signatures of the accused-2 and 3 with Exs.P.22, 25, 26, 36, 37, 38, 41, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60, 61, 71, 72, 73 and given a report Ex.From this, the lower Court has come to the conclusion that Exs.P.14, 25, 36 and 48 and the other related documents, Exs.P.4, P.5, P.15, P.16, P.26, P.27, P.37, P.38, P.49, P.50 and P.60 are signed by third accused.Therefore, it is proved that the third accused had received the loan amount given to Ganesh and Alim; Further, admittedly, A.3 received the loan given to Kandasamy, Mohan and Radha.Therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that A.2 and A.3 are guilty of creating false documents for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank.From the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.17, P.W.19, it is proved that the accused-2 and 3 used to visit the bank very often and whenever they visited the bank, they will go the personal room of A.1 the Manager or to his dining room and they will not speak to anybody else.It is also proved that all the three accused used to converse in the dining room as well as strong room.P.W.9, K.Kaliaperumal gave money to the accused-2 and 3 for the purpose of sending them abroad for work.P.91 to 95 proved that A.3 had received money from K.Kaliaperumal on the promise to get a job in foreign countries and K.Kaliaperumal was trying to get bank loan.Ex.P.105 proves that A.3 used to send employees to foreign countries.Taking all these totality of the evidence, the lower Court has found that the accused-1 to 3 had withdrawn the amount from the bank, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,118,072 | Heard finally by consent.This petition challenges the decision of respondent no.1, dated 29th September, 2006 vide which the petitioner has been held to be disqualified by respondent no.1 in the tender for the work of design, manufacture, supply, testing, commissioning of Passenger Rolling Stock ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: 3 wp6116.16.odt (Electrical Multiple Units) and Training of Personnel (hereinafter referred to as the "the said work" for short).::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::Respondent no.1/Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. had issued tender notice on 25.1.2016 thereby inviting tenders for the said work.In response to the said tender notice, three bidders had submitted their bids (i.e. petitioners herein).In the technical bid, the petitioner was found to be disqualified and as such, only Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. and present respondent no.2 remained in the fray.Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A.This Court, vide Judgment and Order dt.5.10.2016, declined to interfere with the decision taken by Tender Evaluation Committee and ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: 4 wp6116.16.odt approved by the Director Level Tender Committee.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::Now the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the decision of respondent no.1 disqualifying it vide communication dated 29th September, 2016 is erroneous in law.We have heard Mr.K.N.Shukul, leaned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.K.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr.Mr.K.N.Shukul, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions.He submits that the said condition does not require 500 cars to be supplied to one country outside the country of origin.Alternatively, the learned Counsel, on the basis of petitioner's reply to the query made by ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: 5 wp6116.16.odt respondent no.1, submits that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has supplied more than 500 cars.To meet the communication of respondent no.1 that, out of the said cars, 363 cars are TRAMS, the learned Counsel submits that, in the understanding of respondent no.1 itself, the TRAM cars and LRTs (Light Rail Transit) are one and the same thing.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of respondent no.1 in not taking into consideration the experience of TRAM car on par with LRT experience is not sustainable in law and is totally arbitrary.The learned Counsel relies on various documents including the document at page no.67 to contend that the LRT and the TRAM are one and the same thing.For considering the rival submissions, it will be appropriate to refer to clause (13) of Filter of Applicants - Checklist wherein various points have been culled out to find out as to whether a bidder is technically qualified or not.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::Clause 13 of Filter of Applicants - Checklist reads thus :" Propulsion System :Does any member of the Consortium/Joint Venture individually or its Parent Company or its group companies have cumulative experience of minimum ten (10) years in the Design and Manufacturing of Propulsion Equipments (Traction Converter-Inverter, Auxillary Converter-Inverter and Traction Motor) for metro rolling stick AND do the propulsion equipment supplied have been in satisfactory revenue operation for atleast five (5) years in minimum aggregate 500 cars comprising of both powered and non-powered cars, supplied against minimum five (5) different contracts in the metros (i.e. MRT, LRT, Suburban Railways or High Speed Railways) of minimum one country outside the country of origin/manufacture or in India. "A plain and simple interpretation of clause 13 would reveal that a person must have a cumulative experience of minimum 10 years in the Design and Manufacturing of Propulsion Equipments (Traction Converter-Inverter, Auxillary Converter-Inverter and Traction Motor) for metro rolling stock.The said ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: 7 wp6116.16.odt clause would further reveal that the said person must satisfy that the propulsion equipment supplied have been in satisfactory revenue operation for at least five years in minimum.It further provides that aggregate 500 cars comprising of both powered and non-powered cars must be supplied against minimum five different contracts in the metros (i.e. MRT, LRT, Suburban Railways or High Speed Railways) of minimum one country outside the country of origin/manufacture or in India.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::If we read clause 13 harmoniously, it will be clear that the bidder must have an experience of supplying minimum aggregate 500 cars comprising of both powered and non-powered cars and they should be in satisfactory revenue operation for at least five years.The said decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court.The Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the two appeals (Civil Appeal No.9078-9079 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.9080-::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::The matter was circulated on 18.10.2016 and on that day, notice was issued by this Court for today.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.No order as to costs.Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.No order as to costs.for the Appellant.Mr.V.A.Thakare, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.____________________________________________________________ ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: 22 wp6116.16.odt CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha on 17.5..... in Sessions Trial No...../2008 whereby the learned Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.On first count, the appellant was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.On account of offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judge directed that the appellant should suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: 23 wp6116.16.odt pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine it was directed that he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::The prosecution as is unfolded during the course of trial is as under :::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 :::I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:45:30 ::: | ['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. |
5,512,657 | (2.1) On 04.06.2002 at about 6.15 am, complainant Nima Bai (PW/1) made an oral report at Police Station Khurai of Sagar district stating that in the evening of 03.06.2002 in village Berkhedi, she, Sunny Bai (PW/3) and Gungun @ Sudama (since deceased) had gone in search of Raghunath (PW/2) in the village.When they were in front of the house of one Kalyan (not examined) accused Asharam with Sang (a short pointed spear), accused Dhuman with Datua and accused Ghasite, Gajrani, the wife of accused Ghasite, Sumatrani, the wife of accused Dhuman and Dhannu @ Dhanna and Sukhram, who are the juvenile conflict in law and who are sons of accused Ghasite and accused Dhuman respectively with Lathis came together and assaulted Gungun.Thereupon, she and Sunny Bai came to the rescue of Gungun.At that time, accused Dhuman inflicted blows of Datua on her left side of head and right shoulder.Accused 4 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 Ghasite gave blows of Lathi over the left knee of Sunny Bai.In the meantime, Raghunath came to the place of occurrence and he made an attempt to save Gungun.Thereupon, accused Dhuman exhorted the other accused persons to kill him.Having heard so, Raghunath ran towards the agricultural fields of the village to save himself.All the accused persons chased him down and accused Dhuman inflicted blows of Datua in his mouth.As a result, his lips and chin were injured and teeth were broken.Accused Ghasite assaulted him with Lathi, causing injuries on his ribs.Accused Sumatrani and Gajrani and juvenile Dhannu and Sukhram with Lathis caused injuries to him (Raghunath) on his back and knees.Accused Asharam inflicted a blow of Sang on his head.The incident was witnessed by Banti Harijan (not examined), Rajo Bai (PW/11), Rukman Bai (PW/12).Later the villagers of village Ujanate also came to place of occurrence running.After committing the offence, all the accused persons left the place of occurrence.Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 Thereafter, they found Gungun dead.Complainant Nima Bai has also stated that on account of non-availability of transport, she could not come to the police station to lodge the report in the night of incident itself.On the basis of her oral report, G.R. Ahirwar (PW/6), the SHO of Police Station Khurai, recorded the FIR Ex.P-1 and registered a case at Crime No.189/2002 against all the seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 IPC.(2.2) G.R. Ahirwar (PW/6) and Sub-Inspector M.L. Rai (PW/9) investigated the case.On 04.06.2002, they reached the place of occurrence.There G.R. Ahirwar held an inquest enquiry on the dead body of deceased Gungun in the presence of public witnesses and prepared an inquest report Ex.He also prepared a spot map Ex.P-11 at the instance of Rukman Bai (PW/12).M.L. Rai collected blood smeared earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of Darau (PW/4) and Mohanlal (not examined) vide 6 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 seizure memo Ex.They sent the dead body of deceased Gungun for post-mortem examination and Raghunath, Nima Bai and Sunny Bai for medico-legal examination to the Civil Hospital Khurai.There, on 04.06.2002, Dr. R.K. Patel (PW/7) medico-legally examined the aforesaid injured persons and Dr. R.C. Agrawal (PW/8) conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Gungun.Raghunath was admitted in the hospital for treatment.On 04.06.2002 Executive Magistrate, P.C. Jain (PW/14) recorded his dying declaration Ex.(2.3) On 05.06.2002, G.R. Ahirwar interrogated accused Gajrani and Sumatrani in the presence of Anandi Lal (PW/5) and Niranjan Singh (PW/13) and upon their disclosure statements Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-7 respectively he seized from their possession one bamboo stick each vide seizure memos Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-8 respectively.On 05.06.2002, accused Asharam produced a bamboo stick, the one end of which was fitted with pointed-flat object made of iron metal, and 7 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 accused Dhuman produced an iron rod, the one end of which was flat and sharp and the other end was round to, G.R. Ahirwar.He seized them in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses vide seizure memos Ex.P-9 and Ex.G.R. Ahirwar recorded the case diary statements of complainant Nima Bai, Raghunath, Sunny Bai, Rukman Bai, Darau and Dashrath.He sent all the articles collected in the course of investigation for forensic examinations to the Forensic Science Laboratory Sagar, which sent the report (not exhibited) but it is on record.(Pronounced on 25.9.2017) Per: RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Khurai District Sagar in Sessions Trial No.298/2002, whereby each of the accused-appellants stood convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 (two counts) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer on first count R.I. for six months, second count R.I. for one year, third count R.I. for life, fourth count R.I. for seven years and fifth and the last count R.I. for three months for each out of the two counts.The prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court in the course of trial, in brief, is as under:-Later, he arrested all the four accused persons.M.L. Rai recorded the case diary statement of Rajo Bai (PW/11).(2.4) Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons namely Asharam, Dhuman, Ghasite, Sumatrani and Gajrani under Sections 147, 148, 8 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 149, 302, 307 and 323 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai and the charge-sheet against juvenile Sukhram and Dhannu before the Juvenile Court Sagar under the same Sections of law.(2.5) After the committal proceedings, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.298/2002 and was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai for trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against all the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302 and in alternative 302 read with 149, 307 (for making an attempt on the life of Raghunath) and in alternative 307 read with 149 and 323 (two counts- for causing simple injuries to Nima Bai and Sunny Bai) and in alternative 323 read with 149 IPC.The accused persons denied the charges and opted for trial.Thereupon, the learned ASJ put them to trial.In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied all the circumstances and incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.Their defence was, simpliciter, false implication by the complainant party on 9 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 account of old enmity.However, they did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in their defence.The learned ASJ, having analyzed and appreciated the evidence on record, has found the accused persons guilty of committing murder of deceased Gungun, making an attempt to murder Raghunath and causing simple injuries to complainant Nima Bai and Sunny Bai in furtherance of common object having formed an unlawful assembly.Upon the aforesaid findings, the learned ASJ convicted them under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 (two counts) IPC and sentenced them thereunder as noted in para 1 of this judgment.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused persons are before this Court in the appeals under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused persons, after referring to the depositions of prosecution witnesses namely Nima Bai (PW/1), Raghunath (PW/2), Sunny Bai (PW/3), Darau (PW/4), Dasrath (PW/10), Rajo Bai (PW/11) and Rukman Bai (PW/12) in detail, submits that accused Dhuman and Ghasite are the real brothers, accused Sumatrani and Gajrani are their wives 10 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 respectively and accused Asharam is the brother-in-law of accused Dhuman as per the para 15 of deposition of Rukman Bai.Thus, accused persons are the members of a very close family.It was further submitted by referring to their depositions that the houses of accused persons are close to the place of occurrence.It was further submitted that Raghunath is the son of Dasrath and Rukman Bai, Sunny Bai and Rajo Bai are the step sisters of Raghunath, and Nima Bai is real Mausi of Raghunath as she is the real sister of his mother Rukman Bai.Darau is the father of deceased Gungun.It was further submitted that Babloo (not examined) and Raghunath are the real brothers, and they are facing trial for assaulting accused Dhuman prior to one year before the present incident.It was further submitted that Raghunath has stated in para 8 of his evidence that Rukman Bai was convicted and sentenced for having murdered her so called husband Uttam, in that case Gorelal, the father of accused Dhuman and Ghasite, gave evidence against Rukman Bai and that when Rukman Bai was in jail, accused Dhuman broke the lock of her house and committed theft.In view of the aforesaid evidence, there is a deep rooted enmity between the prosecution party and the culprit party long 11 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 before the instant incident.It was further submitted that Raghunath and deceased Gungun are fast friend.Thus, the aforesaid witnesses are the relative and interested witnesses owing to which implicit reliance cannot be placed upon their evidence.It was further submitted on behalf of the accused persons that Darau, the father of deceased Gungun, has admitted in his evidence that he is a resident of village Ujanate, and he has also stated that the distance between village Ujanate and Birkhedi, the place of occurrence, is 2 km. He has deposed that he reached the place of occurrence having heard that his son Gungun was murdered.Thus, he is not an eye-witness to the incident.It was further submitted that Dasrath, the father of Raghunath, has plainly admitted in para 12 of his cross-examination that he had not witnessed the incident.Thus, he is also not an eye-witness to the incident.It was further submitted that as per the evidence of Sunny Bai and Rajo Bai, they are the residents of village Ujanate.Sunny Bai in para 6 of her cross-examination has stated that they reached village Birkhedi, the place of occurrence, from village Ujanate after the incident.Thus, Sunny Bai and Rajo Bai are also not eye- 12Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 witnesses to the incident.It was further submitted that Rajo Bai in para 4 of her examination-in-chief has stated that she and Sunny Bai kept Raghunath in the injured condition on chaff and covered his body with cow-dung at the place of incident after the accused persons left the place of occurrence as they feared that accused persons may again assault him.However, her said evidence is not corroborated by Sunny Bai and Dasrath, which in turn proves that she and Sunny Bai are not the eye-witnesses of the incident.It was further submitted that Dr. R.K. Patel (PW/7) has examined Sunny Bai, and he has stated in para 5 of his examination- in-chief that he found only one contusion size 3x inch on her left thigh.This fact is admitted by Sunny Bai herself in para 7 of her examination-in-chief.The said injury may be self inflicted.Therefore, on the basis of her injury as well, it can be said that Sunny Bai is not an eye-witness of the incident.Consequently, their evidence is no evidentiary value.It was further submitted on behalf of the accused 13 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 persons that only Nima Bai, Raghunath and Rukman Bai might be eye-witnesses.Nima Bai has stated in para 4 of her examination-in-chief that on the following day morning, the police came to her village Birkhedi and took her in police vehicle to the Police Station Khurai.On the basis of her said admission, it was submitted that the FIR was lodged after due deliberation.Therefore, a strong possibility of false implication of accused persons exists because they are family members and they have old enmity with the complainant party.The FIR is also hit by the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the said reason.It was further submitted that Rajo Bai in para 4 of her examination-in-chief has stated that she, Nima Bai, Sunny Bai and her father Dasrath went to the police station, where Dasrath had lodged the FIR.Thus, there is a material contradiction on the point who had lodged the FIR whether Nima Bai or Dasrath? It was further submitted that as per the FIR, accused Asharam inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Gungun with a Sang.Nima Bai in para 7 of her examination-in-chief has stated that one end of the Sang is pointed and it is used for killing domestic pigs.It was submitted that Dr. R.C. Agrawal (PW/8) has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Gungun, and he has stated in his evidence and post-mortem report Ex.P-20 that he had not found any injury on the person of deceased Gungun, which had been caused by hard and pointed object like Sang.It was further submitted that Raghunath has admitted that his dying declaration Ex.D-3 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate while he was undergoing the treatment in the Government Hospital Khurai.After referring to his dying declaration Ex.D-3, it was submitted that Raghunath has stated therein that Imrat, the brother-in-law of accused Dhuman, assaulted him.However, there is no evidence on record to the effect that Imrat and accused Asharam is one and the same person.It was submitted that if the aforesaid evidence is read conjointly, then it is proved that accused Asharam is falsely implicated in the case, and that Nima Bai and Raghunath have given false evidence against him.It was further submitted that Raghunath in para 13 of his cross-examination has admitted that the police had not interrogated him in respect of the incident, meaning thereby the Investigating Officer G.R. Ahirwar (PW/6) has not truly 15 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 recorded his case diary statement Ex.It was further submitted that Rukman Bai in paras 2 and 8 has deposed that when the accused persons ran towards her with an objective to assault her, she went to her house running.Thus, she had not witnessed the incident.After referring to the FIR, depositions of Nima Bai, Raghunath and Rukman Bai and their case diary statements as above, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons that there are material inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions making their evidence wholly unreliable and untrustworthy.It was further submitted on behalf of the accused persons that in the course of investigation at the instances of accused Dhuman one iron rod, accused Gajrani, Sumatrani and Ghasite one Lathi each and Asharam one bamboo stick fitted with pointed iron object on end were seized.After referring to the unexhibited FSL report, it was submitted that no blood stains were found on the aforesaid seized articles.Therefore, the seizure of the aforesaid articles does not connect the accused persons with the crime.It was further submitted on behalf of the accused persons that there is no iota of evidence on record that 16 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 accused persons bear enmity with deceased Gungun.Therefore, there no question arises that the accused persons would commit the murder of deceased Gungun.It was further submitted on behalf of the accused persons that Dr. R.K. Patel (PW/7) had medico-legally examined Raghunath and that he has not given a specific finding that any of the injuries sustained by him is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death.Therefore, the learned Judge has wrongly convicted the accused persons under Section 307 read with 149 IPC in respect of the injuries sustained by Raghunath.In the light of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the learned ASJ has not taken into consideration the aforesaid evidence while appreciating the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses.Therefore, the learned ASJ has convicted the accused persons upon highly erroneous appreciation of evidence.In consequence, the appeals of the accused persons be allowed and they be acquitted of the charges framed against them by setting aside the impugned judgment.It was further submitted that the prosecution has proved on the basis of medical evidence that Raghunath, Nima Bai and Sunny Bai had sustained injuries in the incident.As such they witnessed the entire evidence.It was further submitted that it is true that they are relative witnesses but it is well settled in law that relative witnesses will never shield a real accused particularly in heinous offence(s), and they will implicate a person(s) with whom they have enmity.In view of the aforesaid settled law, the evidence of the aforestated witnesses is reliable and trustworthy.It was further submitted that although there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the injured persons yet the same are minor 18 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 in nature.Therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded for the said reasons.After referring to the injuries sustained by Raghunath, it was further submitted that looking to the number of injuries on the vital part of his body, it is crystal clear that the accused persons made an attempt on his life.On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment of convictions and order of sentences and prayed for dismissal of the appeals being devoid of merits and substance.We have considered earnestly the rival submissions canvassed at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and material on record.First point for our consideration is whether deceased Gungun suffered a homicidal death? In this respect, the medical evidence of Dr. R.C. Agrawal (PW/8) is on record.He has deposed that on 04.06.2002 at about 10:00 am, he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Gungun @ Sudama in Civil Hospital Khurai.He had noticed 19 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 following injuries on his dead body.External Injuries:(I) A lacerated wound size 7cm x 2cm bone deep on the occipital region of head where from brain matter had come out.(ii) A heamatoma size 10cm x 4cm on the left parietal region of head.(iii) A heamatoma size 10cm x 6cm on the pareito occipital region of head.(iv) A heamatoma size 8cm x 2cm on the right parieto-frontal region of head.Bones of the fronto-parietal and frontal-occipital regions were broken in pieces and internal layers of the skull got ruptured on account of which the brain-matter had come out of the rupture portions.The remaining internal organs were normal.Dr. R.C. Agrawal has opined that deceased Gungun died of head injuries and shock 6 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination.He has also proved post-mortem report Ex.On being cross-examined by the defence, he 20 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 has admitted that he had not found any injury on the back of the deceased and all the injuries were on his head.There is nothing adverse in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.However, he has not stated in specific words in his evidence that deceased Gungun had suffered a homicidal death.Moreover, it is not a case of defence that deceased Gungun had not died of homicidal death.Therefore, on the basis of injuries sustained by deceased Gungun on his head, we hold that he met with a homicidal death.The second point for our consideration is whether on the basis of injuries sustained by Raghunath an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out? Dr. R.K. Patel (PW/7) had medico-legally examined him on 04.06.2002, the following day of the incident in the Civil Hospital Khurai.He had noticed following injuries on his person.(I) A lacerated wound size 2cm x 1cm x 1cm on the right side of upper lip.(ii) A lacerated wound size 2 cm x 1cm, the left side of upper lip.(iii) A lacerated wound size 3cm x 2cm x 1cm on the lower lip.(iv) A lacerated wound size 2cm x 2cm x 1cm on the 21 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 chin.(v) A lacerated wound size 5cm x 1 cm x cm on the right side of head.(vi) A contusion size 6 inch x 1 inch on the right chest.(vii) A contusion with swelling size 2 inch x 2 inch on the right upper arm.(viii) A contusion size 3 inch x 1 inch on the lower part of chest.(ix) A contusion size 1 inch x 1 inch on the border of left hand.(x) An abrasion size 1 inch x 1 inch on the left knee.(xi) A contusion size 4 inch x 1 inch on the left upper side of hand.(xii) A contusion size 3 inch x 1 inch on the left side of back.Dr. R.K. Patel has opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object(s) within 12 hours prior to the examination by him.He has also stated that on account of injuries No.1 to 4 a few teeth and gums were damaged.Therefore, he had advised for examination of the said injuries by a dentist.He has stated that the remaining injuries were simple in nature.He had also referred to injured Rghunath for further treatment to the District Hospital Sagar.He has proved MLC report Ex.P-17 of Raghunath.In his cross-examination, he has admitted that none of the injuries sustained by Raghunath was caused by pointed object(s).The third point for our consideration is whether Nima Bai (PW/1) and Sunny Bai (PW/3) had sustained simple injuries? Dr. R.K. Patel (PW/7) has testified that he had medico-legally examined them on 04.06.2002 and noticed following injuries on their persons.(i) A lacerated wound size 4 cm x cm, on the left side of head.(ii) A contusion size 4 inch x 1 inch, on the right hand shoulder.One contusion size 3 inch x 1 inch on the left thigh.Dr. R.K. Patel has opined that the injuries sustained by Nima Bai were caused by hard and blunt object(s) and injury No.1 was simple in nature and for injury No.2, he had advised X-ray.He has further stated that the injury sustained by Sunny Bai was simple in nature and it was caused by 24 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 hard and blunt object.They had sustained injuries 12 hours prior to their medico-legal examinations by him.He has proved that he has given MLC reports Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19 of Nima Bai and Sunny Bai respectively.In the cross- examination, he has admitted that the injuries sustained by Nima Bai and Sunny Bai had not been caused by any pointed object.Since prosecution has not produced the X- ray plate and the report of the Radiologist regarding the injury No.2 of Nima Bai, we hold that her injury No.2 was also simple in nature.There is nothing adverse in his cross- examination to discredit the evidence of Dr. R.K. Patel.We, therefore, hold that Nima Bai and Sunny Bai had sustained simple injuries.Now the fourth and the last point for our consideration is whether the accused persons murdered deceased Gungun, made an attempt to murder Raghunath (PW/2) and caused simple injuries to Nima Bai (PW/1) and Sunny Bai (PW/3) in furtherance of common object having been members of an unlawful assembly at the place of occurrence on 03.06.2002 at about 7:00 to 8:30 pm?Darau (PW/4), the father of deceased Gungun @ Sudama, has stated that he is a resident of village Ujanate.Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 The distance between village Ujanate and village Birkhedi, the place of offence, is about 2 km. On the night of the incident at about 8:00 pm, he heard in village Ujanate that deceased Gungun and Raghunath were beaten in village Birkhedi.Thereupon, he and other persons had gone to village Birkhedi, where they saw deceased Gungun lying dead in front of the house of one Kalyan.Dasrath (PW/10), the father of Raghunath, has admitted in paras 6 and 12 of his evidence that he had not witnessed the assaults on Raghunath and deceased Gungun.Nima Bai and Sunny Bai narrated about the incident to him.From the aforesaid evidence of Darau and Dasrath, we hold that they are not eye-witnesses to the incident.Therefore, their evidence falls in the category of hearsay evidence.Consequently, their evidence has no evidentiary value.Rajo Bai (PW/11), the sister of Raghunath, has stated that she lives with her parents and Raghunath in village Ujanate.She and her sister Sunny Bai had gone in search of Raghunath in village Birkhedi in the evening of the date of incident as he had not arrived till the late evening.There she saw the accused persons assaulting deceased Gungun and Raghunath.She has also stated that in order to save 26 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 Raghunath from being further attacked by the accused persons, they kept him on chaff and covered his body with cow-dung.However, Sunny Bai and Nima Bai have not corroborated her said evidence.She has not given the satisfactory explanation in para 17 of her cross-examination as to why she had not mentioned in her case diary statement Ex.D-6 that she and her sister Sunny Bai both together went to village Birkhedi in the night of the incident in search of Raghunath.Nima Bai has not stated the presence of Rajo Bai at the time of incident.However, she has stated that she came after the incident.In the light of aforesaid evidence, we hold that Rajo Bai is not an eye-witness to the incident.Now the prosecution case rests with the evidence of Nima Bai (PW/1), Raghunath (PW/2), Sunny Bai (PW/3) and Rukman Bai (PW/12).Nima Bai in para 12 of her evidence has admitted that Rukman Bai is her real sister.Upon the combined reading of evidence appearing in paras 4 and 12 of Rukman Bai and paras 11 and 15 of Raghunath, it appears that Rukman Bai had marital life of near about 10 to 15 years with Dasrath (PW/10) and due to subsistence of her marital life with him, she gave birth to Raghunath and 27 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 Babloo.Thus, Raghunath and Babloo are her real sons.Later, Rukman Bai deserted Dasrath and started living with one Uttam.Thereafter, Dasrath married Gopi Bai, and she gave birth to Rajo Bai and Sunny Bai with his cohabitation.Thus, the aforesaid witnesses are in close relations to one another either by blood or uterine.Raghunath in para 8 of his cross-examination has admitted that his mother Rukman Bai had faced the trial for committing murder of her so called husband Uttam.In the trial, Gorelal, the father of accused Dhuman and Ghasite, gave evidence in support of the prosecution, and the trial Court sentenced her with life imprisonment and her appeal is pending before the High Court.Raghunath has also admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that he and his brother Babloo have enmity with accused Dhuman and Ghasite.Sunny Bai in para 8 and Darau in para 3 have stated that accused Dhuman had beaten Babloo.Thereafter, Babloo gave a beating to accused Dhuman and that they are facing trials against each other.From the aforesaid evidence, it is crystal clear that there has been animosity between the aforesaid witnesses and the accused persons prior to the present incident.Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004In view of the discussions made in paras 19 and 20, we have to critically examine the evidence of aforestated witnesses before placing reliance upon their evidence because it is a matter of common experience that a tendency has been growing fast in the complainant party to rope in a criminal case all the family members of the accused party.Nima Bai (PW/1) has deposed that she is a resident of village Birkhedi.She knows all the accused person by their names and faces, and she also knows deceased Gungun, Raghunath and Sunny Bai.On the evening of the date of incident, Raghunath and deceased Gungun came from their native village Ujanate to her village because Raghunath 29 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 wanted to hire a tractor for ploughing his agricultural land.In the late evening, she was returning to her house after doing a manual job.When she reached in front of house of Kalyan, she saw accused Asharam with Sang, accused Dhuman with Datua, accused Ghasite with Lathi, Dhannu, the son of accused Ghasite, with Lathi, Sukhram, the son of accused Dhuman, with Lathi and accused Sumatrani and Gajrani with Lathis assaulting deceased Gungun.Accused Dhuman inflicted blows of Datua on the head of deceased Gungun, accused Asharam pierced Sang into his shoulder, accused Ghasite inflicted blows of Lathi on him.As a result, deceased Gungun fell down.In the meantime, Sunny Bai and Raghunath came to the place of occurrence.Sunny Bai made an attempt to save deceased Gungun.Thereupon, accused Asharam gave a blow of lathi on her thigh.When she came to the rescue of deceased Gungun, accused Dhuman and Asharam gave her blows of Lathis causing injuries on her head and shoulder.Accused Dhuman inflicted blows of Datua to Raghunath.As a result, he sustained injuries in his mouth.He also fell down.Thereafter, accused Asharam with Lathi and other accused persons with Lathis assaulted him.Deceased Gungun died on the spot.After 30 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 committing the offence, the accused persons left the place of occurrence.It be noted that in para 20 of the cross- examination, she has stated that at the time of incident in the place of occurrence street lights were on.Upon the perusal of evidence of Nima Bai, we find that she has stated that accused Asharam assaulted with Sang and Lathi both whereas as per FIR, which is lodged by her, he had a Sang with him at the time of incident.She has stated in para 7 of her evidence that one end of a Sang is pointed and the other end has a handle made of iron to hold it, and it is used for killing pigs.She has stated in the said para that accused Asharam pierced pointed end of it into the shoulder of deceased Gungun, whereas autopsy surgeon Dr. R.C. Agrwal (PW/8) had stated in his evidence that he had seen all the injuries on his head.She has stated in para 8 of her evidence that accused Asharam gave a blow of Lathi on the head of Sunny Bai, whereas as per the evidence of Dr. R.K. Patel, she had sustained only one injury on her left thigh, which was caused by hard and blunt object.She has stated that accused Asharam assaulted her with Lathi, as a result he sustained injuries on his shoulder.As per the FIR lodged by her and her evidence accused 31 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 Asharam was with Sang, and she has not deposed that in the course of incident accused Asharam took Lathi from any of the accused persons and assaulted her with it.In view of the aforesaid, we find that Nima Bai has given contradictory evidence with regard to the role of accused Asharam in the incident.Therefore, we hold that the presence of accused Asharam at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful.Nima Bai has given a general statement that accused Sumatrai and Gajrani assaulted with Lathis to deceased Gungun and Raghunath without specifying their overacts.Therefore, we find unsafe to place the reliance upon her evidence in respect of the said accused persons.G.R. Ahirwar (PW/6) recorded the FIR.He has stated in paras 8 and 9 of his evidence that after recording the FIR at the instance of Nima Bai, he reached the place of occurrence.As per the evidence of Nima Bai, she is a illiterate woman.Therefore, it could be said that on account of some confusion, she has stated so.Therefore, her said 32 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 evidence does not affect the prosecution case adversely.Upon the aforesaid analysis of evidence of Nima Bai, we hold that her evidence is reliable to the extent that at the time of incident, accused Dhuman with Datua, accused Ghasite with Lathi and their sons with Lathis assaulted deceased Gungun, Raghunath, Sunny Bai and her.Raghunath (PW/2) has deposed that he and his friend deceased Gungun are the residents of village Ujanate.He has got agricultural land in village Birkhedi.In the afternoon of the day of incident, he and deceased Gungun came over to village Birkhedi because he wanted to hire a tractor to get his agricultural land ploughed.First, he and deceased Gungun visited his Mausi Nima Bai.Deceased Gungun stayed there, and he alone went for the said purpose.At about 7:00 to 7:30 pm, he heard hullabaloo coming from the side of village Birkhedi.Thereupon, he went running to village Birkhedi.In front of Kalyan's house, he saw Gungun in the injured condition in a pool of blood and Nima Bai and Sunny Bai were with him.He also saw accused Dhuman with Datua, accused Asharam with Sang, accused Ghasite, Sumatrani, Gajrani and the sons of accused Dhuman and Ghasite, aged about 15 to 16 years, with Lathis.Upon the 33 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 exhortation given by accused Dhuman, he was also assaulted by all the accused persons.Accused Dhuman gave blows of Datua on his head, as a result his head was lacerated.Accused Asharam inflicted blows of Sang on his mouth.Remaining accused persons hit him with Lathis.On account of injuries, he fell down.In the meantime, Rajo Bai also came.Short while later, he became unconscious.When people of his village came to know that he was assaulted in village Birkhedi, they took him to his house at village Ujanate.He has also stated that accused Dhuman and Ghasite bear enmity with him and his younger brother Babloo on account of which, they assaulted deceased Gungun and him.In para 13 of cross-examination, Raghunath has stated that the police neither interrogated him nor recorded his case diary statement, whereas Investigating Officer, G.R. Ahirwar (PW/6) has stated that he recorded his case diary statement, which is a material contradiction and it has material bearing on his evidence.In the course of his cross- examination, the defence has confronted him with his case diary statement Ex.D-2 and he denied some portions of his statement.This fact, he has also admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination.Therefore, his evidence is only relevant on the point which accused assaulted him? He has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused Asharam gave blows of Sang in his mouth, whereas he has stated in the para 15 of his cross-examination that accused Asharam gave blows of rod on his head.Thus, his statement is self contradictory upon the weapon which accused Asharam had at the time of incident.As per his dying declaration Ex.D-3, he has stated therein that Imrat, the brother-in-law of accused Dhuman, assaulted him.In para 16 of his cross- examination, he has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why he has not mentioned in his dying declaration the name of accused Asharam.There is no evidence at all on record that Imrat and accused Asharam are one and the same person.In para 16 of his evidence, it has been challenged by the defence that accused Asharam was not present at the time of incident.In view of the self- contradictory statements made by this witness, we hold that 35 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 his evidence is not reliable and trustworthy with regard to accused Asharam.This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that the remaining accused persons assaulted him with Lathis, whereas he has stated in paras 12 and 13 of his cross-examination that the sons of Dhuman and Ghasite had assaulted him with Lathis.He has made a general and vague statement that accused Sumatrani and Gajrani assaulted him with Lathis.Hence his evidence is not inspiring in respect of these two women accused.From the aforesaid critical analysis of evidence of Raghunath, we hold that his evidence is reliable only to the extent that accused Dhuman with Datua and accused Ghasite with Lathi assaulted him along with their juvenile sons.Sunny Bai (PW/3) has deposed that her brother Raghunath and deceased Gungun were friends.On the date of incident, Raghunath and deceased Gungun came over to village Birkhedi from Ujanate.When he did not return till late evening, she, Nima Bai and deceased Gungun went in search of Raghunath.She and Nima Bai were some paces behind deceased Gungun.In front of the house of Kalyan, accused Dhuman gave blows of Datua on the head of 36 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 deceased Gungun and accused Asharam hit him with Sang.As a result, he fell down.Thereupon, accused Ghasite, Sumatrni and Gajrani and their two sons assaulted him with Lathis.She and Nima Bai went to rescue him.Thereupon Asharam gave a blow of Lathi on her head, and he also struck a blow of Sang to Nima Bai.Meanwhile, Raghunath came to the place of occurrence.Thereupon, accused Dhuman gave blows of Datua in his mouth and accused Asharam hit on his head with Sang.The remaining accused persons assaulted Raghunath with Lathis.Deceased Gungun died on the spot and Raghunath became unconscious.Sunny Bai has stated in her examination-in-chief that accused Asharam gave a blow of Lathi on his head, whereas in para 15 of her cross-examination, she has stated that accused Ashram gave a blow of Lathi on her foot.Sunny Bai in her examination-in-chief has stated that accused Asharam assaulted Nima Bai with Sang, whereas Nima Bai in para 4 of her evidence has stated that accused Dhuman and Asharam assaulted her with Lathis.Sunny Bai has stated in para 14 of her cross-examination that accused Asharam gave 3 to 4 blows of Sang to deceased Gungun towards the 37 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 pointed end of it with full force.However, autopsy surgeon Dr. R.C. Agrawal (PW/8) has stated that deceased Gungun sustained in all four injuries and they were on his head.Moreover, Sunny Bai has failed to explain why she has not mentioned this fact in her case diary statement Ex.In view of the aforesaid material contradictory evidence, we find her evidence unreliable and untrustworthy in respect of accused Asharam.Sunny Bai has given a general statement that accused Sumatrani and Gajrani also assaulted deceased Gungun and Raghunath without attributing their overacts.For the said reasons, we hold that her evidence with regard to accused Sumatrani and Gajrani is also not reliable and credible.However, her evidence is fully reliable on the point that accused Dhuman with Datua and accused Ghasite with Lathi assaulted deceased Gungun and Raghunath because her evidence in this respect is fully consistent with the evidence of Nima Bai and Raghunath and is in agreement with the medical evidence on record.Rukman Bai (PW/12) has deposed that in the evening of the date of incident at about 5:00 to 6:00 pm, she was in her house at village Birkhedi.He heard loud ruckus coming from the side of Kalyan's house.Thereupon, she went 38 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 running towards his house.She saw accused Asharam with Sang, accused Dhuman with Datua, accused Ghasite, Sumatrani and Gajrani, accused Dhuman's son Dhannu and accused Ghasite's son Sukhram with Lathis assaulting deceased Gungun and Raghunath.He could not see injuries on the person of deceased Gungun.However, he saw injuries on Raghunath's head and mouth.When Nima Bai and Sunny Bai came to their rescue, accused Dhuman gave a Lathi blow on the head of Nima Bai and accused Asharam gave a blow of Sang on the foot of Sunny Bai.Seeing her, the accused persons ran towards her to assault her.Thereupon, she went running to her house.Rukman Bai has stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of incident she was in her house, whereas Sunny Bai in para 11 of her evidence stated that at the time of incident, Rukman Bai was in the house of Omkar Maharaj which is near to the house of Kalyan.Thus, there is contradictory evidence on the point wherefrom Rukman Bai reached the place of incident.She has stated in para 7 of her cross-examination that she has no blood relation with Nima Bai, whereas Nima Bai has stated in para 12 of her cross-examination that Rukman Bai is her real sister.She 39 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 has denied in paras 9 and 15 of her evidence that Gorelal, the father of accused Dhuman and Ghasite, gave evidence against her in a murder trial which she had faced on the charge of committing murder of her so called husband Uttam and in the trial she was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment.But her son Raghunath in para 8 of his cross- examination has admitted the said facts.Rukman Bai in para 4 of her cross-examination has denied that Raghunath and Babloo are her real sons, but upon grueling cross- examination by defence, she has to admit that they are her real sons.From the aforesaid evidence, we find that she has blatantly lied.As per the evidence on record, Nima Bai and Sunny Bai came to the rescue of deceased Gungun and Raghunath and in the course of which they sustained injuries, but Rukman Bai ran away.Her said conduct is surprising which proves that she has not witnessed the incident and there is a strong possibility that she has given evidence against the accused persons because Gorelal had testified against her in the said murder trial.From the aforesaid critical analysis of evidence of Rukman Bai, we hold that her evidence is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy.It has come in the evidence of Nima Bai, Raghunath 40 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 and Sunny Bai that Kalyan, his family members and other villagers gathered at the place of occurrence and they witnessed the incident.However, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness.Investigating Officer G.R. Ahirwar (PW/6) has stated in paras 12 and 13 of his cross-examination that he had made efforts to record the case diary statements of persons who had witnessed the incident but none of them were ready to record their statements.In view of his said statements, we hold that the prosecution case is not adversely affected because of the non-examination of any independent witness.Moreover, it is settled law that conviction can be based upon the evidence of relative witnesses in heinous crime because they would not shield the real culprit(s) and would falsely implicate a person(s) with whom they bear enmity.From the full scanning of evidence of Nima Bai, Raghunath and Sunny Bai, we hold that their evidence is reliable to the extent that accused Dhuman and Ghasite murdered deceased Gungun, they made an attempt to murder Raghunath and they caused simple injuries to Nima Bai and Sunny Bai.As per the unexhibited FSL report, no blood stains were found on the articles namely Sang, iron rod and Lathis. 41Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 However, blood stains were found on one Lathi marked as "E" but the tests remained inconclusive because of the disintegration of blood.In view of the negative FSL report, the accused persons cannot be connected with the crime.However, the prosecution case is not affected adversely because of eye-witness account.From the aforesaid close analysis of evidence on record, we come to the ultimate conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the five accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common object to commit murder of deceased Gungun, to make an attempt on the life of Raghunath and to cause simple injuries to Nima Bai and Sunny Bai.However, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Dhuman and accused Ghasite having formed a common intention, murdered deceased Gungun, made an attempt to murder Raghunath and caused simple injuries to Nima Bai and Sunny Bai.In the cases of Kacheru Singh Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 546, Vharwad Mepa Vs.State of Bombey, AIR 1960 SC 289 and Alma Vs.State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1519, the Supreme Court has held that if the unlawful 42 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 assembly is not proved in respect of the crime, but the common intention of committing crime is proved against some of them, they may be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC.Therefore, we convict accused Dhuman and Ghasite under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and 323 read with 34 (two counts) IPC with the same sentences as passed on them by the learned ASJ.In the result, we dispose of both the appeals as follows:-(1) Criminal Appeal No.415/2004 is allowed and the convictions and sentences recorded against accused-appellant Asharam are set aside.He is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 (two counts) IPC.(2) Criminal Appeal No.1059/2004 is allowed in parts.The convictions and sentences imposed on accused-appellants Sumatrani and Gajrani 43 Cr.A. Nos.415/2004 & 1059/2004 are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 (two counts) IPC.As per the record, they are on bail vide order dated 20.09.2004 of this Court.Their bail-bonds stand cancelled.(3) Accused-appellants Dhuman and Ghasite are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC setting aside the convictions and sentences thereunder. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
551,272 | P.W.4 is his maternal uncle.P.W.5 is his cousin.(b) During May 1999, there was a theft of Television Set in A.4's house, for which there was a Panchayat.In the Panchayat P.W.4 and P.W.5 were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/= for alleged theft of the TV set.P.Ws.4 and 5 refused to pay the fine and gave a complaint to the Police.But the Police did not take any action.Therefore, P.Ws.4 and 5 met P.W.1, an Advocate and on their instruction P.w.1, issued a Lawyer's notice, dated 21.3.2000, which are Exs.P.1 and P.2 to A.1, A.3, A.4 and others, totalling 7 persons.On 13.4.2000, P.W.1 came to his native place at Thachanur.At about 7.30 p.m., P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were watching a film in the T.V. At 9.00 p.m., the door of the house was rudely knocked.P.W.2, mother of P.W.1 switched on the light and opened the door.When P.W.s 2 and 1 went in front of the door, all the five accused started beating P.W.1 A.1 is said to have attacked P.w.1 on the left part of of his head and neck with a casurina stick.A.2 beat on the left shoulder and hip.A.3 threatened by saying that only if you are alive, you will file a case against us.So saying, he gave a blow on his stomach with a casurina stick.A.4 fisted P.W.a's face repeatedly.Thereafter, P.W.1 was taken inside of the house by his mother and his brother.(c) The injured P.W.1 was taken by his brother to the Cheyyur Police Station where P.W.1 requested the Head Constable to take down his complaint and send him to Hospital.But the Head Constable told him that the Inspector has gone for Bandobast Duty and asked them to wait till his arrival.After waiting for half an hour, and after requesting for two or three times to the Head Constable to take his complaint and on his refusal, P.W.1 was taken to the Madurantagam Government Hospital.At 11.45 p.m., in the night he was treated at Madurantagam Government Hospital.Since there was a head injury, he was referred to Chengalpattu Government Hospital for further treatment.P.w.1 was taken to Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai and was admitted by 7.00 a.m., on the next day.At about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 asked his elder brother to write the complaint in which P.w.1 signed.This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of acquittal in S.C. No. 333 of 2001 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurantagam.He sent his brother to Cheyyur Police Station to give the complaint and to inform the Police that he was admitted in the Stanley Medical College Hospital.Before that he gave the statement already written by him to P.W.11, who refused to receive the same.On 16.4.2000 P.W.1 sent his brother to bring the FIR to find out whether his signature was forged and therefore he filed Crl.O.P. No. 7305/2000 before this Court to transfer the case to CB.CID and this Court also passed an order directing the investigation to be done by the CB.CID Police.(d) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, CB.CID, took up investigation as per the direction of this Court.On 17.8.2000 he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.10 sketch.He examined P.Ws 1 to 7 and recorded their statements.On 21.8.2000, he examined the Medical Officer Dr.Sekar and recorded his statement.On 23.8.2000, he examined the Doctors P.Ws 9 and 10 who gave treatment to P.W.1 at Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai and recorded their statements and received the wound certificates Exs.After completing the investigation on 24.8.2000 he filed a final report against the accused for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 r/w. 149 IPC(e) Before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurantagam, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked.On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.(f) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the first accused denied the same as false and that all the prosecution witnesses are relatives.Unfortunately, the answeres given by A.2 to A.5 have not been recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.On the other hand, their signatures alone have been obtained at the end of every question.(g) On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion (i) all the prosecution witnesses are relatives; (ii) P.W.1 has denied his signature in Ex.According to P.W.1, immediately after the occurrence when he went to Cheyyur Police Station, P.W.11 Pachaiappan, Head Constable was there and when he narrated about the incident and requested him to send him to Hospital, P.W.11 has asked him to wait till the arrival of the Inspector of Police, who gone for Bandobast duty.In spite of requesting for two or three times and waiting for half an hour, P.W.11 has refused to receive the complaint from P.W.1 and has also failed to send P.W.1 for treatment.Therefore, P.W.1 has volunteered to go to Government Hospital, Madurantagam where he was treated by P.W.8, Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Madurantagam,.He has examined P.W.1 on 13.4.2000 at 11.45 pm., and has found the following injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.3 Accident Register:(1) A lacerated injury of 1 cm x 1/4 cm on the vault of skull (2) Multiple abrasions around injury No. 1 (3) A contusion of 5 cm x 3 cm on the neck (4) Complaint of pain on the left shoulder and head injury.(2) Multiple abrasions around injury No. 1Only on intimation from the Stanley Medical College Hospital, P.W.11 has gone to the Hospital and recorded his statement on 16.4.2000 at 8.30 a.m., The signature of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.Based on the said statement, P.W.11 has registered a case in Crime No:191/2000 against the accused for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 506(ii) IPC.A comparison of the signatures of P.W.1 in the deposition and Ex.P.6 would show that the signature found in Ex.The reason for P.W.11 supporting the accused is that the father of A.3 was the Constable of the same Police Station.It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 is an Advocate practicing in the High Court and because he issued a notice on behalf of his clients, he was attacked when he visited his native place.The evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by other witnesses even though they are relatives.The answers given by the accused 2 to 5 when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC., have not been recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.The purpose of asking questions during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to afford the accused personally an opportunity of explaining any incriminating circumstance so appearing in evidence against him.the accused may or may not avail the opportunity for offering his explanation.It is the duty of the Court to examine the accused properly and fairly to enable him to met the charges and explain the same. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
551,294 | That notice alleged that the petitioner was unemployed, was in the habit of moving about at odd hours in the Company of associates having criminal tendencies.The petitioner by threatening at the point of a pistol was extorting monies from the citizens.On account of the threats yielded by the petitioner, people were afraid to complain against him.There was a reign of terror amongst the citizens of the locality.There was threat to the persons and properties on account of the activities of the petitioner.Criminal prosecutions had been lodged against the petitioner on account of the deadly weapons being carried by him.The petitioner had also been convicted for the offences in respect of which prosecutions had been lodged against him.There was no improvement in the petitioner and there was likelihood of the petitioner again indulging in the said offences.It was, therefore, proposed to extern the petitioner out of the District of Thane and the adjoining Districts.JUDGMENT Ashok Agarwal, J.The order of externment dated the 18th August, 1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Thane is impugned in this petition.By this order which has been passed under section 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, the petitioner has been externed out of the limits of Thane Commissionerate, Greater Bombay, Raigad and Nasik Districts.Prior to the passing of the said order of externment a show cause notice under section 59 of that Act was served upon the petitioner.That notice called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Greater Bombay, Thane and Nasik Districts for a period of two years.The rule that the High Court will not issue a prerogative writ when an alternative remedy is available does not apply when a petitioner comes to the Court with an allegation that his fundamental rights have been infringed.When an order of externment is passed against the petitioner, he can undoubtedly come to this Court with a writ petition on the ground that his fundamental right of freedom of movement is affected and this he can do without exhausting the other remedy provided for in the act viz. an appeal to the State Government against the order.In view of the fact that the petitioner has been externed out of the areas covering three Districts as also Greater Bombay, it will have to be held that his fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution has been infringed.In this view of the matter, the very fact that the petitioner has not exhausted his alternative remedy of an appeal or merely because he has come here after undue delay can be no hurdles in the matter of entertaining this petition.In this view of the matter, it must be held that the impugned order of externment suffers from the vice of exercise of excessive jurisdiction and the same will have to be set aside.In the result, the petition succeeds. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,131,537 | A.83/2012 Page 1 of 10 376/506 IPC.Both the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.A.83/2012 Page 1 of 10Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 06.02.2010 at about 11:00 p.m. and thereafter during night till 10.02.2010, at house No.401, gali No.20, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53, the appellant sexually assaulted 'X' (assumed name), aged 14 years, her daughter, and criminally intimidated her. 'X' was a student of 9th standard in GGSSS No.2, B Block, Yamuna Vihar and her class teacher was PW-1 (Smt.Sarita Sharma).On 11th February, 2010 when she went to her school, she gathered courage and reported the incident of sexual harassment by her father to her class teacher Smt.Sarita Sharma (PW-1).PW-1 took her to the Principal PW-3 (Dr.Neeraj) and before whom also, she gave the complaint in writing (Ex.PW-3/A) against her father.A.83/2012 Page 2 of 10 Intimation was given to the police and maternal uncles of the prosecutrix.The investigation was taken over by W/SI Anuradha (PW-12).She recorded 'X's statement (Ex.PW-9/A) and lodged First Information Report after making endorsement (Ex.PW-12/A).The prosecutrix was medically examined.The accused was arrested and statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded.The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to substantiate the appellant's guilt.In his 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.He did not examine any witness in defence.It has come on record that when intimation was conveyed to the maternal uncles of the prosecutrix by the Principal of the school, they immediately Crl.A.83/2012 Page 4 of 10 travelled to Delhi and were given the custody of the prosecutrix They had no complaint, whatsoever, against the conduct and behaviour of their sister who stayed with them.In the cross-examination, nothing was suggested to them if appellant's wife had stayed any time with Balbir Gujjar at a definite location.Similarly, the appellant did not produce on record any document to show if he was the owner in-possession of any particular immovable property which was being allegedly grabbed by his wife and her brothers.Moreover, PW-9 ('X'), a child witness had no concern with all these matters and was not expected to falsely rope in her own father.She was ravished by the appellant from 6th February, 2010 to 10th February, 2010 and for obvious reasons had not attended the school during that period.PW-1 (Smt.Sarita Sharma) who had no prior animosity with the appellant, in certain terms disclosed that on 11.02.2010 'X' had come to her weeping.When she inquired as to why she was weeping, she informed that for the last 4/5 days, she was Crl.A.83/2012 Page 5 of 10 being sexually harassed by her father.She took her to PW-3 (Dr.Neeraj) who corroborated her version.She also questioned 'X' about the complaint lodged by her.The prosecutrix reiterated her version and in addition gave the complaint in writing (Ex.PW-3/A).Both PWs-1 and 3 who had performed their duties being well wishers of the student had no extraneous consideration to make false statements.A.83/2012 Page 5 of 106. PW-6 (Vijay Singh) and PW-7 (Jitender), X's maternal uncles in village Shrikishan Nagar, District Alwar, Rajasthan, wasted no time to reach Delhi after coming to know from PWs-1 and 3 about the horrible incident.They had no grudge, whatsoever, against the prosecutrix or her mother and took the custody of the child 'X'.Admitted position is that at present the appellant's children are staying with them.Nothing was suggested to them regarding the character of their sister in cross-examination.PWs-6 and 7 were not expected to support the prosecutrix's mother in case she had illicit relations with Balbir Gujjar, as alleged.PW-9 ('X') proved the police version given at the first instance without any variation.She implicated the appellant, her father, for sexual assault.She gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances on 6th February, 2010 at about 11:00 p.m. when her brothers were sleeping in the room, the appellant sexually ravished her for Crl.She was medically examined by PW-8 (Dr.Lipi Sharma) on 11.02.2010 vide MLC (Ex.PW-8/A).In the alleged history recorded therein it is specifically mentioned that 'X' was raped by her father Crl.A.83/2012 Page 7 of 10 Hoshiyar Singh since 6th February, 2010 every night; last time, she was raped on 10th February, 2010 under force.On local examination, mild swelling of Labia majora was noticed.Hymen was found torn.Nothing was suggested to the doctor in cross-examination as to how and under what circumstances 'X' had got swelling on her private part.Seemingly, there is no conflict between the ocular and medical evidence.A.83/2012 Page 7 of 10Exhibits were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.Biological examination report (Ex.PW-10/A) and serological report (Ex.PW-10/B) further confirm the victim's version.As per these reports, 'blood' was detected on the underwear.Semen stains were also found on the underwear of both the prosecutrix and the appellant.No explanation has been offered by the appellant in this regard.In 313 statement, the appellant did not give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against him.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Hoshiyar Singh to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 10.03.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.60/2010 arising out of FIR No.67/2010 under Sections 376/506 IPC registered at Police Station Bhajanpur, Delhi by which he, victim's father, was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections Crl.By an order dated 15.03.2011, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine `7,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years with fine `3,000/- under Section 506 IPC.The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come in appeal.A.83/2012 Page 2 of 10During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate fairly admitted that there were no valid submissions to assail the findings in view of overwhelming evidence against the appellant.He, however, pointed out that the police had not recorded X's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The appellant had lodged complaint against the prosecurix's mother who had illicit relations with Balbir Gujjar and with whom she had started residing after deserting him and the children.He further urged that the prosecutrix lodged a false Crl.A.83/2012 Page 3 of 10 case at the behest of her maternal uncles who intended to grab his property.The prosecutrix has given a most improbable and unacceptable version of events that the appellant continued to rape her for a number of days in the presence of her brothers in the house.Learned APP urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the prosecutrix, appellant's own daughter.A.83/2012 Page 3 of 10Admitted position is that 'X', the appellant's daughter lived with him in the house even after her mother had left the matrimonial home. 'X' disclosed that the appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor which was not liked by her mother and that was the bone of contention.Contrary to that, the appellant urged that 'X's mother was having illicit relations with Balbir Gujjar and she used to meet him at the matrimonial home which was disliked by him and that was the reason of their separation.The appellant, however, did not examine any witness to substantiate the allegations.Nothing has emerged if any action, whatsoever, was taken by the appellant against Balbir Gujjar or his wife for the alleged objectionable relations or he lodged any complaint to her brothers or convened any meeting of respectables to expose her.A.83/2012 Page 6 of 10 the first time.She elaborated that on the next day also, the appellant repeated the act.On the third day, though appellant attempted to establish physical relations, she saved herself while sleeping with her brothers.On the fourth day, again he succeeded in committing rape.On the fifth day i.e.11th February, 2010, she reported the incident to her class-teacher.In the cross-examination, she disclosed that the appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor.She denied the suggestion that her father was not present in the village from 6th February, 2010 to 15th February, 2010 and had gone to his brother Mukhram's village for participation in election for 'Sarpanch'.She further denied that a false complaint was lodged by her at behest of and on the instigation of her mother and maternal uncles who wanted to grab his property.Despite, lengthy cross-examination, no vital discrepancies or infirmities could be elicited in her statement.Material facts stated by her in chief remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.No ulterior motive was assigned to the child witness to falsely implicate him.Implicit reliance can be placed on her testimony.He took contradictory and inconsistent defence.He set up the plea of alibi and claimed his presence at village Ismail Pur from 3rd February, 2010 to 11th February, 2010 when he had gone there in connection with the election of his brother for the post of 'Sarpanch'.Earlier in the cross- examination, suggestion was put by the appellant to PW-9 ('X') that he was away to his brother's village from 6th February, 2010 to 15th February, Crl.He did not produce any evidence in this regard to show his presence in the said village during the relevant period.So much so, he did not examine his brother if he had called him to assist him in the election.There is no substance in the appellant's contention that the prosecutrix was under influence of her mother and has falsely implicated him.It has come on record that 'X' was not in touch with her mother and had not visited her during her stay in the house with the appellant.On 11.02.2010 in usual course, the prosecutrix had gone to attend her classes in school dress.However, she was unable to bear the burden and opted to take her class teacher into confidence to unearth the appellant's guilt.A.83/2012 Page 8 of 10The impugned order is based upon fair appreciation of the evidence of the relevant witnesses and needs no interference.Since the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime; being father, he deserves no leniency.Sentence order dated 15.03.2011 requires modification regarding default sentence only.While maintaining the conviction and sentence, the sentence order is modified to the extent that default sentence for non-payment of total fine of `10,000/- shall be Simple Imprisonment for one month.Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.A.83/2012 Page 9 of 10A.83/2012 Page 9 of 10The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 09, 2015 sa Crl.A.83/2012 Page 10 of 10A.83/2012 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,134,715 | DATED: 27th September, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER: V.M. KANADE J.]1. Heard.An inquiry was made by the Senior Inspector of Kurlap Police Station and statements of various persons were recorded and a report is submitted by him in which he has stated that the appellant expired at Mumbai.A separate report has been tendered by Digambar Pradhan, Police Superintendent in his letter dated 29.08.2011 addressed to Assistant Registrar of this Court.From the report, it is apparent that appellant has expired.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 :::The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 337, 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC.He was also cumulatively sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs 1,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months for the offences punishable under section 337 and 452 of the IPC.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Since the appellant has expired, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence under section 302, 337 and 452 of the IPC stands abated.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 :::(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 ::: 4 (Apeal 90 of 1991) (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellate:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 :::Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate."Perusal of this section, clearly indicates that an exception is carved out in the cases where an appeal is filed from a sentence of fine.Except such an appeal, every other appeal under the Chapter XXIX would abate on the death of the Appellant.Secondly, there is a proviso to sub-clause (2) which stipulates that even in a case where an appeal is filed against conviction and sentence of death or imprisonment and the Appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, a provision is made whereby any of his relative can make an application within a period of 30 days from the date of the death of the Appellant for continuation of the appeal by them and if on such application being made, leave is granted by the Court, then in that event, the appeal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 ::: 5 (Apeal 90 of 1991) would not abate and the legal representatives would be permitted to continue the said appeal.By "every other appeal" is meant an appeal other than one against an order of acquittal, that is to say, an appeal against an order or conviction.By 'every other appeal' is meant an appeal other than one against an order of acquittal, that is to say, an appeal against an order of conviction.Every appeal against conviction therefore abates on the death of the accused except an appeal from a sentence of fine.The sentence of fine remains outstanding though the right to recover the fine is circumscribed by a sort of a period of limitation prescribed by Section 70, Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 :::In the said case, the accused was convicted and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- was imposed and, in default, he was to undergo one month's further R.I. The said accused, however, died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record, who continued the appeal and it was observed that this could be done in view of section 393 sub-clause (2) proviso.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 :::In the present case since no application has been filed by any of the relatives of the Appellant within the time prescribed under the said proviso, in our view, it would be appropriate if Advocate Kamkhedkar is permitted to make his submissions in respect of the merits of the appeal.We have, therefore, requested Shri Kamkhedkar to appear as amicus curiae.The order of fine, therefore, is set aside.Since the sentence of fine is set aside, the appeal would abate in respect of sentence of imprisonment.At this stage, we would like to express our gratitude to Shri Kamkhedkar for having assisted us in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 ::: 15 (Apeal 90 of 1991) this case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:46:29 ::: | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,140,325 | For Appellant : Mr.P.Anbazhagan in Crl.A.No.874/16 For Appellants : Mr.S.M.Nandhie Devhan in Crl.- - - - -The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:There is a temple known as Pooniamman Temple at Thirumangalam Kandigai Village in Kancheepuram district.The deceased in this case was one Mr.He used to sleep in front of the temple during night hours everyday.On 02.01.2010 around 11.00 p.m., it is alleged that all these five accused, broke open the main door of the temple, trespassed into the same, broke open the hundi kept inside the temple and committed robbery of Rs.500/- from the said hundi.On hearing the noise, the deceased, who was sleeping in front of the temple, tried to raise alarm.All the five accused, with a view to escape from the said place with decamped amount, surrounded him.The accused 3 to 5 caught him hold and the second accused, attacked him with a wooden reaper on the back of the head and the first accused attacked him with a crowbar on his head.The deceased fell down and died instantaneously.Abandoning the dead body at the same place, all the five accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.2.2. P.W.6 a resident of Kandigai village, used to visit the temple around 06.15 a.m. everyday for darshan.As usual, on 03.01.2010, he went to the temple.Just in front of the temple, he found the deceased lying dead with injuries on his head.Immediately, he rushed to the house of P.W.3 and informed him about the same.P.W.3 in turn informed P.W.1 who was the husband of the then Village Panchayat Board President.P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead.The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.18 the then Inspector of Police.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch.Internal injuries: Skull-fracture present occipital and right temporal bone, exposing brain tissue.Skull opened clotted blood present all over the skull.Clotted blood present all over the brain.Right side brain contused.Chest no fracture; lungs pale, heart pale, 30 ml blood found in the chambers.Liver, Spleen, Kidneys pale.250 gms undigested food found in the stomach.Pale yellow fluid found in the intestines.Ex.She gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.She further opined that the injury could have been caused by weapons like crowbar, wooden reaper and knife.P.W.18 recovered the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased.On 14.09.2010, around 03.00 p.m. at Sokandi village, P.W.19 arrested the first accused in the presence of the witnesses.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed that he had hidden a crowbar at his house.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness to his house and produced M.O.9-crowbar.Note: The Registry is directed to circulate a copy of the judgment of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment to all the Principal Session Judges in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as in the Union Territory of Puducherry for being circulated to the other Session Judges so as to impress upon them that in the years to come, let there be no judgment based on extraneous considerations like communal background, social background etc.,.S.NAGAMUTHU,J.& N.SESHASAYEE,J.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu,J.) The appellants in Crl.A.No.874 of 2016 are accused 3 and 4 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.76 of 2017 are the accused 2 and 5 in S.C.No.48 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge No.II, Kancheepuram.The first accused was one Mr.Kumar.The trial Court framed as many as three charges against them as detailed below:Serial Number of charge Charge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1 to A5450 of IPC2A1 to A5395 r/w 397 of IPC3A1 to A5302 of IPCBy judgment dated 31.07.2015, the trial Court convicted all the five accused under all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 450 I.P.C.; to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 397 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 2 to 5 are before this Court with these two appeals.Inside the temple, he found the hundi broken open and the currency notes and coins had been stolen.Then, he went to Sunguarchathiram Police Station at 08.00 a.m. on 03.01.2010 and made a complaint.A case was registered on the same in Crime No.8 of 2010 under Sections 457, 380 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.At his request, P.W.11, the forensic expert, visited the place of occurrence and with his assistants, P.W.18 recovered the bloodstain earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He held inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.P.W.14 Dr.Yamuna conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 03.11.2010 at 02.15 p.m. She found the following injuries:External injures: Nasal bleeding present, eyes partially open.Laceration 3x2x1 cm behind right ear.Laceration behind right ear (occipital region) 6x4x3 cm exposing skull bone.Then, from out of the said disclosure statement on the same day at 04.15 p.m. at Pullur village, he arrested the second accused.On such arrest, the second accused made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a wooden reaper.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness to the place of hideout and produced M.O.10-wooden reaper.In the same statement, he further stated that he had identified the shop where he had pledged a gold thali.The second accused identified the third accused.On the same day at 05.00 p.m. P.W.19 arrested the third accused.While in custody, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a eye cap made of silver.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hideout and produced M.O.2-silver eye cap.The first accused then identified the 4th accused and at 05.30 p.m. P.W.19 arrested the 4th accused.While in custody, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife.In pursuance of the same he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.O.3-knife.On being identified by the first accused, P.W.19 arrested the 5th accused at 05.30 p.m. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a pooja plate.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.O.4-pooja plate.From P.W.13, M.O.1 gold thali was recovered.On returning to the police station, P.W.19 forwarded all the accused to the Court and also forwarded the material objects to Court.P.W.20 has stated that the material objects which were sent to forensic lab for chemical examination revealed that there were human bloodstains on the material objects.On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against all the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court convicted all the five accused and that is how the accused 2 to 5 are before this Court with these appeals.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.Since the assailants were not known, rightly on the complaint of P.W.1 a case was registered as against unknown assailants.Though forensic experts were brought to the place of occurrence, except the bloodstained earth, there was no other scientific clue available at the place of occurrence.None have seen the assailants either at the place of occurrence or anywhere near the place of occurrence.From the place of occurrence, chance fingerprints were lifted by the experts.According to P.W.18, the said fingerprints did not tally with the fingerprints of the accused.Since the temple where the occurrence had taken place is a public place, the chance fingerprints lifted could have been that of some devotees.Therefore, the fact that the chance fingerprints did not tally with the fingerprints of the accused would only go to help the case of the defence.Had the chance fingerprints tallied with the fingerprints of the accused, that would have been a very strong piece of evidence against the accused.But the chance fingerprints did not tally with that of the fingerprints of the accused.Thus the chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence would not help the case of the prosecution in any manner.During the said period of about nine months, P.W.18 was not able to make any breakthrough.It is stated that from out of the disclosure statement made by the accused, from the first accused M.O.9 (crowbar) was recovered, from A2 M.O.10 (wooden reaper) was recovered, from A3 M.O.2 (Silver eye cap) was recovered, from A4 M.O.3 (knife) was recovered and from A5 M.O.4 (Pooja plate) was recovered.Curiously, there was no whisper about the missing of gold thali, silver eye cap and pooja plate.Only after the arrest of these accused, it was for the first time disclosed that these properties were stolen properties from the temple.In Ex.P20 F.I.R. there is no mention about the missing of these properties.It is not explained to this Court for about nine months the missing of these properties were not disclosed by anyone.This would only go to show that these properties were not at all stolen away from the temple and in order to add strength to the prosecution case, a make belief story has been coined by the police.So far as the crowbar, the wooden reaper and the knife are concerned, there is no link between these weapons and the crime.Curiously, at the same time, shockingly the trial Court has convicted all these accused not on any legal ground but on mere surmises.Simply because these accused belonged to a particular community they would have committed the crime as according to the trial Court, the hereditary avocation of the people belonging to that community was theft.With heavy heart, we want to extract few portions of the judgment of the trial Court.In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the trial Court has made the opening remark that before going into the evidences let in by the prosecution, it would be appropriate to look into the socio economic background of all these five accused.(7) ,e;j tHf;fpy; Vw;gl;Ls;s gpur;rpidf;F jPu;t[ fhz;gjw;F Kd;g[ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;s 5 vjpupfspd; rK:f bghUshjhu gpz;zdpia tpsf;FtJ mtrpakhFk;/ vjpupfs; midtUk; jkpHfj;jpy; tpy;ypau;fs;.jw;bghGJ Vw;gl;Ls;s rKjha khw;wj;jpdhy; vjphpfs; rhh;e;j ,Ush;fSk; kw;wth;fis nghynt jiy Kofis fpuhg; btl;of; bfhs;Sk; gHf;fj;ija[k;.nky; rl;ilkw;Wk; KGf;fhy; rl;il mzptija[k; kw;wth;fis nghynt gs;spf;F bry;Yk; tHf;fj;ija[k; bra;J tu Muk;gpj;Jtpl;ldh;/ nkw;go gH';Foapd kf;fs; tsh;r;rpa[whj fhyj;jpy; mth;fs; kw;w rKjhaj;jpdnuhL bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L g[Hf;fj;ij mjpf mstpy; itj;Jf; bfhs;shj fhy';fspy; mth;fs; fhyk; fhykhf bra;J te;j bjhHpiyna bra;J te;Js;shh;fs;/ jw;nghJ kw;w rKjha kf;fis nghynt rKjhaj;jpd; ikag; gFjpf;F mth;fs; te;Js;sjhy; rKjhaj;jpy; cs;s kw;w kf;fSf;Fs;s midj;J Fz eyz;fSk; mth;fSf;Fk; bjhw;wpf; bfhz;Ls;sijj;jhd ,t;tHf;fF ekf;F fhz;gpf;fpd;dwJ/ nkw;go ,Ush; rKjhaj;ijr; nrh;e;jth;fs; Muk;g fhyj;jpy; ghg;g[ gpog;gJ mjd; njhiy tpw;gid bra;J gpiHj;J te;jhh;fs;/ mJ kl;Lky;yhky; kw;wth;f;s tPl;Lf;Fs;Sk;.epyj;Jf;Fs;Sk;.nkhl;lhh; bfhl;iliff;Fs;Sk; ghk;g[ g[Fe;J tpl;lhy; mr;rg;glhky; me;j ghk;ig kpft[k; yhtfkhf gpoj;J nkw;go njhl;lf;fuhu;fs; kw;Wk; tPl;Lfhuh;fsplk; rpwpa bjhifia rd;khdkhf bgw;W mjpy; gpiHg;if elj;jp te;jhh;fs;/ mJ kl;Lk; my;yhky; Muk;g fhyj;jpy; mth;fs; rpW rpW tpy';Ffis ntl;ilahoa[k; mtw;iw tpw;Wk; mitfis g[rpj;Jk; thH;f;if elj;jp te;jhh;fs;/ flnyhu fpuhk';fspy; trpf;Fk; ,Ush;fs; J}z;oy; nghl;L flypy; kPd; gpof;Fk; bjhHpiya[k; nkw;bfhz;L te;js;shh;fs;/ nkw;go kf;fs; Muhk;g fhyj;jpy; kpft[k; jdpg;gl;l fyhr;rhuhj;ij itj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;j nghJ mth;fSf;Fs; jpUkzk; vd;w rl';Fk;.ilth;!; (tptuhfuj;J) vd;w rl';Fk; ,y;iy/ jw;nghJk; mth;fSf;F nkw;go rl';Ffs; ,Ug;gjhf ekf;F bjhpatpy;iy/ nkw;go kf;fSf;F fd;dpkhh; vd;gJ Fy bja;tkhFk;/ nkYk;.rk;gpujhaj;Jf;fF kf$h;fs;/ rk;gpujhaj;Jf;fhf rhd;W bghUl;fs; Mfpaitfis 1 Kjy; 5 vjphpfSf;fF vjpuhf m/rh/19 Ma;thsh; cw;gj;jp bra;a ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy/ mg;go vt;tpjkhd murpay; mGj;jnkh.It is not understandable as to how a Court could presume that the people belonging to a particular community will always indulge in the commission of a particular type of crimes.It is also shocking to note that the trial judge had the strong conviction that a community of people would indulge in a particular type of crime and the same can be inherited like a family trade.In the result,(ii) Though the first accused Mr.The District and Sessions Judge No.II, Kancheepuram.The Inspector of Police, C-2, Sunguarchathiram Police Station, Kancheepuram.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.The Registrar General, Madras High Court.A.Nos.874 of 2016 & 76 of 201715.02.2017 www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,514,678 | 4 After taking first aid at Primary Health Center, Mohol, Babasaheb Khandekar again approached the police station and lodged a report that on 28th December, 1994 at about 7 a.m. he was carrying fodder on his head and was returning to his house from the agricultural land.Due to fodder on his head, he did not have sufficient vision.He gave a dash to Birudev Narayan Khandekar.There was verbal altercation between Babasaheb and Birudev.Babasaheb had informed him that because of fodder on his head, he could not see the person approaching from the opposite direction.Birudev started abusing and assaulting Babasaheb with fists and kick blows.He raised hue and cry.Upon hearing his hue and cry, his cousin Vilas Yashwant Khandekar, his wife Vaijayanta Khandekar and Malhari Yashwant Khandeka came to the spot to rescue him.At the same time, Birudev was also accompanied by Tanaji Narayan Khandekar and Narayan Khandekar.There was a scuffle between both Talwalkar 3/12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: 4 1.apeal374.707.708.96.sxw the groups.In the said scuffle, it is alleged that Narayan had abused and assaulted Vilas by stick on his head and other parts of the body.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::He has sustained traumatic injury.He was referred to Civil Hospital, Solapur.5 On the basis of the report of Babasaheb, Crime No. 209 of 1994 was registered against the accused for offence punishable under Section 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The investigation was set in motion.The accused was arrested on 30th December, 1994 at Solapur.Prosecution examined 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.8 It would be relevant to consider the evidence of first informant who also happens to be an injured eye witness as well medical evidence on record and the circumstance in which the incident had occurred.9 P.W. 1 Babasaheb Khandekar has deposed before the court that on 28/12/1994 at about 7 a.m., he was carrying sugar cane fodder on his head.When he reached near Babul tree, Birudeo had come from front side.Since the bundle of the fodder was on his head, he could not see him.He had given dash to accused No. 2, which was the cause for altercation between 3 to 4 persons on each side.accused (acquitted) had assaulted P.W. 1 with fist and kick blows and hence, they are acquitted.1 Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for State.Hence, this appeal.3 Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :On 28/12/1994 Babasaheb Khandekar approached Mohol Police Station initially in an injured condition alongwith Vilas and Vaijayanta and informed the police that they had sustained injuries at the hands of the present appellant and others.Taking into consideration the urgency of the situation, PSI had given them Talwalkar 2/12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: 3 1.apeal374.707.708.96.sxw requisition and referred them to Primary Health Center and had also directed them to return to police station after taking first aid.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::6 The injured was taken to Wadia Hospital for C.T. Scan and thereafter, for treatment to Civil Hospital, Solapur.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::It is elicited in the cross examination that Talwalkar 5/12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: 6 1.apeal374.707.708.96.sxw initially, they had brought Vilas to Farm house.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::He has deposed before the Court that on 28/12/1994 injured were brought to the Rural Hospital alongwith reference letter of Mohol Police Station.The police had referred Vilas Khandekar.2 had examined him at about 12.15 noon.He had found contused lacerated wound on right parietal area measuring 5 cm.x 1 cm.x ½ cm.The injury was simple in nature.The patient was conscious.Vilas had sustained head injury and hence, he has admitted in the hospital for observations.At about 4 p.m. on the same day, he had noticed that the condition of Vilas was deteriorating.At about 6.30 p.m. Vilas had vomited twice.P.W. 2 had informed his relatives and therefore, had directed them to refer Talwalkar 6/12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: 7 1.apeal374.707.708.96.sxw Vilas to Civil Hospital, Solapur and accordingly, he has shifted him to Civil Hospital, Solapur.It is elicited in the cross-examination that the injury sustained by Vilas was also possible due to fall.P.W.2 had not suspected any internal injury and therefore, he had given opinion that it was a simple injury.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination P.W. 2 has admitted that Narayan was also referred for examination by the police.He had examined Narayan on the same day.He was confronted with the injury certificate of Narayan.That Narayan had also sustained (i) contused lacerated wound 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on right forearm middle, 1/3 rd ulnar aspect, (ii) contused lacerated wound 2 cm.x ½ cm x ½ cm.left frontal area.(iii) Abrasion ½ cm x ½ cm on epigastis.The injury certificate of Vilas would show that he had sustained only one injury which is shown as simple injury.It prima facie appears that the complications had developed subsequently.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::scalp right parietal region near vertex and the abrasion on right leg above ankle of Vilas.13 The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to Column No. 17 of the post mortem notes which would indicate that Vilas has sustained only one external injury.However, there are corresponding internal injuries.The learned Counsel for the appellant rightly submits that it cannot be said that the accused had any knowledge of internal injuries corresponding to the external single injury of Vilas.The cause of death is shown as head injury and fracture of skull with intra-cranial haemorrhage.14 There is nothing on record, to even remotely to indicate that there was previous enmity between two groups or that the present appellant had any intention to cause such injury to Vilas, which may necessarily result in his death.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.However, P.W. 3 has given expert opinion on the basis of post mortem notes.16 That all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have specifically contended that the incident had taken place suddenly i.e on the spur of moment.There is nothing on record to remotely indicate that there was pre-meditation or previous meeting of mind to cause homicidal death of Vilas.Learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that no intention can be attributed to the accused for having caused death of Vilas.According to the learned Sessions Judge, accused had knowledge that the act committed by them would result into death.Prima facie, this opinion of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be upheld for the simple reason that the complainant as well as the accused are basically agriculturists.There is sufficient evidence to indicate that there was a scuffle between the two groups.The accused Narayan has also Talwalkar 9/12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: 10 1.apeal374.707.708.96.sxw sustained injuries in the said transaction and there is no plausible explanation forth-coming from the prosecution witnesses as to how Narayan had sustained injury in the same incident.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::17 Upon perusal of the entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant had rather taken the law in his own hands, he deserve to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The injuries sustained by the both the parties prima facie were simple in nature.There was no evidence on record to show that the accused had taken undue advantage of situation.The prosecution witnesses have also stated that the present appellant and others had nurtured a grudge against relatives.There was no pre-meditation or meeting of minds.The appellant had brandished stick and assaulted Vilas by the same stick.However, taking into consideration the fact that P.W.1 is also an agriculturist and that possession of a stick in the present circumstances cannot be considered to be a weapon.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::19 In view of the above observations, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.In the facts of the case, the appellant deserves to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to the period already undergone.of the Indian Penal Code imposed upon the appellant-Narayan Gangaram Khandekar vide Judgment and Order dated18/6/1996 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur is hereby quashed and set aside.Instead, the appellant-Narayan Gangaram Khandekar is Talwalkar 11/12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: 12 1.apeal374.707.708.96.sxw convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to the period already undergone.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 :::(iv) Bail bond stands cancelled.21 In view of the fact that the appeal against conviction filed by accused Narayan Gangaram Khandekar is partly allowed, the appeal filed by the State challenging the said Judgment and Order deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 707/1996 and 708/1996 stand dismissed.22 All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:30:35 ::: | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,514,898 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,150,666 | O.P.No.8218 of 2020The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is fruit vendor and only bread winner of his family.He used to sell fruits in the platform.He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no bad antecedents upon the petitioner.Further, he would submit that the petitioner was in judicial custody from 20.05.2020 and seeks bail for the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner along with other two accused robbed a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the defacto complainant at knife point and also abused him in filthy language.He would further submit that there is no previous cases pending against the petitioner.Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has no antecedent involved and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 20.05.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions :15.06.2020 tta Tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 Crl.O.P.No.8218 of 2020Crl.O.P.No.8218 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 392, 397 and 506 (ii) of IPC in Crime No.342 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with two other accused way laid the defacto complainant and also robbed a sum of Rs.1,000/- at knife point.Hence the complaint was registered.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/4 Crl.(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore.3.Inspector of Police, Viruchipuram Police Station.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5.The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,152,897 | One Kavita Anil Salunke is the informant.The incident of murder of her husband Anil Salunkhe has taken place on 11.4.2011 near Race Course Empress Garden, Pune.One month prior to the date of the incident, the deceased Anil had hired the rickshaw of Sachin, i.e., the accused No.2 on rental basis.A charge of Rs.150/- per shift was agreed between them.However, an amount of Rs.600/-::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::On that day in the morning, accused No.2 arrived at the house of the deceased and demanded Rs.600/-.He abused him.Anil promised him to pay the money.However, he did not return home and at 9pm, she got information telephonically from one of the friends that her husband had met with an accident and has been admitted in Sassoon hospital.So, when she went there, she found one Manoj Dhamale, friend of her husband, present alongwith the police.Manoj is an eye witness to the incident.On that day, 2 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc at around 1.30pm, when he was plying his rickshaw, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 told Anil to come there and told him that they wanted to go out to take beer.Though he was reluctant, they all being friends, he took them to one bar.Except Manoj, they all had drinks.Thereafter, they travelled for some time.Then one other friend Gajanan Mule also accompanied them in rickshaw at Dhobalwadi Ghodpadi.The deceased and both the accused had consumed country liquor at 6.30pm.Manoj and Gajanan did not drink.Thereafter, when they were coming back, at the Race Course Road, accused No.2 Sachin asked him to stop the rickshaw.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased alighted from the rickshaw and went towards the Race Course compound to relieve themselves.However, Manoj suddenly heard their quarrel and screams of Anil.So, Gajanan and Manoj went there and noticed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 both were assaulting Anil.When they came near him, they found Anil was lying in a pool of blood.PW3 Manoj has stated that on the day of the 2 (2002) 10 SCC 236 8 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased Anil travelled together to different places and they consumed liquor throughout the day at different places.PW3 did not drink and the other person Gajanan Mule who joined them subsequently also did not drink on that day.DATE: JUNE 22, 2016 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.):The appeals are directed against the judgment and order 1 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc dated 1.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence of murder under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each or suffer R.I. For six months.Accused No.2 Sachin fled away towards Empress garden and accused No.1 ran towards the Race Course.At that time, the watchman of the Race Course apprehended him and Manoj informed the police.Thereafter, the other friend informed Kavita about the incident.Anil succumbed to the injuries on the same day.Pursuant to the information given by Kavita, offence was registered at C.R. No.76 of 2011 with Vanavadi police station under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The police recorded statements of the witnesses, drew spot 3 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc panchanama.Accused No.2 was also arrested on the same day.On the next day, at the instance of both the accused, the police carried out discovery panchanama and they recovered choppers, which were the weapons used for the purpose of assault.The police also seized the clothes of the deceased and the accused and sent them for the report of C.A. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Pune and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 r/w 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Though both the accused were acquitted from the offence under the Bombay Police Act, they are convicted for the offence of murder of Anil Salunke.The prosecution has examined a total of 9 witnesses.PW1 Kavita is the informant; PW2 Dr.Amol B. Shinde is the medical officer who has conducted the post-mortem; PW3 Manoj Dhamale is an eye witness; PW4 Sanjay Akolkar is the security guard, who apprehended accused No.1 Rohit; PW5 Namdev Kunjir and PW6 Amjad Mohd. Shaikh are the panchas on the point of recovery under section 27 of the Indian Penal Code and PW7 Pradeep P. Gaikwad is a police from Vanavdi police station, who was patrolling on the night of 11.4.2011 and took charge of accused No.1; PW8 Prasad N. Sanas is attached to Vanavadi police station in the investigation and PW9 Shivaji G. Kanase is 4 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc the Senior Police Inspector and Investigating Officer from Vanavdi police station.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::PW2 Dr.Amol B. Shinde conducted the post-mortem and found that the death occurred due to the cut wounds on his body.He proved post-mortem report (exhibit 27).The ante-mortem injuries on the body of Anil were all incised wounds over left mandibular area so also total three chopped wounds on the left arm.He died due to shock due to multiple injuries i.e., homicidal assault.Thus, the fact that the death of Anil Salunkhe has occurred due to homicidal assault, cannot be disputed.Talukdar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 and Mr.Apte, learned Counsel for Appellant / accused No.2 Sachin Bhujbal, argued that the evidence of the witnesses especially of Manoj Dhamale is not reliable.Manoj claims to be an eye witness alongwith one Gajanan Mule.However, the prosecution did not examine Gajanan, the other eye witness.From the evidence of Manoj, it does not appear that Manoj himself has seen the actual assault on the deceased.The prosecution ought to have examined Gajanan who was the other available eye witness.Evidence of Manoj is uncorroborated version which appears doubtful.The learned Counsel has submitted that the discovery of the weapon i.e., chopper, at the instance of the accused No.1 on 12.4.2011 5 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc from thorny bushes at Empress garden is false.Panchanama (exhibit 32 and 33) ought not to have been believed by the trial Court.The learned Counsel have pointed out that in the cross-examination the panch PW5 Namdev Kunjir has admitted that he acted as panch on 30 to 35 occasions and hence, he should not have been relied.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::No connection is established by the prosecution between accused No.2 and the actual assault.While assessing evidence of regular or stock panch, Court needs to be cautious.If evidence of criminal record of such witness is brought on record, then, his evidence can be discarded.There is no such record of this witness Kunjir.A fact that discovery of the weapon that is chopper near the place from where the accused was apprehended is an important circumstance establishing nexus between the accused No.1 and the weapon and the spot of the incident.PW6 Amjad Shaikh on the recovery of weapon at the instance of accused No.2 also appears reliable.The learned Counsel for the Appellants have further submitted that the recovery of the chopper by accused No.1 under the memo exhibit 32 6 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc and 33 is doubtful.It was submitted that the panchanama had taken place on 12.4.2011 in the afternoon.However, on the same day, the accused No.2 was produced before the Court at the time of remand in the afternoon.Therefore, considering the time gap, the discovery panchanama becomes doubtful.While assailing the evidence of PW3, the learned Counsel has submitted that he did not inform the police about the assault though he admitted the deceased in the hospital.He took Anil to the Sassoon hospital.The names of the accused were not disclosed as assailants in the hospital.Had he seen both the accused assaulting Anil, then the names of these two persons ought to have been mentioned at the time of admission of Anil Salunke in the hospital.Learned Counsel further argued that as per the evidence of PW3, he dialled 100 number and informed about the incident to the police.However, the prosecution did not produce any evidence through the police that they have received such information on 100 number.It is further argued that at the time of panchanama, articles i.e., weapons or clothes of the accused were not sealed with lac seal.The CA report is also not helpful to the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::1 2000 Cri.L.J. 1566 7 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::The learned Prosecutor has opposed the appeals.The eye witness PW3 Manoj Dhamale has given all the material particulars on the point of incident and his evidence remained unshaken.The prosecution has also tendered evidence on the point of discovery of weapons.There is evidence of PW4 Sanjay Akolkar who apprehended the accused No.1 on the spot.She submitted that the chain of circumstances fully corroborate the evidence of Manoj and hence, conviction of both the accused be maintained.We have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses carefully.PW3 Manoj is a star witness on the point of assault.He has given all the movements of both the accused and the deceased on the date of the incident.PW1 the complainant / wife of the deceased, has stated that the accused No.2 had given his rickshaw to the deceased on hire basis.However, there was a continuous demand of money from the accused No.2 and, therefore, the deceased returned the said rickshaw within a month.Her evidence is useful on the point of motive.It is corroborated with the FIR (exhibit 24).However, till late evening, they were drinking and when they were returning near Empress Garden, accused No.2 wanted to relieve himself and, therefore, he stopped the rickshaw.Accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the deceased alighted from the rickshaw and went towards the Empress garden.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::Suddenly, he heard them quarreling and then, shouts of Anil.So, he and Gajanan rushed towards that side and they saw the accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting Anil with some weapon.As they arrived, accused Nos.1 and 2 started running.The deceased fell down and was badly injured.Sanjay Akolkar, was working as a security guard at Race Course, Pune camp and when he was discharging his duty at Race Course, he heard one person lying at some distance from one auto rickshaw.He heard shouts for help.He has stated that two other persons were present and there was one injured who was lifted by them in the rickshaw.He has stated that two other persons arrived on the spot and PW4 handed over the person apprehended by him 9 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc to police.In the evidence of PW9 Shivaji Kanase, he has stated that on 11.4.2011, at around 11.45pm, accused No.1 was arrested and produced by the constable PW7 Gaikwad before him and the said crime was registered at around 11pm.Thus, the evidence of Sanjay Akolkar is very important.He is an independent witness and his presence being a security guard was natural.Accused No.1 was running away from the spot.His presence near the body of the deceased itself shows his connection with the incident of assault.Evidence of PW4 corroborate evidence of PW3 in all material particulars.Accused No.2 was not arrested on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::However, once the evidence of PW3 is believed, then the role of the appellant/accused No.2 is proved by the prosecution.The deceased was not assaulted with fist blows, kicks or any stone or wooden stick which was lying nearby for there would have been a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused.The injuries were incised and the weapon used for the assault were choppers by both the accused.This shows that the accused had planned to kill the deceased.Though Gajanan Mule would have been a witness supporting the evidence of PW3, the evidence of PW3 itself is found credible, cogent, consistent and reliable and, therefore, non-examination of Gajanan Mule has not weakened the case of the prosecution.The CA report discloses that the blood found on the chopper was human blood and the blood group was B group.The blood 10 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc group of the deceased was B group.At the time of discovery panchanama, one chopper was found at the Empress garden on the next day.The possibility that while running away, the accused had thrown or kept the weapon in the garden cannot be ruled out.Though the panch PW5 Kunjir has acted as panch on 30 to 35 times, that itself cannot discredit the witness.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::In the present case, the articles were immediately seized.It is not mandatory that the sealing should be only by lac seal but there can be a paper sealing and it should be intact at the time of trial.11 / 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 :::Appeals are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:14:30 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,152,951 | With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is finally disposed of.The petitioners have preferred this revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.2.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadaun, District Seoni, in Criminal Appeal No.47/2001, arising out of the judgment dated 9.10.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Class I, Lakhnadaun, in Criminal Case No.417/2000, whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under:-According to prosecution, marriage of Santoshibai, PW1, took place with the petitioner no.1 on 27.5.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs.After marriage the petitioners demanded a motorcycle and cash of Rs.20,000/- from Santoshibai as dowry.When parents of Santoshibai declined to fulfill their demands, the petitioners tried to kill Santoshibai.Once in the night petitioners poured kerosene oil upon Santoshibai and tried to burn her.On hearing the cry of 2 Santoshibai, elder brother of the petitioner no.1, Sitaram, came to rescue her.Second time the petitioners tried to push Santoshibai on a Tubewell.This time also Sitaram, elder brother of the petitioner no.1, reached the spot and saved her.The petitioners no.1 and 2 used to sleep together in a bed as husband and wife despite the fact that petitioner no.1 is married with Santoshibai.On the apprehension of threat to life, Santoshibai asked Sitaram, elder brother of the petitioner no.1, to leave her to her parental house.Sitaram left Santoshibai to her parental house 20 days prior to the lodging of FIR.Santoshibai narrated the entire story to her parents and then a report was lodged at Police Station Ghansour.After investigation Challan had been filed against the petitioners.Both the Courts below have not committed 3 any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE HS 4 5 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,245,939 | No.1/State.Though the case is listed for consideration of ad aforesaid interlocutory application, however, with the consent of Pr parties, it is heard finally and accordingly, it would be appropriate to decide the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. finally at the motion a hy stage.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to ad invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the M FIR at Crime No.359/2016 registered at Police Station, Nainpur for offences under Sections 323, 324, 294 read with Section 34 of the of I.P.C. against the petitioner.The petitioner-wife lodged a report against the respondent ou No.2/husband with the Sub Inspector of Police at Pindrai on 31.8.2016, therefore, Crime No.357/2016 for offences under sections C 498-A, 323, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has h been lodged at Police Station, Nainpur.Subsequently, on 05.9.2016 ig FIR No.359/2016 for offences under section 323, 324, 294 read with H section 34 of I.P.C. has been registered at Police Station, Naipur against the petitioner-Swati Dwivedi and her father Sunil Mishra and her uncle Lallu Prasad Dubey.The MLC report of Smt.Swati Dwivedi dated 31.8.2016, indicates that injuries on the right side of neck, two contusion injuries on the right cheek, abrasion on the back of right palm, abrasion on the back of left palm.Likewise abrasion on the neck and complain of pain and broken of teeth, therefore, referred to the Dentist.The Dentist opined that there are injuries on the crown and incisor teeth.It is also argued that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and her father and uncle due to ulterior motive to take revenge hence the same be quashed.Per contra, counsel for the respondent No.2 has also stated that the injuries were caused by the petitioner to him and on his report on the same day, he was also sent for medical examination, though no MLC report has been filed in the present case, but the same has been annexed in M.Cr.6. Perused the record.As per complaint, the First e Information Report was lodged at the Police Station, Nainpur.On the ad basis of the written compliant by respondent No.2 dated 31.8.2016, Pr Medico Legal Examination (MLC) was done.The respondent No.2 had sustained injuries.According to the statement of respondent No.2, a he is serving at Police Chowki, Pindrai as Sub Inspector.On hy 31.8.2016 at about 7.00 a.m the petitioner had quarrelled with him ad because of use of cooler.She also cut her little finger and squeezed it.M When the complainant was trying to snatch the hand, she injured on shoulder by beating him.During this scuffle, the petitioner/ accused of collided with the corner of the cot and sustained injuries.She then threatened, abused him and tried to scratch by nails.She informed that rt she call her family members.She took away the magazine of his ou service revolver.After about one and half hour, her father (Sunil C Mishra) and uncle (Lallu Prasad) came into the house, abused the h complainant-Mukesh Dwivedi and caught his collar.They assaulted ig him, threatened him and also said that they will take away his job.The police staff, Head Constable-Inder Singh Uikey, Constable-Rajeshwar and the residents across the road, namely, Ajay Prajapati, Arihant Jain and other also came to the spot hearing the shouts.Father of Sunil Mishra took the petitioner-wife alongwith children and kept the clothes in swift car, which was given at the time of marriage.The complainant after their departure saw that the magazine of his service revolver and the belongings of his wife and children were taken away.The complainant also states that father and uncle of the petitioner have been constantly interfering in his family life.After several conciliaton in the Family Conciliation Centre and in the Family Court, the complainant has been harassed and threatened. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,252,934 | Shri N.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 andAdditional documents filed along with Covering Memo No.1036/2019 are taken on record.Arguments heard.By way of present revision, the applicant seeks following reliefs :(i) call for the record of Session Trial No.60/2018 pending before First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara District Tikamgarh.(iii) to frame additional charges under Section 307 of the IPC or in the alternative and without prejudice under Section 326 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 20.09.2018 at about 6.30 p.m., when the complainant Suresh Prasad Mishra was sitting in front of his 2 CRR-336-2019 house at a kirana store, the respondents No.2 and 3 came there and assaulted him by means of lathies owing to some land dispute pertaining to Temple and when his son Brajesh Kumar Mishra, the present applicant, came forward to save him, respondent No.3 dealt a lathi blow on his head and other parts of the body and also threatened them with dire consequences.Thereafter, both the injured were sent to CHC Jatara and from where they were referred to District Hospital.However, considering the nature and situs of injuries received by the complainant and his son Brajesh Kumar Mishra, Sections 325 and 326 IPC were added in the charge sheet.It is also contended that looking into the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant, additional charge under Section 3 CRR-336-2019 307 IPC ought to be framed by the learned trial Court as the blow was on a vital part.Attention has also been invited to the fact that the bail application filed by respondents No.2 and 3 was dismissed by the trial Court in view of the fact that in X-ray report, it was found that the applicant had sustained fracture in head and the injuries received by him could be dangerous to life.On these grounds, prayer is made to frame additional charge under Section 307 IPC or in the alternative, under Section 326 IPC ought to be framed.In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 07.01.2019 is not as per law and deserves to be quashed.On the aforesaid findings, the impugned order dated 07.01.2019 is hereby quashed, so far as it relates to framing of charge under Section 325 IPC vis-a-vis Section 307 IPC.Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara Distt. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,261,778 | The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438( 2) of Cr.P.C. He shall however join the investiga tion as and when directed to do so by the Police.C.C. as per rules.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4161/2018 Jabalpur, Dated 09.02.2018 Mr. H.S. Dubey, learned senior counsel with Mr. Abhinav Dubey, counsel for the applicant.Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned Dy.Govt. Advo cate for the State.This applica tion has been filed U/s.438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant Ashok Kaurav in connec tion with Crime No.29/2 018 of P.S. Kareli, Distt.Narsinghpur for of fences under Sec tion 3 54, 35 4-A, 354- D, 506 of I.P.C.The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case.The allegation against him as levelled by the prose cutrix in her 1 64 statement is that the applicant used to stalk the prose cutrix for quite some time before the date of incid ent and used to have a glad ey e on her.On the date of the incident, the applicant is stated to have held her hand and said "I love you".On ac count of the said act, the off ence U/s.3 54, 3 54- A, 354- D and 5 06 of I.P.C. has been registered against the applicant.But for the of fence U/s.354, the other offenc es are bailable in nature.There is no allegation against the applicant of having touched the prose cutrix in any obje ctionable part of her body.He is only stated to have held her hand and expressed his sentiments for her.Such an incid ent has happened only once.Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and that there are no allegation of the applicant having touched the prose cutrix on any objectionable part of her body, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the ev ent of arrest, the applicant herein shall be enlarged on bail forthwith by the Arresting Of ficer upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Of fic er. | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,264,746 | First respondent is registered Charitable Trust and second respondent is its Founder and Managing Trustee.Respondents/complainants have preferred a complaint in C.C.No.417 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvallur, informing as follows:They are running the said trust for many years and providing education to poor and destitute children.There are many donors for the said Trust.Onehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 S.Rajagopalan, a Foreign National of Indian Origin and a member of Yoga Verienigung Rajagopalan, German based funding Agency, used to donate funds for the trust.While so, the said Rajagopalan introduced one Rajesh alias Vasudevan Verma, who is none other than his nephew, as representative of Yoga Verienigung Rajagopalan, who often entered the trust in a drunken state and hence, the trust restricted his entry.COMMON ORDER Petitioners seek quash of proceedings in C.C.No.417 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvallur.2. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.10673 of 2011 are A1 to A3 in C.C.No.417 of 2010 and petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10649 of 2011 is A4 in such case.Angered thereby, Rajagopalan preferred false complaints against the trust.Elaborate enquiries were conducted by the Chief Educational Officer, the District Education Officer, the District Collector, the Sub-Collector, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, Intelligence Wing, Tiruvallur, with a team of Police Officials, the Tahsildar, Tiruvallur and the Revenue Inspector and all of them found that the complaint was baseless, false and mischievous and rejected the complaints.The name of the Trust has also been recommended for National Award for the year 2008 for Best Children's Home.Not stopping there, the said Rajagopalan and his colleague one Jan-Uwe Burmeister, sent e-mails to the donors of the trust defaming the trust and making false allegations.They have also instigated the former students and staff of the trust to speak against the complainants.As a consequence, A2, mother of A1 preferred a complaint against the second respondent informing that her daughter was outraged byhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 him and based on which, a case was registered in Crime No.363 of 2008 on the file of Vengal Police and upon completion of enquiry, closed as ‘mistake of fact’.Against such finding, A1 and A2 preferred Crl.O.P.No.28037 of 2008 before this Court and pursuant to directions of this Court, investigation was done by CBCID, who found no case against the complainants but registered a case against one G.Palanisamy, Physics Teacher in Mahakavi Bharathiyar Higher Secondary School at Sevalaya, for offences u/s.354 IPC and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and the case was tried in C.C.No.123 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvallur.Even in the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, A1 and A2 had categorically stated that the complaint was prepared by A4, who is an Advocate and they did not know the contents in the complaint since the same was written in English and not explained to them.While so, A4, on 06.01.2009, had intentionally made a highly defamatory statement in a web journal called ‘Web Dunia’ against the second respondent as also against the first respondent trust in an exclusive interview given by him in a bi-weekly called ‘Kumudham Reporter’.That apart, A1 and A3 in the presence of A4, on 27.08.2010, gave an interview in the dailies, namely, ‘Dinathandi’ and ‘Dinakaran’ making defamatory and scurrilous statements relating the complainants with the case in C.C.No.123 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 2009 when the complainants are noway connected with such case.Likewise, accused have made several defamatory statements against complainants.Learned counsel submits that the present complaint has been filed out of vengeance against A4 for brining out the truth against the trust and the trustees and publicly tarnishing their image.Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are nothing to do with the press reports and articles as it is the duty of press to report acts of child abuse and other wrong doings.R.C.No.287 of 2015 dated 25.10.2017, found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt and both the courts below without considering the material available on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and accordingly, acquitted him.O.P.No.17268 of 2008 had quashed a similar complaint which was filed by respondents against one Rajagopalan and another.This Court, after going through the materials placed, found that when the publishers were not arrayed as an accused, the case cannot be proceeded with and quashed the same.In this case also, the gravamen is that the accused had given interviews against respondents to ‘Kumudham Reporter’ and the the same was telecasted in ‘Sun News’ and ‘Polimer News TV’ and ‘NDTV’ channels.Though both the trial and lower appellate Court have rendered a finding of conviction against the said Palanisamy, this Court, under orders in Crl.R.C.No.287 of 2015 dated 25.10.2017, acquitted him.In such proceedings, A4, being an Advocate, assisted the prosecution.The above clearly would reveal that as a counter blast, respondents have preferred the present complaint arraying the complainant, victim and their Advocate as accused. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,275,112 | Arguments heard on the question of admission of this appeal.Having perused the impugned judgment and petition of appeal, this appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of admission of this appeal on behalf of the respondent/State.Hence, no notice is required to be sent to it.Heard on I.A. No.15874/2015, which is the first application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment dated 30.07.15 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.210/2013 State of M.P. through Police Station Patharia, District Damoh Vs.Halkebhai @ Halke and two others, the appellants are convicted and sentenced as under:Default S.No Name of Conviction Sentence Fine Jail .Appellant Sentence 324 of the R.I. for R.I. for I.P.C. two years Rs.5,00/-two Halkebhai and and 1 months @ Halke 25 (1-B) B of R.I. for and on each the Arms three Rs.5,00/-List the case for final hearing upon the receipt of records concerned in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,282,488 | pk CRM No. 1934 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.2.15 in connection with Amta P.S. Case No. 401/14 dated 3.12.14 under Sections 341/354B/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Pran Kumar Porel @ Pran & Anr.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Amta P.S. Case No. 401/14 dated 3.12.14 under Sections 341/354B/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
640,661 | Applicant Ganesh Babu Gupta, being the Managing Director of M/s. G. B. Laboratories Limited, having its registered officer at 7/203-A, Sarup Ngar, Kanpur and being engaged in manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceuties including life saving drugs, applied for loan and he was disbursed a sum of Rs. 14.90, lacs by the U. P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur as against Plot No. 334/1 of which a mortgage deed was executed to the U. P. Financial Corporation against the loan of the aforesaid amount, was situated in village Jamhu, pergana and Tahsil Oraiyya District Etawah.ORDER S.I. Jafri, J.This application for bail on behalf of Ganesh Babu Gupta, applicant traces its origin from Case Crime No. 100 of 1989 in which the applicant was indicted of Section 420/467/468/471/482, 120-B, I.P.C. Gwaltoli Kanpur Nagar.Before coming to brass tacks, I would like to delineate certain preliminaries of the case whcih bears upon the merit of the facts of the instant case.All these conditions shall be fulfilled prior to the release of the applicant on bail.The applicant shall continue to be enlrged on bail if the above conditions are fulfilled.The aforesaid amount, must have swelled up to Rs. 28 lacs or more by now inclusive of interest thereon and in this view of the matter as well as upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I think it a fit case to release the applicant on bail subject to his furnishing two sureties of Rs. 8 lacs each and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of C. M. M. Kanpur. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,069,902 | B of the Indian Penal Code the petitioner has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.The Learned Counsel appearing for the State at the very outset submitted that in the instant case the present petitioner used a forged Power of Attorney purportedly given to him and in his favour by none else than his grand mother- in-law (mother of his wife's mother) and thereafter on the strength of such Power of Attorney he transferred/sold landed property in the name of and in favour of his wife.It was submitted that according to the defacto complainant she never had executed any Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and although the sale deed executed and registered on the strength of such Power of Attorney shows a price of the demised land at Rupees three lakhs thirty one thousand and six hundred and eighty eight only (Rs.331688/-), the petitioner never made any payment to the defacto complainant-his grand mother-in-law and has thereby cheated and deceived her.The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the old lady could not have lodged the present complaint against him because she was well aware that she had executed general Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and the other members of the family are now creating all the troubles.We have gone through the materials in the C.D. Apart from the statements of other witnesses, we have carefully considered the statement of the defacto complainant recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code.It appears that she is an old lady about 87 years of age.Her statement is that she had given responsibility of looking after the disputed landed property situated at village Magura to the present petitioner.It is her further statement that the petitioner has deceived her by obtaining her signature in blank sheets of paper.She has also stated that she did not get any amount of the sale- price from the petitioner.Even if the prosecution case of using forged document can be overlooked for a moment but from the side of the petitioner there is not even a chit of paper to show that he paid the sale-proceeds of the land to the defacto complainant and in that regard prima facie complicity of the petitioner very much transpires.Accordingly we do not consider this to be a fit case for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.I agree (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) (Ashim Kumar Roy,J.) | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
640,713 | The appellants who are three in number with their father, Virsa Singh (Accused No.1) and brother Tara Singh (Accused No.3) [since deceased] were charged for commission of an offence under Sections 148/302/323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.Admittedly, the family of the deceased and the appellants belong to the same village.They have agricultural lands.The parties had disputes both as regard boundaries of their agricultural land as also as regard irrigation of their respective field.On the day of the incident, Kartar Kaur (deceased) brought food for her sons Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh (PW 5 and PW 6) who were working in their agricultural field.When they finished taking their meals, Virsa Singh (Accused No.1) armed with 'Takwa', Kulwant Singh (Appellant No.1) and Tara Singh (Accused No.3) armed with 'Kirpan' each, Sahiba Singh (Appellant No.2) armed with 'Barchha' and Darbara Singh (Appelant No.3) armed with 'Kappa' came near the informant and the deceased from the side of their tubewell.Virsa Singh, allegedly, exhorted the complainant and the deceased to be ready as they had come to teach them a lesson for scrapping the boundaries of the fields; whereupon the first informant Partap Singh, since deceased, and Balkar Singh along with their mother got up.It is contended that Sahiba Singh gave one Barchha blow to Partap Singh in his abdomen and another blow just below his right shoulder in the chest, whereas Virsa Singh assaulted Partap Singh with Takwa on the back of his right hand.Kartar Kaur, mother of the informant, who had tucked her salwar as she waded through the water, came forward and she was given a blow with Kirpan by Kulwant Singh on the back of her left leg, whereupon she fell down.Even thereafter Tara Singh is said to have given Kirpan blow on her left thigh and Virsa Singh gave two Takwa blows on her both wrists.Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh who examined themselves as PW 5 and PW 6 respectively came forward to rescue their mother and brother whereupon Sahiba Singh is said to have given Barchha blow in the abdomen of Avtar Singh (PW 5) and another blow on his left thigh.Accused No.1 allegedly gave blunt side Takwa blow on Balkar Singh (PW 6) on the back of his right hand.It stand admitted that in the aforementioned incident, Darbara Singh and Virsa Singh also suffered injuries which are said to have been inflicted on them by the complainant and his brother purported to be in their self-defence.The accused persons thereafter ran away with their respective weapons whereafter Avtar Singh (PW 5) went to the village and informed his cousin Hardip Singh about the occurrence.A tractor was brought from the village in which Partap Singh and Kartar Kaur were brought to the hospital at Ferozepur.The lady breathed her last on the way whereas Partap Singh was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur.X = cm.oblique in direction on front and upper part of right chest just below the outer half of right clavicle."Injury No.1 was kept under observation for X-ray examination and injury No.3 was kept under observation for surgical report and injury No.2 was declared dangerous to life.In this regard Dr. Mann gave his report Ex.PH and also prepared pictorial diagram Ex.PH/1 showing the seats of injuries.PW 2 Dr. A.S. Mann sent ruqa Ex.PJ to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarad, Ferosepur, regarding the death of Kartar Kaur and arrival of Avtar Singh (Injured)"Dr. J.S. Dalal (PW 3) who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Partap Singh found the following injuries on his person :Under the bandages of both ankles vene section wounds were present medially over both ankles."a blush contusion 3 cms.X 3 cms.J U D G M E N TS.B. SINHA, J :The motive for commission of the said offence on the part of the accused persons is said to be a dispute which took place a day prior to the day of the occurrence between the complainant party and Virsa Singh allegedly on the ground that the complainant party scrapped the boundaries of the fields.However, it is said that the matter had been settled at the instance of one Maura Singh, a resident of the same village.The doctor attending on Partap Singh informed the Police whereupon the S.H.O. of the Police Station came to the Hospital.The statement of Partap Singh, who was seriously injured could not be taken by the police and only at about 4.30 p.m., the first information report was lodged by Avtar Singh.It is not disputed that Partap Singh was medico-legally examined at 12.30 p.m. on 13.6.1987 by Dr. A.S. Mann (PW 2) and the following injuries were found on his person :Oblique incised wound 10 cms.X = cm.and depth varied from muscle deep to bone deep on back of right hand starting from base of index finger and going upwards and medially with bleeding.Incised wound 3 cms.X 1 cm.(at centre) oblique on front and right side of abdomen 5 cms.medial at the level of right anterior superior iliac spine with bleeding.Omentum and a small leap of intestine was coming out of the wound.Abdomen was tender and tense.Incised wound 1.5 cms.On removing bandage of right hand there was an oblique healed wound except in its middle one third.It was 10 cms.long on the back of right hand starting from base of index finger and going upwards and medically.The unhealed wound was pale and on opening it frank pus came out.There were corresponding cuts in the third and fourth metacarpal bones.Horizontal healed wound 1.5 cms.long just below outer half of right clavicle.An oblique wound with clean cut margins 8 cms.X 3.5 cms.muscle deep on the right side of abdomen starting 5 cms.medically and above the right anterior superiod iliac spine and going downwards and medially.The floor of this wound contained plough and on dissection of surrounding tissues frank pus oozed out.A stitched wound 20 cms.long on right side of abdomen just lateral tomid line.On removing stitches there was corresponding out in the perticotniu with stitches.The mesentery had been repaired at many places and small gut at two places.The abdominal cavity contained about 300 grams of chocolate colored foul smelling fluid."Autopsy examination of Kartar Kaur was held about 6.45 p.m. on the same day by Dr. Tirath Goel (PW 1), which disclosed the following injuries on her dead body :i. Incised wound 5 cms.X 2 cms.on the front and lower part of left thigh.Incised wound 10 cms.X 3 cms.on the back of left leg.Underlying vessels and muscles were cut and bones were fractured.Incised wound 5 cms.X 2 cms.on the back of right writ joint.Under lying bones were cut through and through.Incised wound 4 cms.X 1 cm.v. Incised wound 3 cms.X 1 cm.on the back of left writ joint."Accused Darbara Singh was also medico-legally examined by PW 2, Dr. A.S. Mann, at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day and the following injuries were found on his person :Incised wound 11 cms.X 2 cms.oblique in palm of right hand on lower part 2 cms.deep with bleeding.Incised wound 2 cms.X = cm.on palmer aspect of right index finger on the promimal phallanx with bleeding.Injury was 1 cm.Reddish abrasion 1/3 cm.X < cm.on back and upper and of right hand little finger.Reddish abrasion with over lying lacerated wound 1.5 cm.X 1/4 cm.Oblique on back of right and ring finger on proximal phallanx.Injury was 1/3 cm.deep with bleeding.Lacerated wound = cm.X < cm.X 1/3 cm.on back of right hand middle finger on proximal phallanx with bleeding.Incised wound 2.5 cm.X = cm.on palmer aspect of left hand index finger on the distal phallanx with bleeding, 1 cm.Incised wound 3 cms.X = cm.on outer side of root of left thumb with bleeding 1.5 cms.Incised wound 20 cms.X 7 cms.slightly oblique and almost vertical on back of right abdomen crossing the mid line.Depoth could be easily traced upto 10 cms.Incised wound 3 cm.X 2 cms.X 2.5 cms.oblique on postere medial side of left thigh in middle one third with bleeding."Accused No.1, Virsa Singh, was also medico-legally examined by the same doctor at about 2.20 p.m. on that day and following injuries were found on his person.Incised wound 5 cm.X = cm.and bone deep on right side of skull, oblique in direction 6.5 cms.vertically behind the middle of right eye brow with bleeding.Lacerated wound 1 cm.x 1/3 cm.and bone deep in mid line and centre of forehead.Incised wound 8 cms.X = cm.starting from the tip of nose and going transversally over the right cheek varying in depth from = cm to 1 cm.Right ala of nose was cut through and through with bleeding.Incised wound 3.5 cms.X 1.5 cms.transverse in mid line and front of neck 5 cms.below the thyreid cartiledge with bleeding.The depth could be easily traced upto 2 cms.Lacerated wound = cm.x 1/3 cm.x 1/3 cm.on palmer surface of left hand in the we space of thumb and index finger with bleeding."Despite the fact that two of the accused persons were in the hospital itself, they were not arrested immediately as they were undergoing treatment.The injuries on the person of Avtar Singh as found were as under :"1. Lacerated wound 1 cm.x 1 cm.superficial on the front and lower part of left thigh.Fresh bleeding was present on touching.2. Abrasion 1 cm.x 1 cm.on the right side of abdomen 5 cms.above the umlicus."The following injuries were found on the person of Balkar Singh :on back of left hand index finger over the meta carpe phallangeal joint with overlying partially scabbed brownish abrasion 1.5 cms.X < cm."Upon completion of the investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted.By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court disagreeing with the view of the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused persons were guilty of commission of the offences under Section 302 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for life and passed the following sentences :"Name of the accused Offence committed SentenceKulwant SinghU/s 302 IPC for committing murder of Kartar KaurHe shall undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default thereof shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year.Virsa SinghTara SinghDarbara Singh andSahiba Singh U/s 302/149 IPCThey shall undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.Virsa SinghKulwant SinghTara SinghDarbara SinghU/s 302/149 IPC for committing the murder of Partap SinghThey shall undergo imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof shall further undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.Sahiba SinghU/s 323 IPC for causing injuries to Avtar Singh He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Virsa SinghKulwant SinghTara Singh and Darbara SinghU/s 323/149 IPCThey shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default thereof shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.Virsa SinghU/s 323 IPC for causing injuries to Balkar SinghHe shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default therefor, undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Kulwant SinghTara SinghDarbara Singh andSahiba SinghU/s 323/149 IPC They shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default thereof, shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each."All the substantive sentences awarded to the respective accused persons were directed to run concurrently.It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, shall be paid by way of compensation to the heirs of the respective deceased in equal shares.The learned counsel would contend that the alleged immediate cause leading to the occurrence was that Harnam Singh's field used to be irrigated through the water drawn from the tubewell of the complainant and when Darbara Singh was cleaning the water channel, Partap Singh came whereupon the verbal altercation ensued; whereafter they came being armed with weapons and attacked Darbara Singh.According to the learned counsel, Harnam Singh was armed with 'Khund', a hard and blunt weapon whereas Partap Singh came with a sharp-edged weapon and while he was attacked Darbara Singh tried to ward away the attack with his both hands, as a result whereof he suffered as many as five injuries on his two palms.The learned counsel would point out that Darbara Singh was evidently working in the field as he had been found by the doctor to be bare chested.It was contended that only upon noticing Darbara Singh being assaulted with 'Khund', a blunt weapon, Virsa Singh came to his rescue and he had also been attacked and only in the said scenario Virsa Singh exercised his right of private defence.Kartar Kaur, however, who had come in the meanwhile at the place of occurrence unfortunately suffered injuries resulting in her death.Mr. Lalit would urge that had the complainant been not aggressors, there was no reason as to why PW 5 and PW 6 would suffer only minor injuries.Sufferance of such injuries by the said witnesses, Mr. Lalit would contend, is doubtful, as in the opinion of the doctor they could be self-inflicted.Mr. Lalit would further argue that there is nothing on records to show that except Darbara Singh and Virsa Singh, any of the other three accused persons was present at the place of occurrence and participated therein.According to Mr. Lalit, only in the aforementioned fact situation, the trial court found the presence of PW 5 and PW 6 at the place of occurrence to be doubtful and furthermore held that having regard to the injuries on the persons of Darbara Singh and Virsa Singh, they were entitled to exercise their right of private defence.In that view of the matter, the learned counsel would argue, that the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by the leaned Sessions Judge having regard to the fact that the said defence had been raised from the very beginning of the trial.Mr. Lalit would argue that as the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the aforementioned situation was reasonable, the High Court should not have interfered therewith.Mr. OK Khullar and Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the complainant, on the other hand, would submit that from the site plan prepared by the investigating officer, it would appear that the occurrence took place in the field of the first informant.The learned counsel would contend that as the date and place of occurrence as also the nature of offence stand admitted, it was for the accused persons to prove that the informant party were the aggressors and they exercised their right of private defence.According to the prosecution, Balkar Singh had gone to his maternal uncle's place to inform him about the incident and as such he was examined by the police on the next day of occurrence.The materials on records further show that the investigating officer having been informed about the incident by Dr. Mann wanted to record the evidence of Partap Singh as he was an injured witness but as he was not declared fit to make a statement, the statement of PW 5 was recorded and the same was treated as the first information report.We may at the threshold examine the question as to whether the statement of Partap Singh could be treated to be a dying declaration.Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nowhere states that the dying declaration must be recorded in the presence of a Magistrate or in other words no statement which has not been recorded before the Magistrate cannot be treated to be a dying declaration.Only on the fifth day i.e. 18.6.1987, the statement of Partap Singh could be recorded.The allegations made in the first information report and the statements made before the court by PW 5, Avtar Singh and PW 6, Balkar Singh, who were the eye-witnesses as also the dying declaration of Partap Singh clearly indicate the manner in which the offence had been committed and injuries had been inflicted upon the deceased.The autopsy report of Kartar Kaur further demonstrates that injury no.2 inflicted on her, an incised wound of 10 cms.X 3 cms.x 1 cm.(at center) oblique on front and right side of abdomen 5 cms medial, was in the opinion of the doctor was dangerous to his life, which came to be true.The injuries caused on the deceased Kartar Kaur and Partap Singh were found to have been caused within six hours.The boundary dispute between the parties as also a dispute with regard to irrigation of the accused field from the water taken from the tubewell of the complainant are admitted.The statement of Partap Singh is also material.He was seriously injured and was examined by Dr. Tirath Goel (PW-1).Only on the fifth day, he was found fit to make a statement as would appear from the endorsement marked as Ex. P.5/1 made by the Dr. Goel whereupon only a statement was recorded by the investigating officer.The statement of Partap Singh marked as Ex.P00 was recorded on 18.6.1987 by ASI Hukam Singh.The appellants did not dispute the aforementioned facts; neither the statements of PW-1 and PW-9 in this behalf were put to test in cross-examination.The sufferance of minor injuries by PW-5 and PW-6 at the hands of the accused persons appears to be more probable as by the time they realized their position and went to the actual place of occurrence upon collecting their weapons and assaulting Darbara Singh and Virsa Singh therewith, the accused persons might have realized that they had already inflicted fatal blows on Kartar Kaur and Partap Singh and in the meanwhile they had also suffered injuries at the hands of the informant party.Partap Singh suffered two Barchha blows at the hands of Sahiba Singh, one in the abdomen and another in the chest whereas Virsa Singh appears to have inflicted a Takwa blow.These injuries are corroborated by medical evidence.Similarly, the statements made in the first information report as also before the court by PW-5 as regard nature of injuries suffered by Kartar Kaur also stands corroborated by medical evidence.The presence of PW-5 and PW-6 at the place of occurrence cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that the injuries found on their persons were found to be simple in nature.They might have suffered simple injuries because they might have collected their arms so as to make counter attacks after seeing unarmed Kartar Kaur and Partap Singh having been seriously injured.Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code provides for the general exceptions.It is well-settled that the burden to prove the same is on the person who raises such plea.For the purpose of proving the same, the accused may rely upon the materials on records brought by the prosecution in addition to examining the witnesses and adducing positive evidences, if any.A person has a right of private defence of body under Section 97 and in the event it is found that he was entitled to exercise the same, he necessarily must be held to have a right to cause death in terms of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, if there was a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be caused.For arriving at a finding as to the whether the accused persons had legitimately exercised their right of private defence, it is necessary to pass the question as to who had started the assault.She apparently tried to intervene seeing her sons being assaulted with sharp cutting weapons.She had been inflicted with as many as five sharp-cutting injuries, three on the leg and two on the wrist.There does not appear to be any reason as to why an aged lady was done to death.The impact of the blows on her person would be evident from the autopsy report.Apart from the cumulative effect of five injuries inflicted on her person, as noticed hereinbefore, injury no.2 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.It defies common sense, if the prosecution story is accepted that PW-5 and PW-6 were not present at the place of occurrence, that the deceased Partap Singh alone would single handedly attack the accused persons who were five in number and variously armed.Virsa Singh himself and his four sons are said to have taken part in the occurrence.There were five male members on the side of the accused whereas three were there on the side of the informant.The nature of the weapons used in the commission of offence also suggests that they are not ordinarily required to be carried on their persons, even on religious ground.It may be true that Darbara Singh suffered five injuries out of nine injuries on both palms but only because he might have tried to ward off the assault of the blows which were inflicted on him by themselves cannot be conclusive that he was attacked first.Another factor which deserves attention of this Court is that the occurrence which had taken place at about 10.30 a.m. on 13.6.1987 whereafter, PW-5 went back to the village to inform his cousin, brought a tractor and took the injured Kartar Kaur and Partap Singh to hospital.The distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital is said to be about 9 k.m.On the way Kartar Kaur died and Partap Singh was examined at 12.30 p.m. It is not in dispute that they were brought to the hospital by PW-5 and in that view of the matter his presence at the place of occurrence appears more probable.On the other hand, the injured Darbara Singh and Virsa Singh were brought to the hospital by Kulwant Singh at least one hour thereafter.Presence of Kulwant Singh also, thus, appears to be probable.Despite suffering such injuries why they were not rushed to hospital has not been explained.Furthermore, Dr. A.S. Mann (PW-2) immediately informed the officer incharge about the incident.The police came to the hospital, the first information report was lodged at 4.30 p.m. If the informant and his brothers were the aggressors, it was expected, that the injured Darbara Singh and Virsa Singh or the Appellant no.1, Kulwant Singh, would have made such statements before the police officer giving details as to the mode and manner in which the incident had happened and as to how Virsa Singh and Darbara Singh suffered such grievous injuries, particularly when PW 2 in his evidence categorically stated that Virsa Singh was fully conscious and could talk clearly.The records also reveal that weapons of attacks were recovered at the instance of both Kulwant Singh and Sahiba Singh.The spear and kirpan which were recovered were found to be blood-stained.We, therefore, are of the opinion that there does not exist any legal infirmity in the findings of the High Court.For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the accused persons have not been able to discharge their onus of proof that they had killed the deceased in exercise of their right of private defence.The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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. |
640,805 | The prosecution case, in short, is that:-(A) Accused Devi Singh, who was issue-less, had asked Khoob Singh (since deceased) and his brother Shivraj, who were residents of a village in Tehsil Sironj, to come and settle down in his village Dhana.Accused Devi Singh also offered Khoob Singh and Shivraj his agricultural land situated in village Dhana for cultivation and persuaded them to sell their agricultural land situated in Tehsil Sironj.Accused Devi Singh is said to have kept with him the consideration received in the above transaction of sale of land and in exchange handed over possession of a piece of his agricultural land situated in village Dhana about 10-12 years prior to the incident.Accused Devi Singh neither executed a sale deed of the above piece of land in favour of Khoob Singh and Shivraj, nor got the same mutated in their names.Though Khoob Singh and Shivraj cultivated the above piece of land peacefully for about 10-12 years, but thereafter some differences developed between them and accused Devi Singh, thereupon tried to take back the possession of the above land, but they did not allow him to do so.As accused Devi Singh was not handing over the consideration received by him against the sale of the agricultural land, situated in Sironj, Khoob Singh and Shivraj did not give the possession over the land situated in village Dhana.Accused Devi Singh, being issue-less, was keeping accused Anirudh Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Shivraj Singh, who were his nephews, with him in village Dhana.(B) In the above strained background of relations between the parties, at about 8.30 AM, in the morning of 24-5-85, when Khoob Singh was brushing his teeth, all the accused persons came in a tractor to his house, and asked Khoob Singh to accompany them as the time for him to die had come.Accused Devi Singh, Shivraj Singh and Anirudh Singh were armed with guns, whereas Balram, Raghuraj and Sher Singh with farsas, and the" remaining two; Hari Smgh and Gajraj with Lohangi and lathi respectively.On Khoob Singh's refusal to accompany them, accused Anirudh Singh caught hold of him and then all the accused persons made him to sit on the tractor forcibly and thereafter took the tractor towards river side.Shivraj and Sheelrani, brother and wife of Khoob Singh respectively, rushed towards the village raising alarm that Devi Singh and others were taking away Khoob Singh forcibly.In response Munna, Prakash, Kammodha, Mulla, Udda, Mangal, Tijua and Ganpat rushed towards river side.As the tractor carrying the accused persons and Khoob Singh and the above mentioned villagers had followed different routes, for reaching the river side, they happened to come in front of each other at a place known as 'Halkai Ka Khere'.Shivraj and Sheelrani, by standing in front of the moving tractor, forced the accused persons to bring the tractor to a halt.As soon as the tractor became stationary, Khoob Singh jumped out of it and tried to run away.At this juncture, all the accused persons also jumped out of the tractor and Devi Singh exhorted the other accused persons to shoot at him, whereupon Anirudh Singh fired at Khoob Singh.Another Shot was fired at Khoob Singh by accused Devi Singh.Khoob Singh fell on the ground and died an instantaneous death.The villagers, who had come there to save Khoob Singh, were also assaulted by the accused persons as a result of which Mangal, Udda and Mulla sustained several external injures.The accused persons thereafter fled away.The villagers then brought the body of Khoob Singh in the village and the same was kept in the taparia of Kammodha.(C) As they got the information that the accused persons were way-laying on the way to Police Station Bhangarh.JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J.The appellants, in all eight in number, have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21-12-1987, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in S. T. No. 117/87, whereby the appellants stand convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 (appellant No. 7 Anirudh Singh under Section 302 simpliciter) and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC), with sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each respectively.Shivraj went to Police Station Bina and lodged the First Information Report at 3.45 PM.As the place of incident fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bhangarh, this report was forwarded to Police Station Bhangarh, giving rise to the registration of a case at Crime No. 4/85, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.(D) After observing the necessary formalities the body of Khoob Singh was sent for post-mortem examination.In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased Khoob Singh was severe hemorrhage due to the gun shot injury over his chest.On medical examination, injured Mulla was found to have sustained 4 contusions, 1 lacerated wound and 1 abrasion as detailed in the injury report Ex.P/33-A. Udda was also found to have sustained 5 external injuries as detailed in his injury report Ex.P/32-A. Another injured Mangal was found to have sustained 1 contusion, vide injury report Ex./31-A. During the course of investigation, one lathi each from accused persons Hari Singh and Gajraj Singh, one farsa each from accused Seth @ Sher Singh, Raghuraj and Balram; and, one rifle each from accused Devi Singh and Anirudh Singh were seized.After completing the investigation, police Bhangarh charge-sheeted all the eight accused persons for the commission of the offences under Section 147, 148, 342, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses whereas the accused persons examined 10 witnesses in their defence.On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record, the trial court held it proved that deceased Khoob Singh had sustained gun shot wounds in the morning of 24-5-1985, and had died a homicidal death.Similarly, injured persons; Mulla and Udda were also found to have sustained multiple external injuries, whereas Mangal was found to have sustained one contusion in the same incident.Relying upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the other circumstantial evidence on record, the trial court held the accused persons guilty of forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of Khoob Singh and of causing injuries to Mulla, Udda and Mangal and of commission of murder of Khoob Singh and of causing injuries to Mulla, Udda and Mangal by some/all of the members of the above unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their above common object and, therefore, convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above.We have heard Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri S. C. Dart, Senior Counsel for the appellants, and Shri Riyaz Mohammad, Government Advocate, for the State.The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the evidence of the eye-witnesses suffers from serious infirmities and the trial court has erred in not giving due weight to these serious infirmities and in recording the appellants' conviction.The learned counsel further contended that the trial court has erred in rejecting the plea of alibi of accused Devi Singh, though the same stands established beyond doubt on the ocular and documentary evidence led in defence.Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that even if it is held that accused Anirudh Singh and Devi Singh had caused gun shot injuries to deceased Khoob Singh, the other six accused persons cannot be held liable vicariously with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, as the proved facts of the present case fall short of establishing the common object of the unlawful assembly as that of committing murder of Khoob Singh.Taking the above double barrel attack, of the learned counsel for the appellants, head on, the learned Government Advocate strenuously contended that out of the eye-witnesses relied upon by the trial court, three namely; Mulla, Udda and Mangal, are injured eye-witnesses and at least their presence on the place of occurrence is beyond any dispute and their evidence alone, by itself, is sufficient for establishing the charge of murder against the accused persons.The learned Government Advocate went on to argue that the manner in which all the eight accused persons had actively participated in the incident of violence and that three out of these eight were armed with fire arms, and the other five were also armed with weapons like farsa, lathi and lohangi, and that the accused persons even after shooting Khoob Singh dead, continued to participate in the incident of violence by causing multiple external injuries on three injured persons Mulla, Udda and Mangal, establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder of Khoob Singh and to cause injuries to the persons who come in their way.The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted all the eight accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the IPC, and no interference in this appeal is warranted.The facts that deceased Khoob Singh had sustained gun shot wounds and had died a homicidal death, and that injured persons Mulla, Udda and Mangal had sustained external injuries on 24-5-1985, were neither disputed at the trial nor are under challenge before us in this appeal.That apart, there is overwhelming evidence, ocular and medical, on record for establishing the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, we uphold the findings, recorded by the trial court, in that behalf.Out of the 28 witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial; Shivraj Singh PW/1, Munna PW/2, Prakash PW/3, Kammodha PW/4, Mulla PW/5, Udda PW/6, Mangal PW/7, Sheelrani @ Dhan Bai PW/8, Tijua PW/9 and Ganpat PW/10 were examined as eye-witnesses of the incident of assault on deceased Khoob Singh and injured Mulla, Udda and Mangal.Of these, Mulla PW/5 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.Udda PW/8 is an injured eye-witness, as he himself had sustained external injuries in the same incident of violence, wherein deceased Khoob Singh was shot dead.He was examined for his injuries, on 25-5-1985 by Dr. S. L. Thareja.Dr. Thareja found 1 contusion and 1 lacerated wound on his person.Though this witness had complained of pain on the right side of his chest, right leg and right thigh, but no visible external injury was found by the Doctor on these parts of his body.Thus, the fact that Udda had sustained these injuries stands established beyond doubt.According to Udda PW/6 he sustained these injuries in the same incident in which deceased Khoob Singh was shot dead by accused Anirudh Singh and Devi Singh.These injuries on the persons of Udda PW/6 establishes his presence, as an eye-witness, at the time of the incident of assault on deceased Khoob Singh, beyond any shadow of doubt.The Apex Court, while considering the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of an injured eyewitness, in the case of Panchaiah and Ors.v. State of Karntaka, reported in AIR 1994 SC 963, observed in para 4 :As mentioned above PW.5 is an injured witness.The Doctor who examined him found as many as six injuries.The first injury was on the back at the level of the 9th and 10th vertebrae measuring 22 x 5 cms.The second injury again was on the left scapula measuring 24 x 5 cms.The third injury was also on at the same place measuring 15x5 cms.The other three injuries were on the right clavicle, shoulder and knee.The Doctor opined that these injuries could be caused by a cycle chain and the other with the clubs.Therefore, the medical evidence corroborates the version of PW5 when he stated that he was beaten by cycle chain and clubs.Therefore he having received injuries during the same transaction cannot be doubted and his presence at the scene of occurrence is established.No doubt in the cross-examination he stated that all the accused had beaten him indiscriminately.The presence of injuries on a witness confirms his presence during the occurrence.That being so, his evidence assumes great importance.Even if there are some exaggerations, the Court has to examine the same and scrutinize the evidence.Having gone through the evidence and the reasonings of the trial court, we are of the view that it erred in discarding the evidence of PW5 in toto.Without being present and without having witnessed the occurrence, PW5 could not have given the same version in the earlier report because of mere motive or out of consultation.Udda PW/6, in his deposition in the Court, had deposed that in the morning of the fateful day, at about 8.00 AM, when the accused persons were taking away Khoob Singh forcibly in a tractor, his brother Shivraj and wife Sheelrani got the tractor stopped.He further stated that as the tractor came to a halt, Khoob Singh jumped out of the tractor and at this juncture, accused Devi Singh exhorted to shoot at him, whereupon accused Anirudh Singh fired at Khoob Singh, followed by another fire by accused Devi Singh himself, and two fires by accused Shivraj Singh.Accused Hari Singh and Seth @ Sher Singh assaulted him by means of 'lath' (wooden stick), as a result of which he sustained injuries on his back and finger.The accused persons then caused injuries to Mangal and Mulla also.Khoob Singh, who had sustained two gun shot wounds; one on his chest and the other on his hand, died an instantaneous death on the spot itself.The witness then claims to have become unconscious on account of the injuries sustained by him.In spite of a searching cross-examination by the defence, the witness stood firm and his evidence could not be shaken.Though we find certain omissions in his case diary statement - Ex. D/5, but all these omissions relate to the minute details of the incident and not to the broad features of the case.Nothing could be elicited by the defence in his cross-examination, which may be suggestive of any motive, or reason for this witness to depose falsely against the accused persons.On a close scrutiny of his evidence, we are satisfied that he is a truthful witness and his evidence is trustworthy.He has specifically deposed about the presence and participation of all the eight persons i.e. Anirudh Singh, Devi Singh, Shivraj Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Hari Singh, Balram Singh, Seth @ Sher Singh and Balram Singh.Another injured eye-witness Mangal (PW/7) was also found to have sustained 1 contusion by Dr. S. L. Thareja PW/28 on his medical examination, in the morning of 25-5-1985, vide injury report Ex. P/31-A. Thus, the presence of this witness is also established beyond doubt.He too has deposed about the fact that accused Anirudh Singh first fired at Khoob Singh followed by accused Devi Singh and then accused Hari Singh caused injuries to this witness.Though he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing substantial could be brought out which may water down his evidence in any manner.On a re-appreciation of the evidence of these two injured eye-witnesses Udda PW/6 and Mangal PW/7 we are satisfied that the trial court has not committed any illegality in relying upon their evidence in holding that the eight accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly in the morning of 24-5-1985, and two members of this unlawful assembly namely; accused Anirudh Singh and accused Devi Singh, had fired at Khoob Singh leading to his instantaneous death; and, that some members of this assembly had also caused injuries to Mulla, Udda and Mangal.Apart from the above two injured eye-witnesses, there are other eye-witnesses also, examined at the trial.Out of these, the evidence of Shivraj Singh PW/1 and Sheelrani @ Dhan Bai PW/8 stands on a different footing, as both of them have witnessed the incident right from the beginning i.e.... from the forcible lifting of Khoob Singh into the tractor by the accused persons till he was shot dead by accused Anirudh Singh and Devi Singh.As the trial court has scrutinized the evidence of these eye-witnesses very minutely, we do not deem it necessary to dilate much on their evidence.True, there is some discrepancy in the evidence of Shivraj Singh-PW/1, in regard to the overt act of accused Devi Singh, but the same stands reconciled in his cross-examination.So, we have the evidence of as many as 9 eye-witnesses, who have deposed about the presence and participation of all the 8 accused persons in the incident of violence which had taken place in the morning of 24-5-1985, and took the toll of the life of Khoob Singh.When so many witnesses are to depose about the incident, some minor discrepancies here and there are bound to come in their evidence; as the perception, memory and expression differ from person to person.The evidence of a witness, which is otherwise reliable, can never be discarded on account of minor discrepancies.Now, we shall consider the evidence led by accused Devi Singh, in support of his plea of alibi.The trial court has considered this plea and the evidence in that behalf from para 50 to 54 of the judgment.Babulal DW/1, Hamam Singh DW/2, Nathuram DW/3, Kalectar Singh DW/4 and Dr. P. N. Kethoriya DW/7 are the relevant defence witnesses examined at the trial.Accused Devi Singh claims to have remained admitted as an indoor patient, from 16-5-1985 to 30-5-1985 in the hospital at Mungaoli.The documents proved on record in that behalf are bed-head ticket Ex.D/11, prescription slip Ex.So far as the indoor patient register Ex.D/9 is concerned, the same admittedly is not in the proforma prescribed for the Government Hospital.This is just an ordinary register which is not in the printed and prescribed form.On an examination of the entries, before and after the entry relating to accused Devi Singh, we gather that this is not a properly kept register as we find some entries in it which are not at all relevant to that particular month.Similarly, the column relating to the date of discharge has not been filled in against several patients.For the same reasons, the bed-head ticket Ex.The ocular evidence of Babulal DW/1, Harnam Singh DW/2, Nathuram DW/3, Kalectar Singh DW/4 and Dr. P. N. Kethoriya DW/7 also falls short of establishing the plea of alibi of accused Devi Singh, the burden of proof whereof is always on the accused.The trial court has given good reasons for not accepting the plea of alibi of accused Devi Singh and we do not find any material to disagree with the findings, recorded by the trial court, in that behalf.We are, therefore, satisfied that the plea of alibi, taken by accused Devi Singh, was rightly rejected by the trial court.Much was tried to be made of the fact that the names of all the accused persons were not mentioned in the inquest Ex.P/6, requisition memo for post-mortem examination Ex.P/16 and the requisitions for the examinations of the injured persons Ex.We do not deem it necessary to dilate much on this aspect of the case in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court, in the case of George and Ors.According to this Court, the question regarding the details how deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings.In Eqbal Baig v. State of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 476 this Court observed, while dealing with a similar question that the inquest report was not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused were to be mentioned.On this ground also, the finding of the trial court based on the inquest report cannot be sustained."On the above re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it emerges out that the relations of the accused persons with deceased Khoob Singh and his brother Shivraj Singh were strained for quite sometime; in the morning of 24-5-1985, when deceased Khoob Singh was brushing his teeth, all the eight accused persons, armed with various weapons including fire-arms, came there in a tractor and forcibly lifted Khoob Singh into the tractor and thereafter proceeded towards the river side; Khoob Singh's brother Shivraj Singh and wife Sheelrani rushed towards the village raising alarm that the accused persons were taking Khoob Singh forcibly in the tractor; in response several villagers also rushed towards the river side and made the accused persons to stop the tractor; as soon as the tractor came to a halt, Khoob Singh jumped out of the tractor; accused Devi Singh exhorted the other accused persons to shoot at Khoob Singh; accused Anirudh Singh took the lead and fired at Khoob Singh, hitting him on the chest; accused Devi Singh followed him by firing another shot, hitting Khoob Singh on the arm; Khoob Singh died an instantaneous death on the spot itself; the accused persons thereafter caused multiple injuries to Mulla, Udda and Mangal; and, thereafter all the accused persons fled away together.The next question, which crops up for our consideration now, is about the common object of the unlawful assembly i.e. whether it was to commit murder of deceased Khoob Singh, or just was it to assault him and if so, whether accused Anirudh Singh and accused Devi Singh, in their individual capacity, going beyond the common object of the unlawful assembly, shot Khoob Singh dead? It is proved beyond doubt that all the eight accused persons had come together in a tractor to the house of deceased Khoob Singh.It is also established that out of these 8 accused persons, 3 were armed with fire arms, whereas the remaining 5 were armed with farsa, lathi and lohangi.True, at the initial stage of taking Khoob Singh away forcibly, none of the accused persons had caused injuries to anyone, but all of them had gone into action with their respective weapons the moment their tractor was obstructed by the villagers and Khoob Singh, by jumping out of the tractor, tried to run away.After Khoob Singh was shot dead by accused Anirudh Singh and Devi Singh, the other accused persons had also caused injuries to Mulla, Udda and Mangal.All the eight accused persons thereafter fled away together from the place of occurrence.All the above mentioned facts, taken together, establish beyond doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder of Khoob Singh and to cause injuries to one and all who may come in the way.Therefore, all the eight accused persons, who have been proved to be the members of the said unlawful assembly would be liable with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, for the commission of murder of Khoob Singh and for the causing of injuries to Mulla, Udda and Mangal.Thus, we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentences fails and is hereby dismissed in toto.Their conviction under Sections 148, 324/149 and 302/149 (appellant No. 7, Anirudh Singh under Section 302 simpliciter), of the Indian Penal Code, and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and imprisonment for life each, are hereby affirmed.Appellant Amrudh Singh is reported to be in custody.Appellants 1 to 6, namely Devi Singh, Shivraj Singh, Gajraj Singh, Seth @ Sher Singh, Hari Singh, Balram Singh and appellant No. 8 Raghuraj Singh are on bail.They be taken into custody for serving out the balance of their sentences. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,083,398 | Heard on the question of admission.sh Revision is admitted for hearing.e Also heard on I.A.No.1432/2018 an application for suspension ad of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.Pr The applicants stand convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC (on two counts) and sentenced to a hy undergo R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 ad days each, applicant No.1 stands convicted for offence punishable M under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, of additionally, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 days, applicant rt No.2 & 3 stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 325/34 ou of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally they C are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 days each.h Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants ig were on bail during trial and during pendency of appeal.H Considering the short sentence awarded by the trial Court, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.1432/2018 is allowed, subject to deposit of fine amount if not already deposited.It is directed that the custodial sentence of applicants-Inder Singh, Pradeep Singh, Awadhesh Singh be suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Thirty Five Thousand), along with one solvent surety of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicants are directed to appear and mark their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.07.2018 and on such other future dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard, till disposal of the revision.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE Digitally signed by ASHWANI sh PRAJAPATI Date: 2018.02.27 04:43:12 -08'00' e A.Praj.ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
640,858 | On the fateful day of occurrence i.e., on 29.04.1995 at about 9.30 a.m, the deceased along with his sons P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Solaiyan went to the vacant site of A-4 and questioned the conduct of A-4, constructing in the vacant site, which resulted in a wordy quarrel between A-4 and the deceased.At that time, A-4's daughter one Valli was said to have thrown a brick on the deceased and the deceased avoided the blow, which fell on A-4's head, causing bleeding injury. A-4 and her daughter-Valli raised hue and cry and thereafter, all the other accused viz., A-1 to A-3 rushed to the scene and each one of them fetched a Casuarina stick lying at the spot.A-1 beat the deceased on his head with Casuarina stick.The deceased fell down.P.6 is the Accident Register.(d) On the same day, at about 10.05 a.m, P.W.9 Doctor examined A-1. A-1 stated that he was assaulted by five known persons with Stick and Aruval.P.8 is the Wound Certificate.He found the following injuries:-He recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.23 is the First Information Report.(i) In respect of both the cases, viz., the report given by P.W.1 as well as the report given by A-3, P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation in this case, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.24 Rough Sketch.He recovered M.Os.4 to 10-Casuarina sticks and M.O.11-broken brick under Ex.P.3 mahazar from the scene of occurrence.He also recovered M.O.13-Saree, M.O.14-Jacket and M.O.15-inner garment from one Valli under Ex.P.4 mahazar.He examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and recorded their statements.At 4.30 p.m, he recovered bloodstained clothes produced by A-3 and A-4's daughter Valli.Thereafter, he examined some more witnesses.As A-1 to A-3 were taking treatment, he had not arrested them.(j) On 30.04.1995 at about 12.20 p.m, the said Chinnaraj died.The Doctor at St. John's Hospital, Bangalore sent Ex.P.19 death intimation to the Koramangala Police.Ex.P.12 is the wound certificate.(p) P.W.16 received the case records from Koramangala Police and altered the First Information Report in Cr.On 06.05.1995 at about 6.30 a.m, he arrested A-2 and A-3 at Krishnagiri five road junction and thereafter, remanded them to judicial custody.He has sent the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 with a memo to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri for medical examination.He has also examined the other witnesses and sent the material objects for chemical examination through the Court.He has received Ex.P.18 Post-mortem certificate.He also received Ex.P.27, the document relating to the admission of the deceased at St. John's Hospital.He examined P.W.9-Dr.A-1 is the appellant, who has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri made in S.C.No.66 of 1998, dated 31.07.2000 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C, and sentencing him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of four years and imposing a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.There are four accused in this case.The learned trial Judge, disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitted A-2 to A-4 for the charges levelled against them and convicted and sentenced A-1, the appellant herein as stated above.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:-(a) A-4 is the sister of the deceased Chinnaraj.The deceased was proposing to file an appeal against that judgment.Therefore, there were strained feelings between the deceased and the accused party.(b) 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the family of A-4 laid foundation for constructing a toilet in the disputed area.While P.W.1 and others attempted to lift the deceased, A-1 beat P.W.1 on his left knee with Casuarina stick.A-2 beat P.W.1 on his right fore arm with Casuarina stick.A-3 beat P.W.2 on his left thigh with Casuarina stick.P.W.2 also sustained injury on his right index finger at the hands of A-4 with Casuarina stick.Thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 and Solaiyan were said to have attacked A-1 and A-2 with Casuarina stick and the accused ran away from the scene.P.W.1, P.W.2 and Solaiyan took the injured and the deceased to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri.(c) P.W.9-Dr.Rajagopalan attached to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri examined the deceased on 29.04.1995 at 10.00 a.m. The Doctor was informed that the deceased sustained injury at the hands of five known persons with "Thonnai, Crow-bar, Knife and Stick".The deceased was found in an unconscious stage.The Doctor noted a lacerated injury on the forehead of the deceased.P.W.9 Doctor has also sent an intimation to the Police under Ex.He found the following injury on the deceased:-"1.Lacerated wound of size 10 x 1 x 1 cm over the frontal region in the midline with swelling of size 6 x 5 x 2 cm."P.1 at 10.30 a.m. Since the deceased was in a serious condition, on the advise of the Doctor, was taken to St. John's Hospital at Bangalore.P.W.16 returned to Police Station and on the basis of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.562 of 1995 for an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Ex.P.22 is the First Information Report.(h) On the same day, P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector of Police also recorded the statement of A-3 at about 11.00 a.m. at the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and registered a case in Crime No.563 of 1995 for an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Ex.(k) P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Koramangala Police Station stated that he received Ex.P.19 intimation on 01.05.1995 about the death of Chinnaraj from St. Johin's Hospital and thereafter, on the basis of that intimation, he registered a case in U.D.R.No.46/1995 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.20 is the First Information Report.He came to know that already a case was registered by Krishnagiri Town Police Station in respect of the death of the deceased.(l) P.W.15, the Head Constable attached to Koramangala Police Station, went to St. John's Hospital on 01.05.1995 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.P.21 is the inquest report.He has requested for conducting Post-mortem.(m) P.W.13, Dr.Thirunavukkarasu, who was working as Professor in Forensic Science and Medicine Department at Victoria Government Hospital, Bangalore, conducted Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 02.05.1995 at about 9.35 a.m and he found the following injuries:-"1.Sutured wound present over top of head, situated 7 cm above glabella measuring 9 cm in length, obliquely placed.2.Both eyes contused.3.Abrasion present over top of right shoulder measuring 3 cm x 3 cm."P.18 is the Post-mortem certificate.The Doctor was of the opinion that the death occurred due to COMA, as a result of Head injuries sustained by the deceased.(n) P.W.10 Doctor examined P.W.1 on 06.05.1995 at about 11.45 a.m. He found the following injuries:-"1.A scabbed abrasion on the right elbow.2.C/o.Pain on the left knee normal mobility."P.11 is the wound certificate.(o) On the same day and at the same time, P.W.10 Doctor also examined P.W.2 and he found the following injuries:-"1. 3 cm x 2 cm lacerated injury on the right fore arm.(Healing)2. Healed abrasion on the left thigh.3. Healed abrasion on the right lower leg."No.562/95 under Section 324 I.P.C, into one under Section 302 I.P.C, and forwarded Ex.P.26 Express Report to the leaned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and to the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri.(q) P.W.17, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up further investigation in this case and verified the materials collected from P.W.16 including the statement of witnesses recorded by him.Rajagopalan and P.W.10-Dr.(r) After receiving Ex.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, each of the accused have come forward with the version of total denial and they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.They have not chosen to examine any witness on their side.K.Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence.He made the following submissions:-The admitted version of the prosecution is that only the prosecution party are the aggressors.As A-4 was doing construction work in her vacant site, as she has succeeded in the Civil dispute pending between herself and her brother-the deceased and only the deceased along with his sons P.Ws.1, 2 and another son Solaiyan questioned the conduct of A-4, which resulted in a wordy quarrel and ultimately, A-4 sustained injury.Only on hearing the hue and cry of A-4 and her daughter Valli, the other accused viz., A-1 to A-3 rushed to the scene and the fact remains that A-1, A-2 and A-4 also sustained injuries.But there is no proper explanation from the prosecution for the injury sustained by A-1, A-2 and A-4 and as such, the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and the origin of the occurrence has been suppressed.7.Even assuming that A-1 is said to have attacked the deceased, it is quite clear from the evidence adduced on the side of prosecution that as A-1 is entitled to the right of the private defence in respect of mother A-4 as well as in respect of in their property and only while exercising his right of private defence, A-1 must have attacked the deceased and has given a single blow and that too, with the Casuarina stick lying on the spot and as such, he has not exceeded the right of private defence.It is submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 are also injured witnesses and there is no infirmity in their evidence in so far as the prosecution relating to the overt act alleged against A-1, the appellant herein.It is submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 have categorically stated that A-1 beat the deceased with Casuarina stick on his head and P.W.13, Doctor, who has conducted Post-mortem, also found corresponding injury and therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is clearly corroborated by the medical evidence.I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction.The other witnesses viz., P.Ws.4 to 7 have turned hostile.The fact remains that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased and P.W3 is the sister's son of the deceased and as such, all the three witnesses are interested witnesses.Therefore, this Court has to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution.It is also not disputed by the prosecution that A-4 succeeded in the Civil suit and as such, she is having right and title over the disputed property.It is also the version of the prosecution that on the fateful day of occurrence, A-4 was doing construction work in respect of toilet, as already foundation was laid and construction work was going on and on the date of occurrence and at the time of occurrence, the deceased along with his sons P.W.1, P.W.2 and Solaiyan, went to the land of A-4 and quarrelled with her.The case of the prosecution is that the quarrel was going on for more than half-an-hour.Though it is the version of the prosecution that at that time one Valli, the daughter of A-4 came there and thrown a brick stone on the deceased, while the deceased avoided that blow, the said stone fell on the head of A-4, resulting in a bleeding injury, it is pertinent to note that admittedly, A-4 sustained the bleeding injury on her vital part of the body viz., on the head, the vulnerable portion of the body and P.W.9 Doctor found a lacerated injury on the left side head and a contusion on the right hand.The fact remains that there is absolutely no explanation for the injury sustained by A-4 on her right hand.P.W.9 Doctor has also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the first injury viz., a lacerated wound found on the head of A-4 could have been caused by a handle of "Aruval".The undisputed fact remains that the prosecution has not elicited any answer from P.W.9 Doctor that A-4 could have sustained an injury on her head viz., the first injury as per Ex.P.10, wound certificate, on the head due to hit by a brick Stone.Only the defence has elicited in the Cross-examination to the effect that A-4 could have sustained injury by the handle portion of "Aruval".Therefore, the nature of injury found on A-4's head clearly shows that A-4 could not have sustained such injury due to the attack on her by M.O.11-brick stone.It is also pertinent to note that M.O.11-brick itself is half broken and further, it is not identified to be the same stone.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that apart from A-4, A-1 and A-2 also sustained injuries.A-2 has sustained a lacerated wound on his head.A-1 also sustained a lacerated would on his lips.There is no proper explanation from the prosecution in respect of the injury sustained by A-1 and A-2. P.W.1 made a vain attempt to explain the injuries on A-1 and A-2 to the effect that all of them viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 attacked A-1 and A-2 with Casuarina stick.P.W.2 on the other hand, made a vague statement to the effect that all the accused attacked the deceased with Casuarina stick.P.W.3 has not at all whispered a word whether A-1 and A-2 sustained injury at all.Therefore, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and in view of the non-explanation of the injury sustained by the accused, it is very clear that the occurrence could not have taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.13.As already pointed out that A-4 sustained an injury on the vital part viz., on her head, the explanation offered by the prosecution to the effect that the Stone was thrown by A-4's daughter, Valli and the same fell on A-4's head, on the face of it, is unbelievable and unacceptable.Admittedly, A-4 succeeded in the Civil dispute pending between herself and the deceased and she was present only in her land and doing construction work and the prosecution party quarrelled with her, which makes it crystal clear that only the prosecution party are the aggressors.Even as per the prosecution version, only after hearing the hue and cry of A-4 and her daughter Valli, the other accused rushed to the scene of occurrence and they have taken the Casuarina stick, which was lying on the spot and A-1 is said to have given a single blow on the head of the deceased.At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the Investigating Agency has also not properly investigated the complaint given by the accused, which was registered as per Ex.P.23 First Information Report.It is also relevant to note that even the Investigating Officer P.W.16 has categorically admitted that accused 1 to 3 have been admitted in the hospital and they were undergoing treatment.Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accused could have caused a single blow on the head of the deceased, only while exercising his right of private defence which unfortunately proved to be fatal.By no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that A-1 has exceeded his right of private defence, as it is admitted in the version of the prosecution that A-1 has given a single blow and that too, he has fetched a weapon viz., Casuarina stick lying on the spot.He has not given any further blow.Therefore, the inevitable conclusion of this Court is that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused by the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside.Therefore, for the above said reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case in all aspects.As a result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are set aside.The appellant/A-1 is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A-1 shall be refunded to him.12.12.2007Index : YesInternet : YesjrlK.N.BASHA, J.The First Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Dharmapuri District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Criminal Appeal No.645 of 200012.12.2007 | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,086,111 | /506/34 of the Indian Penal Code adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
640,875 | JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J.Appellant Ganesh has been found guilty of causing multiple injuries on deceased Pundlik, by means of a piece of stone, in the morning of 8-4-92, resulting in his death.Appellant's conviction is founded on the eye-witness account of Nathu (P.W. 2), Bhimrao (P.W. 3), Ramdas (P.W. 4) and Lallu (P.W. 5), who have categorically deposed that appellant Ganesh, during the course of a sudden quarrel between him and deceased Pundlik, caused multiple injuries on him by means of a piece of stone.The Trial Court, on the ocular and medical evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, found that deceased Pundlik sustained multiple external injuries in the morning of 8-4-92 and died a homicidal death, on account of those injuries.Relying upon the eye-witness account of Nathu (P.W. 2), Bhimrao (P.W. 3), Ramdas (P.W. 4) and Lallu (P.W. 5), the Trial Court held accused Ganesh guilty of causing those external injuries on the deceased by means of a piece of stone, which ultimately resulted in his death.The Trial Court, on the above findings, convicted and sentenced accused Ganesh as mentioned above.Neena Khera, the learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in recording the appellant's conviction on the eye-witness account of Nathu (P.W. 2), Bhimrao (P.W. 3), Ramdas (P.W. 4) and Lallu (P.W. 5), whose evidence suffers from serious infirmities.The learned Counsel further submitted that as there was no prior ill-will between deceased Pundlik and appellant Ganesh and that deceased Pundlik came to sustain injuries at the hands of appellant Ganesh during the course of sudden quarrel between them, when both of them were under the influence of liquor, the offence against the appellant would not be one of 'Murder', punishable under Section 302, IPC.Shri S.K. Rai, the learned State Counsel, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and contended that the evidence of Nathu (P.W. 2), Bhimrao (P.W. 3), Ramdas (P.W. 4) and Lallu (P.W. 5), is sufficient to establish the charge of 'Murder' against appellant Ganesh beyond any shadow of doubt and as such the Trial Court has rightly convicted appellant Ganesh.The facts that deceased Pundlik sustained multiple external injuries in the morning of 8-4-92 and died a homicidal death on account of the said injuries were neither in dispute before the Trial Court nor are under challenge before us, in this appeal.That apart, there is overwhelming ocular and medical evidence on record which is more than sufficient to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt.We, therefore, uphold the findings recorded by the Trial Court in that behalf.Nathu (P.W. 2) has categorically deposed that on the fateful day appellant Ganesh and deceased Pundlik were consuming liquor on the bank of Poorna river.Suddenly they indulged in a wordy quarrel and during this quarrel appellant Ganesh caused injuries on the deceased by means of a piece of stone.He stood firm in his cross-examination and nothing could be elicited by the defence which may discredit his evidence.We do not find any earthly reason for this witness to depose falsely against the accused.Bhimrao (P.W. 3), Ramdas (P.W. 4) and Lallu (P.W. 5), deposing in line with the evidence of Nathu (P.W. 2), stated that it was appellant Ganesh who during the course of a sudden wordy quarrel caused injuries on deceased Pundlik by means of a piece of stone, resulting in his death.Nothing substantial could be brought out by the defence in their cross-examination which may render their evidence unworthy of credence.On a close scrutiny of the eye-witness account of Nathu (P.W.2), Bhimrao (P.W. 3), Ramdas (P.W. 4) and Lallu (P.W. 5), we do not find any infirmity whatsoever in their evidence.They are truthful witnesses and their evidence has rightly been believed by the Trial Court, in holding appellant Ganesh guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Pundlik by means of a piece of stone, which ultimately resulted in his death.The next question which crops up for our consideration in this appeal is about the nature of the offence proved against appellant Ganesh.Admittedly, there was no prior ill-will between deceased Pundlik and appellant Ganesh.It has come in the evidence that both of them were consuming liquor on the bank of river Poorna.This would further indicate that the relations between the two were quite cordial and intimate.A sudden quarrel appears to have flared up between the two while whey were consuming liquor, which led to the unfortunate assault on deceased Pundlik at the hands of his friend appellant Ganesh, which ultimately resulted in his death.True, the Autopsy Surgeon found multiple external injuries on the body of the deceased, but the appellant is not said to have used any conventional weapon in causing injuries on the deceased.According to the prosecution, appellant Ganesh who was under the influence of liquor suddenly picked up a piece of stone lying there and dealt blows on the deceased.On a cumulative consideration of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we find it difficult to hold with certainty that appellant Ganesh while causing those injuries on his friend deceased Pundlik, by means of a piece of stone during the course of the sudden quarrel between them, had intended to cause his death.The above proved act of appellant Ganesh, therefore, in our considered view would not amount to the offence of 'Murder' punishable under Section 302, IPC.Nevertheless, appellant Ganesh can not escape from the liability of his above proved act altogether.The above proved act of the appellant would certainly amount to the offence of 'Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder', and in the fact situation of the present case would be punishable under Section 304, Part II of the IPC.As for the sentence, on considering the background, nature and manner of the incident and the number and nature of the injuries found on the deceased, we are of the considered view that appellant Ganesh deserves full dose of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence now found proved against him under Section 304, Part II of the IPC.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, filed by appellant Ganesh against his conviction and sentence, is partly allowed.Appellant's conviction under Section 302, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are hereby set aside.Instead, appellant Ganesh is convicted under Section 304, Part II, IPC, and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.The appellant as such has already undergone whole of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, now awarded on his conviction under Section 304, Part II, IPC.We, therefore, direct that appellant Ganesh be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.Criminal Appeal partly allowed. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,088,932 | Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant-accused.Smt. Shaheen Fatima, Panel Lawyer for the State.Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No306/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Panna for offences under Sections 354, 323, 506-B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant- accused has been falsely roped into this case.Thereafter, the case was registered on 2.7.2014 bearing crime no.306/2014 at Police Station, Kotwali, District Panna for the offences under Sections 354, 323 and 506-B of the IPC.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial court.The applicant-accused again moved an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for regular bail.Counsel further pleads that in the said circumstances, it indicates that the date of committing offence has not been mentioned in the written M.Cr.The said report was registered under pressure of the Chairman, Women Commission.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.The alleged offences are not punishable with the imprisonment for more seven years.C. stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K.Mudgal ) Judge YS/ M.Cr. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,090,348 | He 3 M.Cr.The applicant shall mark his presence before the Police Station Physical, Shivpuri on every Monday between 10:30 am to 2:30 pm till filling of the charge-sheet.Shri Devendra Sharma, learned counsel for complainant.I.A.No.9591/2019, an application for assistance of Public Prosecutor.On due consideration, the same is allowed.Shri Devendra Sharma, counsel is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor.I.A. stands disposed of.C. No.48399/2019 Board/Competent Court.Therefore, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicants seeks withdrawal of this application in respect of applicant No.2- Sadik Khan with liberty to prefer his other remedies before competent Court.Prayer accepted.Application so far as applicant No.2-Sadik Khan is concerned has rendered dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought aforesaid.The report shall be submitted by the applicant before the trial Court concerned on 1st of every month.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence."It is not the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a Thought."A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Ashish ASHISH CHAURASIA 2019.11.26 11:48:04 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,093,169 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 8.12.2019 in Case Crime No. 236 of 2019 u/s 363 I.P.C., Added section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mitauli, District Kheri.It has been further contended that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Saddam, involved in Case Crime No. 236 of 2019 u/s 363 I.P.C., Added section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mitauli, District Kheri 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.Order Date :- 16.9.2020 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
640,994 | The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-(a)P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are father, uncle and wife respectively of the deceasedRajendran.The mother of the first accused and the mother of P.W.3 are sisters.P.W.3 was in the habit of freely mingling with menfolk and the same wasmisunderstood by her husband as if she was having illicit intimacy with thosepersons.Due to the said misunderstanding, the deceased used to beat P.W.3 andthere were frequent quarrels.Atabout 8.30 p.m., on their way, when they were nearing Malaiyadipatti Darbar WineShop, they found the deceased and these accused chatting with each other.P.W.4 is the auto driver who took thedeceased, P.Ws.1, 2 and 14 in the auto to the hospital.(c) P.W.6, Dr. Mathialagan, who was then an Assistant Surgeon atRajapalayam Government Hospital admitted the deceased as in-patient on 28.7.2000at 9.30 p.m. The deceased was conscious at that time and he told him that he wasattacked by a known person near Malayadipatti Darbar wine shop.He found as manyas 8 external injuries.He then referred thedeceased to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.P18 is the First Information Report.He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 11.45 p.m. and prepared anobservation mahazar, Ex.P12 in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness.Healso prepared a rough sketch indicating the location of the place of occurrence,which is Ex.He recovered blood stained earth M.O.1 from the place ofoccurrence and sample earth M.O.2, under the mahazar Ex.P13 in the presence ofthe same witnesses.Then he examined P.W.2, P.W.3 and other witnesses.M.O.4 is theblood stained shirt and M.O.5 is the blood stained pant of the deceased.Then hehanded over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for further investigation.(e) P.W.10 was the then Tahsildar of the Rajapalayam Taluk.According tohim, he received phone message from the Government Hospital, Rajapalayamrequesting him to record the dying declaration from the deceased.He reached thehospital at 10.45 p.m. on 28.7.2000 and recorded the dying declaration, Ex.On 2.8.2000, thedeceased died at 9.30 a.m. P.W.7 gave intimation to P.W.15 about the same.Onreceiving the said intimation, P.W.15 prepared an express report under Ex.P20adding the offence under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the same to theJurisdictional Magistrate.He held inquest on the body of the deceased between 2p.m. and 4 p.m. and prepared inquest report Ex.He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 andother witnesses during inquest.Then he forwarded the body of the deceased forautopsy to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.(The judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellant in C.A.No.60 of 2007 is the first accused and the appellantin C.A.No.368 of 2007 is the second accused in S.C.No. 21 of 2002 on the file ofthe learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.The first accused has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and the second accused has beenconvicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and convicted under Section 342 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Challenging the saidconviction and sentence dated 25.2.2005, the appellants have come forward withthese appeals.For the sake of convenience, the appellants are called as per theirranking before the lower court.Thereafter, the deceased and the accused started proceeding towards south.P.Ws.1 and 2 followed them.P.Ws.1 and 2rushed towards them.On seeing them, both the accused fled away from the sceneof occurrence.At that time, P.W.14, who was then working as a Head Constableat Rajapalayam North police station incidentally came there.When he enquiredP.Ws. 1 and 2, they told him that the deceased was attacked by the accused.Thereafter, P.W.14 arranged for an auto.(d)P.W.12 was the then Sub Inspector of Police of Rajapalayam North PoliceStation.He received intimation from the Government Hospital, Rajayapalayam at9.45 p.m. about the admission of the deceased in the hospital.He proceeded tothe hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased at 10.00 p.m andreturned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.427/ 2000 undersections 342 and 307 IPC at 11.00 p.m. Ex.P17 is the statement given by thedeceased.P.W.1 has attested the same.(g) P.W.8, who was then Professor of Forensic Medicine at Madurai MedicalCollege held autopsy on the body of the deceased.He found the followinginjuries:-1) A transversely oblique partly healed sutured stab wound in front of leftchest in 5th intercostal space in midclavicular line 5 cm x 1 cm into enteringthe left pleural cavity.On dissection: the wound passes obliquely downwardsand backwards piercing the underlying intercostal muscles, vessels and nervesand the left lung lower lobe 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm and ends as a point.Left pleural cavity contains 350 ml of serosanguineous fluid.2) A transversely oblique partly healed sutured stab wound in front of rightchest in 6th intercostal space in midclavicular line 4.5 cm x 1 cm x enteringinto the right pleural cavity.On dissection: the wound passes obliquelydownwards, backwards, piercing the underlying intercostal muscles, vessels,nerves and lower lobe of right lung and collapsed 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm and endsas a point.Right pleural cavity contains 300 ml of serosanguineous fluid.3) A transversely oblique partly healed stab wound on right lateral chest in 7thintercostal space in posterior axillary line passing obliquely downwards,forwards piercing the underlying right dome of diaphragm 3 cm x linear x throughand through.4) A transversely oblique partly healed stab wound at right lateral chest costalmargin 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm along the muscle plane.5) A transversely oblique stab wound partly healed on let lateral abdomen 4.5 cmx 0.5 cm x entering the abdominal cavity.6) A transversely oblique partly healed stab wound in left side abdomen frontand lower aspect 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm along the muscle plane.On dissection of Thorax and Abdomen: Stab wound seen right lobe of liver 3 cm x1 cm x through and through with infection.Sutured wounds in the small intestine2 cm x linear.The diaphragm, liver and small intestine and large intestinefound to be sutured.Peritoneal cavity contains 250 ml of foul smellingserosanguineous fluid.Peritoneum and loops of intestines hypareamic, muddy andadherent.7) A transversely oblique partly healed incised wouind in left little fingerproximal phalanx 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.8) A transversely oblique partly healed raised wound over the outer aspect ofleft index finger 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.9) A midline partly healed laporotomy sutured incised wound on the front of theabdomen 18 cm x 0.5 cm - surgical wouind.10) Two intercostal drainage wounds on both lateral chest in the 6th intercostalspace - surgical - with drainage tube inside.11) Two drainage wound on either side of the lower abdomen with drainage tubeinside - surgical treatment.(h) Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate.He has opined that the externalinjuries and the corresponding internal injuries found on the body of thedeceased would have been caused by stabbing with knife.He has further opinedthat the death of the deceased was due to the injuries on the stomach and chestand also due to complications caused due to the said injuries.Duringinterrogation, in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness, the first accusedvolunteered a confession and the same was reduced into writing by him.In thesaid statement he disclosed about the hiding of the knife and also stated thathe would identify the place where the same was hidden and produce the same.P14 is the disclosure statement.At 9.00 a.m. in the presence of the samewitnesses, the second accused volunteered a confession and the same was reducedinto writing.In pursuant to the saiddisclosure statement, the first accused took P.W.15 and the witnesses nearDarbar wine shop and identified a bush and produced M.O.3, knife from the bush.It was recovered under a mahazar Ex.Thereafter, the accused were sent forjudicial remand.P.W.15 continued the investigation and examined few morewitnesses including the Doctor.He also gave requisition letter to thejurisdictional Magistrate for sending the materials objects for chemicalanalysis.P9 is the chemical analyst's report.P10 is the serologist'sreport.Then he laid charge sheet against the accused.The trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the firstaccused and charge under section 302 readwith 34 IPC and another charge undersection 342 IPC against the second accused.Since the accused denied thecharges, they were put on trial.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses wereexamined and 21 documents were marked and M.Os.1 to 5 were produced.Havingconsidered the materials available on record, the trial court convicted andsentenced the accused as aforesaid.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused have come forward with the above appeals.The trial court relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who areeyewitnesses to the occurrence, the dying declaration recorded by P.W.10 underEx.P11 and also other evidences found the accused guilty.The learned counselfor the appellants now contended that the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is tooartificial and they would not have been present at the scene of occurrence andtherefore, their evidence should be disbelieved.The learned counsel wouldfurther add that according to the accident register, viz., Ex.P2, and theevidence of P.W.6, the deceased was admitted at the hospital only by P.W.14 andthere is nothing mentioned in Ex.P2 that P.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied the deceasedto the hospital.Since, P.Ws.1 and 2 are closely related to the deceased, had itbeen true that they were present and witnessed the occurrence, they would havetaken the deceased to the hospital, in which case, either the name of P.W.1 orthe name of P.W.2 would have been mentioned in Ex.P2 as the person who broughtthe deceased to the hospital, which would indicate the presence of P.W.s 1 and2 at the place of occurrence.The learned counsel would further submit that thestatement recorded from P.Ws.1 and 2 have reached the Court only on 4.8.2000,i.e.long after the demise of the deceased which would indicate that thesestatements would have been prepared only after the demise of the deceased.It isalso a suspicious circumstance in respect of the prosecution case.He wouldfurther submit that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not examined during inquest.For allthese reasons, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 should be rejected, the learnedcounsel contended.Added to that it does notreflect the satisfaction of the Tahsildar regarding the mental fitness of thedeceased and also the Doctor has not certified regarding the fitness of thedeceased to give dying declaration.For all these reasons, the learned counselwould contend that the dying declaration Ex.P11 should be rejected.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that thepresence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite natural and there are no reasons to disbelievetheir presence.He would submit that though P.W.1 and 2 are closely related,they would not ventured to leave the real culprit for the purpose of implicatingthe appellants falsely in the case.He would further submit that it is inevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they also accompanied P.W.14 to the hospital.TheDoctor has chosen to mention the name of only one person.One cannot expect theDoctor to record the names of the persons who accompanied the deceased to thehospital.He would further submit that promptness in registering the FIR andforwarding the same to the Court would further strengthen the case of theprosecution.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit thatdying declaration, Ex.P11 also deserves to be accepted.According to him, thoughthere is no record to show the satisfaction of P.W.10 regarding the mentalfitness, the oral evidence of P.W.10 would satisfy the requirement andtherefore, doubts regarding the dying declaration raised by the learned counselfor the appellant are only to be rejected.8.We have considered all the above rival contentions and perused theentire records carefully.Admittedly P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 andclosely related to the deceased and highly interested in the case of theprosecution.At the same time, simply because they happened to be interestedwitnesses, their testimony cannot be straight away rejected.It is settled lawthat their evidences require only to be closely scrutinised.P.W.1 and 2 havegiven cogent reasons as to how they came to the place of occurrence at thecrucial moment.According to them, when they were returning to the house ofP.W.1, they have found the accused along with the deceased engaged in someconversation near the wine shop.Thereafter, according to them, all the threeproceeded towards south and suddenly the second accused caught hold of thedeceased and the first accused indiscriminately stabbed him with knife.Aperusal of the observation mahazar, the sketch and the oral evidences would showthat the occurrence had taken place just by the side of the main road.At thatjuncture, P.W.14, had come to that place incidentally.Quite natural, it wouldbe for P.Ws.1 and 2 to seek the help of P.W.14, who is a police constable.Therefore, P.W.14, assisted by P.Ws.1 and 2, has taken the deceased in the auto,driven by P.W.4 to the hospital at 9.30 p.m.On the strength of the said statement, FIR has been registered.There can not be any controversy that Ex.P1 statement is a dyingdeclaration of the deceased, which is the earliest document available.Beforethat, while admitted at Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, the deceased wasconscious and as per the entry in Ex.P2 and the evidence of P.W.6, the deceasedtold P.W.6 that he was stabbed with knife by a known person at 8.15 p.m. nearthe wine shop.A reading of Ex.P1 would also establish that the occurrence hadtaken place at 8.15 p.m. near the wine shop and he was stabbed by the firstaccused while he was caught hold by the second accused.It is needless to saythat if the dying declaration inspires confidence of the Court, even withoutlooking for any corroboration, this Court can record conviction of the accused.This would be sufficient to hold hat the appellantsare guilty.In order to further strengthen the same, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and2 are very much available.In our considered opinion, there are no reasons todiscredit the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence before the Court.Thecontention of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.Ws.1 and 2 have notaccompanied the deceased to the hospital cannot be accepted in view of theevidence given by P.W.1 that he accompanied the deceased along with P.W.14 tothe hospital.A close scrutiny of cross examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would showthat they accompanied the deceased to the hospital and the same has not beendisputed at all.Further, the contention of the learned counsel for theappellants that the Doctor, P.W.6 has not mentioned in Ex.P2 either the name ofP.W.1 or P.W.2, also cannot be a ground to discredit the evidence of P.Ws.1 andIt is common knowledge that when an injured person is taken to the hospitalby more than one person, the Doctor would chose to mention name of the only oneperson.One cannot expect the Doctor to mention the names of all the personsbecause the Doctor is not doing any investigation to meticulously record all thedetails.Further the Doctor would be worried only about the condition of thepatient and he would not have worried about the meticulous recording of anystatement.Ofcourse, there was a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in forwardingthe statement to the Court.It is needless to say that as per settled law, everystatement, as soon as the same is recorded, should be forwarded to the Courtwithout any delay so as to obviate any doubt regarding the same.In this case,the Investigating Officer has caused some delay in forwarding the statement tothe Court.On that score, we are not prepared to disbelieve the presence ofP.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence regarding their witnessing the occurrence.From that, we have nohesitation to hold that the accused alone have committed the crime.In respect of Ex.P11 recorded by P.W.10, we have to accept thecontention of the learned counsel for the appellants.We are not prepared tobelieve the said document for more than one reason.P.W.10 has stated that hereceived a phone message from the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam requestinghim to come and record the dying declaration.But, P.W.6 has not stated aboutany such intimation ever given to the Tahsildar to come and record thestatement.It cannot be denied that in normal course intimations are sent inwriting, that too, to the learned Judicial Magistrate.In this case, whydeviation was made to send message orally through phone, that too, to aTahsildar, has not been explained by the prosecution.He has furtherstated in chief examination that he only reduced the dying declaration intowriting as spoken to by the deceased.But during cross examination, he hasstated that the dying declaration viz., Ex.We are not able tosee any endorsement in Ex.Apartfrom that, P.W.11 is a witness for the observation mahazar and for the arrest ofthe accused and consequential recovery.A careful scrutiny of the evidence ofP.W.11 would show that no where he has stated about his visit to the hospitalalong with P.W.10 and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.It is alsomysterious as to why P.W.11, who claims to have gone to the hospital to recordthe dying declaration, has not chosen to write the same into his own handwriting.It is also not explained as to how P.W.11 came to the hospital and onwhose request or information.Further, in the oral evidence, P.W.12 has statedthat he obtained the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 as witnesses in the dyingdeclaration recorded on the spot.But, in Ex.But there is only mentioning of the names of P.Ws. 1 and 2 aswitnesses.This crucial aspect also has not been explained by the prosecution.Further the dying declaration has not been recorded in the presence of Doctor byP.W.10 and he has not made any attempt to get any assistance from the Doctor.Aclose scrutiny of Ex.Even the left thumb impressions of the deceased found on two pages, have beenattested in blue ink.But, the signature of PW.10 is not found hear the thumbimpression except at the bottom of the second page where he has signed in greenink with endorsement 'recorded before me'.All the above circumstances wouldclearly indicate that P.W.10 has been set up by the police to create Ex.P11, asif the same was recorded from the deceased.Under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate iscompetent to record dying declaration.According to the Doctor,complications such as, formation of puss, etc., were only due to the injuries.Therefore, from the nature of injuries caused, the weapons used, the location ofinjuries, we are convinced that the accused caused these injuries only with anintention to cause the death of the deceased.Thus the offence committed by thefirst appellant squarely falls under Section 300 IPC punishable under Section302 IPC and the act of the second appellant is one punishable under Section 302read with 34 IPC.The trial court has further convicted the second appellant/ secondaccused for an offence under Section 342 IPC, which in our opinion is notcorrect.The act of the second accused is only catching hold the deceased tofacilitate the first accused to cause the injuries.For the said act, when thereis a conviction recorded under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, there cannot be aseparate conviction under Section 342 IPC for the same act.Therefore, theconviction of the second accused under Section 342 IPC is set aside.In result, C.A.No.60 of 2007 is dismissed and the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant/ first accused is confirmed.C.A.No. 368 of2007 is partly allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/second accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is confirmed; however, theconviction and sentence imposed under Section 342 IPC against the appellant/second accused alone is set aside.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur.The Inspector of Police Rajapalayam North Police Station Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.6.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.7.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,516,335 | The bail application of the co-accused Raghuveer Kushwah has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 15/09/2017 passed in MCRC 10070/2017 i.e. after the prosecutrix was examined. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,528,318 | Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:On 28.11.2006 at about 11.00 p.m., PW1-Imran Khan was returning to his house via LIC square, Nagpur.When he reached near the LIC square, two persons riding on motorcycle stopped him and demanded his mobile.When he refused to part with it, one of the culprits dealt blow of knife on his abdomen.PW1-Imran Khan raised alarm, which attracted passers by.One of the culprits was caught hold by PW1-Imran Khan.Others succeeded in fleeing away.Police also arrived on the spot. PW1-During investigation, spot was inspected by Police in presence of Panchas.One knife and one motorcycle found lying on the spot were seized.The statements of witnesses were recorded.At his instance, one motorcycle, mobile handset and clothes were seized.This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.132/2007 whereby, the accused-appellant herein was convicted for an offence punishable under S.307 r/w S.34 and under S.397 r/w S.34 of the Indian Penal Code (For short "IPC").For the offence punishable under S.397 r/w S.34 of the IPC,he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and for the offence punishable under S.307 r/w S.34 he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::Imran Khan was carried to Mayo Hospital where his statement was recorded and on that basis offence was registered with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur.The accused, who was apprehended on the spot was carried to Police Station and was interrogated.On 29.11.2006, Rohit-A2 was arrested.After investigation, chargesheet was submitted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses.After considering the evidence, mainly that of PW1-Imran Khan, supported by medical evidence and other two witnesses namely PW2-Nishant and PW3-Kishor, learned Sessions Judge held that an offence punishable under S.307 r/w S.34 and under S.397 r/w S.34 of the IPC has been proved against accused no.1 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above.As regards accused nos. 2 and 3, the evidence being insufficient, they came to be acquitted.Mr. R. M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant-According to him, the averments in the FIR do not at all point out that there was theft of any mobile handset.At the most, it points out only an attempt to commit robbery.The learned counsel further criticized conviction of accused no.1 for the offence under S. 397 with the aid of S. 34 of the IPC.According to him, there is no evidence to point out that the accused no.1 was holding knife or was the author of injury sustained by PW1-Imran Khan.Further, there being no proof of the accused no.1 giving knife blow on the person of PW1-Imran Khan, his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: 4 apeal427.07 conviction under S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC is wholly unwarranted.He, therefore, submitted that the judgment impugned may be set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::Mr. Joshi, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State, contended that there is overwhelming evidence to bring home guilt of the accused under S.397 r/w S.34 and under S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC.PW1-Imran Khan related the incident as under:On 28.11.2006 at about 11.00 p.m. he was returning to his house.When he reached near the LIC Sq.four persons came on motorcycle.They demanded his mobile handset.When he refused to part with it, one of them stabbed him in his abdomen.He succeeded in catching hold of one person, whereas, others fled away.Passers by came to his rescue.He was carried to the Mayo Hospital.The accused, who was apprehended, was handed over to the police.According to him, accused no.1 before the Court was the same, who was apprehended on the spot.While he was in the hospital, his statement at Exh.-11 was recorded.He further deposed that accused no.1 was holding a knife and other knife was lying on the road.The evidence of PW1-Imran Khan that he had sustained stab injury, is supported by PW4-Dr. Gajbhiye.On ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: 5 apeal427.07 29.11.2006 he had examined PW1-Imran Khan and admitted him as an indoor patient.Surgery (laparotomy) was performed by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::On the point of incident, there are two more witnesses namely PW2-Nishant and PW3-Kishor.Both were passing by the road and after hearing screams, went to the rescue of PW1-Imran Khan.They saw that the accused no.1 was caught hold by PW1-Imran Khan.They also saw one motorcycle lying on the spot.Police arrived on the spot.PW1-Imran Khan was taken to the hospital, whereas one boy, who was held by PW1-Imran was given in the custody of police.While deposing, PW3-Kishor identified accused no.1 as the same person, who was caught hold by PW1-Imran Khan.Although, both these witnesses had not seen the actual incident, soon after the incident of stabbing, they reached to the spot and saw accused no.1 being held by PW1-Imran and also saw injury on the abdomen of PW1-Imran Khan.The contents in the FIR-Exh.11 are consistent with the prosecution case to the extent that PW1-Imran Khan was intercepted by four persons and they had demanded the mobile handset from him.When he refused to part with it, he was assaulted by knife.Considering the fact that the accused has been charged with S.397 as well as S.307, it is necessary to find out as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: 6 apeal427.07 to whether accused no.1 was the author of the injury sustained by PW1-Imran Khan.A close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by prosecution creates a doubt about the role of accused in possessing knife and inflicting its blow on the person of PW1-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::Imran Khan.What appears is that somebody out of those four persons had caused knife injury on the person of PW1-Imran Khan.FIR Exh.-11 reads as under:"Four persons came on motorcycle and stopped the vehicle and started demanding mobile from me.When I refused to part with it, one out of those four persons had dealt a blow of knife on my abdomen.I suffered injury and hence cried and there was scuffle.I caught hold of one of them.That time remaining three fled away.Some boy from Mominpura carried me on Scooty to Mayo Hospital.I did not give them mobile and, therefore, I was assaulted."This is the end of the FIR.In para 1 of the deposition, PW1-Imran Khan stated as follows:"They demanded mobile phone from me and when I refused to give it, one of the four persons gave a blow of knife on my abdomen.I caught hold of one person but the remaining three persons took away my mobile."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::7 apeal427.07 Thereafter in para 3, he improved upon his version by stating as follows:"The person who was caught hold of by me was holding a knife and other knife was lying on the road."That means he put forth a theory that accused no.1 was holding knife and one more knife was lying on the spot.The evidences of PW2-Nishant and PW3-Kishor are inconsistent with the evidence of PW1-Imran Khan.Even they did not see any knife lying on the spot.PW11-Madhukar is Pancha witness.The Police had shown him one motorcycle and one knife lying on the spot.PW10-PSI Vaidya had reached to the spot, saw one motorcycle and one knife lying on the spot.That being so, the evidence of PW1-Imran Khan that one knife was in the hands of accused no.1 and other knife was lying on the road cannot be accepted.This creates a doubt as to whether he was the accused no.1, who was holding the knife, muchless caused him, stab wound.In that view of the matter, what is in the FIR Exh.-11 that PW1-Imran Khan was assaulted by one of those four and out of them three succeeded in fleeing away, appears more probable and consistent.In that view of the matter, it cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: 8 apeal427.07 held as proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was the accused no.1, who caused stab wound on the person of PW1-Imran Khan.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::As regards PW1-Imran Khan being robbed of his mobile phone, there is substance in the contention of Mr.Daga, learned counsel for the appellant that this is merely a case of attempt to commit robbery.In the FIR, it is categorically mentioned that when PW1-Imran Khan refused to part with the mobile handset, he was assaulted with knife.At the end, he again repeated that because he did not hand over them (accused persons) his mobile handset, he was assaulted.In the FIR there is no mention about the details of mobile handset nor mobile phone number.Both, the Investigating Officers did not state that any additional statement of PW1-Imran Khan was recorded to ascertain the details of mobile handset, mobile phone number etc. Moreover, no attempt was made to find out from the Service Provider as to whom the said number was allotted.As regards Station Diary entry Exh.-46, it appears to be dated 29.11.2006 recorded at 23.15 hrs.That means after 24 hours of the incident.It is not understood how the said document can be admitted in the evidence since it is a reproduction of what was stated to the Police by the witness PW1-Imran Khan.It is not signed by any of the officers.On that basis, the sections under which the offence was registered were noted as S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::The prescribed form of the FIR Exh.-34 further lends corroboration to this fact.It further reveals that the FIR was recorded on 29.11.2006 at 01.30 hrs.That means, whatever is stated, apart from the fact that it is inadmissible, nothing was gathered by Police like mobile number, sim-card, details of mobile and calls.What appears is that only statement of PW1-Imran Khan was recorded only once and thereafter he was never questioned.It, therefore, creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case that there was a robbery and the details of mobile handset were divulged to the police.In that also, offence registered against the accused is shown to be only under S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC.The Arrest Forms Exh.-43 and 44 also point out that both these accused were booked under S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC without there being any mention of S.394 or any other sections.In that view of the matter, there is a substance in the contention of learned counsel for accused that there was merely an attempt to commit robbery.This is, apart ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: 10 apeal427.07 from the fact that the recovery of mobile, at the instance of accused no.3, has not been proved.Moreover, a very strange procedure was adopted by the Investigating Officer in calling PW1-Imran Khan to Police Station and showing him mobile handset.Absolutely, nothing prevented the Police Officers in collecting call details from the Service Provider.Therefore, what appears to have been established by the prosecution is that while attempting to commit robbery, one of the four assailants caused stab wound on the person of PW1-Imran Khan.Accused no.1 was amongst those four persons and was apprehended on the spot.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::L. J. 1703; the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Ss.302; 394 of the IPC.L. J. 3458, the Court held as follows:"However since common intention of other accused was not to cause death of deceased but only to relieve her of her ornament, accused who assaulted her with tabbal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: 14 apeal427.07 convicted for offence of murder and other accused convicted for offence of robbery."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::In the light of aforesaid legal position and in the premise of the evidence brought on record, the conviction of the accused under S.397 r/w S.34 and S.307 r/w S.34 of the IPC will have to be set aside.43 supports his contention about the age of accused at the time of incident.He further contended that the appellant-accused had performed marriage and has children and is leading a peaceful life by serving as driver of the vehicle.Considering the gravity of the offence in which the PW1-Imran Khan was stabbed on vital part by one of the four culprits in the night and on public road, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone i.e. about 270 days would amount to showing too much leniency.In such a case,punishment has to be of deterrent nature.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, two years' imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::In this view of the matter, following order is passed.The appeal is allowed partly.The judgment and order dated 12.09.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.132/2007, convicting the appellant/accused no.1 for an offence punishable under S.397 r/w S.34 and under S.307 r/w S. 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside.The accused, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out remaining part of the sentence.Two weeks time is granted to surrender.JUDGE kahale ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:36 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,531,785 | In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.12.2019 in connection with All Women Kharagpur P.S case no. 42 of 2019 dated 11.12.2019 under section 354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Ajay Kumar Singh @A.K. Singh & Anr. ...... petitioners Mr. N K Das Mr. P B Banerjee ...... for the petitioners Mr. R Sengupta ...... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are the railway employees and had gone to the spot to remove unauthorized encroachment on railway land.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials in the case diary including the statement of the victim in the light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and as possibility of false implication of the petitioners cannot be wholly ruled out, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- 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 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the petitioners shall appear 2 before the court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.The application being CRM 12269 of 2019 is disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,531,836 | Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The deceased was the wife of the applicant who, died after 10 years of her marriage.Looking to allegations made against the applicant they do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of I.P.C. No alleged offence is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, applicants prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
645,367 | Invoking the inherent power of this Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., the petitioner, the Manager of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai has filed the present petition to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy in Crl.R.C. No. 26 of 1993 dated 15-6-1993 confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai made in Crl.M.P. No. 2960 of 1993 dated 13-1-1993 which was filed on his behalf under S. 451 of Criminal P.C. praying for the interim custody of a cash property of Rs. 33,35,766.25/- in the judicial custody.The short facts which lead to this petition as culled out from the records of the Courts below are stated as follows.While the van was coming along the main road within the jurisdiction of the respondent police, an incident of highway robbery had taken place by intercepting the said van by about 13 persons armed with weapons and fire-arms at about 9 a.m. on that day and consequently, except a portion of the cash which merely consisted of currency of various denominations duly bundled and packed in several trunk boxes, the major portion of the cash having been decamped and robbed by the accused persons.For the abovesaid reason, the learned Addl. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
645,414 | Saroj Bala) and hold her at ranson.Theapplicant emphatically and repeatedly read out the lewdpassages from his deposition while arguing the revision, butrecitals are not worth reproduction in the judgment.Suffice it to observe that the arguments of the applicant,so vehement and pungent, marked with sarcasm and sneer, donot impart any strength to his case which is inherentlyunbelievable.The learnedJudge asked him to appear in the prescribed formal attirefor being heard in his professional capacity.The alleged contemner-Ajay Kumar Pandey, apractising advocate, filed a criminal complaint against anAdvocate Mr. Mahesh Gir and an Additional District Judge,Ms.Saroj Bala, then posted as VII Additional DistrictJudge, Lucknow, under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, after firstserving them with a notice demanding compensation fordefaming him.The allegations made in that complaint arenot relevant for our purpose.He thereafter filed a criminal Revision inthe High Court which was also dismissed by a learned singleJudge of the High Court (Virendra Saran,J) on 15.2.1995.While dismissing the revision petition, the learned singleJudge inter alia observed :-They are submissions directed more towardsvilification than substantiation of the pivotal points ofthe case.I was constrained to ask the applicant not tomake savage additions to the evidence and show restraint inhis colloquy."The alleged contemner, thereafter, filed SpecialLeave Petition (Crl.) Nos.819-820 of 1996 against thejudgment of Virendra Saran, J dated 15.2.1995.It appears that the alleged contemner had filedanother complaint on 12.9.1994 under Sections 500 and 504IPC against seven advocates namely (1) Shri Prakash NarayanAwasthi (2) Shri R.P.Misra (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh (4)Shri T.N.Misra (5) Shri Srikant Verma (6) Shri Pankaj Sinhaand (7) Shri N.C.Pradhan, in which it was alleged that thoseadvocates had made defamatory imputations regarding therelationship between him and Ms.In that complaint an application giving a list of 31advocates for being summoned as witnesses was filed.Thatapplication was rejected by the Trial Court.He, therefore,filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995 againstthat order.Ajay Kumar Pandey, the alleged contemner has alsofiled following Contempt Petitions (Cr1.) in this Court :Contempt Petition (Cr1.) Dy.No.16199/95filed on 28th Oct. 1995Against Mr. Justice Virendra saran, Judge, HighCourt of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench;Contempt Petition (Cr1.) Dy.District Judge, Lucknow.II Shri Udai L Raj, V A C J, Lucknow.C J M.Contempt Petition (Cr1.) Dy.filledon 9th Nov., 1995 against the following respondents:I Shri J C Mishra, Distt.Judge, Lucknow.II Shri K N Ojha, II A D J, Lucknow.III Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A D J., Lucknow.IV Shri B N Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.P.C. had also been moved and the same is still pending.The petitioner raised the law point regarding the summoning of witnesses in enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. in Criminal REvision No. 289/94 but the Allahabad High Court never decided the revision on its merits and Mr.Virendra Saran, the Hon'ble Judge, who heard the arguments fraudulently, forgedly and maliciously dismissed the revision."On 15th December, 1996 the following order was madeby the Bench :-"In all these petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild, intemperate and even abusive language on the named Judges has been made at various places in each one of the petitions.The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself the liberty of using such expressions, which prima facie tend to scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters and thus have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner, but on his request grant him six weeks time to delate all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file fresh petitions.He shall also remove the other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions.If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks.6.That the petitioner is not in position to remove anything and the deliberate in Justice, fraud, cheating etc. had been done by the contemnors for concealing their nefarious acts and even they had gone to this extent to destroy the judicial records and fabricated some judicial papers.( under lined by us)Thus it is seen that instead of removing theobjectionable expressions, which prima facie have thetendendy to scandalize the court/courts in relation tojudicial matters and have the tendency to interfere with thedue administration of justice and which expressions per-seare an attack on various judges, who had dealt with thecomplaint filed by him at the original or the revisionalstage, in most indecent, wild, intemperate and abusivelanguage, he asserted that he was not obliged to remove anyof these passages and that this court was 'bound' to hear himon merits.He declined to remove the objectionableexpressions and insisted on being heard.He was directed to file his reply within 8 weeks.That is how the contempt proceeding (Contempt Petition Cr1.No.2/96) came to registered against the alleged contemner inthis Court.The Special Leave Petition (Cr1.) No. 4114 of 1995and the two other Special Leave Petitions alongwith somemisc.Petitions were dismissed by the Bench both on accountof the objectionable language used in the memorandum of thosepetitions as also on merits.The alleged contemner did not file his objections orreply to the Rule in the Contempt proceedings and insteadfiled two applications seeking recall/review of the orderdated 20th February, 1996 (supra).dismissing S.L.P.(Cr1.)No.4114/95, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.6242-6243/95, and S.L.P. (Cr1.) 819-820 of 1996 as alsoagainst the Rule issued to him to show cause why he shouldnot be punished for committing contempt of court.On 27.9.1996 while dealing with the applicationsfiled by the contemner, the following order was made :-We have examined the application and find that the prayer for recall of the order is misconceived for more than one reasons.The order dated 9th Aug., 1996 is an order in continuation of the order dated 20th February, 1996, the prayer to recall which has already been rejected.By the order dated 9th Aug., 1996 the review petitions filed by the respondent were also dismissed.The prayer for recall of the order dated 9th Aug., 1996 under the circumstances has no merit and is rejected.The alleged contemner as already noticed had notappeared in the Court on 27th September, 1996, but it appearsthat he was present in the Court premises as soon after theabove order was made, he filed an application on that veryday explaining the reasons for his absence and praying forrecall of the bailable warrants.The application wassupported by an affidavit.Since on the next date he appearedin the Court, the bailable warrants were recalled.When the case came up forconsideration on 3rd March, 1997, the respondent was producedin custody in Court.The order dated 3rd March, 1997 interalia records :"Mr. Pandey was asked if he was making any prayer for release on bail and he submitted that he cannot provide any surety at Delhi.We, therefore, consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice to direct that respondent, Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, where he may be produced for the said purpose.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow shall release him on bail on his personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- after obtaining an undertaking from him for his appearance in this court on the next date of hearing which is fixed as 25.4.1997, on which date final arguments in this contempt case shall be heard in this case.He was apprised that his prayer for transfer of the case to some other bench has been rejected by the learned Chief Justice.The case, was thereafter, adjourned from time totime and on 22nd August, 1997, following order was made whenthe alleged contemner once again remained absent despiteservice :The contemner shall betaken into custody to undergo the sentence. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,553,369 | Heard Sri Meraj Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 722 of 2019 (Sahabudeen vs. State of U.P.) rejection order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act Basti in Case Crime No.0118 of 2019 under Section 376, 504, IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C.and S.T. Act, 1989 (Amended 2015) Police Station-Munderwa, District-Basti.As per F.I.R. which has been lodged by opposite party No.2 after three month on 01.07.2019 in respect of the incident, which took place on 01.07.2019 alleging that she is living with her Mausi and when she is alone in home, on 04.03.2019 at about 8.00 pm.in night applicant entered in the house and made forcefully illegal sexual relation but due to terror she did not made complaint, when she aware that she is pregnant about 3 month then she lodged the F.I.R.The case was registered under Section 376, 504 and 506 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act Munderwa, District Basti against the sole named accused Sahabudeen.Story narrated in F.I.R. that while she was staying all alone after the demise of her mausi, the appellant Sahabudeen who resides in the neighbourhood has developed intimacy and started visiting her place quite often.On a fateful day i.e. 04.03.2019 at about 8.00 evening forcefully after extending the threat to her life has established corporeal relationship with her and on account of threat of her life and her reputation, she did not disclose this fact.After about 15 days from the date of lodging the F.I.R. she got her medical examination done and then she came to know she has pregnant by three months.After this she has raised the castle of the prosecution story on this premises.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to (Annexure No.2) which is Marriage certificate issued by Special Marriage Officer/S.D.M. (F & R)) Siddharth Nagar dated 02.08.2015/ 19.11.2015 under Section 13/16 of the Special Marriage Act whereby both were got married and residing as husband and wife.In this proceedings too she was addressed as Anita w/o Sahabudeen.It has further been submitted that if he enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the Marriage Certificate Annexure No.2 is a false certificate but unable to show anything contrary to the Mediation report Annexue no.6, whereby she herself stated that she has now no grudge with the parents of the appellant and now they are residing as a married couple.The 164 Cr.P.C. statement is too concocted one whereby she has purposely concealed the material fact that she is married wife of the appellant.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, period of incarceration undergone by him and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the appellant- Sahabudeen, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable 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:-IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
64,553,725 | A complaint was made by Vimlesh on 19.04.1998 to SHO Police Station, Gokul Puri who directed her to approach Women Cell.Consequently, on 22.04.1998, another complaint was submitted to Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Crime Branch Cell, Welcome, Delhi.A compromise was entered into inter se parties on 26.05.1998 on the assurance given by the accused persons not to harass Vimlesh and as such Vimlesh prayed for closure of her complaint and returned back to her matrimonial home.On 30.05.1998, she was set on fire at about 12 noon.According to the prosecution, Vimlesh was pushed by her mother- in-law over a burning kerosene stove and her father-in-law had attempted to commit rape on her on the previous night.The statement was recorded in question-answer form and is to the following effect:today to prepare tea.My mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on me from back and pushed me towards the stove and I got burnt.(kundi) and firmly held the doors and did not allow me to come out.Thereafter I shouted.Mohallawalas came and saved me.Q. Who was present at the house at the time of incident?yesterday night.I told my mother-in-law about this.She said that I was making the allegations against her husband and she would take revenge.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 9 of 31in-law had tried to do 'galat kam' with me several times and my mother-in-law burnt me."According to SDM, he did not specifically enquire from the patient whether she was mentally fit to give her statement, however, he himself assured that by way of talking she was well-oriented and fit for making statement.Although he did not get the fitness certificate of the doctor on the statement, but according to him, the same was taken on MLC.PW3/A of Vimlesh was prepared by PW3 Dr. V.K. Jain.As per the Crl.When she disclosed this fact to her husband, there was a quarrel in the house.She also informed her that when her father-in-law attempted to Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 16 of 31 commit rape on her, she confided to her mother-in-law.As a reaction to that, her mother-in-law threatened her to set her on fire if she complained about it.Next day, when her husband had gone for his work, her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.Further, as per the information given by Dr. K.K. Banerjee, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the cause of death was septicaemia as a result of superficial deep ante mortem burn injuries Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 17 of 31 covering 100% body surface.As per dying declaration, Vimlesh had shown a match stick to the stove in order to prepare tea.Her mother-in- law poured kerosene oil on her from the back and pushed her towards the stove and she got burnt.The unfortunate incident has taken place within the matrimonial home.Both these witnesses have deposed that on hearing the noise in the street "aag lag gai" they rushed to the house of Mahender where they found Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 21 of 31 wife of Harbans lying burnt in the courtyard.He had not even accompanied Vimlesh and Harbans Kumar to the hospital.He also could not say as to how Vimlesh sustained burn injuries because, according to him, he came at the scene when she was already burnt.Presence of DW2 Kalyan Singh at the spot was highly doubtful inasmuch as, as per his own version, he was working in a factory at Sita Ram Bazar.His duty hours were from 10 am to 6.30/7.00 pm.Explanation appended to the Section defines cruelty.As per Explanation (b) "cruelty" means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.Adverting to the case in hand, the dying declaration made by the deceased reflects the treatment which was meted out to her by the accused persons.She has specifically stated before the SDM that she was Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 23 of 31 harassed by her mother-in-law and father-in-law as they used to ask her to bring scooter and Rs.20,000/-.This dying declaration finds substantial corroboration from the oral testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence.PW1 Chandrawati, mother of the deceased, has deposed that after a week of her marriage, when Vimlesh came to her house, she informed her that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were demanding a colour TV and Rs.20,000/- cash.She further informed her that she was being tortured and beaten for this reason.Her husband along with some of the relatives had gone to the house of accused persons in order to take Vimlesh with them on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, but accused persons refused to send her till their demands are met, as such, her husband and relatives returned back without taking her.After few days, she was again beaten by both the accused persons.Her daughter and her husband were forced to leave the house by the accused persons till their demands were fulfilled.As such, a complaint was made at PS Gokal Puri and thereafter at CAW Cell.Initially, the accused did not attend the hearing at CAW cell, but thereafter they attended the proceedings and promised not to demand any dowry from Vimlesh and her husband.As such, the Crl. A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 24 of 31 matter was compromised.She was taken to her matrimonial home by the accused persons and after 2-3 days, this incident had taken place.Her testimony in this regard finds substantial corroboration from PW6 Girish Babu who has also deposed that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry but thereafter accused Mahender and Rajwati started demanding colour TV, Rs.20,000/- and scooter first from Vimlesh and thereafter from him.However, both the accused persons refused to send her.Accused Mahender also demanded the aforesaid articles and cash of Rs.20,000/- from him on that date.Rajwati also told him that they would send Vimlesh to her parents house only if they meet their demands.Thereafter, he returned from there.Later on, he went to the house of accused along with some of his relatives in order to pacify them and also told them that he was not in a position to meet such high demands, but the accused persons were not ready to listen to him.He further deposed that on 16.04.1998, Vimlesh was turned out of her house by the accused persons.Harbans along with Vimlesh came to his house and informed him that they have been turned out of the house and would be allowed to stay only if they would bring Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 25 of 31 the aforesaid articles.He advised Harbans to contact his relatives as his own parents were harassing them.The ocular testimony of both these witnesses finds corroboration from documentary evidence.This witness has deposed that on 23.04.1998, he received a complaint Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B given by Vimlesh alleging torture and harassment and demand of dowry, particularly scooter by her in-laws i.e. Rajwati and Mahender.During the course of enquiry and proceedings in CAW Cell, on persistence of accused persons, Vimlesh, although reluctant to go back to her matrimonial home but at last agreed and thereafter the accused persons Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 26 of 31 took her to their house after giving an assurance in writing that she would live with her husband separately and the accused persons will have no interference.In view of the compromise, Vimlesh requested to close her complaint.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants Rajwati for offence under Section 302/498A/34 and Mahender for offence under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code is under challenge in these appeals.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 1 of 31A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 1 of 31Harbans Kumar was also informed and when he reached the house, PCR officials were already present.Vimlesh was taken to GTB Hospital where she breathed her last on 03.06.1998 at 4.15 am.It was found that she had suffered Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 2 of 31 100% burns, but before that, her dying declaration was recorded by PW13 - Mr. Vinay Bhushan, SDM.According to prosecution, before recording this dying declaration, an opinion was taken about her fitness.Nineteen (19) witnesses were examined at the trial including her relatives, husband, Investigating team, Magistrate and the doctor.The learned Trial Court convicted both the appellants as mentioned hereinbefore, while acquitting Mahender Singh of the charge under Section 376/511 of Indian Penal Code.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 2 of 31It was also stated that the deceased was staying separately with her husband at the first floor of the house.She wanted transfer of the house in her name.Two witnesses were examined in defence.The defence pleaded by the appellants did not prevail and that is how the appellants are before us.The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the appellants was against the dying declaration.It was claimed that dying declaration is not voluntary.Learned counsel for the appellants earnestly argued that Crl. A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 3 of 31 there were some intrinsic defects in the dying declaration which militated against its credibility.It was also suggested that the evidence of Smt. Chandrawati and Girish Babu who claimed that an oral dying declaration was made to them, was also not reliable because of material improvements.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 3 of 31The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.PW13/A which bears her thumb impression.Even according to PW3 Dr. V.K. Jain, who examined the patient and prepared her MLC Ex.PW3/A, the patient was conscious and well- oriented.She was fit for statement.What impresses us most about the dying declaration is that firstly it has been recorded by an independent witness like PW13 Mr. Vinay Bhushan, who was working as SDM Shahdara and secondly, before it commenced, the Magistrate had satisfied himself about the ability of Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 10 of 31 Vimlesh to make a dying declaration.,(2013)14 SCC 159 and the question for consideration in that case also was whether a 100% burnt person can make a dying declaration or put a thumb impression.In that case, reliance was placed on Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 2186, where also question arose with respect to whether a person suffering from 99% burn injuries could be deemed capable enough for the purpose of making a dying declaration.The learned Trial Judge thought that the same was not at all possible as the victim had gone into Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 11 of 31 shock after receiving such high degree burns.The moment the deceased had seen the flame, she was likely to have sustained mental shock.Development of such shock was the ground on which the Trial Court had disbelieved the medical evidence.Hence in the light of the facts of the case, the dying declaration made was found to be worthy of reliance, as the same had been made truthfully and voluntarily.There was no evidence on record to suggest that the victim had provided a tutored version and the argument of the defence stating that condition of deceased was so serious that she could not have made such a statement was not accepted, and dying declarations were relied upon.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 12 of 31 MLC, the patient was brought by her husband Harbans, son of Mahender Singh.The alleged history was given by the informant himself to the following effect:A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 12 of 31"Alleged history of burn by being pushed by mother-in-law over a burning kerosene stove" alleged history of "rape yesterday night by father-in-law."On examination, doctor found the patient to be conscious and well-oriented.She was fit for making statement.There is no challenge to his testimony that Vimlesh was not in a fit condition to make statement.Vimlesh has been consistent throughout, firstly at the time when doctor asked her as to how she sustained injuries and secondly when she made a dying declaration before the SDM.A vague attempt was made to assassinate the character of Vimlesh by emphasising on the word multi gravida appearing in the MLC Ex.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 13 of 31Lastly, a point was raised by learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution has failed to prove that kerosene oil was poured on Vimlesh as a result of which she died.It is to be seen that seizure of one kerosene stove, one plastic can in burnt condition, one saree in burnt condition vide memo Ex.PW19/C was proved by PW19 SI Chander Bhan Singh.PW4 Dr. K.K. Banerjee, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Vimlesh had handed over scalp hair and vaginal swab and slides duly preserved and sealed to the Investigating Officer of the case who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW11/A. According to the Investigating Officer, he had sent the seized articles to FSL, Malviya Nagar but the same were not accepted by the laboratory as they were not having the facility of chemical analysis for kerosene.But, if the prosecution is able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused inspite of lapses, the accused cannot be acquitted because of the lapse on the part of investigating officer.Substantially similar view was taken in C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2010) 9 CC 567 where it was held that the defect in investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.If primacy is given to such design or negligent investigation or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of people in criminal justice administration would be eroded.Where there has been negligence on the part of investigating agency or omissions etc which resulted in defective Crl.The conclusion of trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.In cross- examination, however, she tried to improve her version by deposing that Vimlesh told her that her father-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and her mother-in-law set her on fire.Even father of the deceased, Girish Babu has deposed that Vimlesh informed him that both the accused set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil.As such, although in the statements of mother and father of the deceased, complicity of father-in-law in the crime is also tried to be established, but in view of the fact that this fact does not find mention in the initial history given by the deceased to Dr. V.K. Jain and subsequently in her dying declaration made before Shri Vinay Bhushan SDM, only mother-in-law was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was rightly convicted by learned Trial Court.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 16 of 31Harbans, husband of the deceased, had gone for his work, as such, only her in-laws were available in the house at the time of incident.Hence, it was for them to explain as to how Vimlesh sustained burn injuries.Such explanation could have been given by them when all the incriminating evidence was put to them while recording their statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure or by way of eliciting answer in cross examination of prosecution witnesses or by examining themselves under Section 315 Cr.PC or by leading defence evidence.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 17 of 31As regards eliciting answers by way of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or suggestions given to them, a perusal of record goes to show that various suggestions were given to the prosecution witnesses, which were denied by them.PW1 Chandrawati denied that her daughter did not tell her about attempt of rape by her father-in-law or that she had made a false story in order to malign him.She also denied Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 18 of 31 that the deceased was harassing the accused persons and was compelling them to transfer the house in her name or that when they did not oblige her, she committed suicide.She also denied that she being the step- mother had been ill-treating her when she visited her house or that she tried to kill her by administering poison or that she (deceased) was fed up by her conduct and day-to-day interferences in her married life and, therefore, committed suicide.PW6 Girish Babu also denied the suggestion that Chandrawati used to torture Vimlesh or that Vimlesh was fed up with the misbehaviour of his wife or that Chandrawati had administered "chuhe marne wali dava" to her and her stepmother had once tried to hang her with the ceiling fan and tried to kill her.PW5 Maya Devi tried to support the defence story by deposing that Vimlesh wanted transfer of house in her name but her father-in-law did not oblige.She also supported the defence of accused persons regarding attempt to murder Vimlesh by Smt. Chandrawati, by administering "chuhe marne wali dava" and by hanging of Vimlesh.The suggestion given to the prosecution witnesses were denied by them and the testimony of Maya Devi does not inspire confidence inasmuch as she was only a witness to the arrest of accused Rajwati on 31.05.1998 and Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 19 of 31 her personal search taken vide memo Ex.PW5/A. However, in her cross examination she tried to favour the accused persons by deposing on the lines as suggested by them.If the relations between Vimlesh and Chandrawati were so much strained that she attempted to take her life by administering poison or by hanging her, there would have been no occasion for Vimlesh and her husband Harbans to go to her parents house when they were turned out by the accused persons.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 18 of 31When an alibi is set up, the burden is on the accused to lend credence to the defence put up by him/her.The incident took place on 30th May, 1998 at around 12 noon.It was a Saturday, as such, there was no occasion for him to be present at the Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 22 of 31 house.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 21 of 31A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 22 of 31In view of the foregoing, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Rajwati who pushed Vimlesh on a burning stove and poured kerosene oil, as a result of which she sustained 100% burn injuries and later succumbed to her injuries.That being so, she was rightly convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge for offence under Section 302 IPC.Coming to Section 498A Indian Penal Code, it was amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 with a view to deal with menace of dowry deaths.Thereafter, a complaint was made by Harbans and Vimlesh on 19.04.1998 at Police Station Gokul Puri and then to CAW Cell.Initially, the accused persons did not attend the proceedings, but later on they attended the proceedings and gave in writing that they would not further harass or beat Vimlesh nor would demand any dowry.The matter was got compromised and after a week or so i.e. on 30.05.1998, Vimlesh was burnt.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 25 of 31On 30.05.1998, father of the deceased informed CAW Cell regarding death of Vimlesh.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 26 of 31Learned counsel for the appellants, however, relied upon the testimony of PW5 Maya Devi.Maya Devi was a neighbour, whose house was situated in front of the house of the accused persons.In cross examination, she deposed that she was informed by Vimlesh that there was no demand of dowry by her in-laws or husband.He also referred to the statement of her husband PW7 Harbans who deposed that after two months of marriage, he started living separately at House No.359, Nand Nagri as Vimlesh was asking him to stay at her parents house and she also insisted for transfer of the house in her name.After staying for 2-4 days at Nand Nagri, he returned back to his parents house and started living there.He went to the house of parents of deceased to take her back, but she refused to come till the house is transferred in her name.He further went on to depose that even parents of deceased had asked him to transfer the house in her name.He talked to his father who told Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 27 of 31 him that he cannot transfer the house in his name till the time his other brothers would become major.He went to the extent of deposing that he went to her parents house and informed his mother-in-law that house could not be transferred in her name.Thereupon he was given beatings by her.In cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, he denied the suggestion that after marriage his mother and father used to demand Rs.20,000/-, TV, VCR from Vimlesh and started harassing her and also denied that on 16.04.1998, they were turned out of the house by the accused persons for non-fulfilment of dowry demands.He also denied that any complaint was made to CAW Cell against his parents for demand of dowry and harassment.However, when the attention of the witness was drawn to the copy of the complaint mark PX, then he admitted that the same bears his signatures at point X and that of Vimlesh at point Y. He also admitted that accused persons had given in writing in CAW Cell that they would not harass Vimlesh any further nor would demand any dowry from her and would keep her safe with them.He also admitted that due to their complaint at CAW Cell, this assurance was given by the accused persons in writing.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 28 of 31A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 27 of 31A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 28 of 31The law regarding hostile witnesses is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him hostile and cross-examine him.The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof vide Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Harayana, (1976) 1 SCC 389; Robinder Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233; Khujji vs. State of M.P.,(1991) 3 SCC 627; Rameshbhai Mohanbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 3 SCC.This being the legal position, the mere fact that PW Harbans has been declared hostile is not sufficient to discard his testimony altogether and that much part of the testimony which supports the prosecution can be read in evidence.Harbans Kumar, who initially had lodged a complaint against his parents regarding harassment being meted out to his wife Vimlesh by them on account of non-fulfilment of dowry has now turned hostile because the accused persons are none else but his own parents and he is now living with them and, therefore, he deposed that Vimlesh was never harassed by any of the accused nor any dowry Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 29 of 31 was demanded, but as the saying goes- "a man may tell a lie but not the circumstances".He admitted filing of a complaint jointly by him and Vimlesh against the accused persons before the police and CAW Cell, which ultimately was compromised on the assurance given by the accused persons.The same amply proves that Vimlesh was harassed by the accused persons on account of non-fulfilment of their demand of dowry.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 29 of 31Furthermore, accused Mahender in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC although denied that any dowry item was demanded from Vimlesh or she was harassed, but it was admitted by him that a joint complaint Ex.PW17/A was made by the deceased Vimlesh and her husband Harbans to SHO Gokul Puri regarding harassing Vimlesh to bring Rs.20,000/-, TV, etc. He also admitted that a similar complaint dated 22.04.1998 Ex.PW17/B was made by Vimlesh to DCP, North East District, Crime Branch Women Cell, Welcome on the direction of police.He also admitted that a compromise was entered into between him and his wife on the one hand and Girish Babu, Harbans and Vimlesh on the other hand wherein it was mentioned that he will not interfere in the life of Vimlesh and Harbans Kumar.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 30 of 31A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 30 of 31In view of the above discussion and our appraisal and analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution had successfully established its case by cogent, clear and reliable evidence.That being so, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant Rajwati for offences under Section 302/498A/34 IPC and appellant Mahender for offences under Section 498A/34 IPC.The finding does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference.The appeals, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed.As such, they are directed to surrender within three days in order to serve the sentence imposed upon them, failing which the learned Trial Court to get them arrested to serve the sentence.Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE (KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 05, 2014/rd Crl.A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 31 of 31A. No. 79 & 80 of 2000 Page 31 of 31 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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. |
64,556,726 | The 1st respondent is the complainant in the said case.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The appellant/P.W.1 is a resident of South Street, Ranganathapuram, Mannarkudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District.The death anniversary of his daughter was celebrated on 29.05.2011 at his house.On that day, the relatives of P.W.1, his neighbours and other villagers were invited.The accused also belong to the same village and they are neighbours of the appellant.On invitation, they also participated in the said function.Out of anger, P.W.1's son- in-law left for his village.P.W.1 who just had come to his house learnt about it.Immediately, he went out of his house and again brought back his son in law.P.W.1 out of fear pelted a stone against the dog.A1 questioned P.W.1 as to why he pelted stone against his dog.P.W.1's yet another son-Lenin rushed there and questioned.At that time, juvenile accused -Vinoth who came with a cricket stump, attacked Mr.Lenin on his head.A4 and A5 also attacked with hands.Then all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.He went to the place of occurrence on 31.05.2011 and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P10) and a rough sketch (Ex.P.15) in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness.At 10.45 a.m. he recovered an aruval (M.O.1) and a wooden stick (M.O.2) under a mahazar (Ex.P11) in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, on going over to the Mannargudi Government Hospital, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer was informed by his Assistant about the same.There was yet another accused by name Mr.Vinoth, who was a juvenile in conflict with law.Therefore, case against him was separately dealt with.The respondents 2 to 5 stood charged for the offence as detailed below:-Charge Number(s)Charges framed againstCharges framed under 1A1Section 294(b) of IPC2A1 to A5Section 148 of IPC3A1, A3 and A5Section 323 of IPC4A2Section 324 of IPC [Two counts]5A4Section 324 of IPC6A1 to A5under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPCThe trial court, by judgement dated 25.11.2013, acquitted the respondents 2 to 6/A1 to A5 from all the charges.Challenging the order of acquittal, the de facto complainant, the father of the victim [P.W.1] has come up with this criminal appeal.This resulted in a quarrel.On hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1's wife (P.W.2), the daughter (P.W.3) and two sons of P.W.1 by name Manikandan and Lenin came to the said place.Immediately, A2-Madahavan, son of A1 who rushed out from his house with an aruval, cut P.W.2 on her forearm.P.W.1's son-Manikannan shouted at the accused.A1 attacked him with a stick.P.W.1 fainted on the spot.Thereafter, the injured were taken in an 108 Ambulance to the Government Hospital at Mannargudi.While they were under going treatment at Government Hospital, at 09.00 a.m. on 31.05.2014, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.11) went to the hospital and recorded the statement [Ex.P1].P.W.11, on returning to the police station, registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC.Ex.P.14 is the FIR.Lenin was then referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for further treatment.He arrested A3 on the same day and forwarded him to court for judicial.When the case was under investigation, Mr.Therefore, P.W.11 handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police (P.W.12) for further investigation.P.W.12 taking up the case for further investigation, altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the hospital for post-mortem.5. P.W.6, Dr.He found the following injuries:-External Injuries:(1) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over right temporal region (2) Abrasion of 2 x 1 cm present over the left forearm (3) Abrasion of 2 1 cm present over the left elbow posteriorly (4) Small multiple abrasions present over left shoulder anteriorlyInternal Injuries:(5) On reflecting the scalp skin: Sub scalp contusion present over right temporo parietal region.(6) Fracture length of 5 cm present over the left temporal bone.(7) Subarachnoid haemorrhage present over the temporo parietal region.(8) Pus found in both lateral ventricles of brainExtremities : As noted aboveAbdomen : Normal Thorax : NormalPericardium : NormalHeart : Normal in size.All the four chambers contained fluid bloodValves : NormalCoronary vessels:Patent Great vessels : NormalLungs : NormalHyoid bone : NormalStomach : Contained 100 ml of brown colour fluid with rice Liver : NormalSpleen : IntactKidneys : NormalHead& Membranes: As noted aboveSpinal Column : Intact.Ex.P9 is the post-mortem certificate.P.W.6, the doctor, gave opinion that the deceased had died due to effects and complications of injury involving vital organ (brain).On such arrest, the juvenile accused gave a voluntary confession.Out of which, a cricket stump was recovered.P.W.12, on returning to the police station, forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 19 documents and 3 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.5, Dr.Najima Rani, has stated that at 12.00 midnight on 30.05.2011 P.W.4 was brought before her for treatment at Mannargudi Government Hospital.P.2 is the copy of accident register.She found as many as four injuries namely, (1) a contusion measuring 3 x 3 cm on the right knee joint; (2) a contusion measuring 3 x 3 cm on the back; (3) an abrasion on the left back; and (4) an abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm on the right leg.P.4 is the copy of accident register.According to P.W.5, the doctor, the injuries sustained P.W1 and P.W.4 are simple in nature.10. P.W.6, the doctor, has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7 has stated that he took the deceased and the injured to the hospital.He has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution.P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police at the place of occurrence and also the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the juvenile accused-Vinoth and the consequential recovery of the cricket stump on his disclosure statement.P.W.10 has stated that he handed over the dead body at the hospital as directed by the investigating officer and identified the same to the doctor for post-mortem.P.W.11 has stated about the registration of the case and the initial investigation done by him until the demise of the deceased-Lenin.P.W.12 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court acquitted the respondents 2 to 6 from all the charges.Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the father of the deceased has come up with this criminal appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/P.W.1, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6/A1 to A5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully.A careful perusal of the judgement of the trial court would go to show that the trial court has held that there was no common object so as to hold these accused also responsible for the death of the deceased which was caused by the juvenile accused Vindoth.We find no infirmity in the said finding of the trial court.From the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, it is crystal clear that the occurrence was not a premeditated one.Admittedly, at the time when P.W.1 was passing through the house of A1, the dog belonging to A1 came there and fearing for the same, P.W.1 had pelted stone at the dog.This resulted in a quarrel.At that time, the other accused were not at all present there.Even the juvenile accused was not present.The family members of P.W.1 had gathered on hearing the noise.When the quarrel was going on, suddenly, the juvenile accused rushed out from the house of A1 with a cricket stump and attacked the deceased which resulted in his death.Thus, there was no pre-meeting of mind and thus there would have been no common object at all so as to describe the gang as unlawful assembly.In fact, the juvenile accused was not at all in the gang so as to be a part of the assembly.Thus, the trial court was right in holding that there was no unlawful assembly with any common object and so there is no scope to invoke Section 149 of IPC to hold these accused also guilty of the offence of murder of the deceased.So far as the injuries caused on P.Ws.1 and 4 are concerned, the trial court has given cogent reasons to disbelieve them.We find no infirmity in the same also.P.W.1 immediately rushed from the place of occurrence.By the time, the body was removed from the noose and laid at a bench.Then, P.W.1, the then Sub Inspector of Police and made a complaint.P.W.12 took up the case for investigation.He rushed to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness.During investigation, P.W.11 arrested A3-Pasupathi and forwarded him to the court for judicial remand.Then, he handed over the case diary to his successor.The Revenue Divisional Officer had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem.P.W.6, Dr.He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased.P.5 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.He altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC.He examined the doctor who conducted autopsy, recorded his statement.The investigation was thereafter taken over by his successor [P.W.14]*.P.W.14 examined few more witnesses and on completing the investigation , he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed *** under Section*.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as ** witnesses were examined, ** documents and ** material objects were marked.Out of the said witness, P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer.He has spoken about the complaint made to the police.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.She has stated that A2 demanded dowry and harassed the deceased.She has further spoken about the telephone conversation between herself and the deceased and after that between her and A2, as we have already narrated.She has also stated about the same facts.He has also spoken about the facts spoken by P.W.2. P.W.6 has spoken about the marriage between A1 and the deceased.P.W.7 has also spoken about the marriage.P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police at the place of occurrence.P.W.9 has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.10, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, has spoken about the inquest held and his report.According to his report, the death was due to dowry harassment.P.Ws.12 to 14 have spoken about the investigation done and P.W.14 has further spoken about the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court acquitted the respondents 2 to 6* from all the charges.Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the father* of the deceased has come up with this criminal appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully.Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 7 are the family members of the deceased.P.Ws.2 and 3 have spoken about the strained relationship between A2 and the deceased.Therefore, there can be no difficulty to hold that there is no evidence against A3 and A4 and, therefore, the order of acquittal of A3 and A4 does not require any interference at the hands of this court.So far as A1 is concerned, as against him also, there is no evidence from these witnesses to the effect that either demanded dowry or harassed the deceased at any point of time, more particularly, soon before the death of the deceased.The only allegations against him is that the deceased told that A1 had developed illicit intimacy with a woman.Except that there is no other evidence against him.P.W.2 has stated that lastly when the deceased spoke to her she told that all of them were harassing.This is a mere innocuous statement upon which no weightage could be given.Thus, as against A1 also there is no evidence to hold him guilty of the charges.Now, turning to the case against A2, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is enormous evidence.But, the learned counsel for the accused would refute the said contention.We have considered the rival submissions carefully.A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that A1 and the deceased had eloped and married.Thereafter, both the families sat together and decided to perform the marriage as per the Hindu customary rites.Accordingly the marriage was solemnized at a Murugan Temple.There is no evidence at all that before the marriage there was any demand for dowry.The trial court has held that inasmuch as there was no demand for dowry before the marriage, any demand made subsequent to the marriage would not amount to dowry.It was on this footing the trial court has acquitted the accused.But, at the same time, when we analyse the evidence of the family members of the deceased would go to show that even after the marriage there was no demand for dowry and there was also no harassment.Apart from that, P.W.2 has stated that after some time of the marriage when the deceased was pregnant for three months, A2 demanded fifty sovereigns of gold jewels.The trial court has disbelieved this part of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this criminal appeal to interfere with the order of acquittal of the respondents 2 to 6/A1 to A4 and so, the criminal appeal deserves only to be dismissed. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
141,603,930 | C.C.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the trial Court.Also heard on I.A.No.4594/2015 which is first application under Section 397 read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant no.1-Satish S/o Nannulal and applicant no.2-Suraj S/o Jagdish.The applicants suffered conviction and sentence as under:-After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicants furnish personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicants shall be suspended and they be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18.08.2015 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
141,606,996 | Allegation has been levelled against him by the complainant Bhuwanlal that Rishi Parasar conspired with Javed Farooqui and hatched conspiracy and committed the crime.The earlier sale deed was executed on 05.03.2012 in favour of Rajendra Shrivastava and Bhagwat Prasad Khare.Annexure P/2 was given as search report-cum-certificate of marketability of title of Shri Bhuwanlal Malviya.The petitioner and Rishi Parasar has committed the crime.It is further claimed that the petitioner has never made any communication with the complainant.Hence, there is no nexus between the petitioner and the accused Rishi Parashar.Punjab National Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.12,50,000/- on the mortgage of the sale deed.The petitioner raising the plea that on the basis of search report, the lawyer petitioner gave his opinion and also advised 2 MCRC-11361-2018 to physically examine the flat and disburse the loan. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
141,611,027 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.As per the prosecution story, the applicant outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix upon which a case under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the age of the prosecutrix is indicated as 18 years, therefore, at the most offence under Section 354 is made out against the applicant.The charge-sheet has been filed.On these grounds the applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer 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.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Rajesh Mishra Vs.State of M.P. MCRC No.996/2017 applicant, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial court on the condition that he shall remain present during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge rahul | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
141,614,385 | Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.Heard Sri F.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was having love affair with the applicant.The family members were against this relation though the deceased wanted to marry with the applicant.She called the applicant and both of them consumed poisionous substance in which the deceased died and the applicant was medically treated, a copy of the treatment slip etc are annexed as Annexure-2 to this application wherein it has been stated that the case of the applicant was of suspected.Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Vikki Pal, son of Dharampal involved in Case Crime No. 198 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366, 304 IPC, police station Brahmpuri, district Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(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. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,416,167 | ORDER R.C. Lahoti, J.In Sessions Trial No. 16/85, the Sessions Judge Bhind held the non-applicants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 326/149, 323/149 and 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment the longest being five years' rigorous imprisonment.They preferred an appeal.P.C. subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount.The non-applicants/appellants furnished bail bonds and are thus at liberty pending appeal.On 9-9-87, an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State under instructions of the Law Department praying for cancellation of the bail and for further direction committing the accused/appellants to custody pending appeal on the ground that subsequent to being enlarged on bail, they have made an abuse of the privilege, they are threatening the complainant and are indulging in other criminal activities creating a terror in the village.The non-applicants have controverted the allegations by filing reply on affidavit sworn by one Keshavsingh.A preliminary objection has been raised to the entertainability of the application on behalf of the non-applicants.No separate notice of date shall be necessary and within a fortnight thereafter the C.J.M. would hold a summary enquiry for ascertaining the truthfulness of the averments made in the application for cancellation of bail.The C.J.M. would afford opportunity of adducing evidence to all the three, but without giving either party a tool for delaying the enquiry.After holding the enquiry, and after hearing the parties, the C.J.M. would record his findings about the allegations made in the application. | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
141,625,785 | This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-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;Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The petitioner has been arrested on 17/11/2015 by Police Station Berad, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 472/15, registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294, 506-B, 302/34 of I.P.C.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.Allegation of murder is made against the petitioner but the fatal injury is attributed to Udaybhan, co-accused and not the petitioner who is alleged with wielding a Lathi without using the same.The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.Considering the aforesaid facts and that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an 2 Mcrc.900/16 Lalu @ Bhim Singh Vs.The 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; andThe petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.3 Mcrc.as per rules. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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. |
141,626,198 | (535)Accordingly we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid 2 down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
141,632,396 | As per prosecution case, the complainant-Suresh lodged a complaint in the police-station-BNP Dewas, on 07.08.2018 while he was going towards Vijayganjmandi he was stopped by the accused-Lakhan and present appellant and they lifted the complainant on their motorcycle on the way and they asked as to how much amount has to be given.The complainant told them he needs to get Rs.80,000/- and at that point of time motorcycle was stopped, lakhan fired from the country made Katta.The present appellant took out the knife and inflicted knife wound thereafter on the complainant.Charge-sheet has been filed, as already stated above, under the aforesaid sections.Learned counsels for the appellant submitted that the appellant has caused injury to the complainant which is barely 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 (Shivlal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) a superficial cut on the right thigh and on that count bail has been sought for.Counsel for the respondent-State was also heard.Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019 is allowed and stands disposed of.Certified copy, as per Rules. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,063,235 | Item No. 62And In the matter of: Goutam Adhikary & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kalyani Police Station Case No.474 of 2013 dated 24.09.2013 under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the victim.The other Petitioners are his relatives.The marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and the victim was solemnized ten years ago.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) 2 | ['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. |
23,066,898 | 1 .2018 owed b.CRM No. 5620 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 2.8.2018 in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 543 of 2018 dated 9.6.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 323/325/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Manoj Kumar Dey @ Sanai ... Petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Abdur Rakib, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 543 of 2018 dated 9.6.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 323/325/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner complains of the complaint being a reaction to the civil dispute between two rival groups.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) .2018 owed b.CRM No. 5620 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 2.8.2018 in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 543 of 2018 dated 9.6.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 323/325/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Manoj Kumar Dey @ Sanai ... Petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Abdur Rakib, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Advocate ..for the State 2 3 The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 543 of 2018 dated 9.6.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 323/325/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner complains of the complaint being a reaction to the civil dispute between two rival groups.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3 4 4 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,071,258 | Immediately after the incident, she apprised the incident to Manju and Ganjha at her residence.On behalf of the appellant, this appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No. 189/07 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 and 323 of IPC, RI for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- in the first count while RI for six months in the later.The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 12.6.2007, the prosecutrix, (PW-3) lodged an FIR contending that on dated 11.6.2007 at 6 o'clock in the evening she was cutting shrubs in some field near the garden of Ghantu Kurmi in her village.At the same time, the appellant caught hold her and after lying her on the floor removed her clothes and committed rape on her.She cried for help, on which her mouth was pressed.While committing such act the appellant had bitten on her hands by which she sustained injury from which blood was profused.She was also subject to beating of stick on her hand.While committing such act, he was seen by Jethia Bhariya, on which after leaving her he flade away.On the next morning when her son came back from his working place, then accompanied with him and her sister in law Maiki, she went to the Police Station and lodged the report.After lodging the report she was sent to hospital where her MLC report was prepared.In further investigation, appellant was arrested and medically examined, interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded.On conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 323 of IPC.After committing the Sessions, the charges of the aforesaid offences were framed against the appellant.He abjured the guilty, on which the trial was held.On appreciation of the evidence, after holding guilty to the appellant in both the charges, he has been punished with the above mentioned punishment, on which the appellant has come to this court with this appeal.He further said that there are lot of inconsistencies and contradictions in the inter se depositions of the prosecution witnesses.He further said that prosecutrix sustained injury on her person, as alleged caused by the appellant with teeth while in medical examination of prosecutrix except one abrasion, no such injury was found on her person.In continuation he also said that the incident was reported at belated stage.In the available circumstances, it is apparent that inspite availability of time, the matter was not reported to the Police but the same was reported on the next day.In such premises, he said that on account of such inconsistency in the evidence on facts, his awarded jail sentence deserves to be reduced and prayed to allow this appeal accordingly as submitted by him stated in the earlier part of this para.In order to examine the same, we have carefully gone through the depositions of the prosecutrix, (PW-3), Meki Bega, (PW-4), Gandhi, (PW-5).In such depositions, we have found convincing evidence to draw the inference that the appellant is the person who has committed the alleged rape on the prosecutrix.While committing such act, he has also caused some simple abrasions on some part of the person of the prosecutrix.The incident was also not reported immediately to the Police but the FIR was lodged on the next day.The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellant before his release from the jail.In default of depositing the fine amount, the appellant has to suffer further one year RI.It is made clear that if the fine imposed by the trial court is not deposited, then the same be also deposited in term of aforesaid.The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,072,286 | Then, the allegation of her coming back to the house of her in-laws with her mother, father and cousin brother does not appear to be trustworthy.Present counsel for the parties intimate that Principal Registrar's report dated 3/11/16 in relation to compromise of the parties has been received.With consent of the present counsel for the parties, they were finally heard at motion stage on this petition filed on 15/3/16 under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Smt. Sheela Singh who is the reporter/complainant.Petitioner has filed the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. lodged by her in relation to Crime No. 7/16 registered at Police Station Pichhore district Gwalior in relation to offences punishable under sections 452, 323, 294 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and criminal proceedings arising out of the above mentioned FIR.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above mentioned Crime No. 7/16 was registered against present respondent nos. 2 to 5 at Police Station Picchore on her FIR, but, thereafter the matter has been compromised on 29/1/2016 between the parties and compromise petition has been filed.It is also submitted that on report of present respondent no.4, who is daughter of respondent no.2, Crime No. 142/15 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 354, 377, 420 and 120Bof the IPC at Police Station Mahila (South) Jaipur and both the parties have filed a settlement before the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Misc.Thus, it is prayed that their compromise petition be allowed and FIR and proceedings initiated on it be quashed.The present Panel Lawyer has opposed the above mentioned prayer on the ground that the offence punishable under section 452 of the IPC is not compoundable.Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 has supported the contentions of petitioner's counsel and admitted that matter has been amicably settled between the parties.With the petition, affidavit of the petitioner and copy of FIR relating to Crime No. 7/16 registered at P.S.Pichhore and photocopy of order dated 29/1/16 passed by Rajasthan High Court has also been filed.It would be significant to mention here that the terms of settlement for compromise have been totally embedded in the above mentioned order of the Rajasthan High Court.According to the FIR lodged by the present petitioner on the date of incident i.e. 23/1/16, present respondent nos. 2 to 5 came to the petitioner's house at Village Churuli, Tahsil Dabra and after giving filthy abuses, entered into the house of reporter/complainant Smt. Sheela Singh and started giving beating by kicks and fists to her.She got injured and was also threatened. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,079,281 | "415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section"From the contents of FIR and the statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the applicant entrusted gold and silver ornaments in the way of merchant and thereafter he did not returned the said property to the complainants and left away after closing his shop, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.It is also in the statement of the witnesses that applicant induced the complainant and other victim to take loan from his shop by pawning their gold and silver ornaments and when the complainant and victims reached to his shop for taking back their articles after paying the loan amount then he did not returned them which also indicates that the intention of the applicant to deceive the complainant and other victims. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
230,801 | According to the prosecution, a lascivious relationship betweenP.W.4 and Dayawathi (deceased), who is nonetheless the wife of the accused,was the motive behind the crime in question, as spoken by the VillageAdministrative Officer (P.W.1), the paramour of the deceased (P.W.4), thefather of P.W.4 (P.W.7) and the Investigating Officers ( P.Ws.10 and 11).However, it is trite law that a mere existence of such motive, by itself, isnot sufficient to determine the criminal character of an accused, as theprosecution is bound to prove the charges against the accused beyond allreasonable doubts, failing which, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.The sheet-anchor of the case of the prosecution is theextrajudicial confession statement (Ex.P1) said to have been made by theaccused before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1), in the presence ofone Muniyan, at 6.30 a.m. on 17.5.1989 at Pannaikulam Village, which is 2Kms.As per the evidence of P.W.1, the accused was the Secretary of the"Youth Welfare Association" of the Kittampatti village and P.W.4 was theTreasurer.Both of them were related and moving closely.P.W.4 used to visitthe house of the accused frequently six months prior to the occurrence anddeveloped illicit intimacy with Dayawathi ( deceased).The deceased used tobeat the children for no reason.Doubting the conduct of the deceased, theaccused enquired the deceased about her relationship with P.W.4, to which thedeceased confessed her guilt and pleaded pardon.However, the accused decidedto kill Dayawathi (deceased) and her paramour (P.W.4).As per the extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1), on thedate of occurrence, the accused after his dinner, under the pretext ofsleeping, was observing his wife Dayawathi (deceased), who removed her ankletsand went away.The accused followed her till she reached the well belongingto P.W.4, where P.W.4 was waiting for Dayawathi ( deceased).The accusedheard the deceased telling P.W.4 that they should stop the illicit intimacy asher husband (accused) had come to know the same.The moment theaccused overheard the above conversation between his wife (deceased) andP.W.4, he decided to kill both of them.The accused pushed P.W.4 into thewell first.In the meanwhile, as the deceased ran away out of fear, theaccused chased and caught her and pushed her also into the well.Believing bothDayawathi (deceased) and P.W.4 would have died, the accused left toKittampatti village to hide himself till the morning when he met the VillageAdministrative Officer (P.W.1) at Pannaikulam and gave an extra-judicialconfession (Ex.P1) at about 6 a.m. on 17.5.1989 .Speaking about the said extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1), the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) deposed that theextra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1) was obtained in the presence ofone Muniyan, the Village Assistant of Pannaikulam village, with whom he wentto the scene of occurrence and found that the body of the deceased (Dayawathi)was floating.As per the information gathered by P.W.1, one Gopal (P.W.7),the father of P.W.4, took P.W.4 to K.N. Rao Hospital at Salem for treatment.After preparing a report (Ex.P2) at the place of occurrence, P.W.1 took theaccused to Papparapatti Police Station and handed over the accused along withExs.On receipt of Exs.P1 and P2, the Head Constable Thiru.According to P.W.1, the Inspector of Police, Pennagaram PoliceStation (P.W.10) came to the Papparapatti Police Station at about 10.45 a.m.,enquired the accused and also recorded a confession statement from theaccused.It was further narrated by P.W.1 that all three of them, namelyP.W.1, the investigating officer (P.W.10) and the accused, went back to theplace of occurrence at about 12 noon on 17.5.1989 and P.W.10 prepared anObservation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P8) in the presence ofP.W.1 and one Shanmugam, and both the observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and roughsketch (Ex.P8) were duly vouched by P.W.1 and the said Shanmugam.Based on Exs.P1 and P2 and the evidence of the VillageAdministrative Officer (P.W.1), the investigating officers (P.W.10) and hissuccessor (P.W.11) investigated into the matter, examined Raman, Mathesh,Nynagounder and P.W.3 on 25.2.1990; P.W.4 on 30.3.1990; and P.W.6 and P.W.7 on10.5.1990; recorded their statements, and filed a final report against theaccused on 17.11.1990 charging him for the offences punishable under Sections302, 316 and 307 I.P.C. Since the accused denied the charges, he was tried inSessions Case No.43 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.This again is considered to be a deficiency in the investigation.19.4. P.W.4 also deposed that he was conscious when he was taken tothe hospital, and became unconscious thereafter.On being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., theaccused specifically denied the extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1)and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the above crime and therefore,pleaded innocence.To substantiate the charges framed against the accused, 11witnesses were examined and 9 exhibits were marked, of them, the following arerelevant to be mentioned:(i)P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who recorded theextra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1) said to have been made by theaccused.P.W.1 also prepared a report (Ex.P2) and handed over the accused andExs.P1 and P2 to Papparapatti Police Station;(ii)P.W.2 is the Doctor, who treated P.W.4 through whom Ex.P5 - WoundCertificate of P.W.4 was marked;(iii)P.W.3 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem on the body of thedeceased Dayawathi, through whom the requisition letter to conduct post mortemand the Post Mortem Certificate were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 respectively;(iv)P.W.4 is the paramour of Dayawathi (deceased), who is nonetheless the wifeof the accused;(v)P.W.5, Somarajan, got into the well, lifted and bailed out P.W.4;(vi)P.W.6, Jayagopal, spoke about the shifting of P.W.4 to K.N.Rao Hospital atSalem by engaging a taxi;(vii)P.W.7 is the father of P.W.4, who deposed about the lifting of P.W.4 fromthe well;(viii) P.W.8, Thiru.Jayaraman, is the Head Constable at Papparapatti PoliceStation, who registered the F.I.R. (Ex.P3) before whom the accused wasproduced by P.W.1;(ix)P.W.9, Thiru.Rathinasamy, was deputed to hand over the F.I.R. to theCourt and also to the Investigating Officer (P.W.10); and(x)P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted initial investigationand prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4), a Rough Sketch ( Ex.P8) and aninquest report (Ex.P9); and(xi)P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer, who succeeded P.W.10 and completedthe investigation.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in the lightof the above evidence on record, by judgment dated 26.8.1996 in S.C.No.43 of1992:i.acquitted the accused from the offence punishable under Section 316 I.P.C.;ii.converted the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. as an offencepunishable under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and convicted the accused for thesame and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years forhaving caused the death of his wife Dayawathi by pushing her in the well;iii.also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for havingattempted to murder P.W.4; andiv.directed both the sentences to run concurrently.Hence, the above appeal.iv.the conduct of P.W.4 and his father-P.W.7 are strange inasmuch as theyfailed to report the incident to the police immediately after the occurrence;andv.the non-examination of one Mani, the person alleged to have first seen P.W.4lying in the well vitiates the case of the prosecution.On the other hand, Mr.The case of the prosecution is based on (i) the extra judicialconfession (Ex.P1), which is relied upon not only for the purpose of theexistence of motive to commit the crime, but also to establish the commissionof crime; (ii) the evidence of an ocular and injured witness P.W.4; and (iii)the corroborative evidence of (a) P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer;(b) P.W.2 and P.W.3, the medical witnesses; (c) P.W.5, who spoke about therescuing of P.W.4 from the well; (d) P.W.6, who shifted P.W.4 to K.N.RaoHospital at Salem; (e) P.W.7, the father of P.W.4; (f) P.W.8 and P.W.9, thepolice constables, who registered the complaint and handed over the FIR copyto the Court as well as to P.W.10; and (g) P.W.10 and P.W.11, theinvestigating Officers, who conducted investigation.Admittedly, the prosecution relies upon two confessionstatements, namely, (i) the extra-judicial confession said to have been madeby the accused before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) in thepresence of the Village Assistant (Muniyan); and (ii) the confession statementmade by the accused before the Investigating Officer ( P.W.10) during thepolice custody in the presence of P.W.1 and one Nyna Gounder, which wasneither produced before the Court nor marked during the trial.For placing reliance on Ex.Even though Ex.P1 was said to have been recorded by P.W.1 inthe presence of Muniyan, there is no proper explanation by P.W.1 for notgetting the said statement attested by the said Muniyan.Though a specificquestion was put to P.W.1 in the cross examination for not getting thesignature of Muniyan as attestor to Ex.P1, there was no convincing explanationfor the same, nor the prosecution explained for not examining the said Muniyanto establish that the extra judicial confession (Ex.P1) had been madevoluntarily.When sufficient evidence was available to establish that theextra-judicial confession (Ex.P1) was made voluntarily by examining the otheronly witness, namely, Muniyan, who was said to be present at the time ofrecording the extra judicial confession (Ex.P1), I do not see any reason fornot examining the said Muniyan to prove that the said extra-judicialconfession statement (Ex.P1) was made voluntarily, which in my consideredopinion, is the first set back to the case of the prosecution.Assuming the motive of murder said to have been relied upon bythe prosecution corroborates with the confession relied upon by theprosecution under Ex.P1, such motive, by itself, is not sufficient to concludethat extra-judicial confession (Ex.P1) was made voluntarily.In this regard,we should not forget that Ex.P1 is not a judicial confession made before theMagistrate, which is protected under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with dueprecautions.The recording of confession by the Magistrate under Section 164Cr.P.C. is very much reliable, as the same satisfies the precautionscontemplated thereunder.Coming to the other confession said to have been made by theaccused in the Police Station at about 10.45 a.m. on 17.5.1989 in thepresence of P.W.1 and one Nyna Gounder, as already observed, the saidconfession statement was neither produced before the Court nor marked duringthe trial.Even though P.W.1 had also stated that a confession statement wasrecorded by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) in the presence of P.W.1 andthe said Nyna Gounder, and both of them attested the same, the said confessionstatement was neither produced before the Court, nor marked during the trial,nor the said Nyna Gounder was examined on behalf of the prosecution.Therefore, the reliance placed on the confession statement said to have beenmade before the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) is also liable to be rejected.18.1. P.W.1 deposed that after recording Ex.The HeadConstable (P.W.8), who registered the F.I.R. at 9.30 a.m. on 17.5.1989,deposed that the accused was handed over to him at Papparapatti Police Stationonly at 9.30 a.m. There is absolutely no explanation by P.W.1 as to what hadhappened between 8.30 and 9.30 a.m. after reaching Papparapatti PoliceStation.Had the accused been produced at 8.30 a.m., what was the reason forP.W.8 to depose that the accused was taken on judicial custody only at 9.30a.m.while P. W.10 deposed that he arrived at Papparapatti Police Stationonly at 10 .45 a.m. and recorded the second confession statement in thepresence of P.W.1 and one Nyna Gounder, who was not examined.I do not seeany justified reason for the lapses on the part of the prosecution for notexamining the said Nyna Gounder.18.2. P.W.1 further deposed that he along with P.W.10 and oneShanmugam came to the scene of occurrence at 12 noon on the same day andP.W.10 prepared Ex.P4 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P8 Rough Sketch, dulyattested by P.W.1 and the said Shanmugam, who was not examined.In the crossexamination, P.W.1 deposed that he had prepared three copies of report at 8.30a.m.when he came to the scene of occurrence along with the accused and thesaid Muniyan, and forwarded one copy to the Magistrate.Except the one, whichwas forwarded to P.W.8, the other two copies of the statement or reportwhatever prepared at the place of occurrence at 8.30 a.m. have not beenproduced before the Court.The lapses on the part of the prosecution in thisregard create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.The next evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the directtestimony of P.W.4, against whom an attempt was made by the accused to murder,attracting Section 307 I.P.C. No doubt, when a direct injured ocular witnessis available the motive is irrelevant, and therefore, assuming the evidence ofP.W.1 is unreliable, the prosecution could rely upon the evidence of P.W.4 asa direct injured ocular witness.As per the testimony of P.W.4, he was standing on the westernside of the well when he was pushed into the well by the accused.19.3. P.W.4 further deposed that many people came to the spotimmediately and P.W.5 bailed him out and thereafter, he was taken to K.N. RaoHospital at Salem.The whereabouts of P.W.4, during the said period of 10 months was noteven properly explained by the prosecution; nor the Investigating Officer gaveany acceptable or convincing reason for not enquiring P.W.4 immediately afterthe occurrence.A closer scrutinisation of the testimony of P.W.4 would clearlyreflect that he never bothered about his paramour, namely the deceased, eitherwhen both of them were pushed into the well or thereafter.Analysing theevidence of P.W.4 through his conduct, it is difficult to accept his versionof evidence.20.2. P.W.5, deposed that he came to know about the incident at about3 a.m. on 17.5.1989 from one Mani, but the said Mani was not examined.Inthe absence of clear evidence as to the source of information, the veryarrival and the presence of P.W.5 at the place of occurrence at about 3 a.m.on 17.5.1989 was doubtful.Even though P.W.5 incidentally refers that oneShanmugam, Ammasi, Vijayagopal, Parvathi also knew about the incident, none ofthem were examined.According to the statement of P.W.5, P.W.7, the father ofP.W.4, was very much present at the place of occurrence at the earliest pointof time, namely, 3 a.m. along with fifty persons.This apparently reflectsthe total dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer for nothaving enquired P.W.7 immediately after the occurrence.It took almost oneyear for the Investigating Officer to enquire P.W.7, who was also residing inthe very same village and moving around as the President of the VillagePanchayat.Moreover, P.W.7, the father of P. W.4, himself had stated in hisevidence that he was present at the scene of occurrence when P.W.10Investigating Officer came at 12 noon on 17.5.1989 and prepared Ex.P4Observation Mahazar and Ex.P8 Rough Sketch.The conduct of the InvestigatingOfficer in this regard shows a serious doubt about the standard ofinvestigation as well as his integrity.Even though P.W.4 was shifted to K.N.Rao Hospital at Salem by ataxi, as deposed by P.W.6, the taxi driver was not examined by theprosecution.That apart, the want of explanation by P.W6 for not informingthe incident to the police, even after admitting P.W.4 in K.N.Rao Hospital,Salem, further creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution.Admittedly, P.W.7 was present in the villageon the fateful night.The evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 7 and 1 0 would depictthat P.W.7 was seen in the place of occurrence at 8.30 a.m. itself on17.5.1989 along with one Chinnasamy, Raman, and Munusamy.However, there wasno explanation by P.W.7 for not accompanying his son (P.W.4) to the hospital;nor there was any explanation by the prosecution for not recording anystatement from P.W.7 immediately thereafter.The other two corroborative witnesses relied upon by theprosecution are P.W.2 and P.W.3, the medical witnesses.There are about 2 1injuries found on the body of the deceased as per the Post Mortem Certificate(Ex.P7), which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.3, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased (Dayawathi).Both were pushed from the same place in the samedirection.If that is so, the prosecution had not explained as to how P.W.4could sustain only two injuries when the deceased sustained 21 injuries.Ihave already opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 and the treatmentsaid to have been given to him are all unbelievable for want of materialevidence to corroborate the same.Therefore, the very presence of P.W.4 inthe scene of occurrence and the charge that the accused pushed P.W.4 into thewell, attempted to murder him, and thereby P.W.4 sustained serious injuriesare all held to be not proved, particularly when the prosecution had not takenany steps to enquire P.W.4 for nearly 10 months, when P.W.4 was takingtreatment in K.N.Rao Hospital, Salem, which is very near from the place ofoccurrence.Therefore, the evidence of medical witness (P.W.2) could not berelied upon.To pin point, as per thethe prosecution case P.W.7, the father of P.W.4, was present at 3 a.m. on17.5.1989 along with fifty persons, and again thereafter at 12 noon on17.5.1989 when the investigating officer (P.W.10) came tot he scene ofoccurrence for preparing Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and the Rough Sketch(Ex.P8).In spite of the presence of P.W.7, the Investigating Officer(P.W.10) failed to record any statement from him, even though, by that time,P.W.4 was bailed out and shifted to K.N. Rao Hospital at Salem.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 are not trustworthy.A closer scrutinisation of the evidence of the prosecution would,therefore, go to show that there are grave deficiencies in the investigationand the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.In the premises aforesaid, I am inclined to allow the appeal, set aside thejudgment dated 26.8.1996 rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.43 of 1992; and acquit the accused.Consequently, there will be a direction to cancel the bail bonds executed bythe accused. | ['Section 307 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. |
23,081,660 | It is next submitted that all the accused persons except the present applicant have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on different occasions.The main accused-Nazim was also admitted on bail by this Court.In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the role of the applicant stands on better footing than that of abovesaid co-accused persons.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Shanu @ Shahnawaz, involved in case crime no.0191 of 2018, under Section 313, 504/34 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Noorpur, District-Bijnor be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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. |
23,083,660 | By the said judgment, the Learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for offences punishable u/s 498A of the Penal Code and section 302 of the Penal Code.The appellant has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of rupees two thousand, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of rupees five thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Penal Code.The de facto complainant Bijoya Pal lodged a complaint before the Dhubulia Police Station on 08-12-2004 to the effect that her mother Shobha Pal was married to her father Makhan Pal for about twenty years and Makhan Pal, his elder brother and sister inflicted severe physical and mental torture upon Shobha Pal which was witnessed by the complainant right from her childhood.Unable to bear such torture, Shobha Pal was constrained to leave her matrimonial home with the complainant and was brought back thereto by her husband Makhan Pal.She further contended that on 08-12-2004 at about 11:00 hours, during an altercation between her parents, her father poured kerosene oil on her mother and set her ablaze.On hearing her hue and cry, the local people rushed to her house and shifted her mother to Dhubulia hospital and thereafter to Shaktinagar hospital.After the complaint was registered as Dhubulia Police Station case no. 187/04 dated 08-12-2004 u/s 498A/326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the investigation was set in motion and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons u/s 498A/326/308/302/34 of the Penal Code.It is pertinent to mention here that the victim succumbed to her injuries, in the meantime, for which the offence u/s 302 of the Penal Code was also attracted.Charges were framed against the three accused persons u/s 498A/302 of the Penal Code and substance of the accusations was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Accordingly, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in support of its case as PW1 to PW15 and documents were marked as Exhibits 1 to 10 on its side.Upon consideration of the entire material on record as well as arguments canvassed by learned advocates for the appellant and the State, the learned trial judge, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant as aforesaid.The Learned Court, however, acquitted accused Ranjit Pal and Jyotsna Pal, having found them not guilty of the offences alleged.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of sentence, the appellant has come up before this court in appeal praying for his acquittal.The question for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record as well as the law on the subject, the impugned judgment and order are sustainable.9. Learned Advocate for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on various counts.He has submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside for the reason that the learned trial judge has relied upon inadmissible evidence and has not dealt with the evidence on record in its proper perspective.Learned advocate had drawn the attention of the court to the dying declaration of the victim recorded on 09-12-04 by the medical officer at the District Hospital, Nadia in presence of an executive magistrate, Bharati Dutta (full blood sister of the victim) and sister on duty Sikha Biswas.The bed head ticket also suggests that morphine injection was administered to the victim before recording her statement.Bharati Dutta who has been examined as PW9 has referred to the dying declaration in her evidence.Exhibit 8/1 which contains another statement of the victim is silent regarding the presence of this witnesses at that time.PW6 Paresh Mitra who is the brother of the victim also referred to a dying declaration made by the victim in his presence.Learned advocate for the appellant has also referred to the evidence of PW7 Hemanta Mitra who appears to be a brother of the victim.The said witness claims that the victim stated before him that the appellant and others poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.This witness was also not examined by the investigating officer.Learned advocate has also referred to the evidence of PW14 Dr. Urmila Bagchi who recorded the statement of the victim in the medical document (exhibit 8/1) on 08-12-2004 after the victim was brought to Shaktinagar hospital from Dhubulia public health centre.This witness stated that her report is silent regarding the extent of burn injury suffered by the patient, whether the same appears to be suicidal or homicidal and also whether any member of the patient's family was present when her statement was recorded.Learned advocate has tried to impress upon the court that except the evidence of the complainant (PW1) who is the daughter of the victim, no other witness has implicated the appellant in the alleged offence.The incident occurred at the spur of the moment following a hot altercation between the victim and her husband and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to deprive the victim of her life.Learned advocate has candidly submitted that the evidence of the complainant has not been shaken in cross examination and the entire case rests on the version of this sole witness.Learned advocate has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquitting the appellant of the charge, more so, as the appellant has already undergone imprisonment of over fourteen years in compliance with the sentence thrust upon him.The State has supported the impugned judgment and seeks to stand by it.Taking the court through the relevant portions of the evidence on record and placing emphasis on the dying declaration of the victim, the State has submitted that according to the post-mortem report of the victim, the larynx and trachea were found to be healthy and, therefore, there was no impediment on the part of the victim to give her statement before the doctor.Stressing upon the evidence of the complainant and also the gravity of the offence, the State has prayed for affirming the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court.At the very outset, it should be stated that the incident occurred on 08-12- 2004 and it was reported to the police station on the same date.Therefore any kind on concoction, exaggeration or falsehood in the version of the complaint can, arguably, be ruled out.The complainant has adduced evidence as PW1 wherein she has stated that on 06-12-2004 there was an altercation between her parents following which her father poured kerosene on the person of her mother and set her ablaze.Her mother and she raised an alarm and some neighbours rushed to the rescue of her mother.They doused the fire by pouring water on her person and took her to Dhubulia hospital, from where she was transferred to Shaktinagar hospital.She succumbed to her injuries after spending four days in the hospital.This witness reported the incident at Dhubulia police station on the same date.She further averred that she resided at her maternal uncle's house with her mother from when she was two years of age and she was brought back along with her mother by her father about two years prior to the incident.She said she had a brother who was residing at her maternal uncle's house where she was also lodged shortly after the incident.She narrated the entire incident to her uncle (meshomoshai) Dipak Dutta who drafted the complaint on her dictation.The oil lamp and match- box which were used to set the victim ablaze were seized from the house of this witness in her presence and she was a witness to the entire incident.The incident, according to this witness, occurred in the verandah of their house.The second witness, Dipak Dutta, the scribe of the complaint, claimed to have reached the place of occurrence after the victim was taken to the hospital.The three witnesses thereafter declined to support the case made out by the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.20. PW-6 Paresh Mitra and PW7 Hemanta Mitra, who are the brothers of the victim, spoke in tune with the complainant and it was their assertion that the victim stated before them that it was her husband (the appellant) who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.But these witnesses were not interrogated by the investigating officer.According to this doctor, victim Shobha Pal was identified by her sister Bharati Dutta, who alongwith sister-in-charge Sikha Biswas, were present at the time.He said that another doctor who certified that the victim was mentally fit to give her statement was also present and put his signature on the dying declaration.The doctor claimed that he recorded the statement in the words of the victim and the victim put her left thumb impression on the document.One of the witnesses to the dying declaration, Bharati Dutta, who is a sister of the victim, was examined as PW-9 and she corroborated the version of the previous witnesses.Though she was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, she rushed to the hospital after being informed of the incident.It was in the hospital that the victim narrated the incident to her.She said that the victim remained at the hospital for about four days and the police and the magistrate visited the victim during such period.She stated that when the victim was driven out of her matrimonial home by the appellant after inflicting torture upon her, this witness reported the matter to Dhubulia police station following which a case u/s 498A of the Penal Code was registered.Pursuant to a written compromise entered into between the victim and her husband, the victim return to her matrimonial home.This witness was examined by the investigating officer in connection with the present case.PW-13 Dr. Samir Choudhary examined the victim at Shaktinagar hospital on 08-12-2004 and suggested the recording of her dying declaration.The last witness for the prosecution (PW 15) is the investigating officer who conducted the entire investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet against the appellant and two others upon completion of investigation.The appellant was examined by the Learned Trial Court u/s 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances implicating him in the alleged incident.The instant appeal should be evaluated and considered in such a context.In the instant case, the evidence of the complainant as PW-1 clearly and unambiguously states that on the relevant date, following an altercation with her mother (victim Shobha Pal), her father (the appellant) poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.In both the cases, such evidence ought to be supported by other corroborative evidence on record and should be carefully dealt with while arriving at a decision.Turning to the dying declaration of the victim recorded on 09-12-2004, it appears that the doctor certified the patient to be mentally alert to give such declaration.Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) I agree (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,084,317 | Shri R.S.Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Shri U.S.Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent/accused.By the judgment under challenge, learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred as the accused) from the charge of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39/44 of Electricity Act.2. To appreciate the say of the appellant/State, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that accused was having a Beetle Thela/Gumti at Village Baktara Bus Stand.On 24.08.91, the officers of the appellant on investigation found that the accused was 2 Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 1999 consuming electricity directly from the main line.Narendra Singh Chauhan, Junior Engineer prepared a Panchnama and filed a written report at PS-Shahganj on which Crime No.73/91 was registered against the accused for offence punishable under the aforesaid sections of IPC and Electricity Act.Learned trial Court framed charge punishable under the aforesaid Sections of IPC and Electricity Act against the accused who abjured his guilt, therefore, he was put to trial.The prosecution has examined eight witnesses and exhibited the documents Ex.P/1 to P/7 in support of its case.During the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,the accused denied all the evidence putforth against him and pleaded his innocence.Aggrieved thereby, the State has come up in this appeal.Shri R.S.Shukla, learned PL appearing for the appellant has taken me through the entire judgment and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal and has pointed out error that has allegedly committed at the time of recording of acquittal by the learned trial Court.Shri U.S.Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court and prays for dismissal of this appeal.3 Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 1999 | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,084,364 | Form No. J(1) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No. 3350 of 2014 Koushik Paul @ Babai Versus State of West Bengal & Anr.The petitioner along with five others were charge- sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/427/379/411/109/34 IPC and under Sections 25(I- B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. Since the offences involved are Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and gave rise to Sessions Case No. 136/2013 and was transferred to the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Raiganj.On the date fixed for consideration of question of framing of charge, out of total five accused persons, four were represented by their respective lawyers except the present petitioner.When the learned trial court appointed a lawyer from the panel of lawyers maintained by the District Legal Services Authority and on the day itself the charge was framed against all the accused persons including the present petitioner.Now, the said order of framing charge is under challenge in this criminal revision, on behalf of the petitioner, on the ground that extreme prejudice has been caused to him because his lawyer had no reasonable opportunity to defend the him at the time of charge hearing.Since charge hearing was taken up simultaneously with his engagement. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
230,968 | ORDER M.D. Bhatt, J.This is the revision of the accused Manoharlal against the lower appellate Court's order whereby the convictions and sentences in four criminal cases were set aside and those cases were remanded for decision afresh, after recording separate evidence in each case.Four prosecutions had been launched in the trial Court, each under Section 409 of the I.P.C., against the applicant-accused Manoharlal Lohe, Sub-Post Master of Ukuwa Sub-Post Office for defalcating various amounts of savings bank accounts ' of certain account holders during the respective periods as shown below:The trial Court, as is evident on scrutiny of the order-sheets of the above four criminal cases and also on scrutiny of the depositions or copies thereof filed in these cases, is found to have recorded the whole oral evidence of all these four cases, only in one case i.e. 348 of 1977 and in the other three cases, either the carbon copies thereof or retyped statements of the ones recorded in 348 of 1977, were filed.The defence evidence of one witness was equally recorded in one case only and the copies thereof were filed in the remaining cases.As for the judgment, Cri.Case No. 349 of 1977 was clubbed with Cri.Likewise, Cri.Case No. 331 of 1977 was clubbed with Case No. 350 of 1977, the judgment wherein governed the Case No. 351' of 1977 also.The learned Counsel for the applicant-accused has equally filed the petition before me, making a clear and categorical commitment that consolidation of four cases in the trial Court was with the applicant-accused consent and that hi? had no objection to the same. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,096,965 | The information in this regard was given by Duty Constable to Police Station Alipur and was recorded there vide DD No.21A. She died soon after arrival at the hospital and information in this regard as given by Dr. Ravi Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 2 of 24 Gupta of the hospital to the Police Station Alipur at about 8.30 pm and was recorded their vide DD No.14A. On death of Priyanka, statement of her father Shri Sukhbir Singh was recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate.In his statement, Shri Sukhbir Singh stated that Priyanka got married to Ramesh in April-2007, but one month after marriage, her in-laws started harassing her.He also alleged that one day they broke her nasal bone, for which she was operated in the hospital in Prashant Vihar.He further alleged that since very beginning, dowry was demanded from him and one day Priyanka informed him on telephone, of the beatings given to her and harassment meted out to her and asked him to call her back through her brother.After half an hour, Ramesh informed him on telephone that his daughter had consumed poison and they were taking her to Jagjivan Ram Hospital.He suspected that his daughter was killed for dowry.He named all the six appellants in his complaint to the Special Executive Magistrate.On the basis of statement given to him by Shri Sukhbir Singh, the Special Executive Magistrate directed registration of a case, whereupon an FIR under Sections 498A/304B of IPC was registered and the investigation was handed over to ASI Hari Om.The postmortem on the dead body of Priyanka was conducted in Babu Jagjivan Ram Samarak Hospital and four ante mortem injuries caused by blunt force were found on her dead body.Injuries number 1 and 2 were opined to be of recent duration whereas injuries number 3 and 4 were stated to be four-five days old.(b) demand and payment of Rs 70,000/- for honeymoon when Priyanka came to her house on 15.04.2007, the next day of marriage;(c) demand of Rs 10,000/- in cash, 10 costly suits and clothes for the entire family at the time of delivery of child by Priyanka.The demand is alleged to have been met;(d) demand and payment of Rs 15000/- for the operation of the child of Priyanka and Ramesh;(e) demand of Rs 3,00,000/- for General Staff Nurse training of Priyanka though the date of demand was not stated, Rs 1,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid by borrowing from Sonu, brother-in-law, the younger son of the complainant;(f) the appellant Ramesh called the complainant on 06.1.2009 at about 4.00 PM and handed over the phone to Priyanka who complained that she was beaten and was being asked to bring Rs 5,00,000/- from her father for purchase of a plot of land.One AC car is also alleged to have been demanded.PW-3 Shakuntala Devi is the mother of the deceased Priyanka, whereas PW-8 Sandeep Kumar and PW-9 Karambir are her brothers.PW-3 has corroborated the deposition of the complainant as regards demand of ring for Ramesh, his father and grandfather and tops and chain for his mother and sister.According to him, in August, 2009, when there was a quarrel between Priyanka and her husband, they reached her house on receipt of a telephone call from his sister and were told that Ramesh, Raj Rani, Sabih Singh, Manju and Ravinder had given beating to her to fulfil their demand of a big car.He also corroborated the deposition of complainant with respect to payment of Rs 15,000/- for the treatment of the child.He also claimed that on 02.11.2009, Priyanka called him on telephone and complained that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, Jeth (brother-in-law), Nand (sister-in-law) and Nandoi (brother-in-law) were beating her and when he reached there and informed his father, the accused persons apologized.In his deposition in the Court PW8, Sandeep Kumar, brother of the deceased, Priyanka, stated that in August, 2009, there was a quarrel between Priyanka and Ramesh and when he reached their house on being informed in this regard by Priyanka, he was told that the appellants, Ramesh, Raj Rani, Sahib Singh, Sunil, Manju and Ravinder, all had given beatings to her to fulfill their demand for a big car.If the quarrel took place between Priyanka and her husband, the logical inference would be that she was beaten by her husband alone and not by other appellants, who, in any case, were not residing with Priyanka and Ramesh.DW1 recorded the statement of Ramesh as well as Priyanka on 23.11.2008 which are Ex.DW1/B and DW1/C respectively.In his statement, Ramesh alleged that Priyanka had been abusing and maltreating him.He also alleged that she had been saying that she did not like him and his family and shall not live with him.In her statement, Priyanka alleged that since about 1-2 months of her marriage, her Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 16 of 24 husband used to abuse her and her husband had beaten her a number of times.She further alleged that her husband suspected her and she had informed her family members about it.She also alleged that though she has started residing separately from her in-laws, along with her husband and child, on the upper floor of the house, her husband continued to fight with her and used to say that he had no connection with her.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 2 of 24All the appellants were charged under Section 498A and 304B of IPC read with Section 34 thereof.Since they all pleaded not guilty to the charge, as many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.One witness was also recorded in defence.The following, according to the complainant, were the demands made by the appellants from time to time:-Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 3 of 24(a) demand by the appellant Sahib Singh of ring for himself and his father, chain and ring for Ramesh and ear-tops for his wife and daughter and one car, at the time the marriage talks took place;She has also corroborated his deposition with respect to demand of Rs 70,000/- for honeymoon, demand of Rs 10,000/- and 10 suits at the time of birth of the child, demand of Rs 15,000/- for the treatment of the child and payment of Rs 1,00,000/- for training of Priyanka.She also stated that on 02.11.2009, Priyanka had told her that all the accused persons had demanded a big car for which she was beaten and thereafter she sent her son Sandeep to Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 4 of 24 her matrimonial house, but the accused persons asked for pardon.She, however, did not corroborate the deposition of the complainant with respect to demand of Rs 5,00,000/- on telephone on 06.11.2009 for purchase of plot.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 4 of 24PW-8 Sandeep Kumar has corroborated the deposition of the complainant with respect to demand of Rs 10,000/- and 10 costly clothes at the time of birth of the child and has claimed that the demand was made by father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of Priyanka on telephone.He also corroborated the deposition of the complainant with respect to payment of Rs 1,00,000/- for training of Priyanka.He also stated that on 06.11.2009, Priyanka called them on telephone and informed that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth (brother-in-law), Nand (sister-in-law) and Nandoi (brother-in-law) had assembled and were planning to beat her.PW-9 Karambir has also broadly corroborated the deposition of the complainant with respect to demand of jewellery at the time of talk of marriage, demand of Rs 70,000/- for honeymoon, demand of Rs.10,000/- along with 10 suits at the time of birth of the child and the demand of Rs 15,000/- for the treatment of the child.He also corroborated the deposition of PW-8 with respect to the beating given to Priyanka on 02.11.2009, in Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 5 of 24 connection with demand of a big car.According to him, Priyanka called his father on 06.11.2009 and informed that the accused persons were beating her.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 5 of 24No doubt, Section 304-B of IPC is a social legislation aimed at preventing dowry deaths which is a social evil that needs to be eradicated at any cost.It is also difficult to deny that in our society there are demands other than those covered under the definition of dowry are made after the marriage and such demands do result in subjecting the girl to cruelty and/or harassment if she or her parents or relative are unable to fulfill the demand.Such a demand, if followed by cruelty or harassment would constitute offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.But, it is difficult to accept that the demands which are not at all referrable to the marriage, would also constitute dowry demand punishable under Section 304-B of IPC in case the woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with such a demand.The remedy, to my mind, lies in the Legislature stepping in and making even such demands subject matter of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 11 of 24In fact, there is no allegation at all of any demand of jewellery, car or any other article, before the marriage of Priyanka with Ramesh.Therefore, this part of deposition of the family members of Priyanka does not inspire confidence and appears to be an afterthought.In any case, there is no allegation of any of the appellants harassing the deceased or subjecting her to cruelty in connection with the aforesaid demand alleged to have been made at the time talks for marriage took place.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 12 of 24As regards demand of Rs.70,000/- for honeymoon at the time Priyanka came to the house of her parents on 15.7.2007, again there is no such allegation in the FIR registered on the statement of Shri Sukhbir Singh.Moreover there is no allegation of any harassment of Priyanka or any cruelty to her in connection with the aforesaid demand of Rs.70,000/- which is alleged to have been made, by her parents.When the parents of Priyanka came in the witness box they did not allege any harassment of Priyanka in connection with the aforesaid demand.In any case, the demand of money for the operation of the child could have been made only by Ramesh and not by any other appellant since it was the responsibility of Ramesh alone to arrange money for the treatment/operation of his child.As regards demand of Rs.3.00 lakh by Ramesh and payment of Rs.1.00 lakh to him for the training of Priyanka, I find that there was no such allegation with respect to the said demand in the statement made by Shri Sukhbir Singh to the SDM.When the complainant came in the witness box he stated that the aforesaid money was arranged by him from his relative Sonu because he did not have sufficient money with him.However, Sonu has not been produced in the witness box.An adverse inference, therefore, needs Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 13 of 24 to be drawn against the prosecution that had Sonu been produced in the witness box he would have supported the case with respect to giving a loan of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant for the training of his daughter.In fact, even in his statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2009, no demand in this regard was attributed by the complainant or his wife to the appellant and the only averment made by them was that they had spent Rs.1.00 lakh on the training of Priyanka.If they had spent money on the training of Priyanka without there being any such demand from the appellants, that does not constitute any offence punishable under Section 498A or 304B or 306 of IPC by the appellants.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 13 of 24As regards demand of Rs.5.00 lakh through Priyanka on telephone on 6.11.2009 for the purchase of a plot and demand for an AC car at that time, I find that, in his statement to the SDM though the complainant alleged that a quarrel took place between Priyanka and Ramesh on 6.11.2009, he did not claim that Priyanka had told him, in the presence of Ramesh that she was being beaten and asked to bring Rs.5.00 lakh for purchase of a plot besides an AC car.The statement to the SDM was made on 7.11.2009, i.e., on the very next day of the alleged demand.It is extremely difficult to believe that while making statement before the SDM on the very next day of the incident, the complainant despite his mental state at that time, would have failed to refer to this demand.Having taken place just a day earlier, the above referred incident would certainly have been fresh in the mind of the complainant, when he made the statement before the SDM on 7.11.2009 and, therefore, omission to refer to the said demand in the statement made to the SDM creates serious doubt on the truthfulness of the deposition in the Court in this regard.Moreover, even in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. made on 27.11.2009, the complainant did not refer to any such demand on 6.11.2009, though he did say that on that day Priyanka had informed him on telephone that she was beaten by her in-laws.More importantly, neither the Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 14 of 24 mother of Priyanka nor either of her brothers referred to any such demand, either when they were examined in the Court or in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. I also find that according to PW8-Sandeep Kumar, Priyanka had told them on telephone that her in-laws were planning to beat her.He did not say that Priyanka had complained that she was being asked to bring Rs.5.00 lakh for purchase of a plot and for an AC car.PW9-Karamvir also did not refer to the demand of Rs.5.00 lakh for purchase of a plot on 6.11.2009 and only alleged beatings to Priyanka.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 14 of 24It would be pertinent to note here that Priyanka and Ramesh had admittedly started residing separately on the upper floor of the house about one (1) year after the marriage.Admittedly, neither the sister-in-law (Nanad), Manju and brother-in-law (Nandoi), Ravinder nor her brother-in-law (Jeth) Sunil, were residing with Priyanka and her husband.Therefore, there could be no occasion for them to give beatings to Priyanka.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 15 of 24It has come in the deposition of Smt. Shakuntala Devi that on 2.11.2009, Priyanka had told her that the appellants had demanded a big car for which she was beaten and thereafter she had sent her son, Sandeep, to her (Priyanka) matrimonial home.However, there is no reference to this demand in the deposition of the complainant, Shri Sukhbir Singh, nor was any such demand referred to in his statement to the SDM.More importantly, considering the financial status of the family of Priyanka, it is highly improbable that either Ramesh or his family members would demand an imported car from them.In the ordinary course of human conduct no one is likely to make a demand which he knows could be impossible for his in-laws to fulfill.In any case, the demand for car could have come only from Ramesh since his parents were not residing with him and his sister, her husband and his brother were residing altogether separately.In the facts & circumstances of the case, I am inclined to believe the depositions of PW3, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, PW8, Sandeep and PW9 Karambir in this regard only to the extent that deceased Priyanka was beaten by her husband on 2.11.2009 and on coming to know of it from Priyanka, her brother visited them and Ramesh and may be his parents apologized for the beatings given by Ramesh to Priyanka.DW1, Head Constable Ram Niwas is the police official who on receipt of a copy of DD No.27A dated 9.10.2008 recorded at Police Station Alipur went to the place of the appellant Ramesh in Village Ramzanpur and made inquiry from Priyanka.DW2/A is the complaint made by Ramesh.In his complaint to the SHO, dated 9.10.2008, Ramesh alleged that Priyanka had beaten him and also gave a tooth bite on his right hand.She also stated that she was fed up with her husband and did not want to live with him.It would, thus, be seen that, no demand of dowry was alleged by Priyanka in this statement.No beating to her in-laws was attributed by her and her allegation was that it was her husband Ramesh who had suspicion on her and had been beating her.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 16 of 24Therefore, no offence under Seciton 304B of IPC stands proved against any of the appellants.During the cross examination of PW3 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, it was suggested to her that due to one Vicky, who appears in the photograph mark A and who is related to one Mahender Singh Gehlot, who in turn is related to the witness, Priyanka used to quarrel with the appellant Ramesh due to Vicky and for that reason she did not want to say with Ramesh.It was further suggested to her that appellant Ramesh never allowed Vicky to enter his house as he never liked him.It was also suggested to the witness that because of the said reason, Ramesh used to call them and complain about the conduct of Priyanka.The above referred suggestion given to PW3 clearly indicate that the appellant Ramesh suspected that Priyanka liked Vicky, did not want to marry him (Ramesh) and the couple used to quarrel with each other on the issue of Vicky visiting their house.In fact, during the course of arguments Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 17 of 24 also, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Priyanka was having an affair with Vicky and that is why she did not like Ramesh at all.The person named Vicky also appears in the photograph mark C sitting, between Priyanka and Ramesh.It was suggested to PW8 Sandeep Kumar that the above referred person was present throughout the marriage and due to interference by him Priyanka used to quarrel with Ramesh.Yet another suggestion given to this witness was that Ramesh never allowed Vicky to enter his house and, therefore, Priyanka used to quarrel with him.It was also suggested to the witnesses that Ramesh used to complain about the aforesaid conduct of Priyanka to his parents.When PW9 Karamvir was cross examined, it was suggested to him that Priyanka used to quarrel with Ramesh over Vicky and Ramesh never liked visits of Vicky to his house.As noted earlier, in her statement recorded by DW1 on 23.11.2008 also Priyanka had stated that the appellant Ramesh used to suspect her.The above referred facts and circumstances clearly show that the appellant Ramesh suspected that Priyanka likes Vicky and was having an affair with him and the couple used to quarrel with each other on account of the above referred suspicion harboured by Ramesh.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 17 of 24The above facts and circumstances leaves no reasonable doubt and in fact it is an admitted case that the relationship between the appellant Ramesh and Priyanka were far from cordial and the couple used to frequently fight with each other.The statement made by Priyanka to DW1 HC Ram Niwas also shows that during the course of quarrel, Ramesh used to give beatings to her and she was totally fed up with the same.As noted earlier, it has come in the deposition of PW3, PW8 and PW9 that on 2.11.2009, the couple had a quarrel with each other and during that quarrel also Ramesh had given beatings to Priyanka.It has also come in the deposition of the witnesses that sometime in August, 2009, Ramesh had Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 18 of 24 caused injuries on the nose of Priyanka for which she was treated in a hospital in Prashant Vihar, Delhi.The aforesaid incident also finds mention in the complaint which Shri Sukhbir Singh made with SDM on 7.11.2009, immediately after the death of Priyanka.As per this certificate, Priyanka came to the hospital on that date with history of assault by her in-laws followed by nasal bleeding and after setting of nasal bone no local deformity, she was discharged on the same day.The doctor who issued the aforesaid certificate came in the witness box as PW7 and stated that on 29.8.2009, Priyanka had come with history of assault by her in-laws followed by nasal bleeding and on her examination, he found bone deformity in the nasal bridge.Though this doctor did not refer the matter to police, he explained that since the patient did not want the matter to be referred to police, no such course of action was adopted by him.There was nothing unusual in Priyanka not wanting to report the matter to the police since despite incessant quarrels with Ramesh, she was not contemplating any legal action against him and it is not unusual for the doctor to accede to the request of the patient not to report such family incidents to the police when the injured herself does not want the matter to be reported.Though neither his hospital had a radiologist nor any x-ray of Priyanka has been produced, I find no reason to reject the oral testimony of the doctor who had no reason to make a false statement.The deposition of doctor coupled with the certificate issued by him, corroborates the oral depositions of PW3, PW8 and PW9 with respect to the injuries caused at the nose of the deceased Priyanka by the appellant Ramesh.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 18 of 24PW10 Dr. K. Goyal conducted postmortem on the dead body of Priyanka and found the following injuries on her body:Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 19 of 24Reddish bruise 1.5x1 cm over lateral side of right malar region, 2x2 cm over upper lateral aspect of right arm.Reddish abrasion 3x1 cm over top of left shoulderDark brown scabbed abrasion slightly separating at margins of size 3x2 cm over lateral aspect of left elbow.Diffused bruise 9x6 cm bluish green in colour over middle front of left thigh.Injuries no.1 and 2 were recent in duration and injuries no.3 and 4 were 4-5 days old.When the appellant Ramesh came in the witness box as DW2 he did not claim that Priyanka had fallen soon before she was taken to hospital and had suffered the aforesaid injuries at that time.The above referred fresh injuries corroborate the deposition of the prosecution witnesses with respect to Priyanka calling on her to her father on 6.11.2009 and complaining about the beatings given to her.Injuries number 3 and 4 which were found to be about 4-5 days old corroborates the deposition of the witnesses with respect to beatings given to Priyanka on 2.11.2009, for which the appellant Ramesh had apologized to her father.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that since the appellant Ramesh suspected that his wife did not like him and was having a sort of affair with one Vicky, there used to be quarrel between the couple about this issue and the appellant Ramesh used to frequently giving beatings to Priyanka during the course of such quarrels.If the husband of a woman since the time of marriage suspects that she had a pre-marital affair or has an extra martial affair and during the quarrel on account of such suspicion frequently gives beatings to her, such a willful Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 20 of 24 conduct on the part of the husband is likely to drive a woman of average temperament either to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries or danger to her life limb or health.She may for sometime tolerate such an insinuation on the part of her husband in the hope that his suspicion would subside with the passage of time, but she may not be able to live with an insinuation forever, particularly when the suspicion of the husband is accompanied by frequent beatings and physical injuries to her.Sooner or later, a stage is likely to come in the life of such a woman, when she would be unable to cope up with such misbehavior and physical violence and will be driven to the extreme step bringing an end to her continuous miseries by committing suicide.A woman may withstand the physical violence at the hands of her husband, but she cannot accept, indefinitely, her character assassination at the hands of her husband.The miseries of such a woman become more acute when such character assassination is also accompanied by physical violence at the hands of her husband.The husband, if he persistently suspects the character of his wife and subjects her to physical violence on account of such suspicion, creates a situation which leaves the wife with no option but to bring her continuous mental and physical torture to an end by taking her own life.The husband, in such circumstances, would certainly be guilty of causing physical cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 of IPC.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 20 of 24Section 113A of Evidence Act, which came to be inserted with effect from 25.12.1983, to the extent it is relevant provides that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 21 of 24In the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, the Court shall be justified in drawing a statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and presuming that the appellant Ramesh had abetted suicide by his wife, by her character assassination and subjecting her to repeated physical violence, on account of suspicion about her character.Though the above referred statutory presumption is rebuttable, the appellant has not been able to discharge the burden placed upon him.No other reason for committing suicide by Priyanka has come on record and the evidence produced during trial proves beyond reasonable doubt that Priyanka committed suicide only because of the mental and physical cruelty to which she was subjected by her husband.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 22 of 24 Ramesh referred to subjecting the deceased Priyanka to mental and physical cruelties as also to her death other than those under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage.Moreover, as noted by the Apex Court, mere omission or defect in framing the charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offences which is found to have been proved, on the basis of evidence on record and mere omission on the part of trial Judge to mention Section 304B of IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused, for the said offence, when found proved.The Court in this regard also placed reliance upon the provisions of Sections 215 and 221 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court felt no necessity to remit the matter to the trial court to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC and directing retrial of that charge.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 22 of 24A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar versus State of Haryana [2013 (13) Scale 410], where the Honble Supreme Court, referring to the decision in K. Prema S. Rao (supra) and relying upon section 113 A of the Evidence Act, convicted the appellant under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.For the reasons stated hereinabove, the conviction of appellant Ramesh under Section 498A is confirmed.He is acquitted of the charge under Section 304 B of IPC but is convicted under Section 306 thereof.The appellants Sunil, Sahib Singh, Raj Rani, Ravinder @ Kuku and Manju are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.The appellant Ramesh is sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for three months in default of payment of fine under Section 498A of IPC.He is also sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- or to undergo SI for six months in default of payment of fine under Section 306 of IPC.Both the Crl.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 23 of 24 sentences shall run concurrent.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 23 of 24All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.Appeal No540/2013 & connected appeals Page 24 of 24 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,985,577 | The instant revision has filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act challenging the order dated 13.3.2020 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2020 as well as order dated 16.1.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,Bulandshar in case crime no. 06 of 2020 under Sections 147, 302, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dibai, District Bulandshahar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist which was affirmed in the appeal.Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist, that the revisionist was not named in the first information report and his name was surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Amir.It is next contended that the revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case on the basis of apprehension.On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail of the revisionist and submits that the impugned orders has been passed by the appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board after considering each and every aspect.I have gone through the order impugned and there is no material on record to fall this case under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000 which is quoted hereinbelow :-"12. Bail of juvenile.--I have carefully seen the order impugned.As per Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, bail to the minor could be refused, they are:-(i) If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal(ii) Or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.(iii) Or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.On a careful perusal of the order, their is not even a whisper as to the case of applicant fall within either of the categories mentioned above.It appears that the learned Judge has over obsessed by the sections of IPC in which the applicant is entitled.Consequently the revision stands allowed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,987,878 | Common Prayer:- These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants on 17.05.2011 in S.C.No.476 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court –4) Chennai.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 341 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., the appellant who is A.1 has filed Crl.2.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 341 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., the appellant who is A.2 has filed Crl.3.The brief facts of the case is that, due to previous enmity, the appellants herein on 25.07.2010, at about 10.00 pm, had caused cut injury on the throat of the victim/Murugesh with blade.The victim/Murugesh was taken to the Royapettah Government Hospital and treated for the injury.On registering the complaint received from Murugesh, the respondent Police registered F.I.R., in Crime No.1022 of 2010 against the appellants/A.1 and A.2 and arrested them.Based on the confession statement, the blade used for the offence was recovered from A.1, in the presence of two independent witnesses under mahazar - Ex.4.The Doctor, who treated the injured Murugesh, opined that the injury sustained by him is simple in nature.On receiving the opinion of the Doctor and on completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellants.5.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of sessions since, the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.Charges for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., were framed against the appellants.6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and marked 9 exhibits and one material object.After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court held A.1 and A.2 guilty of offences under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. The accused were in prison during the period of trial.Hence, the trial Court did not impose any fine.7.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.8.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the time of occurrence as per the accident register is 25.07.2010 at 19.00 hours.Whereas, in the First Information Report given by the injured victim – P.W.1, the time of occurrence was shown as 22.10 hours.The accident register indicates that the victim informed the Doctor that four known persons assaulted him using knife.Whereas, in the F.I.R., it is two persons who attacked P.W.1 with blade (M.O.1).After registration of F.I.R., the respondent Police has arrested the accused persons and recovered Blade (M.O.1).The recovery mahazar - Ex.P.3 does not disclose from whom the said blade (M.O.1) was recovered.The witness to the recovery mahazar - Sathish Kumar was examined as P.W.5 was also not able to identify or recollect from whom, the blade M.O.1 was recovered.9.In the said circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused/appellants when the contradiction is glaring in the Accident register and F.I.R., regarding the time of occurrence, number of persons assaulted and the nature of weapon used.The injured victim has narrated how the second accused caught hold him and how the first accused assaulted him with blade (M.O.1).The nature of injury and the slit of injury using a sharp weapon clearly attracts the ingredient of Section 307 I.P.C.So, relying upon the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the medical evidence Exs.On 25.07.2010, when P.Ws.1 and 2 were carrying through the streets the idol, the second accused caught hold of P.W.1 and the first accused has caused cut injury.The medical certificate indicates the injury as simple in nature.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 P.W.1 in his deposition has said that suture was done by the Doctor.16.At the time of occurrence, the second appellant/A.2 was around 19 years.01.03.2019 jbm Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 To2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Crl.A.Nos.707 of 2011 and 195 of 2012 01.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,769,885 | i) The occurrence had taken place on 13.02.2000 at 4.00 p.m. near Adaiur village.Some 2 1/2 years prior to the occurrence i.e., on 13.2.2000 there was was dispute between deceased Perma Gounder and the accused with regard to pathway.Apart from this another motive is one Kuttiyan, brother-in-law of the deceased Perma Gounder died due to electric current shock.But the villagers and deceased Perma Gounder were scandalising that the accused were responsible for the death of Kuttaiyan.ii) According to the prosecution, on 13.2.2000 at 4.00 p.m. the deceased was going in his T.V.S.50 moped at Amman Kovil Kaadu cart track all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and A1 was armed with M.O.3-Spear, A2 was armed with M.O.1-wooden reaper, A3 was armed with M.O.2-sharp iron rod and A4 was armed with SBBL gun-M.O.4 and A5 to A7 caught hold of the deceased preventing him from moving.The overtact attributed according to the eye witnesses P.W.1 , 3, 4 & 7 is that A1 stabbed the deceased on the left flank with M.O.3-Spear and A2 beat with M.O.1 wooden reaper on the head of the deceased repeatedly and A3 with sharp iron rod assaulted the deceased on the forearm and left hand and A4 brought a gun, which was snatched by A1 and fired at the deceased, who was narrowly escaped by lying down on the ground.Thereafter, on seeing the other witnesses, the accused ran away with the weapons.Thereafter, P.W.5 took the injured-Perma Gounder to Jalagondapuram in his motor bike and from there he took him to a private hospital at Salem.The Doctor at Bharathi Hospital at Salem examined the deceased and issued Ex.P.24-Acident register and the wound certificate is Ex.P.25 and thereafter, intimation-Ex.P.23 was sent to the police.iii) On 13.2.2000, at 9.00 p.m. P.W.11/Sub-Inspector of Police, Poolampatti Police Station received intimation from the hospital and went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P.12-Complaint from the deceased and registered a case against the accused at 11.00 pm.P.13 is the First Information Report.On 13.2.2000, P.W.14 received the First Information Report and took up investigation and went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased.On 14.2.2000 at 6.00 am P.W.14 arrested A4, A3 and A5 and on their confession seized the M.O.4-gun from A4 in the presence of witnesses.At 8.00 am, P.W.14 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.15-Observation Mahazar and drew rough sketch-Ex.At 9.00 am examined P.W.1 and P.W.5 to 7 and other witnesses.On 15.2.2000, P.W.14 examined P.W.3, P.w.4 & P.W.8 and other witnesses.iv) On 12.3.2000 at 9.00 am, P.w.14 received death intimation-Ex.P.17 from the hospital and altered the case under Sections 147, 148, 324, 342, 323, 302 IPC and under Section 24(1) of Arms Act. Ex.P.18 is the altered First Information Report.P.W.14 conducted inquest between 10.00 am and 1.00 p.m. on the corpse of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses.P.20 is the inquest report.On 12.3.2000 at 4.15 p.m., P.W.9, Dr.Vallinayagam conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.5-Postmortem Certificate wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to multiple injuries he had sustained.v) On 13.3.2000, A1 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Salem.On 21.3.2000, P.W.14 took police custody and on his confession M.O.2-Iron rod, M.O.3-Spear and M.O.1-wooden reaper were seized in the presence of the witnesses.On 27.3.2000, P.w.14 gave requisition to the Court to send the material objects for chemical analysis.On 31.3.2000, since P.W.14 retired from service, he handedover the investigation to P.W.15-Inspector of Police On 31.5.2000, P.W.15 took up the further investigation and examined P.W.1 and recorded her further statement and at 10.00 am seized the M.O.4-gun from A1's house.Thereafter, he examined the witnesses.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment passed in S.C. No. 124/2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,(FTC-I), Salem.The short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:After completing the investigation, P.w.15 filed the final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 149 IPC and under Section 27(1) of Arms Act.vi) The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sangagiri under PRC.The accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate on summons.P.C were furnished to the accused.vii) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, framed the charges under Section 147 IPC against A1 to A7, under Section 148 IPC against A1 to A4 and under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC against A1 to A7 and under Section 302 IPC against A1 to A3 and under Section 302 r/w 149 against A4 to A7 and when question, the accused pleaded no guilty.Viii) Before the trial Court, P.W.1 to 15 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.26 were filed and M.O.1 to 4 were marked.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied their complicity in the crime.The accused have examined D.W.1-Dr.Gothandaraman and marked Ex.On the available document and oral evidences, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, has come to a conclusion that the accused are guilty under Section 147, 148, 341, 341 r/w 149 IPC and 302 IPC and 302 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced under the above said provisions of law against the accused.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, the accused have preferred this Appeal.Now the point for determination in this Appeal is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused as to the charges levelled against them beyond any reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction as indicated in the Judgment in S.c.124/2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, (FTC.No. I), Salem?The point: We have heard the submissions of Mr. K.V. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused and Mr. V.R. Balasubramaian, learned Government Advocate.We are of the constrained view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently the accused 1 to 7 are liable to be acquitted against all the charges for the following reasons:P.13-FIR, which was prepared on the basis of Ex.P.12-statement preferred by the deceased-Perma Gounder before P.W.14, who had registered a case under Section 147, 148, 324, 342, 323 and 307 IPC and under Section 27(1) of Arms Act under Poolampatti Police Station Cr. No. 108/2000 on 13.2.2000 at 23.30 hours at Bharathi hospital at Salem.The accused 4 to 5 were arrested on 14.2.2000 at 6.00 am by P.W.14 and on the basis of confession of A4, he had recovered a SBBL gun and he has received death intimation of Perma Gounder on 12.3.2000 at about 9.00 am and he had altered the charges in Cr. No. 108/2000 to under Section 147, 142, 324, 342 , 323 and 302 IPC and under Section 27(1) of Arms Act. Ex.P.17 is the death intimation and the express First Information Report is Ex.P.18 and accident register relating to the deceased-Perma Gounder is Ex.P.W.14 in the cross-examination would admit that at about 8.00 p.m. on 13.2.2000, he received information regarding the registration of a counter case in cr.No. 107/2000 and he would admit that both the cases in Cr. No. 107/2000 and Cr.No. 108/2000 were investigated by him.P.W.14 would depose that he is not aware as to whether any of the accused in the case in Cr.No. 108/2000 was admitted in Edapady Government Hospital.He would admit that Ex.D.2 & D.3 are the rough sketches drew by him in Cr. No. 107/2000 and the observation mahazar in Cr.No. 107/2000 are Ex.P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the case under Cr. No. 108/2000 on the basis of Ex.P.12-statement given by Parma Gounder soon after his admission in the Bharathi hospital at Salem.In the cross-examination, P.W.11 would admit that on the side of the accused also a complaint was preferred by A2 at 7.30 p.m. on 13.2.2000 and on that basis a First Information Report was also registered (Cr. No. 107/2000).The prosecution case is silent about the injury sustained by A2 and A3 in the same occurrence at the same time of occurrence.But D.W.1, the then Doctor at Edapady Government Hospital would depose to the fact that on 13/14.2.2000 at about 2.30 am he examined A1-Gopal for the injuries he had sustained on the same day i.e. on 13.2.2000 at about 3.00 p.m. at the hands of a known person near Adaiur Amman Kaadu Village with stick and that a lacerated injury on the centre of the head measuring 3 cm x 1/2 cm x Skin deep and an aberration on the left elbow measuring 10 x 1 cm and he voluntarily got discharged on 16.2.2000 and that Ex.D.6 is the copy of the accident register.He has further deposed that he had examined A2/Mani on the same day at 10.20 p.m. referred by Poolampatti Police for the treatment of some of the injuries he had sustained and that on examination A2-Mani had infromed him that he was attacked by a known person on the same day at 4.00 p.m. with stone near Adaiur Amman kovil kaadu and on examination he could find a lacerated injury measuring 1 x 1 cm on the right side of the chest and an aberration on the left cheek measuring 1 x 1 cm and that he was admitted as an inpatient and he got discharged himself on 15.2.2000 against the medical advice and that Ex.Even though P.w.14 has investigated both the cases in Cr. No. 107/2000 and Cr. No. 108/2000 and filed charge sheet in both the cases, in this case he has failed to explain how A1 and A2 got injuries in the same occurrence.It is not the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 were injured in separate incidents.On the other hand Ex.D.1 preferred by A2 will go to show that he had sustained injury at the hands of nine persons namely Vadivelu, Vellaiyan, Seviyappan, Kolandaivelu, Raja, Kaliyappan, Palanisamy, Mariyappan, Mathaiyan apart from Perma Gounder-deceased and that Perma Gounder had assaulted A1-Gopal with a koduval and that A2 was assaulted with stones by Vadivelu on the chest and P.W.4-Saviyappan has also assauted him with stones on the cheek causing bleeding injuries and that Perma Gounder, Palanisamy also kicked him(A2) and that A1 was assaulted by Vellaiyan, Mariyappan, Raja, Kolandaivelu and Kaliyappan with hands and stones and that he along with A1 and his wife were returning to the house, the above said persons again assaulted them with stones and A4 who made an attempt to pacify the above said persons was also attacked by stones and at that time his brotherSeviyappan and his uncles son Govind attacked Perma Gounder with stones and that A4 immediately went inside his house and brought a licenced gun loaded with a bullet and thereupon he(A2) snatched the gun and fired a shot in the sky and thereafter the accused took to their heels and afterwards, he had sent the injured-Gopal(A1) to Edapady Government Hospital and he (A2) went to the Poolanpatti Police Station and lodged a complaint before Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case under Cr. No. 107/2000 under Section 147, 148, 324, 323 and 307 IPC.It is seen from Ex.D.2 that the second occurrence had taken place infront of A1's house and the first occurrence had taken place near the cart track as per Ex.But the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by A1 and A2 in the same transaction.According to P.W.4, A5 to A7 caught hold of the deceased to facilitate A1 to A3 to assaulted him.But neither P.W.1 nor P.W.3 have deposed to the fact that A5 to A7 facilitated A1 to A3 to attack Perma Gounder by caught hold of him at the time of the occurrence.According to P.W.3, Perma Gounder was proceeding in his TVS.50 at the time of attack by the accused, but no TVS.50 was recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigation Officer.In a case and counter case, it is the duty of the prosecution to file charge sheet against the aggressor.But in this case, there is evidence to show that in the same occurrence A1 and A2 also sustained injuries at the hands of Peruma Gounder and others and took treatment in Government Hospital as inpatients.But the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by A1 and A2 in the occurrence, which is fatal to the prosecution case as per the ratio-decedendi in .Under such circumstances, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the same enures to the benefit of the accused.In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 124/2002 on the file of the Additional Session Court, (FTC. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,990,485 | Allegedly, BNP Real Estate and Allied Ltd. Co., a company registered under the Companies Act, floated various term-deposit schemes, wherein, huge returns were promised to the investors.C.C. as per Rules.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.As per prosecution, complainant Pushpa and many other persons invested money in the schemes of the company, however, the same was not returned as per the promises made by the company.In this regard, police investigated the matter and found that a number of persons have been cheated by the company by persuading them to invest in the various schemes of the company.The role attributed to the present petitioner is that he was General Manager of Barwani Branch of the company and that he had persuaded the investors to invest in the schemes of the company.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only an agent of the company and as per schemes of the company, he asked the persons to invest in the schemes.It is further submitted that the petitioner had no role to play in the affairs of the company as he was neither a Director or Managing Director of the company nor he was a part of the top management of the company.It is also submitted that there is no apprehension of petitioner's running away from the course of justice, if released on bail.Though, the prayer for bail is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however considering the role attributed to the present petitioner in the entire matter so also the quality of material to support the same, it would be appropriate to admit the petitioner to bail.Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.6255/18 (-3-) the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.C.C. as per Rules."In light of the aforesaid order and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case-diary, present bail petition deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioners in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, they shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,769,924 | Under Rule 303 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules money collected by the Land Management Committee remains in the custody of the Chairman and he is thus an "officer whose duty it is to take, receive, keep or expend any property...for any secular common purpose in any village." And the Secretary (who is also Lekhpal) is clearly an "officer whose duty it is...to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,994,229 | P.42/2012 Page 1 of 57The facts in brief of the case are that complainant namely Sh.Qmar Ahmad has been running a trading company in the name of M/s A.S. Traders at Khari Baoli, Delhi.On 16.02.2009, when he was present at his shop along with his business partner namely Sanjeev Bhist, two persons came at his shop at about 02:30 PM.One of them handed over his mobile phone to him and forced to talk with Khalil Ahmed/respondent , a notorious criminal of the area.It was alleged that respondent had threatened him & demanded ` 10.00 Lacs.Also threatened in case of non-payment, he should be ready to face the music and in that eventuality he would eliminate him and his family.Respondent asked him to reach Darya Ganj immediately.Complainant expressed his inability to reach there immediately, he asked him to come to Tis Hazari on the next day at about 11:00 AM.One of the persons picked up the visiting card also from his shop.It was further alleged that while leaving the shop, both the persons threatened the complainant that in case extortion amount was not paid, complainant would have to face the consequences.It was further alleged that he was so terrified that he did not report the matter to the police.On 17.02.2009, when the complainant along with Sanjeev were getting the complaint prepared at Karkardooma Court, complainant had received a call on his mobile phone bearing no. 931063391 from a mobile Crl.P.42/2012 Page 2 of 57 phone bearing no.9210459185, respondent was caller and he rebuked him for not reaching at Tis Hazari and again terrorized him.Complainant disconnected the phone.Though, complainant had received 2-3 more calls from the said number yet complainant did not attend the same.It was stated that at about 11:50 AM, complainant had again received a call from the same number, but this time it was attended by Sanjeev posing himself as driver of complainant and when Sanjeev told that sahib (complainant) had gone inside the court respondent infuriated and threatened him.Complainant continued to receive numerous calls from the above number and another number i.e. 9871144610, but he did not attend the calls.At about 02:00PM, respondent alongwith 8-10 persons visited his shop and intimidated his servant Imran, who told the same to the complainant on phone.P.42/2012 Page 2 of 57Upon lodging of the FIR, it was alleged that the complainant reached his shop in the evening.The respondent came there and threatened the complaint that he would have to face the music of lodging the FIR against him.On 26.02.2009, respondent was apprehended from near India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, when he along with his associate came there on a bike.Though his associate had managed to escape, yet police succeeded in apprehending the respondent.From the respondent, two mobile phones bearing Nos.9210459185 and 9871144610 were recovered.It was alleged that said phones were used in threatening the complainant.One Lancer car bearing registration No.P.42/2012 Page 3 of 573C-S-1209 was also recovered at the instance of respondent.It was alleged that original papers of several properties and other incriminating documents were recovered from the said car.During the search of house of respondent located at F-2 Andrew Ganj, New Delhi, 12 cheque books, one pass book and photostate papers of many properties were recovered.During interrogation respondent had confessed his guilt of extortion of ` 10.00 Lacs from complainant but respondent did not reveal the name of his associates who visited the shop of complainant and threatened him.It is further revealed that respondent was a notorious extortionist of the area and was found involved in 34 cases of extortion, dacoity, kidnapping, assault, intimidation, murder, attempt to murder etc. He was allegedly running an organized crime syndicate with the help of his associates to terrorize the businessmen and shopkeepers of walled city area and used to extort money from them.Considering the above revelation, on 23.03.2009, after taking the prior approval of Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi, provisions of MCOCA were invoked against the respondent.During investigation, it was surfaced that respondent had many bank accounts, debit and credit cards of various banks and he had acquired number of properties in his name in a few years, despite the fact that he had no source of regular income.P.42/2012 Page 4 of 57It is further revealed that respondent had got transferred property bearing No.503/22 Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi by preparing forged documents as the stamp of vendor of non-judicial paper and stamp of notary on the transfer documents were found fake.The owner of property Rehena Begum was untraced.It was alleged that property bearing No.113A, Khasra No.159 village Adhchini, New Delhi was sold by one Riazuddin to Asfaq and documents of said transaction were got prepared by respondent and the stamp of notary on the said documents was found fake.It was alleged that part of the said property was forcibly occupied by respondent and from which respondent is running his office of tour and travels in the name of M/s.Creative International.P.42/2012 Page 7 of 57Learned Trial Judge has referred the Statement of Object, Section 2(e), 2(d) and 2(f) of MCOCA and recorded that in the charge-sheet, it is alleged that the respondent was running a organized crime syndicate with the help of his associates, yet the investigating officer failed to describe the alleged syndicate.Even the investigating agency failed to identify or nab the associates of respondent on the ground that he did not cooperate during investigation.Here, learned Trial Judge recorded that right to remain silent is the fundamental right of the accused, thus the reason furnished by the investigating agency for not ascertaining the identity of his alleged associates is not justifiable.Admitted case of the prosecution is that respondent was found involved in more than 34 criminal cases.Even some cases, respondent had been charge-sheeted along with other persons.Despite that no efforts were made to find out whether his earlier co-accused were the persons to whom he had sent at the shop of complainant for the demand of extortion of ` 10.00 lacs.Not to convict.The appellant and others committed murder of the deceased with the aid of chopper, sickle, revolver, etc. on account of previous enmity and rivalry between the two gangs.The appellant heads the Ganesh Marane Gang and all the accused are members of the said gang.The appellant and other members of the organized crime syndicate have committed several offences of similar nature in the past to gain an edge over the rival gang and to achieve supremacy in the local area.The accused came on motorcycles and surrounded the four wheeler in which the deceased was sitting.They broke the glasses of the windows of the four wheeler of the deceased and attacked the deceased in a well planned manner.P.42/2012 Page 24 of 57 148, 149, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act were registered vide C.R. No.562 of 2006 at Kothrud Police Station, Pune on the complaint lodged by Mr. Prakash Dagdu Karpe against five named accused and 3-4 unknown persons.During the course of investigation, police came to the conclusion that the appellant and other accused are members of organized crime syndicate headed by the appellant and they were indulging in organized crime with a view to gaining pecuniary benefits.It states the names of the accused.It refers to the evidence collected during investigation and states that it reveals that the accused are members of the organized crime syndicate.It states that the investigation has revealed that the appellant and his associates run an organized crime syndicate with a view to gaining pecuniary benefits and other advantages for themselves by use of violence, intimidation and other coercive means.Vide instant petition, the State - petitioner has sought to quash the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, (Central) Delhi whereby learned Trial Judge found no sufficient evidence to make out prima facie case against respondent Khalil Ahmed for the offence punishable under Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as the MCOCA).Thus, learned Trial Judge discharged the respondent for the offences alleged therein.It is pertinent to mention here that the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 384/387/506/467/ Crl.P.42/2012 Page 1 of 57 468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of MCOCA.However, finding prima facie offences punishable under Section 386/387/506-II and Section 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate, the matter has been sent back, accordingly.On the statement of complainant, an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 384/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was got registered.During scrutiny of said documents of 19 properties - which were recovered from his house - out of those, six properties were found disputed.It was alleged that respondent had tried to terrorize one party at the behest of another one with some consideration, sometimes directly and sometimes behind the scene.Papers of six disputed properties had been placed on Crl.P.42/2012 Page 4 of 57 record of learned Trial Judge; whereas the documents pertaining to other 13 properties have not been produced.Original documents of some properties were also recovered from the house of respondent.Accordingly, Sections 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 were added in the challan.It was alleged that Asfaq had not received the document from respondent despite making the payment for the property.It was also alleged that in one case, Asfaq was forced to give a receipt of ` 12.50 lac in the name of respondent despite the fact that no payment was made to Asfaq.He had purchased the said Crl.P.42/2012 Page 5 of 57 lancer car for the sum of ` 5.00 lac from one Mukesh.He had also procured a three storied house bearing No.503/22 Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi.P.42/2012 Page 5 of 57Further, it is alleged that the present market value of above properties and car is about ` 1.00Crore, which is beyond the known source of income of respondent.Thus, it was alleged that respondent had acquired the above properties by extortion and other fraudulent means by running an organized crime syndicate, accordingly Section 4 of MCOCA was added in the challan.During investigation, it is further revealed that four bank accounts of the respondent existed; out of which two bank accounts of his wife Reshma Khalil and one bank account in the name of her daughter namely Ms. Ananta Khalil, were surfaced and scrutiny of transactions revealed that substantial amount have been involved which is beyond the known source of respondent.Further it is alleged that he had procured mobile connection bearing No.9210459185 by using the ID of Avinash Chader Chawla; whereas, mobile connection bearing No.9871144610 was procured in the name of Razia Rajesh, sister in law of respondent.It was further alleged that on scrutiny of calls detail of both the phones, revealed that location of respondent on 17.02.2009 was found in the area of Khari Baoli, Delhi.It is further alleged that respondent was found involved in more than 34 cases and details of cases wherein cognizance had been taken during the last 10 years have been placed before learned Trial Judge.P.42/2012 Page 6 of 57Further it is alleged that the remaining associates of respondent could not be identified due to his non-co operation in the investigation.Thereafter, supplementary challan also filed on the allegations that market value of property bearing No.S-18, Handloom Complex Industrial Estate, Loni, Ghaziabad was found ` 60,90,000/-; whereas the market value of property bearing No.503/22, Zakir Nargar, Okhla, New Delhi was found `8,14,650/-.It was also alleged that respondent had filed his Income Tax Returns under two different PAN which is not permissible.Beside that investigating officer also filed the FSL result on the record.Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order has observed that to make out a prima facie case against respondent under MCOCA, first of all, the prosecution has to establish that respondent was either a member of the organized crime syndicate or gang or was acting on behalf of such syndicate or gang.Investigating officer could easily show the dossier of earlier co- accused of respondent to the complainant and other witnesses to ascertain as to whether his earlier companions were the persons who had threatened the complainant on behalf of respondent.But no such efforts were made in this regard.In the year 1996, respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Crl.P.42/2012 Page 8 of 57 Sections 392/397/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in case FIR No.30/96 registered at police station Keshav Puram, Delhi and again charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 387/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in case FIR No.39/08 PS Spl.Cell lodged at PS-Spl.In case FIR no. 39/08, respondent was charge-sheeted along with one Amit Vaish @ Jugnu whereas in case FIR No.30/96 said Amit Vaish @ Jugnu was not an accused.In all the 34 cases, either respondent is alone charge-sheeted or if there is any co-accused, then that person was not charge-sheeted in subsequent cases.Thus, there is no common accused in more than one case.P.42/2012 Page 8 of 57In these circumstances, learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that it cannot be said that respondent was running any syndicate or gang or acting on behalf of any such syndicate or gang.Similarly, there is no evidence on record that persons who had threatened the complainant on behalf of respondent were the persons who ever associated with the respondent in any criminal activity.When the investigation was not concluded, approval was granted stating therein respondent was running a crime syndicate for committing organised crime, who was planning to harm the lives and property of Shri Qmar Ahmed and his family with the help of his associates/syndicate members.When investigation was completed, sanction to prosecute the respondent was accorded stating that respondent Crl.P.42/2012 Page 9 of 57 was engaged in illegal acts of murder, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, extortion and kidnapping etc and have been continuing in unlawful activities as a member of an organised crime syndicate.P.42/2012 Page 9 of 57Learned Trial Judge has further recorded that approval order and sanction order are paradoxical because as per approval, respondent was running an organised crime syndicate, whereas as per sanction order, he was merely a member of the organised crime syndicate.It means that after investigation, investigating officer found that respondent was not running an organised crime syndicate but he was merely a member of said syndicate.There is nothing in charge-sheet to show who was running the organised crime syndicate, of which respondent is merely a member.Therefore, learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that investigating agency failed to collect sufficient evidence to show prima facie that respondent was either running an organised crime syndicate or was member of any such syndicate.These 34 cases includes present one.Scrutiny of the cases reveals that prosecution has not filed the copy of charge-sheet of 20 cases, thus these 20 cases cannot be considered at the time of considering the continuous unlawful activities of the respondent because in the absence of charge-sheet, learned Trial Judge was unable to Crl.P.42/2012 Page 10 of 57 ascertain as to whether the offence committed therein was related to organised crime or not.One case (FIR No. 09/2004) pertained to Section 20 of NDPS Act.P.42/2012 Page 10 of 57Learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that by no stretch of imagination, the offences allegedly committed under the above FIRs can be considered as an offence committed either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.I note, learned Trial Judge has recorded that the contents of three cases i.e. FIR Nos.34/1992, 395/2001 and 85/1986, on considering all the facts of these three cases and involvement of respondent therein, learned Trial Judge was of the view that prosecution has failed to show prima facie that above three cases were committed by respondent as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.Thus, he was of the opinion that said three cases do not qualify the requirements of Section 2(d) of the Act.While dealing with the contention regarding to so called huge properties acquired by the respondent, according to the prosecution, respondent had acquired three immovable properties namely 503/22, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi (property no.1), 113A-Village, Adhchhini, New Delhi (property no.2) and S-18, Handloom Complex, Industrial Estate, Loni, Ghaziabad (property no.3) and one movable property i.e lancer car (property no.4).The prosecution case is that respondent had acquired the said Crl.P.42/2012 Page 11 of 57 properties by doing unlawful activities and occupied the properties being the member of an organised crime syndicate.P.42/2012 Page 11 of 57I find, learned Trial Judge discussed the links of the properties and the investigation thereon and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record whatsoever that value of the said property in the year 2000 was more than ` 70,000/- or respondent had forced the vendor to sell the property against her wishes at just throw away prices.Moreover, there is no allegation against the respondent that respondent had acquired the said property by committing an offence as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.Qua property No.2, learned Trial Judge opined that there is no allegation that Riazuddin had not received the payment of said transaction qua the aforesaid property.There are no allegations that there was any dispute between the vendor and vendee.Secondly, the documents of seized by the police reveals that vendor Riazuddin had sold the property to vendee in the sum of ` 2,75,000/- on 05.01.2008, on payment so received by Riazuddin.Since the property was sold by Riazuddin to Ashfaq, there was no occasion for Ashfaq to make payment to the respondent.Moreso, it is clear if the respondent had occupied a portion of said premises forcibly then why no action initiated against respondent.Therefore, learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that neither there is Crl.P.42/2012 Page 12 of 57 allegation nor it can be culled out by any stretch of imagination that the said act could fall within the purview of an organised crime.P.42/2012 Page 12 of 57Qua property No.3, learned Trial Judge opined that if the value of the plot is appreciated during 1999 to 2009, then what is the fault of respondent.It appeared to learned Trial Judge that appreciated value has been mentioned in the charge-sheet to mislead the court, otherwise there was no occasion to mention the estimated present market value of the plot when the exact value of the plot is undisputed.Qua property No.4, i.e. lancer car, learned Trial Judge has opined that when the value of the car is depreciated even just after buying being labelled as second hand car.This shows that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and impartially.Learned Trial Judge has recorded that to invoke the Section 4 of the MCOCA, the prosecution has to show prima facie that respondent was holding the above properties either being the member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of any member of such syndicate.Thus, learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that prosecution has failed to make out a prima- facie case for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the MCOCA.Learned Trial Judge has also in the impugned order recorded on maintaining four bank accounts; out of them two accounts were maintained by his wife while, his daughter was maintaining one bank account.In the absence of any contrary evidence, learned Trial Judge finds no reason to disbelieve the contention of learned defence counsel that the credit entry in the bank accounts pertain to the sale proceeds of the said business.Moreover, it looks quite absurd that a person of criminal mind would deposit the booty in the bank account.If prosecution version is believed, it means that all credit entries such as ` 400/-, ` 1000/- ` 2000/-, ` 2500/- and so on were part of booty amount.Therefore, learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that it would amount to illogical inference.On the basis of above, learned Trial Judge opined that prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of the MCOCA.Thus, discharged respondent from the above charges.Being aggrieved, the State has filed instant petition wherein it is stated that learned Trial Judge has discharged the respondent from the Sections of MCOCA on the grounds that there is no evidence to show that respondent was a member of organized crime syndicate allegedly being run by him.Learned Trial Judge pointed out that prosecution failed to identify the Crl.P.42/2012 Page 14 of 57 members of alleged organized crime syndicate who were suspectedly involved in the instant case.P.42/2012 Page 14 of 57Further, learned Trial Judge observed that:- Approval order and Sanction order are paradoxical because as per approval respondent Khalil Ahmed was running an organised crime syndicate whereas as per sanction order he was merely a member of the organised crime syndicate.It means that after investigation, investigating officer found that respondent was not running an organised crime syndicate but he was merely a member of said syndicate.P.42/2012 Page 23 of 57The appellant along with other accused hatched conspiracy and committed murder of Sandeep Mohol (for convenience, "the deceased") on 4/10/2006 at about 11.30 a.m. while he was proceeding in his four wheeler near a traffic signal near Paud Flyover Bridge, Paud Road, Pune.After successfully commissioning the crime, they fled away.Thereafter, sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA was obtained from the Competent Authority.The application preferred by the appellant praying for discharge has been rejected vide the impugned order and, hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.We must however note our dissatisfaction about the conduct of the investigating Crl.P.42/2012 Page 25 of 57 agency.It is not understood how if it was desirous of challenging the order discharging the co-accused Taru, it slept over the matter for such a long time.The Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra needs to look into this matter.P.42/2012 Page 25 of 57It is not as if the sanction order has been issued on the basis of a cryptic note placed before the sanctioning authority.Such a construction will defeat the object of the MCOCA.Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon The State of Maharashtra v Rahul Ramchandra Taru Crl.Appeal No.239/2011 decided on 06.05.2011 by Division Bench of Bombay High Court wherein para No.14 held as under:-That appeal also had arisen from the Special Case No. 02 of 2007 which was filed by the accused no.7 whose application for discharge was Crl.P.42/2012 Page 42 of 57 rejected by the Special Judge, Special Court, Pune.It appears that the appellant in the said case was operating his own gang called as "Ganesh Marne Gang".Reliance has been placed upon above decision on behalf of respondent on Nos.4, 6 & 15; wherein it has been observed as under:-P.42/2012 Page 43 of 57The respondent submitted an application vide Exh. 99, seeking his discharge from the offence punishable under section 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii) and 3(iv) of the MCOCA.There is no evidence to show that the respondent-accused was at any point of time was a member of the organized crime syndicate.The State resisted this application.M.A.No.975/2012 (Stay) stands vacated and MA stands disposed of.No order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J APRIL 23, 2012 Mk/jg Crl. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 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.