id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
84,938,163 | The petitioners were prosecuted for offences under sections 353, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w.34 IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.They were convicted and sentenced as under :Aggrieved, the petitioners, namely A1 and A3 have appealed to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.The Appellate Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.The accused canvases legality and propriety of the conviction and the consequent sentence awarded by both the Courts.In such circumstances, the conviction recorded suffers from legality.Consequently, the sentence imposed shall go away.The two Courts recorded concurrent findings.As per the prosecution version, on 25.6.2007, at about 11.20 a.m., P.W.1, S.I. of Police and P.W.2 to 7 police personnel were on vehicle check up at Sonapalayam Junction, Puducherry.At about that time, when the accused came in two vehicles, where the police party asked vehicle documents, they were alleged to have scolded P.W.1 and other police personnel in filthy language, obstructed their public duty and also criminally intimidated them.P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.8 registered this case and did first investigation and P.W.9 completed the investigation and filed the Final Report.In the result, this revision is allowed.Conviction and sentenced awarded in C.C.No.118 of 2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry which has been confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in C.A.No.35 of 2015 as against the revision petitioners are set aside.Fine amount shall be refunded to them.Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.03.2016Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NovrcTo,The II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.The Government Advocate, Union Territory of Puducherry, High Court, Madras.The Station House Officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry.P.DEVADASS, J.R.C.No.499 of 2016 &Crl.M.P.No.3352 of 2016 22.03.2016 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,494,057 | 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 on I.A. No.2073/2020, which is the first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellants No.2 & 3- Ajay Pardi and Girraj Pardi respectively.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13/02/2020 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna in S.T. No.204/2018, whereby the appellants No. 2 & 3 have been convicted as under:-Prosecution story found to be proved against the appellants is that on 09/03/2017, the complainant lodged the report to the effect that when he alongwith his wife went to the market to buy flour, at that time, the appellants alongwith co-accused- ShriVallabh, armed with gun, stopped the complainant and started abusing filthily due to previous enmity.When the complainant stopped them not to abuse, co-accused- Shri Vallabh fired at the complainant and ran away threatening him to kill, due to which, the complainant received injuries of pellets.Thereafter, other co-accused namely- Krash Pardi, Jangu Pardi and Veeran came there and they also started abusing as well as beating the complainant and his wife by kick and fist.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants No. 2 and 3 have been implicated because they were present on the spot where the incident took place.They had no weapon when the incident took place.There is no allegation of beating the complainant against the appellants.No recovery has been made from both the appellants.The appellants No.2 and 3 were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them and they have suffered incarceration of about 5 and 4 months respectively.Attention has also been invited to the guidelines issued to all the States and Union Territories by the Apex Court for de-congesting the prisons in suo motu W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 (IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS) to consider release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed 3 CRA-2057-2020 punishment is up to 7 years or less by constituting a High Powered Committee.It is also submitted that there are fair chances of success of this appeal and the appeal may take long time for its conclusion and the appellants cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, the execution of sentence be suspended and the appellants No. 2 and 3- Ajay Pardi and Girraj Pardi respectively be released on bail.The appellants No. 2 and 3 shall also furnish a written undertaking that they will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government 4 CRA-2057-2020 and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus and they shall also install Arogya Setu App.(If not already installed) in the mobile phone.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2020.06.01 19:42:12 +05'30' | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,947,807 | 1) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard both thesides in both the matters for fnal disposal.2) The frst proceeding is fled for relief of quashing of C.R.No.145/2007 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar forthe ofences punishable under sections 120-B, 109, 119, 167, 420, ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:00:49 ::: Cri.No. 2630/19 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:00:49 :::467, 468, 471, 474, 199, 200, 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as 'I.P.C' for short).Chargesheet is also fled in the saidcrime and number is given as R.C.C. No. 677/2009 and it is pendingin the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar.4) The informant in the frst crime Shaikh Abdul RahmanAmeen was father in law of applicant No. 3 Smt. Nasim GafarShaikh, grandfather of applicant No. 4 Shri.Mohasin Gafar Shaikh,father of applicant No. 5 Smt. Rashida Mohammed Khan andgrandfather of applicant No. 6 Nasir Mohammed Shaikh.He hasmade allegations in the F.I.R. that false record of power of attorneywas created against him and by using false record of power ofattorney accused No. 5 Mohasin Shaikh transferred his immovableproperty described in the F.I.R. to the other accused and otheraccused knew that the power of attorney was not given by theinformant and thereby they have also committed the ofences.This ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:00:49 ::: Cri.No. 2630/19 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:00:49 :::If the cost amount is not deposited within ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:00:49 ::: Cri.No. 2630/19 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:00:49 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,947,853 | He undertakes to cooperate in the trial as well as in the investigation as and when required, 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10284/2019 (Vinod Katare Vs.Therefore, applicant prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall mark his presence on every fortnight before the concerned police station between 10 am to 2 pm, till filing of charge sheet.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2019.03.15 17:11:52 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,949,236 | [Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This review application has been filed by the detenu himself to reviewthe order, dated 25.07.2013, passed in H.C.P.(MD).No.134 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the relief sought by the wife of the review petitioner to produceher husband viz., the review petitioner / detenu, aged about 38 years,convict No.87346, detained at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at libertyon the ground that on the date of commission of the offence, he was ajuvenile, was rejected.2.The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved inthis case is as follows;(a) The petitioner herein was arrayed as A1 in S.C.No.94 of 1991 andwas convicted, along with the other accused, under Sections 302 and 148 IPCand sentenced to undergo the major punishment of imprisonment for life by thelearned District and Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur andon appeal, the same was, subsequently, confirmed by a Division Bench of thisCourt in Crl.Raising the above submission,the wife of the petitioner has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition No.134 of2013 before a Division Bench of this Court.The learned Principal District Judge had examined (a)wife of the accused as C.W.1, who marked the Xerox copy of the record sheetrelating to the accused issued by the Headmistress of Saint Saveriyar'sMiddle School, Vallam as Ex.P2; (b) the Headmistress of Saint Saveriyar'sMiddle school as C.W.2, who marked a Xerox copy of School Admission Register as Ex.P1; (c) the mother of the accused as C.W.3; (d) the accused as C.W.4;(e) Dr.Malarvizhi, Radiologist, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital as C.W.5,who marked X-ray series as Ex.P3 and radiological report as Ex.P4; and (f)Dr.Tamilmani as C.W.6, who marked his reports as Exs.After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, including the medical evidence,the learned Principal District Judge had submitted a report determining theage of the accused as 18 years as on the date of occurrence.However, theearlier Division Bench ordered for an enquiry through the learned PrincipalDistrict Judge, Thanjavur and based on the enquiry report submitted by thelearned Principal District Judge, in which the age of the detenu wasdetermined as 18 years, dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by thewife of the petitioner.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit thateven assuming that the petitioner was 18 years on the date of commission ofthe offence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena case, cited supra, the petitioner can be released by considering his age onthe lower side within the margin of one year.Thus, the learned counsel forthe petitioner prayed to review the order passed in the habeas corpuspetition and to set the petitioner at liberty.However, based on the report of thelearned Principal District Judge, the earlier Division Bench of this Courthas dismissed the petition.Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner wasimposed with life imprisonment.In the result, this Review Petition is allowed and the order, dated25.07.2013, passed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court inH.C.P.(MD).No.134 of 2013 is reviewed and the H.C.P.(MD).No.134 of 2013 isallowed and the respondents are directed set the petitioner / detenu viz.3.The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Town Police (South) Station, Thanjavur.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,950,411 | This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in crime No.257/2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 506, 325, 354-B, 307, 34 of IPC.Counsel for the applicant prays for permission to withdraw this application with liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C., with a further direction that the Court of competent jurisdiction may be directed to decide the application for regular bail, preferably on the same day.In view of the above, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the Court of competent Court of jurisdiction/trial Court within a week and apply for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.,The Court below shall requisition the case diary and after hearing both the parties shall endeavour to decide the application, on merits expeditiously.This Mis.Case stands disposed of, accordingly. | ['Section 307 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 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
849,593 | Supplementary affidavit filed be kept on the record.This revision is directed against the order dated 17.4.10 whereby theAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Aligarh in case no.641/10treated the protest petition filed by the revisionist as a complaint.That was challenged by the revisionist on the ground that thestatements of the witnesses were not recorded by the police correctly and thatthe affidavits filed by the complainant of the witnesses was also not taken intouse. | ['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,961,790 | The prosecution case as emerged out in the course of trial, in nutshell, is given below:-accompanied by Brijesh Sharma (PW-1) made an oral FIR at Police Station Subhashpura district Shivpuri stating that in the morning of 23/7/2001 Permanand and Keshav (Both were later murdered), Banti (PW-7), Sahansah @ Sarle (PW-8), Vimal (not examined due to his death), Kanwar Lal (PW-2), residents of village Karsena, Narayan and Hazrat (Both were later murdered), residents of village Imaliya, had gone to the forest of village Narsinghpur for grazing their domestic animals.In the afternoon of the same day at about 4:00 pm Banti, Vimal and Sahansah came back to village Karsena and informed him that in the forest a gang of dacoits comprising namely Rambabu, Dayaram, Gopal, Pratap, Baiju @ Vijay, the accused-appellant herein, and one unknown dacoit came in the police uniforms with guns and they captured 4 CrA.725/2008 them and asked their names and whereabouts.Thereafter, they released them by saying to go their villages and to inform the concerned that the gang of Rambabu dacoit has abducted Permanand, Hazrat, Kanwar Lal, Narayan and Keshav and the gang would free them from their custody taking ransom.Abductee Permanand is his brother.Upon the oral FIR, Head Constable Suresh (not examined) recorded F.I.R. Ex.P-4 and registered a case against the aforenamed dacoits at Crime No. 71/2001 for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.Sahansah gave it to him, saying that the gang of Rambabu dacoit gave it to them wherein it has been written that the gang 5 CrA.725/2008 has demanded five lakh rupees in ransom.He seized letter Ex.P-1 from the possession of informant Madan Lal vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 in the presence of witnesses Narendra Singh and Lokendra Singh (not examined).He also prepared spot map at the instance of informant Madan Lal vide Ex.(2.3) On 12/8/2001, abductee Kanwar Lal (PW-2) had been released by the gang of said dacoits.Thereafter, he reached Police Station Subhashpura, where Assistant Sub-Inspector Narendra Bhargava (PW-12) has made his recovery memo Ex.(2.4) On 11/8/2001, at about 6:00 p.m. Vidyaram (not examined) informed the police at Police Station Mohna of Gwalior district that he saw four dead bodies of unknown persons lying nearby a culvert on the Mohna-Karahi road.Thereupon, J.P. Bhatt (PW-14), the SHO of the police 6 CrA.725/2008 station, recorded merg intimation Ex.Meanwhile, he got a message on wireless-set from Police Station Subhashpura that all the four deceased persons belong to villages Karsena and Imaliya and the police of Police Station Subhashpura with the villagers of Karsena and Imaliya were reaching the place where the dead bodies are lying.J.P. Bhatt with police force reached the place.There, he prepared spot map Ex.P-5 at the instance of Kanwar Lal.The witnesses present there identified the dead bodies.Thereupon, he held inquest proceedings on the dead bodies of 7 CrA.725/2008 Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshav being Ex.P-12 to P-15 in the presence of informant Madan Lal and four other witnesses (not examined).Later, he sent their dead bodies for postmortems to J.A Hospital Gwalior, where Dr. Surendra Singh Jadon (PW-11) performed autopsies on their dead bodies.He opined that Narayan, Hazarat, Keshav and Permanand suffered homicidal deaths due to gunshot injuries on vital parts of their bodies.He gave their postmortem reports Ex.P-22 to Ex.P-25 respectively.(2.5) After merg inquiries, J.P. Bhatt lodged FIR Ex.P-35 at Police Station Mohna at Crime No. 0/2001 against dacoits/accused namely Dayaram, Rambabu, Pratap, Gopal, Baiju @ Vijay' the accused-appellant herein, and brother-in-law of dacoit Rambabu.(2.6) H.C. Brijmohan Sharma (PW-5) and S.I.Som Raghuvanshi (PW-10) had investigated the case.9. J.P. Bhatt (PW-14) has stated that on 12/8/2001, he reached the place where the dead bodies of four persons were lying.He issued safina forms Ex.P-8 to P- 11 inviting the witnesses present there to identify them and to assist him in drawing the inquest proceedings.The Panch witnesses had identified the dead bodies as those of Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshavram.Thereupon, he prepared inquest reports Ex.P-12 to P-15 respectively.He has also deposed that in the opinion of Panch witnesses and that of him they were prima facie died of bullet injuries which they had found on their dead 17 CrA.725/2008 bodies.He has also deposed that he had sent their dead bodies for postmortem examinations.Dr. Surendra Singh Jadon (PW-11) has deposed that on 12/8/2001 in J.A. Hospital Gwalior, he conducted the postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of Narayan, Hazrat, Keshavram and Permanand and gave autopsy reports Ex.P-22 to P-25 respectively.Informant Madan Lal (PW-3) has testified that in the morning of the day of incident, all the four deceased namely Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshavram and Kanwar Lal, Banti, Sahansah and Vimal had gone to the 18 CrA.725/2008 forest nearby village Narsinghpur for grazing their domestic animals.(Pronounced on the 10th day of January 2018) Per: RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.Brijmohan Sharma recorded the case-diary statements of informant Madan Lal, Banti, Vimal and Sahansah.Som Raghuvanshi recorded the case diary statements of Kaptan Singh, Meharban Singh, Takhat Singh and Brijesh Sharma.(2.7) Police Subhashpura sent all the articles collected during the investigation of the case for forensic examinations to FSL Gwalior vide Ex.As per the record, during the trial of the case the prosecution had not produced the FSL report.(2.8) On 1/1/2002, Police Subhashpura filed the charge-sheet against the six accused/ 9 CrA.725/2008 dacoits-namely Dayaram, Rambabu, Gopal, Pratap, Vijay S/o Nadariya and Baiju @ Vijay, the accused-appellant herein, under Sections 364, 365, 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in the Court of CJM Shivpuri, declaring them absconding.Thereupon, Criminal Case No. 16/2002 came to be registered.On 22/1/2002, learned CJM issued permanent arrest warrants against them and consigned the case to the record room with the direction that it be kept safe.(2.9) On 25/5/2007, Police Subhashpura filed an application stating that accused Baiju has been detained in Central Jail Gwalior in another criminal case, therefore, the police be permitted to arrest him in the present case.Thereupon, the learned CJM granted permission for his formal arrest in the present case.(2.10) On 21/7/2007, Police Subhashpura filed 10 CrA.725/2008 an application seeking permission for further investigation under the provisions of Section 173 (8) CrPC against accused Baiju on the ground that the investigation of the case was done when he had been in abscondance.The learned CJM granted permission.Thereafter, On 2/8/2007, Police Subhashpura filed additional charge-sheet against accused Baiju for being prosecuted for the aforestated offences stating that the remaining abovenamed five accused persons had been died.(2.11) On 17/8/2007, the learned CJM passed the committal order under Section 209 CrPC in respect of accused Baiju.Thereafter, Sessions Case No. 155/2007 came to be registered, which was made over by the Sessions Judge Shivpuri for trial to the First Additional Sessions Judge Shivpuri.On 29/8/2007, the learned ASJ framed the charges 11 CrA.725/2008 against accused Baiju for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 364-A r.w. 149 in alternative 365 r.w. 149 and 302 read with 149 (four counts) IPC.Accused Baiju pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed for trial.Thereafter, he was put on trial.In the examination under Section 313 CrPC, accused Baiju had denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.His defence was, simpliciter, false implication.He did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.4. Having analyzed and appreciated the prosecution evidence in the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ has held accused Baiju guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 364-A r.w. 149, 365 r.w. 149 and 302 r.w. 149 IPC and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment.Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, accused Baiju filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC from jail under the provisions of Section 383 CrPC.We heard learned counsel for the parties at length.Thus, the time gap between the incident and the recording of the statement of Kanwar Lal in the trial court is over six years.In the circumstance, the dock identification of accused Baiju by Kanwar Lal is wholly unreliable.Consequently, the learned ASJ has grossly erred in placing implicit reliance upon his evidence.He further submitted that informant Madan Lal has not stated in the FIR Ex.P-4 that Banti, Sahansah and deceased Vimal gave him jointly a letter Ex.P-1 in which the accused persons demanded five lakh rupees for the release of all the five abductees, whereas on the 13 CrA.725/2008 following day of recording of the FIR i.e. 24/7/2001 Head Constable Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-5) had seized letter Ex.P-1 from the possession of informant Madan Lal vide seizure memo Ex.Thus, the letter of demand of ransom Ex.P-1 is forged one.He further submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which have not been considered by the learned ASJ while appreciating the prosecution evidence.He further submitted that the prosecution case is that all the four deceased persons were murdered for non-payment of ransom by accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons.Thus, they committed only the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.But, the learned ASJ has also convicted and sentenced accused Baiju under Sections 148, 365 r.w. 149 and 302 r.w. 149 IPC.As such, the learned ASJ has committed the said legal error.Upon these submissions, he prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and acquitting accused Baiju from all the offences in which he has been convicted.In reply, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the evidence on record, Kanwar Lal remained in 14 CrA.725/2008 the captivity of accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons for some 18 to 20 days, therefore, he came to know accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons by their names, physical features, appearances, the styles of walking and talking.In the circumstance, there was no need for holding the test identification parade for identification of accused Baiju by Kanwar Lal.She further submitted that as per the evidence of Banti (PW-7) and Sahansah (PW-8) they had been released by the accused persons on the same day i.e. 23/7/2001 after keeping them in captivity for a few hours.That is why, they have not identified accused Baiju while giving the evidence before the trial court after a gap of over six years.Therefore, their non-identification of accused Baiju before the trial court does not make any dent in the prosecution case.She further submitted that informant Madan Lal (PW-3) has stated that at the time of recording of FIR Ex.P-4, he gave a letter Ex.P-1 to the writer of the FIR Head Constable Suresh (not examined).His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Brijesh (PW-1), who accompanied him at the time of lodgment of the FIR at Police Station Subhashpura.Thus, it is a 15 CrA.725/2008 lapse on the part of Head Constable Suresh for not having seized letter Ex.P-1 in accordance with law at the time of recording the F.I.R. Moreover, letter Ex.P-1 is terribly illegible.She further submitted that there is overwhelming ocular evidence on record that all the four deceased persons and Kanwar Lal were abducted by accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons for getting ransom.Therefore, the seizure of letter Ex.P-1 on the following day of recording of the FIR Ex.P-4 does not affect the prosecution case even a bit.She further submitted that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which are having no material bearing upon the prosecution case.However, she fairly conceded that all the four deceased were murdered for non-payment of the ransom as demanded by accused Baiju and the remaining five deceased accused persons.Therefore, accused Baiju ought to have been convicted only under Section 364-A IPC.According to his opinion, they suffered homicidal deaths due to gunshot injuries which were on the vital parts of their bodies.They had died within 6 to 36 hours before the commencement of postmortem examinations by him.Upon the perusal of the cross-examinations of both the witnesses, we find that the defence has not impeached the credibility of their evidence and their opinion regarding the nature of the deaths of all the four deceased persons.In the afternoon of the same day about 4:00 p.m., Banti, Sahansah and Vimal told him that accused Baiju and other accused persons named in the FIR had abducted Kanwar Lal, Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshavram and they had given a letter Ex.P- 1 to them in which they have made a demand of five lakh rupees for their release.Thereupon, he lodged FIR Ex.P-4 in the night of the same day at Police Station Subhashpura having been accompanied by Brijesh (PW-1).The aforesaid evidence of informant Madan Lal is corroborated by the evidence of Brijesh (PW-1), Banti (PW-7) and Sahansah (PW-8).Upon the perusal of their cross-examinations, we find that there are minor discrepancies which had been occurred in our confirmed opinion due to lapse of memories.However, there is nothing in their cross-examinations to disbelieve their evidence.However, as per seizure memo Ex.P-6, letter Ex.P-1 was seized by Head Constable Brijmohan 19 CrA.725/2008 Sharma (PW-5) on 24/7/2001 i.e. one day after the lodgment of FIR Ex.In our opinion, seizure of letter Ex.P-1 on the next date of lodgment of the FIR does not make it a forged letter because of the evidence of Banti (PW-7) who has stated that the said letter had been written in his presence.At the most, it may be a lapse on the part of the writer of the FIR Head Constable Suresh that he had not seized it at the time of recording of the F.I.R. From the analysis of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, we hold that all the four deceased persons and Kanwar Lal were abducted by accused Baiju together with the remaining five accused persons for an objective to seek ransom from their family members.Kanwar Lal (PW-2) has testified that on the date of incident Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat, Keshavram, Banti, Sahansah and Vimal and he were grazing their domestic animals in the forest nearby village Narsinghpur with some distances from one another.One tribal man came to him and told him that the police have summoned him.Thereupon, he went with him.There, he saw accused persons namely Dayaram, Rambabu, Gopal, Pratap, Vijay and Baiju, the accused-appellant, in police uniforms and 20 CrA.725/2008 with them Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshavram.They abducted them.They took them deep in the forest.They kept them for about 16 days in the forest.Later, they freed him in the forest nearby Aron village, saying that they had not so far received the ransom, therefore, they would murder Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshavram.Some time later, he heard that they had been shot down by accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons.He has also identified accused Baiju in the course of his evidence before the trial court, and he has also stated that accused Baiju used to poke him and all the four deceased persons with a stick.In his cross-examination in para 4, he has admitted that the police had not held test identification parade for identification of accused Baiju by him.At this stage, we will first consider the impact of non-holding of test identification parade of accused Baiju preceded by his dock identification by Kanwar Lal over the reliability of his evidence.As per the evidence of Kanwar Lal, his recovery memo Ex.P-3 and F.I.R. Ex.P-4, 21 CrA.725/2008 it appears that Kanwar Lal remained in the captivity of accused Baiju and the remaining five accused persons for about 20 days and during that period they took him to various places with them in the forest.Therefore, Kanwar Lal had got better acquainted with accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons by their names and physical features for having been in their company for about 20 days.Kanwar Lal has deposed that accused Baiju used to poke a stick in the body of him and all the four deceased persons.Thus, the physical features, the appearance and body language of accused Baiju have been deeply embedded in the memory of Kanwar Lal as his tormentor.In the circumstances, holding of test identification parade of accused Baiju was not necessary after his arrest in the case, and the dock identification of accused Baiju by Kanwar Lal cannot be doubted after the gap between the incident and his evidence before the trial court of over six years.It is well settled in law that the identification of an accused in the test identification parade is a primary evidence and the substantive evidence of identification of an accused by a witness is before the trial court, and the evidence of a witness on 22 CrA.725/2008 the point of identification cannot be disbelieved because of non-holding of test identification parade if the evidence of an eyewitness on the point of identification is found to be trustworthy and without any ill motive.State of U.P., AIR 1971 SCC 363, Daya Singh Vs.State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295, State of Rajasthan Vs.Daud Khan (2016) 2 SCC 607 and Noor Mohammad and Ors.Upon the perusal of cross-examination of Kanwar Lal, we find that the defence has failed to undermine the credibility and truthfulness of his evidence.We also find that there is no material contradictions and inconsistencies between his case diary statement Ex.D-1 and his evidence before the court.Moreover, we do not find any motive on the part of Kanwar Lal to give false evidence against accused Baiju.Therefore, we hold that Kanwar Lal is a witness of truth and we place implicit reliance upon his evidence.From the aforestated analysis of his evidence, we hold that accused Baiju and 23 CrA.725/2008 the remaining accused persons had abducted him and all the four deceased persons for the purpose of getting ransom from their family members.Kaptan Singh (PW-4) and Takhat Singh (PW-6) are the brothers of deceased Narayan and the father of deceased Keshavram respectively.They have stated in their examination-in-chief that Narayan and Keshavram with Hazrat and Permanand were abducted when they had gone to the forest nearby village Narsinghpur for grazing their domestic animals in order to get ransom from their family members.They had been murdered by the abductors because of non-payment of ransom to them.They have stated that Kanwar Lal had been released by the abductors.He told them that all the four deceased persons and he were abducted by accused Baiju and the remaining five accused persons.Upon the perusal of their cross-examination, we find some discrepancies in their evidence which are of minor nature and do not affect the reliability of their evidence.Thus, we hold their evidence is inspiring to the extent of abduction of all the four deceased persons and Kanwar Lal by a gang of dacoits of which accused Baiju is one of 24 CrA.725/2008 the members for the purpose of getting ransom.From the aforesaid critical analysis of evidence on record, we hold that all the four deceased persons and and Kanwar Lal were abducted by accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons to extract ransom from their family members and on account of non-receiving the ransom, they gunned Permanand, Narayan, Hazrat and Keshavram down.Therefore, they had committed the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.Thus, the learned ASJ has rightly convicted accused Baiju for the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.Since accused Baiju and the remaining accused persons abducted all the four deceased persons and Kanwar Lal with an objective to get ransom, the learned ASJ has committed a legal mistake in convicting and sentencing accused Baiju for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 365 r.w. 149, 302 r.w. 149 and 364-A with the aid of 149 IPC instead of convicting and sentencing him under Section 364-A IPC simpliciter. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
849,653 | JUDGMENT Somasundaram, J.One Kunhi Parambath Matha who was living in Panur with her children used to receive money orders every month from her husband who was working in Burma.In the month of May, 1954, she did not receive any money order from her husband.She wrote to her husband that she had not received any remittance from him.A complaint was made by her husband from Rangoon as a result of which an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent, Foreign Post, Calcutta.The Post Master, Panur on looking into his accounts found that the money order had been entrusted to the appellant for payment to the payee, P.W. 2 in the case and that the accused had returned the money order form as if the money had been paid.There was a thumb impression, as that of P.W. 2 in token of her having received the amount.The accused himself says that he had paid the money to P.W. 2, the payee.The payee is an illiterate person.She cannot sign her name and can only affix her thumb impression.Her thumb impression has been forged.P.W. 2 says that she has not received any money order and that she did not put her thumb impression to the money order.In the course of investigation the police Sub-Inspector had taken the thumb impressions of the accused as well as that of P.W. 2, the payee.On the evidence of the Finger Print Expert and that of P.W. 2 that she did not put her thumb impression to any money order form and receive the amount, it is clear that the accused must have forged the thumb impression of P.W. 2 the payee and misappropriated the amount. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,008,121 | Vijayakumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') for purchasing larger extent of property.We are now concerned only with respect to the property in Survey Nos.6/1, 8/1, 19/2C, 19/2D, 20, 27/1 and 27/2 in Kazhipattur Village.The respondent, pursuant to the agreement entered into by him with C.Natesan, representing Anubhav Plantations Limited, agreed to assign 12.32 1/2 acres of land at Kazhipattur Village.Though the respondent registered the document conveying the property, it was made out subsequently that he was not having valid title to convey 6.81 acres of land.The respondent proved his title only with respect to 5.51 = acres of land.He received a total consideration of Rs.1 Crore and 53 lakhs.After adjusting the value of 5.51 = acres of land, viz., Rs.62,04,375/-, he has to refund a sum of Rs.90,95,625/-.In the meantime, liquidation proceedings were initiated by the Company Court.The Division Bench of this Court, as per order dated 02.11.1999 in O.S.A.No.305 of 2011, appointed Thiru.M.Ravindran, Senior Advocate, as Administrator to look after the affairs of Anubhav Group of Companies.The official liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator.The Administrator and his team took possession of records and documents belonging to the company in liquidation.The Administrator, on verification of records, found that the respondent conveyed 4.45 acres of Government land out of the total extent of 12.32 = acres registered earlier.The Administrator also found that there were 250 huts in the said land.The respondent filed objection to the memo and submitted that he has received only part payment from Thiru.C.Natesan and he never claimed the ownership of the land in Survey No.20 of Kazhipattur Village.The respondent maintained that the patta of the property in question was cancelled by the Sub-Collector only after the execution of sale deeds and as such, he was no way responsible for the subsequent events.The learned Single Judge, on a perusal of the report, submitted by the Administrator, and the objection raised by the respondent, prima facie found that the records were fabricated to claim ownership over Government land and opined that investigation by the police is absolutely necessary.Since the interest of large number of depositors of Anubhav Group of Companies is involved, I am of the view, the investigation should be conducted by C.B., C.I.D. of the state of Tamil Nadu and the investigation should be done by a higher officers in C.B., C.I.D not lower in rank than that of Superintendent of Police, because the points required to be investigated involve the question regarding issuance of the certificates called "Manai Urimai Chandrithazh" as well as rough pattas in favour of several persons on the basis of which Anubhav Group of Companies had paid the huge funds.The Investigating officer is directed to file the report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to render all assistance to the investigating officer for conducting proper investigation in this matter."The Crime Branch, CID, on the strength of the order passed by the Company Court, dated 18 January, 2001, in Company Petition No.130 of 1999, registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2001, under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent and others including the then Deputy Tahsildar, Village Administrative Officer, Special Tahsildar (Natham Settlement), Surveyors and Thiru.C.Natesan, Director of Anubhav Group Companies.The Investigating Officer examined 44 witnesses and recorded statements.The police submitted a preliminary report before the Company Court.The Company Court, on a perusal of records, passed the following order on 04 December, 2001:That, the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch II, C.B.C.I.D., Chennai-2, be and is directed to proceed further to prosecute the accused persons named in the report, file a charge sheet, substantiate the charges and proceed further according to law.That, the Police may file a report once in six months setting out the progress of the Criminal prosecution, and if they require any further direction, it is open to them to move this Court.He would submit:According to the respondent, Thiru.The Court found that the Government officials in connivance with real estate promoters fabricated records and a deliberate attempt was made to grab the Government land.The investigation, as per order dated 18 January, 2001, was not confined to the agreement executed by the respondent in favour of Natesan.It was a comprehensive investigation to unearth the part played by the Government officials with all concerned, falsification of records and forgery to claim ownership over the Government land.The official liquidator and the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, are aggrieved by the order passed by the Company Court in its exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the first respondent in O.S.A.Nos.463 of 2012 and 61 of 2013 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.6535 of 2002 (after examining 44 witnesses and marking 85 documents on the side of the prosecution) initiated on the basis of the order passed by the Company Court earlier and confirmed by the Division Bench.BACKGROUND FACTS:M/s.Anubhav Plantations Limited (in liquidation) represented through its Director Mr.C.Natesan, entered into an agreement with Thiru.The learned Judge was of the view that the Government officials were also involved in fabrication of records and as such, comprehensive investigation is required.The learned Judge directed the Crime Branch CID, to investigate the matter.The State was directed to nominate an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.The order passed by the Company Court dated 18 January, 2001, reads thus:In the memo dated 16.08.2000 filed by the Administrator, it is state that an agreement was entered into an 24.01.1994 by Anubhav Group of Companies with one R.Vijayakumar wherein Vijayakumar has agreed to sell lands of an extent of 5.42 acres in Survey No.20 of Kazhipattu Village.The said Vijayakumar executed the sale agreement dated .01.1994 on the basis of the power of attorneys dated 14.2.1989 executed in his favour by several persons who at that point of time, had only certificates called "Manai Urimai Chandrithazh".Xerox copies of the certificates were produced before this Court.Since no patta had been issued in favour of these persons at the time of execution of the agreement dated 24.01.1994, probably another agreement was entered into on 9.5.1996 between Vijayakumar and Natesan on behalf of Anubhav Group of Companies and the second agreement was entered into on the basis of the rough pattas issued in favour of the persons who had executed power of attorney in favour of Vijayakumar and the total sale consideration was lands at Rs.1,91,25,000/-.It is further stated that Vijayakumar executed several sale deeds in favour of the Natesan between 30.11.1996 and 25.6.1997 conveying lands of an extent of 7 acres 42 cents.It is stated that Vijayakumar also executed 14 sale deeds in respect of lands of an extent of 4 acres 45 cents and these sale deeds remain unregistered.It is also stated that Vijayakumar has received from Anubhav Group of Companies a sum of Rs.1,53,00,000/- towards sale consideration.In the memo, it is also stated that Vijayakumar has sold properties under 39 sale deeds of which 25 sale deeds were registered and 14 remain unregistered.It is stated that in so far as the lands at Kazhipattur village are concerned, out of 12.32 1/2 acres and for the rest of the lands, he did not have title and according to the Administrator, unless Vijayakumar establishes his titles in respect of 6.81 acres in survey Nos.6/1, 8/1, 19/2C, 19/2D,20, 27/1 and 27/2 of Kazhipattur Village, Vijayakumar is liable to refund a sum of Rs.90,95,625/-.It is stated that Vijayakumar has retained one acre land in Kazhipattur and 50 cents of land in muttukadu for which he has a valid title.Notice was ordered to R.Vijayakumar and also to the Government of Tamil Nadu.I heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Advocate General and also the learned counsel appearing for Vijayakumar.Before deciding the lands involved, I feel a detailed investigation is necessary as the following points-on what basis the certificates called "Manai Urimai Chandrithazh" were issued in favour of several persons and who had issued the said certificates and these matters were all required to be thoroughly investigated.That, the prosecution shall file a memo before the concerned court and bring this direction to the attention of the said court."The Investigating Officer seized 85 documents and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.The Division Bench scanned the materials and observed that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in directing the registration of case and investigation of the matter.The Division Bench further observed that mere direction to prosecute would not amount to an order imposing punishment.Accordingly, the original side appeal was dismissed.While the prosecution was pending, the Company Court took up the report field by the Administrator making a claim for a sum of Rs.47 lakhs against the respondent.Before the learned Judge, the respondent submitted that the Administrator, during the course of the proceedings, sold an extent of 7.87 1/2 acres of land at the rate of Rs.6.70 lakhs per acre.Though the value of the remaining extent of 4.20 acres of land would come to Rs.27 lakhs, if the valuation was taken at Rs.6.70 lakhs, on the basis of the rate fetched at the subsequent auction, the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full and final satisfaction of the claim.The learned Judge accepted the said offer.Accordingly, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full satisfaction of the claim.The said order dated 03 March, 2005 is challenged in O.S.A.No.464 of 2012, at the instance of the Official Liquidator and Administrator.While the matters stood thus, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took the criminal case for trial.The prosecution examined as many as 44 witnesses and marked 85 documents.It was only at the fag end of the trial, the respondent filed an application before the Company Court in Company Application No.1701 of 2010 to quash the criminal proceedings against him on account of the payment of a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full quit.The learned Judge was of the view that the prosecution against the respondent should have been concluded on account of the payment of a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full and final satisfaction of the claim made by the Administrator.The learned Judge, without issuing notice to the police, quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent.The said order dated 06 January, 2011, is the subject matter of challenge in O.S.A.No.463 of 2012, at the instance of the Official Liquidator and Administrator.The learned Administrator made the following submissions:(iii) Even as per the learned Judge, the value of the property at the rate of Rs.6.70 lakhs would come to Rs.27 lakhs.Even then, the matter was settled for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs.The Division Bench directed the respondent to face the trial.(vi) The order passed by the Company Court earlier on 03 March, 2005 was not for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.In case payment of Rs.20 lakhs was for the purpose of absolving the respondent from criminal proceedings, the Company Court would have passed such a specific order.However, the order dated 03 March, 2005 does not contain any such direction.The said fact was overlooked by the learned Single Judge while passing the order quashing the criminal proceedings.(vii) There were number of proceedings between the parties which went upto the Supreme Court.The police collected materials and proved the association of the respondent in the act of cheating and forgery of Government records.(ii) The investigation revealed that the respondent in association with the Government officials fabricated records to appear as if his vendors have absolute right in respect of the property.The learned counsel for the respondent made extensive submissions both on fact and law.The order directing criminal prosecution was challenged by the respondent before the Division Bench.In fact, even before passing the order on 04 December, 2001, directing the police to submit the charge sheet, the respondent was made an accused.The learned Judge directed the police to file a report once in six months setting out the progress of the criminal prosecution.Liberty was given to the police to seek appropriate directions.The respondent wanted to settle the civil liability.It was only with the said idea, he made a statement before the Company Court about his willingness to pay the land value at the rate at which the land was sold by the Administrator.Even though, a sum of Rs.47 lakhs was due from the respondent, the learned Judge permitted the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full quit.Even as per the calculation made by the respondent, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.27 lakhs.However, the learned Judge accepted the proposal made by the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full and final satisfaction of the claim and directed the Administrator to accept the said payment.The Company Court is primarily concerned with the creditors.It is a matter of record that the promoters of Anubhav Plantations Limited cheated several depositors and they lost their hard earned money.The Administrator was appointed by the Division Bench primarily for the purpose of realising the amount by selling the property and to collect the amount from those who were in arrears to the company.Such being the case, the Company Court should have directed the respondent to pay the entire amount due from the respondent, instead of accepting a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full quit.The respondent is not a man of no means.He has taken the money and executed documents in respect of various items of property which were later found to be the property owned by Government.The respondent should have been directed to pay the entire amount instead of agreeing to his terms to accept a part of the total amount due.We do see considerable force in the argument of the Administrator that the interest of the creditors were sacrificed by accepting a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the respondent and absolving him from civil liability.The next issue is as to whether the Company Court was correct in quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the respondent.While making an offer to settle the matter by paying a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, the respondent has not made it conditional.The respondent wanted to settle the civil liability and it was only for the said purpose, he offered a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full and final settlement.His prayer before the learned Single Judge was not to absolve him from criminal liability by paying the said amount of Rs.20 lakhs.Therefore, the learned Judge confined the relief by directing the Administrator to receive a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full and final satisfaction of his claim against the respondent.The respondent earlier moved this Court and obtained anticipatory bail on certain conditions.Thereafter, application was filed to settle the claim.The respondent, after obtaining an order to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full quit, and subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court, by cross-examining the witnesses, invented a novel device to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Company Court.The respondent filed Company Application No.1701 of 2010, to direct the Administrator as well as the official liquidator to file appropriate applications before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, to compound the offence.The respondent prayed for an alternative relief of dropping further proceedings or a declaration, declaring the criminal proceedings as abated, on account of the settlement.The Administrator, in his report, submitted that the trial was over and the petition was filed belatedly after a period of five years.The learned Judge, without considering the background facts, including the order passed by the Division Bench confirming the order directing prosecution against the respondent, quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent.The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter and the case was taken on file as a calendar case.The Magistrate, after giving due opportunity to the accused, framed charges against all the accused including the respondent.Nothing prevented the respondent from filing a petition for discharge or a revision petition against the order framing charges.The respondent suddenly woke up from slumber and filed an application before the Company Court, on the basis of the earlier order accepting a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in full quit.It was only thereafter the trial commenced and several witnesses were examined before the criminal Court.The respondent actively participated in all those proceedings.It was only long thereafter, he has come up with the company application to quash the criminal proceedings.The application was filed on 23 October, 2010 virtually after a period of five years from the earlier order dated 03 March, 2005, accepting a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from him in full and final satisfaction of the claim.The fact that the respondent has not made a request to accept a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as a condition precedent for absolving him from criminal proceeding clearly shows his modus operandi.He wanted the Court to accept his offer without knowing the hidden agenda and thereafter, to come up with a belated application to absolve him from liability.The official liquidator, at that point of time, was not aware that by making use of the said order, the respondent would come, at a later point of time, to quash the criminal proceedings lodged against him.The fact that the Administrator accepted the amount, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, would not go to show that he has agreed to relieve the respondent from criminal liability.The civil liability in a matter of this nature is entirely different from the criminal liability.The settlement was only in respect of the civil liability.Such being the case, the application filed by the respondent at the fag end of the trial to quash the proceedings launched against him should have been rejected summarily.The learned counsel for the respondent contended that even the criminal Court can compound the offence and as such, the learned Judge was fully justified in absolving the accused from criminal liability and the said order should be treated as an order compounding the offence.The Superintendent of Police in his appeal in O.S.A.61 of 2013 contended that charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 109 IPC and as such, there was no question of compounding the offence.The order passed by the learned Judge does not contain any reference about the details of the charges framed against the respondent.The police made a specific charge against the petitioner under section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to criminal conspiracy.Even though the respondent took anticipatory bail as early as on 29.04.2002 and obtained an order to settle the claim made by the Administrator on 03 March, 2005, he took several years to file petition to absolve him from criminal prosecution.By the time, he filed the petition, the trial was in the final stage.The respondent, without disclosing the material facts, obtained an order absolving him from criminal liability.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order quashing the prosecution against the respondent is liable to be set aside.In the result, the orders dated 03 March, 2005 and 06 January, 2011 in C.A.Nos.1450 of 2002 and 1701 of 2010 are set aside.The Original Side Appeals are allowed.No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 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. |
107,008,612 | The prosecution case is that on 14.12.2011 at about 4.00 p.m, there was a quarrel between the appellant/accused and his wife over the appellant/accused being given to bad habits.The wife/deceased threatened appellant/accused that she would commit suicide, if he failed to mend his ways and threatened to pour kerosene over herself.The appellant/accused informing that he would not allow her but would do so himself, threw a lit match resulting in her suffering burn injuries.The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Udumalaipet on 14.12.2011 at 4.00.p.m.She succumbed to her injuries on 26.01.2012 at 10.15 a.m. Hence, the appellant/accused was tried for offence under Section 302 IPC.Upon intimation from hospital, PW-9, Head Constable went over and recorded the statement of the victim and registered a case in Crime No.1106 of 2011 on the file of respondent for offence u/s.307 IPC.The First Information Report is Ex.PW-11, Inspector of Police, took up investigation on 14.12.2011 at 23.45 hours, visited the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P8 - Observation Mahazar.He seized Material Objects vide M.O.1-White Kerosene Can of 10 litre capacity, M.O.2- Two bits of burnt blouse and M.O.3-Match Box under seizure Mahazar Ex.P2 in the presence of PW-5 and another.On 15.12.2011 at about 6.30.p.m, he arrested the accused at Cholamadhevi Junction.He recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of PW-5 and another.He sent the accused to Judicial custody.He examined PWs.1 to 5 and another and recorded their statements.On 26.01.2012, upon receiving information about the death of the victim, he altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC and sent report to learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalaipet.The alteration report is Ex.On the same day, between 13.30 and 15.30 hours, he conducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses.The inquest report is Ex.He sent the body for post-mortem.He examined PWs-1 to 4 and 6 and recorded their statements.On 27.01.2012, he examined PWs-7 to 9 and recorded their statements.There is every possibility of the first contemporaneous record i.e. Ex.On 10.02.2012, upon completion of investigation, he filed final report informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC.Upon committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.10 of 2012 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.Before the trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and three material objects.None were examined on behalf of the defence, nor were any exhibits marked.On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied charges.Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, under judgment dated 30.10.2012, convicted appellant/accused for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 6 months R.I. There against, the present appeal.Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.Perused the records.Prosecution case bristles with infirmities as mentioned below:-1.As per evidence of PW-7 Doctor, upon the admission of deceased to hospital, she had informed of having suffered burn injuries owing to a stove burst.This evidence finds support in Ex.P11 Accident Register maintained at hospital.2.PW-10, learned Judicial Magistrate has recorded statement of deceased under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Ex.P7 and the same is found to be most unreliable.Besides an obvious correction of the date in column 3 in Ex.P7 from 16.12.2011 to 14.12.2011, further recording is informed to be on 14.12.2011 at 3.25 p.m when even according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 14.12.2011 at 4.00 p.m.P5 is the complaint and Ex.P6 is the printed FIR.They replicate what is informed in Ex.P7, which has been found to be totally unreliable.The complaint allegedly has been recorded at 4.00 p.m on 14.12.2011 and the same has reached the learned Magistrate only on 15.12.2011 at 4.00.p.m.The same bears only a thumb impression.P11 Accident Register reflecting the correct position of the deceased having succumbed to injuries owing to a stove burst.The reason informed in Ex.P4 Post-mortem Report is Shock and Septicimea due to burns and raises the possibility of medical negligence.The Criminal Appeal shall stand allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,070,174 | Rajaram (P.W. 2) has deposed in para 6 that his sister was comfortable in the house of her husband for first 3-4 years.After that she complained when she came to his house that her husband and her mother-in-law were not providing her food and they were quarrelling with her.At that time her husband said that there would be no harassment to his wife.After that his sister came to his place twice.But she was not sent by her husband when he went to take her for the third time.She died two months after that.Kusamrani (P.W. 11) does not say that Kalanbai had never complained that she was beaten by her husband or by her mother-in-law.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellants Balram and Maharani have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and three years respectively.They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C.Deceased Kalanbai was second wife of appellant Balram.This marriage took place five years before the death of Kalanbai.She committed suicide by setting her ablaze on 26-3-1987 in the house of her husband.Rambatibai (P.W. 10) is first wife of appellant Balram.She has remarried Kaluram and she is living with him.These facts are not in dispute.This case was referred to the Division Bench on a question of law.That was whether Section 113A of the Evidence Act is attracted where the wife who has committed suicide was not "legally married".It has been answered in the affirmative.The only point which has been raised in this appeal is whether the appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Kalanbai.On this point there is evidence of Rajaram (P.W. 2), brother of the deceased and his wife Kusamrani (P.W. 11).The testimony of these two witnesses has been carefully scrutinized.This witness has further stated that accused Balram was not demanding any dowry.He went to the house of his sister to bring her two years ago and then her husband had refused to send her.At that time, his sister demanded ornaments from her mother-in-law and she was given a slap by her on her head.She lived with her mother for about two years.Then her husband-appellant Balram came to take her.There was a compromise between the two and his sister went with her husband to her matrimonial home.He gets casual works.She has deposed that her Nanad Kalanbai used to tell her that the appellants are not providing her proper food and she was not permitted to wear her ornaments when she used to come to the place of her mother.She was also complaining that she was not getting proper clothes.In cross-examination she has admitted that appellant Balram was sticken with poverty.He was working as a labourer. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,021,306 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.S.C.No.116 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR) Court, Thanjavur having been taken cognizance 1/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The respondent police after investigation, filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance as SSC No.40 of 2012 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Thanjavur.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent completed the investigation and filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.S.C.No.40 of 2012 and thereafter, A1 to A6 appeared before the trial Court and 2/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15626 of 2019 conducted the case, which was also ended in acquittal.Since, the petitioner has not appeared no one occasion before the trial Court, the trial Court split up the case insofar as the petitioner is concerned in S.S.C. No.116 of 2016 and it is now pending.The trial Court acquitted A1 to A6 on the ground that all the prime witness has turned hostile.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution.The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 12 and marked as Exs.P1 to 14 and the trial Court found that they have not spoken about the charges to prove the same and as such, A1 to A6 have been acquitted.In these circumstances, as against the petitioner, there is absolutely no evidence and as such, the pendency of the proceedings in S.S.C.No.116 of 2016 would not serve any purpose and therefore, he prayed for quashment of entire proceedings.5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that there are totally seven accused, in which, the petitioner was arrayed as A3 and only because of the absence of the petitioner before the trial Court, his case has been split up from the main case in S.S.C.No.40 of 2012, which was ended in acquittal.Therefore, the 3/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15626 of 2019 case as against the petitioner is concerned is pending in S.S.C.No.116 of 2016 for trial and the prosecution has to let in evidence and they have incriminating evidence as against the petitioner and as such, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the 1st respondent.7.It is the admitted case of the petitioner as well as the prosecution that there are totally seven accused, in which, A1 to A6 are concerned, the trial has been conducted and they have been acquitted in S.S.C No.40 of 2012 and insofar as A3 is concerned, since the petitioner has not appeared no one occasion before the trial Court, the case has been split up in S.S.C.No116 of 2016 and the same is pending for trial.8.The entire dispute is that intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate victims belongs to a scheduled caste.The 4/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15626 of 2019 trial Court recorded the reason for acquittal as follows:“To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to P.W.15 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.From Ex.P11 to Ex.P29, it is found that P.W.1 to P.W.8 and Gnanasekaran are all belong to Hindu Parayan Community, neither a Scheduled Caste.The Accused herein belong to Hindu Veerakodi Vellalar Community, neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe.However, the defacto complainant P.W1 and injured witness P.W.2 to P.W.8 have not supported the case of the prosecution.According to them, on 27.05.2009 there was scuffle near river bridge of Keezha Sambalur Village among the members of Velalar Community.When the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W.8 Gnanasekaran and Nandakumar has gone to worship temple car near river bridge they have suffered injury.Further, the witness said to have seen the occurrence P.W.9 Aathimuthu have also not supported the case of the prosecution.11.Further one of the witnesses to the observation Mahazar P.W.10 Amirthalingam has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and other witness to the observation Magazer was not examined before this Court.Hence, the evidence of P.W.10 is also not helpful to the prosecution.12.Further, the defacto complainant disowned his complaint and his signature found in Ex.32 complaint is marked as 5/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Even assuming that the receipt of complaint was pro0ved through P.W.14, the complaint and the First Information Report are only a corroborative piece of evidence and they cannot be used against the Accused herein in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence.Further, though P.W.11 Dr.Though the prosecution claimed that the accused herein attacked injured witnesses withAruval, Iron rod and Wooden log, no such material Objects were produced and marked before this Court.Further the prosecution has failed to prove the investigation Officer in this case was appointed interms of Rule 7 of SC/ST (PoA) Rules.In the absence of any such proof the evidence collected by the said investigation officer cannot be put against the Accused herein.The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Mannargudi 6/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.On perusal of the Judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.1998 it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons.The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW2) and Smt. Asha Rani(PW-5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW-13/a) of the deceased Balwan Singh.Both the said witnesses have not supported the 8/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15626 of 2019 prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex.PW.13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.Thus, the evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence.11.In the present case, except the petitioner/A3, other accused viz., A1 to A6 have been tried the charges and acquitted in S.S.C.No.40 of 2012 by the trial Court disbelieving the case of the prosecution and holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.The petitioner is being A3 is also standing in the same footing like the other accused persons.Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served to make the petitioners to undergo the ordeal of the trial.12.In view of the above discussion, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.S.C.No.116 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Thanjavur is 10/12http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15626 of 2019 quashed as against the petitioner/A3 is concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.30.10.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes vsgThe I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Court, Thanjavur.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valivalam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15626 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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. |
107,034,446 | This petition has been filed to quash the FIR Crime No.117 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 447, 342, 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.117 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 342, 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4. Heard MMr.P. Senguttuarasan, , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and M/s.O.P.(MD)No.22715 of 2016 (crl.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.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.117 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.05.11.2020 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No ksa Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22715 of 2016The Inspector of Police, Valandur Police Station, Madurai Disrict.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22715 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, ksa Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22715 of 2016 05.11.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8 | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,678,331 | He is further convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.As per prosecution story, on 28/03/2003, the appellant went to his in-laws house i.e. parental house of his wife Reshambai(PW11)to bring her to his own house and also there was some rituals at his wife's house.After completing the rituals, when he asked his wife to return along with him to Shujalpur, she refused.Thereafter, a hot talk took place between them and after heated exchange of words, on the spur of the moment the appellant caused injury to his wife by 'Dharata' which was lying there.At that relevant point of time, her mother-in- law Dhapubai came to rescue her daughter.The present appellant caused her Dharata injury due to which she fell down and on the way to hospital, she died.After usual investigation, and trial, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of offences, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.The SHO of Police Station - Machalpur, Rajgarh after registering the case rushed to the place of occurrence and prepared the spot map.4. Reshambai(PW11) is injured witness.The injured Reshambai(PW11) was sent for the treatment at hospital and investigation was commenced.After competition of due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial.To prove the charges against the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined 16 prosecution witnesses and exhibited a number of documents and material objects.Sundarbai(PW13) is the witness who has seen the appellant running from the house of his wife.Ramubai(PW8), Balu(PW7) and Balu(PW12) are the eye-witness of the case. .Ex-P/22 is the FSL report.The learned trial Court after appreciating the statement of eye-witnesses and injured witness who is wife of the present appellant convicted the present appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned.Autopsy Surgeon - K.P. Bhargava(PW15) has conducted the postmortem of deceased - Dhapubai.As per Postmortem report (Ex- P/12) she sustained the following injuries :1. Rigormortis present.. Froth coming from both nostrils.Froth coming from mouth.Penetrated wound left third intercostal space 1/2'' x 1/4''x5'' with lacerated edges.Clot present.Posteromedially and downward in direction antemortemPunctured wound left third intercostal space to previous wound 1/2'' x 1/4'' x 1 &1/2'', lacerated edges present, postero medially in direction ante mortem.Punctured wound 4th left intercostal space postero medially & downward in direction ante mortem.Size 1/2'' x 1/4'' x 2'' with lacerated edges.As per MLC report of Reshambai(PW11), her injuries are simple in nature.Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to material prosecution witnesses and material evidence available on record and submitted that there was no previous enmity.Incident occurred due to sudden quarrel.No evidence showing that accused had any pre-determined motive or enmity to commit offence of murder and hence this court should examine the case and grant the benefit by altering the sentence.Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the impugned judgment and urged only one point. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,681,159 | Injured Nilesh and his friends went to the Adiwasi colony, Wardha on hearing the news that a woman was burnt in the said colony.The injured along with Mohan Hinge and Gajanan Sahare then proceeded to the house of Gajanan Sahare.4] The case of the prosecution is that the friends of the injured informed his mother Vimalbai Charade (P.W.7) who rushed to the Police Station and lodged report (Exh.102) on the basis of which offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC came to be registered against the accused (Exh.122).The accused Vijay Pohekar went to the Police Station carrying sword which had blood stains and the said sword was seized vide (Exh.123).14.07.2004 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial 81/1999, by and under which, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to payment of fine of::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 2 Rs.500/-.The two co-accused who faced trial, Shankar s/o Vasantrao Shende and Pravin s/o Shankarrao Bhoyar are acquitted of offence punishable under section 305 read with section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::2] Heard Shri J.M. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashish Kadukar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.3] The case of the prosecution is that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') the co-accused who faced trial Shankar Shende and Pravin Bhoyar and an absconding accused Mohan Deulkar assaulted the injured Danny @ Nilesh Charade with sword.One Kishor Kumbhare met them on way.Injured Nilesh talked with Kishor Kumbhare and then sat down on the foot-steps of the grocery shop of one::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 3 Navnath.The four accused who were passing by the road assaulted injured Nilesh.The accused Vijay Pohekar assaulted Nilesh by inflicting a sword blow on the head.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::The Investigating Officer prepared the spot panchnama (Exh.124) and seized the sample of the blood smeared earth (Exh.125) and recorded the statement of the witnesses.The injured Nilesh Charade was medically examined on 27.01.1999 by P.W.3 Dr. Shailaja Kale who noticed three injuries on his person.The injured was then referred to Government Hospital, Nagpur, P.W.4 PSI Shri Nemade visited the Government Hospital, Nagpur to record the statement of the injured, however, the::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 4 injured stated that he was not in the frame of mind or the physical state to give a statement.However, according to the Medical Officer the injured was fit to give the statement.The culmination of the investigation led to submission of charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Wardha.The Sessions Court framed charge under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence is of total denial and false implication.5] One of the accused Mohan Deulkar was declared absconder and his trial was separated from that of the other accused.The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment and order impugned was pleased to acquit the Shankar Shende and Pravin Bhoyar and to convict the accused under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::6] Shri Gandhi, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that the conviction is substantially, if not entirely, based on the evidence of the injured Nilesh (P.W.8) who states::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 5 that the accused inflicted a sword blow on his head.The evidence of the injured must be discarded as only unreliable, is the submission.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::7] Per contra, Shri Kadukar, the learned A.P.P. would support the judgment and order impugned, although the learned A.P.P. fairly does not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the only evidence on which the prosecution is heavily relying is that of the injured Nilesh (P.W.8).It is well settled that ordinarily the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weight.It is not a normal human conduct for an injured to inculpate the innocent and to exculpate the guilty.9] Be it noted, that the information of the assault on the injured was conveyed to the informant P.W.7 by the two friends of the injured, Gajanan Sahare and Manoj Hinge, who have not been::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 6 examined for the reasons only known to the prosecution.The First Information Report does not name the accused.The First Information Report names the co-accused Shankar Shende and Pravin Bhoyar and two others.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::It is not as if the injured was not in a fit condition to give the statement.The Medical Officer certified that the injured Nilesh is fit to give the statement.The certificate was issued after examining the injured Nilesh.Pertinently, it is elicited from P.W.4 in the cross-examination that the injured talked with the witness for 5 to 7 minutes.As a fact, although the injured Nilesh refused to give a statement about the incident, he did give a statement on 01.02.1999 (Exh.68) which is to the effect that since he is not feeling well he is not in a position to state anything regarding the incident.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 7 10] The prosecution examined one Sandeep s/o Bholaprasad Trivedi (P.W.1) and one Sanjay s/o Bholaprasad Tribedi (P.W.2) as eye witnesses to the incident.Both did not support the prosecution, were declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to assist the prosecution.I have already noted that the friends of the injured who informed the mother of the injured (P.W.7) about the incident have not been examined.The version of the prosecution that the accused came to the Police Station with a sword which had blood stains must be discarded as absolutely unreliable.Both the panchas to the seizure of the sword on production by the accused P.W.5 Ramesh s/o Ajabrao Jambhulkar and P.W.6 Ashok s/o Ghansham Mankar did not support the prosecution.In the examination in chief, P.W.10 states thus :-::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::At the relevant time accused Vijay Pohekar had been to the police station.He was having a sword having blood stains.I called two panchas.I seized the said sword in presence of panchas.Panchanama shown::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 8 to me is the same.It bears my signature, signatures of panchas and accused Vijay Pohekar.Contents of it are true and correct.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::11] In view of the fact that both the panchas have not supported the prosecution, and in view of the attending circumstances, it would be extremely unsafe to hold the seizure of the sword proved.The solitary statement of P.W.10 Police Station Officer that the accused walked in the Police Station with the sword, is not confidence inspiring.12] It is evident, and in all fairness the learned A.P.P. is not submitting to the contrary, that the only evidence or incriminating circumstance against the accused is the evidence of P.W.8 that the accused inflicted a sword blow on his head.I am not inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.8, although he is an injured witness, as implicitly reliable or trustworthy.The explanation for not having given a statement on 01.02.1999 when P.W.4 Police Officer, having obtained a fitness certificate from the Medical Officer, made an enquiry with the injured, is hardly satisfactory and must be discarded.The Medical Officer::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 9 certified P.W.8 injured fit to give the statement.The injured did give a statement to the effect that he was not in a position to talk about the incident, since he was not feeling well.P.W.4 admits that he had a talk with the injured for 5 to 7 minutes.Nothing prevented the injured from disclosing the name of the accused.The fact that the name of the accused is disclosed by the injured only on 15.02.1999 renders the evidence of P.W.2 unworthy of acceptance.If the evidence of the injured is kept out of consideration, there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused, much less to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::14] The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC.15] The bail bond of the accused shall stand discharged.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: apeal494.04.J.odt 10::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 :::16] The fine paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded.::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:43:09 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,697,118 | Item No. 42The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Purulia (M) Police Station Case No.125 of 2013 dated 22.07.2013 under sections 341/323/324/325/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is not pressed on behalf of the Petitioner No.2, Sk.Sanwar, as he has already been arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail.Hence, his application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as 'not pressed'.As regards the other Petitioners, we have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.Jasim, in this case.Hence, we allow their application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Sk.Santosh, Sk.Mumtaz @ Murtaj and Sk.The application for anticipatory bail in respect of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and 4 is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,701,886 | The petitioner No.1 is a Type Approved company possessing certificate from Automotive Research Association of India (In short, ARAI).The stickers and adhesive labels are not permitted.The plate should bear a permanent consecutive identification number of minimum seven digits, to be laser branded into the reflective sheeting and hot stamping film bearing a verification inscription.The Rule further provides a third registration in the form of self-destructive type, chromium based hologram sticker to be affixed on the left hand top side of the windshield of the vehicle.The registration details including registration number, registering authority should be painted on the sticker.The third registration mark is to be issued by the registering authorities/approved dealers of the licence plates manufacturer along with the regular registration marks.The plate shall be fastened with non-removable/non-reusable snap lock fitting ystem on rear of the vehicle at the premises of the registering authority.According to Society of Indian Automobiles Manufacturers (SIAM), by 31st March, 2007, there were 10.5 crores estimated registered motor vehicle owners.Because of amendment in the Rules, a new industry came to light for the manufacture of HSRP.According to the petitioners' counsel, in the State of U.P., approximate number of registered vehicles is around 1.2 crores and according to tender document published by the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the year 2009-10, 14,42,000 vehicles were registered in the State of U.P. The Government invited tender from qualified persons.B Address from where the Tender Documents can be obtained(a) Office of the Transport Commissioner, U.P., Tehri Kothi, MG Marg Lucknow-226001(b) Website : www.uptransport.org www.upgov.nic.in C Addressee and Address where Tender Documents have to be submitted.Room No.22, Ist Floor, Office of the Transport Commissioner, U.P. Tehri Kothi, M.G. Marg, Lucknow-226001 D Pre-bid Conference On May 30, 2011 in Room no.111, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow at 12.30 PM E Time and date for submission of tender Bids.On June 20, 2011 between 9.30AM to 4.00PM.F Time and place and date for opening of the Technical Bids.a. Time : 5.30 PM b. Date : June 20, 2011 c. Place : Committee Room of office of Transport Commissioner, U.P., Tehri Kothi, M.G. Marg, Lucknow-226001 G Time and place and date for opening of the Financial Bids.a. Time : 12.30 PM b. Date : June 27, 2011 c. Place : Room no 111, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow.Opinion of Transport Department was obtained on 15.6.2011 and decision keeping in view the opinion expressed by bidders was converted into writing in a meeting held on 17.6.2011, copy of which has been attached as Annexure No.CA-8 to the counter affidavit.B Address from where the Tender Documents can be obtained(a) Office of the Transport Commissioner, U.P., Tehri Kothi, MG Marg Lucknow-226001(b) Website : www.transport.org www.upgov.nic.in C Addressee and Address where Tender Documents have to be submitted.Room No.22, Ist Floor, Office of the Transport Commissioner, U.P. Tehri Kothi, M.G. Marg, Lucknow-226001 D Pre-bid Conference On May 30, 2011 in Room no.111, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow at 12.30 PM (which was held on 13.6.2011 at 12 noon) E Time and date for submission of tender Bids.On July 5, 2011 between 9.30AM to 4.00PM.F Time and place and date for opening of the Technical Bids.a. Time : 5.30 PM b. Date : July 5, 2011 c. Place : Committee Room of office of Transport Commissioner, U.P., Tehri Kothi, M.G. Marg, Lucknow-226001 G Time and place and date for opening of the Financial Bids.To be notified later.On 13.6.2011 at about 5.00 p.m., the prebid meeting was convened chaired by the Commissioner, Awasthapana & Audyogik Vikas Ayukt for pre-bid conference.A perusal of the proceeding held on 17.6.2011, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.3.Net worth should be reduced to 40 crores from 50 crores proved from the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant attached to bid.4.Solvency certificate should be reduced from 50 to 40 crores issued by its banker to prove financial soundness.The provision in the original bid with regard to solvency certificate, net worth certificate of the period of three months preceding to date of article in the newspaper deleted.5.The bidder or any member of the joint venture should have experience in the field of registration plates.Thus, at the face of record, though the date and time with regard to technical bid was published but while amending the tender document no date and time was published with regard to opening of financial bid, that too without assigned any reason.Prebid meeting was also held on 13.6.2011 instead of 30.5.2011 in terms of tender document.It shall be appropriate to reproduce certain amendments (relevant) done in the tender document while publishing the addenda on 21.6.2011 in the form of comparative chart, that too substantially on the request of the opposite party No.3 and 4 (Anexure 7 to writ petition) :ADDENDA TO THE HSRP TENDER NOTICE/DOCUMENT ISSUED ON 20.5.2011, PUBLISHED ON 21.6.2011 (ONLY RELEVANT PORTION)Provisions of the Original Tender Document released on 20.5.2011 Amended provisions 1 Page 2 Para 1 Tender Notice It is, therefore, intended to select an eligible Bidder having type approval certificate from agencies authorized in this behalf by the Government of India and who has required experience, expertise and exposure for such complex work in India and/ or abroad.1.5.3(i) The Bidder must have a minimum net worth, equivalent to Rs 50 crores (Certificate from the Chartered Accountant to be attached with the Bid).The Bidder must have a minimum net worth, equivalent to Rs 40 crores (Certificate from the Chartered Accountant to be attached with the Bid).1.5.3(iii) The Bidder must attach a solvency certificate of minimum Rs 50 crores from its banker, to prove his financial soundness to execute and invest in this project.The Bidder must attach a solvency certificate of minimum Rs 40 crores from its banker, to prove his financial soundness to execute and invest in this project.2.3.4(F) Experience record in the field of High Security Registration Plates.Bidder shall have to submit copy of Income Tax Return bearing Permanent Account Number (PAN) submitted to the Income Tax Officer of the concerned circle, for the previous two financial years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 and TIN number issued by concerned Sales Tax / Trade Tax Office, along with the Bid.2.3.18 Any Bid not accompanied by any of the documents mentioned in Clauses 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.11, 2.3.15, 2.3.16 and documents required as per Annexure III, Annexure V, Annexure VI, Annexure VII, Annexure VIII and Annexure IX A, and a net worth certificate as per sub-clause (e) under Clause 2.3.4 hereinabove, and in the manner specified, shall be rejected by the Authority without entertaining any correspondence whatsoever.The Technical Bid will be opened on June 20, 2011 at 5.30PM in the presence of the Bidders or their authorized representatives who wish to be present at the time of opening, to verify its contents as per the requirement.The Technical Bid will be opened on July 5, 2011 at 5.30 PM in the presence of the Bidders or their authorized representatives who wish to be present at the time of opening, to verify its contents as per the requirement.2.18.1.4A New Clause inserted For the purpose of Technical evaluation of the Bidders, the qualification parameters given hereunder, and the marks scored by the Bidder against each parameter, will be computed to arrive at the total marks scored by the Bidder from out of a maximum of 100 marks.Only those Bidders who score 60 marks or more in this evaluation shall be considered as technically qualified.(A) Financial Parameters: (Total 50 Maximum Marks) (1): Turnover (Maximum Marks 25) Turnover Amount Marks allotted Rs.50 crores 15 Over Rs.50 crores and upto Rs.80 crores 17.5 Over Rs.80crores and upto Rs.100 crores 20 Over Rs.100 crores 25 (2) Networth (Maximum Marks 25) Networth Amount Marks allotted Rs.40 crores 15 Over Rs.40 crores and upto Rs.75 crores 17.5 Over Rs.75 crores and upto Rs 100 crores 20 Over Rs.100 crores 25 (B) : Technical Parameters :(Total 50 maximum Marks) Parameter Marks allotted One year experience of HSRP in India 30 More than one year, and upto two years experience of HSRP in India 35 More than two years, and upto three years experience of HSRP in India 40 Over three years experience of HSRP in India 50It is also stated that since the opposite party No.3 could not file relevant document required under original bid, the addenda was issued changing the original conditions.The issuance of addenda on 21.6.2011 contains the smack of foul play."2.3.4 The envelope shall also contain application on the letter head of the Bidder as per Annexure No. III, which shall be signed in ink by the Authorized Signatory, and shall be accompanied with:a General Information As per Annexure-IV b List of Directors certified by As per Annexure-V Registrar of Companies having jurisdiction, for each of its constituent entities, at a date not earlier than 03 (three) months from the last date of Bid submission.(ii) and accompanied with documents in support of Balance sheet and Turnover as mentioned therein.e Original Certificate from a Chartered Accountant giving proof of the Bidder having minimum Net worth of Rs.50 crores.So help me god.By Addenda dated 21.6.2011, Clause 1.1.9 B was added providing therein the definition of "Experience" which means experience of minimum one year before the last date of submission of bid in the field of manufacturing and affixing of High Security Registration Plates.However, while inserting another new Clause, i.e. 2.18.1.4A, marks with regard to experience for one year has been provided as 30, upto two years, 35 and upto three years, 40 marks and over three years experience, it is 50 marks.Thus, virtually, the candidates having less than one year experience shall be disqualified to participate in the tender proceeding.All signatures shall be dated.1.6.6 The Bidder should submit memorandum of association and articles of association of the company / corporation / Joint Venture along with the latest details of Board of Directors of the company / corporation/ Joint Venture In case of signing of Bid by person other than Managing Director (MD) or Company Secretary of the company /corporation /Joint Venture, a copy of resolution duly authenticated resolved by the Board of Directors or proper legal authority issued by the MD/Chief Executive Officer authorizing the signatory in the matter should be submitted."The aforesaid provision has been reproduced from the original tender document dated 20.5.2011 which was later on amended on 21.6.2011 by revising the tender document.The amount of networth and solvency has been reduced to Rs.40 crores (supra).The first envelope clearly marked as: Envelope No. 1 (Technical Bid) must contain the following:2.3.1 Original cash receipt in respect of purchase of Tender document.OR In case the Tender document has been downloaded from the website, a cross Bank Draft issued by Nationalized Bank for Rs. 25,000 shall be encosed towards the cost of the Tender Document, drawn in the name of the Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, payable at Lucknow.2.3.2 The Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 50,00,000 Rupees fifty lakhs) only shall be in the form of crossed Bank Draft issued by Nationalized Bank, drain in the name of the Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, payable at Lucknow, or in the form of Bank Guarantee of the same amount issued by a Nationalized Bank and valid for a period of 6 months.2.3.4 The envelope shall also contain application on the letter head of the Bidder as per Annexure No. III, which shall be signed in ink by the Authorised Signatory, and shall be accompanied with:The ordinary capital of the company amounting to EUR 3.000.000,-- (EUR three million) is mainly in family possession.Moreover the company disposes of further noticeable own funds.We estimate the net worth of the company well over EUR 25.000.000,00 (EUR twenty-five million).No irregularities of their general delivery and payment transactions are known to us.According to Joint Venture Agreement, the Indian partner is the sole shareholder of 50% in Joint Venture Company.According to Oxford Business English Dictionary, the turn over has been defined as under :Page 580 blue book small The Competition Act, 2002 defines "turn over" as under :The state of a person or company that is cash positive and able to pay all bills as they fall dues; i.e. its assets are more than its liabilities.The converse is insolvency.One who has sufficient means to pay is debts and all obligations.Able to discharge one's debts and o'oligations in full [S.14, ill.(f), Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872)]; anything that dissolves another [5th.In case, the word, "bidder" used at different places in the tender document given a meaning confining it to constituent of Joint Venture, then whole of the Scheme under the tender document including the security attached to HSRPs may be frustrated.This inference is fortified from Annexures-IX and IX-A which provides that in the event of Joint Venture, each of the partners shall file separate affidavit in pursuance to the provisions contained in Clauses 2.3.4, read with Clause 1.5.2 and 2.3.4 (g).''5. उप समिति द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यात्मक आख्या के पृष्ठ--6 के अन्तिम प्रस्तर मे उल्लिखित बिन्दु यह है कि शिमनित उच इण्डिया प्रा० लि० द्वारा अनुलग्नक--IX के प्रारूप में प्रस्तुत किये गये शपथ-पत्र के अनुसार कम्पनी/ज्वान्ट वेन्चर द्वारा अथवा इसके किसी निदेशक/पार्टनर द्वारा विगत पाँच वर्षों के अन्दर उच्च सुरक्षा युक्त निबन्धन प्लेट (HSRP) लगाने के सम्बन्ध में किया गया करार न तो परित्यक्त किया गया है और न ही सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा करार को विखण्डित किया गया है। टेण्डर उप समिति द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यात्मक आख्या में वर्णित है कि उक्त कम्पनी/ज्वाइन्ट वेचन्चर को कर्नाटक सरकार एवं गोवा सरकार द्वारा उच्च सुरक्षा युक्त निबन्धन प्लेट (HSRP) लगाने एवं विनिर्माण इकाई स्थापित करने सम्बन्धी करार विखण्डित किये गये हैं। इससे यह स्पष्ट हो रहा है कि निविदादाता द्वारा श्पथ-पत्र में सही तथ्य नहीं दर्शाया गया है किन्तु यह विचारणीय बिन्दु है कि निविदादाता का यह कृत्य निविदा अभलेख के अनुच्छेद 2.24 एवं 2.27 में वर्णित Misrepresentation की श्रेणी मे आता है या नहीं; तथा Misrepresentation की श्रेणी में आने पर निविदादाता पर निविदा अभिलेख का अनुच्छेद 2.27 आकृष्ट होगा या अनुच्छेद 2.24 आकृष्ट होगा जिसमें यह अभिलिखित है कि Misrepresentation detect होने पर निविदा अस्वीकृत करने से पहले निविदादाता को सुनवाई का अवसर उपलब्ध कराया जायेगा। इस बिनदु पर निविदा समिति द्वारा सम्यक रूप से विचार किया गया और निणर्य लिया गया कि इन बिन्दुओं पर न्याय विभाग से विधिक परामर्श प्राप्त कर लिया जाय। तदोपरान्त उक्त बिन्दुओं पर आख्या/ परामर्श प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त निविदा समिति द्वारा अन्तिम निर्णय लिया जायेगा।''The tender committee observed with regard to solvency of the opposite party No.3 that the opinion may be obtained from the Finance Controller working in the office of the Transport Commissioner in terms of earlier recommendation.a. Last purchase price of same (or, in its absence, similar) goods.b. Current market price of same (or, in its absence, similar) goods.c. Current market price of major raw materials, which go into the production of the goods.d. Prices at which similar contracts are being operated in similar organizations i.e. CWC, State agencies etc. e. Quantity involved.f. Terms of delivery.g. Period of delivery.h. Cost analysis and changes in price index.उपरोक्त वर्णित समस्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को ध्यान में रखते हुए यह उचित प्रतीत होता है कि चूंकि एल-1 मे० शिमनित उच इण्डिया प्रा० लि० के द्वारा निगोशिएशन के पश्चात् की गई दरें, मेघालय, नागालैण्ड एवं उत्तर प्रदेश में वित्तीय निविदा डाले जाते समय दी गयी दरों से कम है, इस लिये निगोशिएशन समाप्त करते हुए निगोशियेशन के पश्चात् दी गयी दरों को शासन को सूचित करते हुए अनुमोदन प्राप्त किया जाय।''Subject to the aforesaid backdrop, it appears that the things were negotiated on 21.12.2011 with regard to reasonableness of price and other factors and the rates of Meghalaya, Nagaland and Bihar were taken into account which is as under :क्रमांक राज्य का नाम (दरें रुपये में) दोपहिया यान तिपहिया यान हल्के मोटरयान ट्रैक्टर मध्यम/भारी यान वेटेड एवरेज़ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 उ० प्र० में वित्तीय निविदा में एल--1 की दर 470.63 595.90 887.08 573.33 909.65 530.17 2 मेघालय राज्य में क्रियान्वयन की दर 692.32 959.35 1681.29 n.a.1681.29 n.a.नागालैण्ड राज्य में क्रियान्वयन की दर 558.00 744.00 1208.00 n.a.1208.00 n.a.बिहार राज्य द्वारा सूचित दर 131.00 162.00 335.00 140.00 310.00 n.a.In spite of exorbitant price quoted by the O.P. No.3, from the material on record it appears that a decision was taken to award contract to O.P. No.3 in compliance of the Order of the State Government, as is evident from another office note dated 22.12.2011, filed by State with supplementary affidavit, to reproduce the office note:-वित्त नियंत्रक /अ०प०आ०(प्रशा०) कृपया हाई सिक्योरिटी नम्बर प्लेट योजना लागू किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में इस कार्यालय द्वारा शासन को प्रेषित पत्र संख्या 3932ए/2011, दिनांक 22.12.2011 के सन्दर्भ में शासन से प्राप्त वि० प० पत्र संख्या-3024-ए/तीस-3-11-20एम/08टी.सी.-11, दिनांक 22.12.2011 का अवलोकन करने का कष्ट करें जिसके द्वारा अवगत कराया गया है कि शासनादेश संख्या-3003/ तीस-3-11-20एम/ 08टी.दिनांक 21.12.2011 द्वारा उक्त योजना के सम्बन्ध में कार्यवाही हेतु परिवहन आयुक्त को अधिकृत किया गया है, पत्र में उक्त पत्र का प्रस्तर-1 का कुछ अंश उल्लिखित करते हुये निर्देशित किया गया है कि परिवहन आयुक्त द्वारा अपने स्तर से अविलम्ब कार्यवाही की जायेशासन से प्राप्त उक्त पत्र में दिये गये निर्देश के अनुसार हाई सिक्योरिटी नम्बर प्लेट योजना लागू किये जाने न्यूनतम निविदादाता मे० शिमनित उच इण्डिया प्रा० लि० को टेण्डर डाकुमेन्ट के प्राविधानों के क्रम में लेटर आफ इन्टेन्ट जारी करने की आवश्यकता होगी और यह भी आवश्यक होगा कि इस पत्र में निविदा अभिलेख के क्लाज 2.25.1 के क्रम में परफार्मेंन्स सिक्योरिटी जमा कहने का भी उल्लेख किया जाये। अतः तद्नुसार उक्त फर्म को टेण्डर डाकूमेन्ट के क्लाज के क्रम में लेटर आफ इन्टेन्ट जारी करने हेतु परिवहन आयुक्त महोदय से अनुरोध करना चाहें। तैयार कराये गये लेटर आफ इन्टेन्ट का आलेख प्रस्तुत है। कृपया सहमति की दशा में अनुरोध करना चाहें।'' Thus, it appears that during negotiation, it is noted that Bihar was having lowest rate as number of vehicles was much higher than Nagaland and Meghalaya where the respondents 3 and 4 have been awarded contract.It appears that from time to time, the government and the respondent No.3 has entered into negotiation and ultimately, the contract was signed under the title , "draft agreement" on 21.1.2012 on the following agreed rate with regard to supply of HSRP to quote:-"ANNEXURE-III (Equivalent to Form I of Financial Bid)1. Sale Price to be charged for High Security Registration plates for Newly Registered and Already Registered Vehicles.Item Weight attached Unit Rate Break Up Amount Rate in Rs Total (3x5) Figures Words 1 2 3 4 5 6Complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock and fixing for two-wheelers-scooters, Motor Cycles and moped.0.7833 Set Rate any where i n Uttar Pradesh 213.00 Two hundred and thirteen only 166.84 VAT 23.00 Twenty three only 18.02 Service Tax 4.39 Four and paise thirty nine only 3.44 Others (Pl Specify) TOTAL-A 240.39 Two hundred fourty and paise thirty nine only 188.302. Complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plat and fixing for three-wheelers (Passenger and goods) and invalid carriages.0.0128 Set Rate any where in Uttar Pradesh 253.00 Two hundred and fifty three only 3.24 VAT 27.32 Twenty seven and paise thirty two only 0.35 Service Tax 5.22 Five and paise twenty two only 0.06 Others (Pl Specify) TOTAL-B 285.54 Two hundred eighty five and paise fifty four only 3.65 3 Complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plat and fixing for Light Motor Vehicles/Passenger Cars, (excluding tractors) 0.0997 Set Rate any where in Uttar Pradesh 415.00 Four hundred fifteen only 41.38 VAT 44.82 Forty four and paise eighty two only 4.47 Service Tax 8.55 Eight and paise fifty five only 0.85 Others (Pl Specify) TOTAL-C 468.37 Four hundred sixty eight and paise thirty seven only 46.702.The rate is inclusive of all taxes, levies and all, other charges.3.Weights attached have been arrived at by the department o n the basis of % of types of vehicles registered in the State as on 31.3.2008."It is also stated that the petitioner himself has quoted lower rate than West Bengal.For convenience, para 6 of the affidavit of the opposite party No.3 is reproduced as under :That here it may be pertinent to mention that the petitioner no.1 had also participated in the bidding process for HSRP in the State of Tamil Nadu and the price quoted by the petitioner in the State of Tamil Nadu is comparatively very low to the price being charged by petitioner in the State of West Bengal.The following chart would show the comparatives difference of price quoted by the petitioner in the State of Tamil Nadu and being charged in State of West Bengal:Providing and Fixing complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plate and fixing for 3 wheelers (passenger & goods) and invalid carriages Set Rs.468.37 only Rs Four hundred sixty eight and paise thirty seven only.2.The amount to be levied and collected from the vehicle owners shall be as per above schedule as may be issued by Government of UTTAR PRADESH from time to time.It may further be noted that you are required to submit the amended Financial Bid Form I as per the above negotiated rates, as well as the Financial Bid Form II according to the terms and conditions laid down in the Tender Document.You are now requested to arrange to deposit a sum of Rs.8.51 crores Performance Security in terms of clause no 2.25.1 of Tender Document, within from the date of issue of this letter.You are also requested to depute your representative to the office of under to sign the Contract Agreement by both the parties.Yours faithfully, sd/- illegible Transport Commissioner GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, LUCKNOW. "Letter of Intent seems to be based on decision taken in a meeting held in the office of Cabinet Secretary (supra).The petitioner has filed another letter dated 22.12.2011 by which the State government directed the Transport Commissioner to negotiate for reduction of rate of HSRP keeping in view its rate in neighbouring states.For convenience, the letter dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.1.2012 of the petitioner is reproduced as under :"संख्या --3024--ए/तीस-3-11--20एम/08टी.सी.--11 प्रेषक, श्याम सुन्दर शर्मा संयुक्त सचिव उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।Wrong, right; Base, noble;Ha, you gods! Why this?The Law Department of the State of U.P. has changed its opinion for the reasons best known to it and treated it as non-essential condition.The petitioner pleaded with regard to criminal antecedents of respondent No.3 and involvement in unfair practice, which prima facie requires probe in view of letter of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Annexure No.8).Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a Circular of Ministry of Home, Government of India as Annexure No.8 which reveals that one Nitin Shah was owner of Shimnit Machine Tools and Equipment Ltd., and being disqualified and convicted, he floated Shimnit Utsch India (Pvt.) Limited (opposite party No.3).He has also been instrumental in floating two front companies.This Ministry has also consulted CBI in the matter and their comments would be communicated as and when they are received from the CBI.A copy of this ID note is being endorsed to the Deptt.of Road Transport and Highways.Illegible (L. C. Goyal) Joint Secretary (IS) PMO (Shri Jawed Usmani, Jt.MHA's ID Note No.1-11034/17/2005-IS.IV dated 18th May, 2005 COPY to: Deptt.Respondent No.3 is guilty not only of concealment of material fact but possesses such antecedents which may hamper the national security and safety in due course of time.XII- MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE AND MALICE IN LAWBeing a matter relating to national security, it was incumbent on the respondent No.3 to disclose all the material facts and circumstances under which its contract was cancelled by Karnataka, Goa and Rajasthan government.Because of non-disclosure of this fact, the State was not in a position to find out the reason for cancellation of the contract by respective governments.X with regard to terms and condition of tender document.(ix).Substantial change has been done in the original tender document dated 20.5.2011 in pursuance of suggestion given by the opposite parties No.3 and 4 in pre-bid meeting.Bihar seems to possess lowest rate in the country (supra).There appears to be no justification to award contract on such exorbitant rate in a State where 35% of population is below poverty line.(xi).The tailor-made arrangement seems to be evident from the fact that on 22.12.2011, the State Government through its Joint Secretary Shyam Sunder Sharma, has written letter to the Transport Commissioner, directing him to collect the rate of HSRP from neighbouring States and thereafter finalized the contract.Strange enough, the contract awarded by the Transport Commissioner is by the Letter of Intent of the same date i.e., 22.12.2011 indicating therein that the negotiable rate of HSRP of opposite party No.3, has been accepted by the State Government.Hence directed to complete necessary formalities and sign the contract subject to deposit of 08.51 crores as performance security.Cost shall be remitted to the Mediation Centre, Lucknow.In case, within the stipulated period, the cost is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.Registry to take follow-up action.Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia, J (Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J)Instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashing of tender document dated 20.5.2011 and the Addenda dated 21.6.2011, followed by technical and financial bid and consequential decision taken in granting contract, vide agreement dated 14.2.2012 for sale of High Security Registration Plates(In short, HSRP) in the State of U.P.The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (In short, 1989 Rules) were amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (First Amendment) Rules, 2001 ( in short, 2001 Rules).By amending the Rules, the Government of India provided that the registration mark referred in Sub Section (6) of Section 41 of Motor Vehicle Act (in short Act), shall be displayed both at the front as well as the rear side of all motor vehicles clearly and legibly in the form of security licence plates.2001 Rules provide specifications with regard to security licence plates, which are required to be complied with by the licence plate manufacturers or their dealers and must be approved by the Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi or any of the agencies authorised by the Central Government.3 Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains detailed procedure with regard to registration.Rule 50 of 1989 Rules as amended upto date, contains the form and manner of display of registration marks on the motor vehicles on or after commencement of the Rules.The plates provided under the Rules should be protected against counterfeiting by applying chromium-based hologram by hot stamping.According to the tender document dated 20.5.2011, followed by Addenda dated 21.6.2011, issued by the opposite parties 1 and 2 for supply of HSRP, the number of vehicles expected for registration every year is 15 lacs and tenders were invited to award contract for the period of ten years.Expected number of vehicles shall be more than 1.5 crores in the span of ten years.During pendency of the writ petition, an interim order dated 23.11.2011 was passed by this Court permitting the respondents to proceed with the technical bid and the proceedings initiated shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court.Hence, the respondent No.4 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.16291 of 2011 and their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.6.2011 permitted the State to process the tender but ruled that the decision shall be taken only after final outcome of pending writ petition in Delhi High Court.The order dated 23.6.2011 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court dated 10.6.2011 have been filed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.The Association of Registration Plates Manufacturers of India objected by its representations dated 13th and 26th June, 2011 raising serious objections with regard to certain conditions and the amendment done in the tender document.While advertising the bid, under tender document dated 20.5.2011 under para 2.18.1.1, it was provided that the technical bid will be opened on 20.6.2011 at 5.30p.m.and under para 2.18.1.5, the date for financial bids of the tenderer qualified in technical evaluation was to be opened on 27.6.2011 at 12.30p.m.but later on 21.6.2011, the addenda was published substantially changing the terms and conditions of the tender document and the date for technical bid was deferred to 5.7.2011 and the financial bid was to be notified later on.Mr. R.N. Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the entire procedure adopted by the respondents inviting tender for supply of HSRP with the submission that the impugned tender document is violative of the statutory provisions, false affidavit has been filed with concealment of facts, material documents not filed calling for rejection of tender, bid forms were changed in violation of tender condition, repeated negotiations were done, that too without any provision in the tender document, addenda was issued after last date fixed for application and opening of technical bid, the documents not given, rate is excessive for extraneous reasons and consideration, entire process adopted by the respondents is tailor made.Office of the Legal Remembrancer of the State of U.P. had deliberately given incorrect advice which suites the government and the respondent No.3, fraud and corrupt practices have been adopted to award the tender.Report of High Power Committee dated 16.8.2011 has been given go-by under the garb of opinion expressed by the office of Legal Remembrancer.On the other hand, while defending the State action, Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Addl.Advocate General later on, engaged as Special Counsel, and Shri Shanti Bhushan and Shri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsels submits that the State has adopted just and fair procedure to award the contract.Attention has been invited to orders dated 7.4.2011, 30.8.2011, 30.10.2011 and 8.12.2011, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.Before considering preliminary objection of the learned Additional Advocate General, it shall be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by this Court. :We have considered the interim order produced by the learned Addl.Advocate General and passed an order on 12.12.2011 holding that the hearing may go on but the parties may approach for clarification of the order dated 8.12.2011 to remove the doubt, if any.The argument advanced by Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, seems to be not correct for the reasons that order dated 23.11.2011 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for both sides in the open court.In case, correct facts would have been brought in the knowledge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, there would have been no observation by their Lordships that "there is no stay granted by High Court".The order dated 08th December, 2011 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2005 is reproduced as under:-"Uttar Pradesh31.As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the notice for inviting tenders had been published.Seven bids were received, though no contract has so far been awarded and no agreement has been signed as yet.Request had been made on behalf of the State for extension of time.We may also notice that according to the State, a writ petition had been filed in the High Court of Allahabad to quash the tender for manufacture of these registration plates.There is no interim stay granted by the High Court.We make it clear that the State of Uttar Pradesh should ensure manufacture and affixation of HSRP through a single process and person in terms of the judgment of this Court.The Evaluation Committee should meet and take a final decision.The contract should be awarded and the implementation of the scheme should commence within three months from the date of passing of this order as prayed for.Since, this case may take some more time to conclude the hearing of both the sides, petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit by the next date of listing.List/Put up on 15.12.2011 at 2.00 P.M."Thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted eight weeks' time to finalise the process with regard to implement its order.Again, the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra) came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.12.2011 whereby with regard to State of U.P, their Lordships have made observation discussed in preceding para.A plain reading of the said order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that though the State of U.P informed the Supreme Court with regard to pendency of the present writ petition but the State Government has not invited attention of the Supreme Court with regard to interim order passed (supra) whereby outcome of the tender was subjected to further orders passed by this Court.For convenience, para 11 is reproduced as under :In furtherance to our order dated 8th December, 2011, learned Registrar, Judicial-II, has submitted his Report pointing out that some of the states have not filed affidavits/undertakings.Having perused the Report of the Registrar and the affidavits filed on behalf of different states, we issue the following directions:-(a) All States which have invited tenders, have completed the process of finalizing the successful bidder and issued the Letter of Intent, but have not yet signed agreements with -(b) the successful bidder, shall sign such agreements within four weeks from today.These States are Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.(c) The States which have so far not even finalized the tender process, they should do so, again, within four weeks from today.(f) The directions contained in the earlier judgments of this Court and more particularly, the orders dated 30th August, 2011, 13th October, 2011, 8th December, 2011 and this order, should be implemented within the extended period without default.(g) In the event of default, concerned Secretary (Transport) /Commissioner, State Transport Authority and/or any other person or authority responsible for such default shall be liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."While finally deciding the writ petition, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the High Courts to deal with pending writ petitions, keeping in view the aforesaid directions and orders.Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426; Nika Ram Vs.While publishing the schedule of tender, it is provided that the tender document may be purchased from the office of the Transport Commissioner, U.P. from 24.5.2011 to 19.6.2011 (both days inclusive) between 10.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on payment of non-refundable fee of Rs.25,000/- or may be downloaded subject to payment of demand draft of Rs.25,000/- duly filled and signed tender is to be submitted by 20th June, 2011 from 9.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. The schedule in pursuance to original advertisement while inviting tender along with important notes is as under :SCHEDULE FOR INVITATION TO TENDER A Name of the Client Government of U.P. Through Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow.Important Notes :-1.The Bids are to be delivered within the stipulated time on the date specified above.2.Conditional Bids shall be summarily rejected.Thus, in terms of original schedule, the technical bid should have been opened on 20.6.2011 by 5.30p.m.The State Government instead of opening technical bid on 20.6.2011 published the addenda on 21.6.2011 changing the date with regard to technical bid as on 5.7.2011 and with regard to financial bid, no date was notified.It shall be appropriate to reproduce fresh schedule in terms of addenda, to quote :SCHEDULE FOR INVITATION TO TENDER A Name of the Client Government of U.P. Through Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow."AFFIDAVIT (In case of Joint Venture, to be given separately by each partner) Before the Authority, I....................aged about........, son of.........., resident of............., do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :1.I have been duly authorised to swear this affidavit on behalf of M/s..........I also hereby certify that neither M/s.........nor any of its Directors/constituent partners have abandoned any work on High Security Registration Plates in India or abroad, nor any contract awarded to us for such works have been rescinded, during last five years prior to the date of submission of the Bid.(If yes, specify reasons for the same)3.I hereby authorize and request any authority, bank, person, firm or corporation to furnish pertinent information deemed necessary and requested by GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH to verify this statement or any or all information submitted by me/us in this Bid, or regarding my competence and general reputation.4.I understand and agree that further qualifying information may be requested, and agree to furnish any such information at the request of the GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH.5.All the statements made or information supplied in the Bid document are true and correct.________________________ Deponent Verification I, the above named______________do hereby verify on oath that the contents of paras - 1 to 5 of my above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge.Disclosure of material fact becomes more necessary and the concealment seems to be intentional in case the controversy in question is looked into on the grounds, on which the contract/tender of the respondent No.3 was rejected by the State of Karnataka, Goa and Rajasthan.Copy of the representation dated 13.6.2011 has been filed as Annexure No.12 to the affidavit filed by the petitioner.It shall be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion from the order passed by the Government of Karnataka while rejecting the claim of the respondent No.3 :"At this juncture it is learnt that Executive members of M/s Shimnit Usch Pvt. Ltd are participating in many suspicious and anti social activities, and the rates quoted by this company is 3 times higher than the rates prevailing in West Bengal and other states, the exorbitant rates quoted by company will be a financial burden on the vehicle owners.The Govt has keenly observed as to the acceptance of tenders by Transport Commissioner in conformity with the rules and regulations of K.T.P.P. Act and rules. "Similar pleading is contained in the aforesaid affidavit indicating therein that the respondent No.3 applied as Joint Venture Company, having agreement, with Nitin Shah as Indian partner but later on, the Joint Venture Company was dissolved on account of suppression of facts and misrepresentation with regard to fact that Nitin Shah ceased to be Director of Joint Venture Company.Hence, the State of Goa cancelled the tender.With regard to cancellation of tender by Rajasthan Government, similar reason has been assigned by the petitioner while submitting a representation (supra).There appears to be no reason for the government not to invoke power conferred by para 24.3 since the affidavit filed by the opposite party No.3 admittedly does not disclose the fact with regard to cancellation of contract by Goa and Karnataka Government.There is another aspect of the matter.Annexure IX-A contains another affidavit which is pari-materia of clause (xa) of para 4 of 2001 Order, but para 3 (6) is not in conformity with the provisions contained in Clause (xa) of para 4 of 2001 Order and there is omission of the words, "is not considered for selection of manufacturer or vendor for supply of High Security Registration Plates".Affidavit under annexure IX-A is not in conformity with sub clause xa of Para 4 of 2001 Order.Hence, it suffers from substantial illegality.Because of omission of important condition (supra), the bidder had not disclosed as to whether their contract was cancelled, rescinded or refused on account of involvement or connected with activities prejudicial to national security.Compliance was necessary keeping in view the letter of Ministry of Home Affairs, filed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition.(I) Joint Ventureof the tender document, it has been provided that the bidder shall furnish Memorandum of Association along with latest details of Board of Directors of the company and in case of signing of Bid by person other than Managing Director or Company Secretary, a copy of the resolution duly authenticated, resolved by the Board of Directors.While submitting tender bid under Clause 2.3, an envelope shall be submitted containing various documents.It shall be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion from Clause 2.3 which is as under :"2.3 Envelope No. 1-Technical Bid:The Bank Guarantee shall be as per Annexure No. II-A. LoI to the successful Bidder will be issued only after verification of the Bank Guarantee from the issuing bank.2.3.3 Attested "Type Approval Certificate" for each size and type of High Security Registration Plates issued by Testing Agencies authorized by the Government of India to supply the High Security Registration Plate (original shall be produced at the time of opening of Bid).BENCH No. - 7447 of 2011 Petitioner :- Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,Calcutta & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru.Secretary, Transport Deptt.& Others Petitioner Counsel :- Gaurav Bhatia Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Neerav Chitravnashi Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.We have perused the original record/tender document of the respondent no. 3, which reveals a declaration whereby UTSCH AG has been declared as Lead Member.While filing the turn-over as detailed in the format contained as Annexure No. VII in pursuance of Clause 2.3.4, UTSCH AG has been shown as Lead Member having 50% share holding in bidder entity and another member/Partner, Mr. Rushang Nitin Shah, has been shown to hold the remaining 50% share in Joint Venture as "INDIAN PARTNER".With regard to networth of UTSCH AG, the certificate filed by German Public Auditor, is as under:-"To Whomsoever It May Concern 20th June 2011 Dear Sirs, Our valued client Messrs. Erich Utsch AG has requested us to give a bank reference on themselves.We take pleasure in complying with such request informing you that we know this company to be a renowned and absolutely reliable company with world wide activity.The group networth exceeds EUR 50.000.000,00 with adequate earnings.No irregularities of their general delivery and payment transactions are known to us.As usual please make use of this report only strictly confidentially and without any liability on our part.Yours faithfully Sd/ German Public Auditor"of the Tender Document of minimum Rs. 40 Crore.The said certificate is reproduced as under:"Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank AG German Corporates Siegen Branch To Whom it may concern D-57069 Siegen Michael Bohi Telefon+49-271-597-363 Telefax+49-271-597-407 Email: [email protected] June 28th, 2011 Re: Erich Utsch AG, D-57080 Siegen Dear Sirs, Our valued clients Messrs. Erich Utsch AG have requested us to give a bank reference on themselves.We take pleasure in complying with such request informing you that we know this company to be a renowned and absolutely reliable company with wordwide activity.The group turnover exceeds EUR 75.000.000,00 (EUR seventy-five million) with adequate earnings.As usual please make use of this report only strictly confidentially and without any liability on our part.Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the State, is proceeding with his arguments, but, his arguments could not be concluded.Put up tomorrow i.e. 28.02.2012 at 2.00 P.M. for further hearing.Order Date :- 27.2.2012"There appears to be violation of condition No.15 under Section-I of the tender document.(II) Turn Over : Under clause 2.3.4 (supra), all bidders are required to submit turn over certificate in Annexure No.VII.For convenience, Annexure-VII is reproduced as under :"ANNEXURE VII (Clause 2.3.4) TURN OVER DETAILS A. Annual Turnover of Bidder (From all sources if Bidder is Company or Corporation) Financial Year Turnover1. 2008-20092. 2009-20103. 2010-2011 B. i) Joint Venture/Partnership from Summary Name of all partners of the Joint Venture/Partnership firm % share holding in "Bidder entity"Member/Partner (A)Member/Partner (B)Member/Partner (C)The Major Law Lexicon 4th Edition 2010 defines the solvency and solvent as under :"Solvency.Ability to discharge debts and obligations in full; as also such state of his property as that it may be reached and subjected by process of law, amount his consent, to the payment of such debts.The availability of cash over the longer term to meet financial commitments as they fall due.The report of the Chartered Accountant dated 9.7.2011 reveals that along with the tender document, no formal joint venture agreement along with solvency certificate has been filed.The office note dated 4.7.2011 reveals that the tender shall be opened before the Transport Commissioner on 5.7.2011 at 5.30 p.m. and the entire proceeding shall be vidiographed.A meeting of the tender committee was also convened on 4.7.2011 and the proceedings were recorded.The note dated 6.7.2011 further reveals that in pursuance to the bid opened on 5.7.2011 for further action, a meeting was convened on 7.7.2011 at 5.00 p.m. in the office of the Establishment and Industrial commissioner, U.P. the office note shows that the meeting of 7th July, 2011 was suspended.The opinion of M/s J.P. Gupta & company, Chartered Accountant was invited (supra) and the Chartered Accountant opined that a joint venture agreement has not been filed by the petitioners (supra).After 18.7.2011, the record reveals that under the Commissioner, Establishment and Industrial Development, a meeting was convened on 27.7.2011 which opined to seek advice with regard to solvency from the Finance Controller of the transport department and also to ensure with regard to net worth of 50 crore or above.Competent authority should exercise due diligence while accepting a tender or ordering negotiations or calling for a re-tender and a definite timeframe should be indicated so that the time taken for according requisite approvals for the entire process of award of tenders does not exceed one month from the date of submission of recommendations.In cases where the proposal is to be approved at higher levels, a maximum of 15 days should be assigned for clearance at each level.In no case should the overall timeframe exceed the validity period of the tender and it should be ensured that tenders are invariably finalised within their validity period."With regard to reasonableness of price, the opinion of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner of India is also on record and is reproduced as under :4.12 REASONABLENESS OF PRICE Before placing the contact on the lowest evaluated responsive tender (L 1), the purchase organization is to ensure that the price to be paid is reasonable.Reasonableness of the price shall be assessed in a realistic and objective manner.The broad guidelines for judging the reasonableness of price are as under:Complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plate and fixing for tractors 0.0872 Set Rate any where in Uttar Pradesh 109.00 one hundred nine only 9.50 VAT 11.77 Eleven and paise seventy seven only 1.02 Service Tax 2.25 Two and paise twenty five 0.20 Others (Pl Specify) TOTAL-D 123.02 One hundred twenty three and paise two only 10.72Complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plate and fixing for Medium Commercial Vehicles/Heavy Commercial Vehicles/Trailer combination.0.0170 Set Rate any where in Uttar Pradesh 425.00 Four hundred twenty five only 723 VAT 45.90 Forty five and paise six ninety only 0.77 Service Tax 8.76 Eight and paise seventy six only 0.15 Others (Pl Specify) TOTAL-E 479.66 Four hundred seventy nine and paise sixty six only 8.15Total No. of vehicles in ratios.Sum Total Weighted Average (A+B+C+D+E) In Figures: Rs 257.52 In Words: Rs Two hundred fifty seven and paise fifty two only NOTE:1.The above Sale Price are chargeable from vehicle owners and are for providing and fixing High Security Plate on the vehicles.No. Type of Vehicle Prices Difference State West Bengal Tamil Nadu 1 Two Wheelers 320 110 210 2 Three Wheelers 338 125 213 3 Light Motor Vehicles 500 279 221 4 Heavy Motor Vehicles 532 279 253 5 Average Price 396 135.8 260.2 The petitioner while filing affidavit dated 16.1.2012 stated that the total turnover of new vehicles in 10 years at the current rate would be around of Rs.620 crores and the total HSRP project in State of U.P. will be of 1050 crore in next 10 years.The letter dated 22.12.2011 filed with the affidavit dated 16.1.2012 of the petitioner in its totality is reproduced as under :Providing and Fixing complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plate and fixing for light Motor Vehicles/Passenger Cars Set Rs.750.52 only Rs Seven hundred fifty and paise fifty two only.Providing and Fixing complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plate and fixing for Tractors Set Rs.553.01 only Rs Seven hundred eighty four and paise thirty eight only.Providing and Fixing complete set of Registration Plates inclusive of Snap Lock, 3rd Registration Plate and fixing for Medium Transport/Commercial Vehicles/Heavy Transport/Commercial Vehicles/Trailer- Combination Set Rs.784.38 only Rs. Seven hundred eighty four and paise thirty eight only.1.The above rates are inclusive of all taxes.सेवा में परिवहन आयुक्त उत्तर प्रदेश लखनऊपरिवहन अनुभाग--3 विषयः-- उत्तर प्रदेश में मोटरयानों हेतु हाई सिक्योरिटी नम्बर प्ले ट योजना लागू किए जाने के संबंध में।महोदय, उपरोक्त विषयक आपके पत्र संख्या 3954 ए/2011 दिनांक 12.12.2011 के संदर्भ में मुझे यह कहने का निर्देश हुआ है कि शासनादेश संख्या 3003/तीस-3-11-08 एम/टी.सी.--11 दिनांक 21.12.2011 द्वारा आपको इस संबंध में कार्यवाही हेतु अधिकृत किया गया है, जैसा कि उक्त पत्र के प्रस्तर.... उल्लिखित निन्म अंश से स्पष्ट है--''अन्य राज्यों द्वारा स्वीकृत दरों की सूचना एकत्रित कर न्यूनतम निविदाकर्ता से निगोशिएट कर दरे अन्तिम की जाय। कृपया तद्नुसार निविदाकर्ता से निगोशिएट करते हुए दरें अन्तिम करते हुए प्रदेश में हाई सिक्योरिटी नम्बर प्लेट योजना के कार्यान्वयन के ...... में अग्रेतर कार्यवाही सुनिश्चित करने का कष्ट करें।'' अतः कृपया अपने स्तर से अविलम्ब कार्यवाही करने का कष्ट करें।भवदीय अपठनीय (शयाम सुन्दर शर्मा) संयुक्त सचिव। '' It appears that the aforesaid letter was only formal one and a decision was taken to award contract to the opposite party No.3 by the Transport Commissioner by letter of the same date, i.e. 22.12.2011 (supra) may be an oral instruction of some officers of the State Government or in terms of decision taken in the meeting held in the office of Cabinet Secretary, requires probe.Along with the same affidavit, the petitioners have filed a comparative chart on HSRP rate in different States of the country as Annexure No.SA-3 which is reproduced as under :PRICES OF HIGH SECURITY REGISTRATION PLATES DECLARED IN VARIOUS CATEGORY OF VEHICLES WITH VEHICLE POPULATION OF THE STATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vehicle Type TamilNadu Gujrat Haryana Punjab Himanchal Pradesh Assam Jharkhand Bihar Jammu & Kasshmir Uttrakhand Chattisgarh Uttar Pradesh 2 Wheeler 79.56 95.00 100.00 100.00 105.00 105.00 106.88 131.00 169.36 215.78 220.00 361.15 3 Wheeler 119.34 120.00 133.00 135.00 125.00 105.00 135.00 162.00 197.36 234.96 244.00 468.37 4 Wheeler 221.65 280.00 318.00 295.00 304.00 280.00 326.25 335.00 401.00 373.25 366.00 750.52 Tractor 100.00 100.00 106.88 140.00 215.78 553.01 Commercial 244.38 290.00 220.00 315.00 315.00 295.00 337.03 310.00 401.00 393.87 385.00 784.38 Weighted Average 102.74 143.00 223.13 128.52 190.36 150.60 133.03 172.08 238.04 234.00 249.35 425.27 No. of Vehicles 1.40 Crore 1.30 Crore 0.56 Crore 0.62 Crore 0.07 Crore 0.12 Crore 0.27 Crore 0.26 Crore 0.08 Crore 0.14 Crore 0.26 Crore 1.34 Crore L-1 Shimni Utsch Agros Impex D.D. Industries Agros Impex Uttsav Safety Agors Impex Agros Impex D.D. Industries Promuk Hoffmann Utsav Safety Promuk Hoffmann Shimnit UtschThus, at the face of record, in spite of earlier letter issued to reduce the rate at par with Tamilnadu, the tender of the opposite party No.3 was accepted on the rate much higher than the rate quoted by the opposite party No.3 in the State of Tamilnadu.On the same date, the State government directed the Transport Commissioner to award contract as is evident from the letter of Transport Commissioner (supra).It has been vehemently argued by the petitioners' counsel that even at current reduced rate from the actual price declared by the opposite party No.3, the rate in the State of U.P. is higher than Tamilnadu to the extent of 302% for two wheeler, 239% for 3-Wheeler, 211% for LMV, 155% for tractor and 196% for commercial vehicles.The facts and circumstances and the material on record reveals beyond doubt that the contract has been awarded to the opposite party No.3 on exorbitant rate by negotiation with the change of financial bid which was not permissible under the tender document as well as circular of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi (supra).There appears to be foul play and collusive act in the process adopted by the State of U.P. while awarding the contract.IX- OFFICE OF LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, STATE OF U.P.It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel representing the respondent State of U.P. that the contract was awarded to the opposite party No.3 strictly in accordance with rules that too after seeking opinion from the Legal Remembrancer of the State of U.P. It appears that for the purpose of awarding the contract, the government took shelter of the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer.No opinion was obtained from the Advocate General, Additional Advocate General or the State counsel or special counsels of the State of U.P.On 4.8.2011, the Addl.Legal Remembrancer has expressed his opinion that by not disclosing the cancellation of the contract by the Karnataka and Goa government, the opposite party No.3 has acted fraudulently and it amounts to misrepresentation.Hence, action may be taken under Clause 2.24.3 of the tender document for cancellation of bid.Shri K.K. Sharma, Legal Remembrancer while agreeing with the opinion of the Addl.Legal Remembrancer made an endorsement that the administrative department should look into the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite party No.3 with regard to cancellation of contract.The remark of office of Legal Remembrancer dated 4.8.2011 is reproduced as under :''शिमनित उच इण्डया प्रा० लि० द्वारा अपनी निविदा प्रपत्र के पृष्ठ--198 से 201 पर प्रस्तुत किए गये शपथ पत्र एवं प्रा० लि० का यह कथन कि कर्नाटक सरकार एवं गोवा सरकार द्वारा उच्च सुरक्षा युक्त निबन्धन प्लेट (HSRP) लगाने एवं विनर्माण इकाई स्थापित करने सम्बन्धी करार को विखण्डित किये गये हैं, से यह सुस्पष्ट है कि निविदादाता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये शपथ पत्र में सही तथ्य नहीं दर्शित किये गये हैं। निविदादाता का उक्त कृत्य निविदा प्रपत्र के प्रस्तर--2.27.2 (ii) में पारिभाषित Fraudulent Practice की परिधि में आता है। चूंकि विचाराधीन fraud/misrepresentation विचाराधीन निविदा के अंतिमीकरण के पूर्व प्रकाश में आ गया है, अतः प्र० वि० शिमनित उच इण्डया प्रा० लि० को सुनवायी का अवसर देकर के प्रस्तर 2.24.3 के अनुसार विचाराधीन निविदा को निरस्त करने एवं EMD को जब्त करने पर विचार कर सकते हैं। इसके अतिरिक्त प्र० वि० प्रस्तर 2.27.4 की कार्यवाही पर भी विचार कर सकते हैंउपरोक्त परामर्श दोनों निविदा में उपलब्ध कराये गये तथ्यों पर आधारित है। तथ्यों के बारे में प्र० वि० अपना समाधान स्व-स्तर से कर लेंगे।टान्जेज ईस्टर्न सिक्योरिटी प्रा० लि० एवं शिमनित उच इण्डया प्रा० लि० द्वारा प्रस्तुत दोनों निविदा प्रपत्रों को पत्रावली पर यथावत रख दिया गया है। प्र० वि० उक्त पर अपने समाधानकर लेंगे।सहमत हों तो उपरोक्त परामर्श प्र० वि० को देना चाहें।अपठनीय मुहर अपर शासकीय हस्तांतरिक/ प्रमुख सचिव न्याय पृष्ठ 120 का अंश 'क' से सहमत होते हुए---x---x---x---प्रशासकीय विभाग को शिमनित उच इण्डिया प्रा० लि० को सुनवाई का अवसर देकर निविदा को निरस्त करने एवं EMD को जब्त कहने के उपरान्त सुसंगत निर्णय लेना होगाWhen the aforesaid opinion was brought to the notice of the Joint Secretary, Transport, Shri Shivananad Ojha, he made an endorsement dated 26.9.2011 pointing out that the office has received the explanation submitted by the respondents 3 and 4 which may be sent to the judicial department for its another opinion.By endorsement dated 30.9.2011, the Joint Secretary of judicial department Shri Surendra Nath Srivastava noted that in the State of Rajasthan, the contract was given to the opposite party No.3 in the year 2006 but it did not take steps to implement the contract and the government terminated the contract by order dated 9.5.2011 which was impugned before the Rajasthan High Court and the matter is pending.The contract of the opposite party No.3 was cancelled by the Karnataka government in pursuance to Cabinet decision dated 22.1.2010 which was stayed by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court.Later on, the writ petition was dismissed to resolve the dispute in pursuance to Art. 10 of the contract document by way of alternative dispute resolution.The Government of Goa has cancelled the agreement of O.P. No.3 by order dated 25.1.2011 with regard to HSRP.Against the order passed by the Government of Goa, the opposite party No.3 approached the Bombay High Court and the High Court dismissed the writ petition without expressing any opinion on merit.(Timon of Athens, Act IV. Sc.3) XI- CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTSIn the affidavit required to be filed (Annexure No.IX), the petitioner has not disclosed this fact.In consequence thereof, not only the petitioner but the respondent No.4 was ousted from the fray resulting in the grant of tender to the opposite party No.3 who remains solitary successful bidder among the persons who submitted their tender.Under 2001 Order , it was necessary for the State Government to obtain an affidavit which may reveal that the bidder has not been involved in an act detrimental to the national security and bidder's contract for supply of HSRP are never cancelled or rescinded.The decision taken in pre-bid meeting was converted into writing on 17.6.2011 and Addenda was published on 21.6.2011 i.e., after the last date (20.6.2011) scheduled for filing of bid in terms of original advertisement.(x).Substantial change on the suggestion of the opposite parties No.3 and 4 in the bid document creates reasonable doubt over the bona fide of the State Government.Though the Government has taken note of the Circular of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner of India, dated 18.5.2005 (supra), and referred the same in the Office note but has not followed the same (supra).The opposite party No.3 has given higher rate in the State of U.P., than what it has given in the State of Tamil Nadu.The rate in the State of U.P. is higher than Tamilnadu to the extent of 302% for two wheeler, 239% for 3-Wheeler, 211% for LMV, 155% for tractor and 196% for commercial vehicles.In case the rate of HSRP is tested in comparison of rate of State of Bihar, it shall be 3 or 4 times higher than it.The noble laureate was known for his visionary thoughts which is reflected from his literary and historical books.However, he was compelled to live in exile in 1974 and again his prestige was restored in 1994 but it was too late.Union of India and 2011(8) SCC 249 Rameshwari Devi and others versus Nirmala Devi and others, exemplary cost may be imposed.(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the State Government to re-advertise the bid with due modification of the tender document strictly in accordance with rules, the Order, 2001 and the guidelines dated 16.3.2002, issued by the Government of India (supra) and keeping in view the observation made in the body of judgment within one week from today, scheduling the date in such a manner so that the entire process be completed by 30.4.2012 in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.(iii) The Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to investigate the entire process with regard to grant of contract including the criminal antecedents and link of the opposite party No.3 for supply of HSRP in the State of U.P. in accordance with law, expeditiously say, within six months and submit a status report to this Court at the interval of every two months till the investigation reach to its logical end.(iv) Registry shall send a copy of the present judgment to the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi as well as provide a copy to the learned counsel for the CBI of this Court and the Chief Secretary of the State for compliance.A copy shall also be sent to Hon'ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for information and appropriate action to provide due training or take steps so that judicial officers working in the government discharge their obligation without fear or favour and in accordance with law.The writ petition is allowed accordingly.Costs as above. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,907,384 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 122 of 2019,under Sections- 498-A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,Police Station-Barla, District- Aligarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,927,440 | Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction subha Item no.9 C.R.M. No. 6090 of 2020 With CRAN 2 of 2020 Mehul Kotecha & Anr.The State of West Bengal (Via video-conference) In Re: Apprehension of arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No.53 of 2020 dated 26th February, 2020 under sections 498A/406/34/354 /509/354A/504/506 IPC and read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and adding sections 465/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code( G.R. (S) Case No. 268 of 2020).Mr. Syed Shamsher Ali Mr. Arkadeb Bhattacharyya ...for the petitioners.The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband and the petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant.They have been falsely implicated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant about seven years after the marriage was solemnized.The learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioners' prayer and submits that there are direct allegations against the petitioners and as such their custodial detention is necessary.Records reveal that a matrimonial suit preferred by the petitioner no.1 is pending.From the complainant it appears that there had been a dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant since the date of marriage.It does not appear that all the alleged incidents, as recorded in the complaint, were contemporaneously reported to the police authorities.The petitioners shall reside within the jurisdiction of Ballygunge Police Station and shall hand over their passports to the Investigating Officer of the case within a week from date.The case diary, as produced, is returned to Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the State.The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 6090 of 2020 along with CRAN 2 of 2020 is, accordingly, disposed of.All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.[Tirthankar Ghosh, J] [Tapabrata Chakraborty, J] | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,928,679 | The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.39 of 2011, on thefile of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.There was yet another accused, by name, Karuppiah @ Marimuthu, who died during trial.PW-1 is a resident of Melakkottai Village, Alangudi Taluk,Pudukkottai District.The deceased, PW-2 and the accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers.The third accused is the son of the first accused.The deceased wasowning agricultural land.Their ancestral property was partitioned betweenthe deceased and his brothers.Since one acre of excess land was allotted tothe deceased, on account of the same, there was a long standing enmitybetween the deceased and the accused.While so, the common borewell had developed repair, which was rectified by the deceased and PW-2 by spendingconsiderable amount.The accused Nos.1 and 2 did not give any money for the above said repair work.Hefurther told them that after paying the amount only, they could draw waterfrom the common borewell.This resulted in quarrel between them.Thereafter,on the same day, at 09.00 PM, when the deceased, PW-1 and PW-3, who is the brother of PW-1, were sitting in the front entrance of the house, the accusedNos.1 to 3 came there and abused the deceased in filthy language.By soabusing, the first accused took out a knife, which was in his possession andstabbed the deceased on his shoulder, chest, stomach, hand, leg and cheek indiscriminately.The accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked the deceased with sticks.PW-1 and PW-3 tried to prevent the accused from stabbing further.The accusedpushed them down and on account of the same, PW-1 and PW-3 fell down.At that time, PW-2, who is the brother of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased,rushed to the place of occurrence and prevented the accused from attackingfurther.The accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked PW-2 with stick.On hearing thealarm raised by PW-1 to PW-3, the villagers gathered there.The accused Nos.1to 3 fled away from the scene of occurrence with weapon and sticks.Taking up the case for investigation, at 04.30 AM, on 05.04.2010,PW-13 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer [EX-P2] and a Rough Sketch, [EXP17] showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-5 and another witness.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest on thebody of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatars between 07.00 AM andEX-P18 is the inquest report.Rukmani, treated PW-2 and issued Accident Register [EX- P12].Then, PW-13 examined PW-1 to PW-5 and recorded their statements.At 01.30 PM, on 05.04.2010, PW-13 arrested the third accused at Mukkam Bus Stop.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosedthe place, where he had hidden the stick.In pursuance of the same, theaccused took the police and the witnesses to the hide out and produced thestick.PW-13 recovered the same under a mahazer.Then, at 02.45 PM, on 05.04.2010, PW-13 arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2, near a Teacher Training Institute, situated at Kovilur Four Way Road.On such arrest, they gavevoluntary confessions, in which they disclosed the place, where they hadhidden the knife and stick.In pursuance of the same, the accused took thepolice and the witnesses to the hide out and produced the knife [MO-1] andstick [MO-4 series].PW-13 recovered the same under separate mahazers.On returning to the Police Station, PW-13 forwardedthe accused to the Court for judicial remand.He also handed over thematerial objects to the Court for chemical examination.Then, he examined PW-8, Dr.Rukmani, who treated PW-2 at the Primary Health Centre, Vanakkankadu, recorded her statement and received EX-P12, Accident Register.The Trial Court framed as many as three charges, as detailedbelow.Charge Accused Penal Provisions11 to 3120(b)IPC 21 to 3302 r/w 34 IPC31294(b)By Judgment dated 05.07.2016, the Trial Court has convicted theaccused Nos.1 and 3 and sentenced them, as detailed below:- Accused Section of LawSentence of imprisonment Fine amount 1 and 3302 r/w 34 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Since the second accused died during trial, the charges framedagainst him stood abated.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, theappellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 have come up with this Criminal Appeal.The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, isconsciously narrated below:-The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Murugan.PW-1 is the wife of thedeceased.Then, thedeceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Pudukkottai.On returning to the Police Station, heregistered a case in Crime No.94 of 2010, for the offences under Sections294(b), 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Then, he forwarded thedead body for postmortem.PW-7 - Dr.E.Arunagiri conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased.EX-P11 is the postmortem certificate.He noticed the followinginjuries:-"External Injuries:1)3 x 0.5 (torn) penetrating injury over right lateral border ofmanubrium (torn)2)2 x 0.5 x bone depth injury with clear edges over right lateralborder of manubrium sternum.3)4 x 0.5 x 10 cm injury clear edges over right lateral border ofsymphysis sternum.4)3 x 0.5 bone depth injury with clear edges over (torn) belowaxilla.5)3 x 0.5 x bone depth injury with clear edges over ulnar borderof dorsum of right forearm 3 cm above wrist.6)2 x 0.5 x 4 cm injury with clear edges over 3 cm above clavicleof right side.7)0.5 x 0.5 laceration over body of right of mandible.8)5 x 5 cm contusion over angle of right side of mandible with0.5 x 0.5 cm abrasion on centre of mandible.9)3 x 0.5 x bone depth injury with clear edges over lateralaspect of left middle of thigh.10)2 x 0.5 cm injury with clear edges over left knee.Scalp -normal, eye lids - closed, nose - normal, mouth & lips - normal, tongue -normal, teeth -8/8 / 8/8 Abdomen - normal, Generate organ - (torn) Scrotam -normal, Extremities - normal.Internal Examination:Abdomen - normal.Peritoneal Cavity - normal.Ribs & Sternum1)3 x 0.5 x 5 cm injury over 3rd intercostal area 0.5 cm lateralto sternum with fracture of 4th costoc (torn) (N.C.)2)Fracture of middle of manubrium sternum.3)2 x 0.5 x 3 cm injury over 7th intercostal area at midline ofclavicle.4)Fracture of sternum at the level of 4th vertebra.Heart - 0.5cm linear injury over right surface of right verticle crossing midline with0.5 cm linear injury over interverticular septum and entered left verticlelung - 2 x 0.5 cm through and through injury over right lung 0.5 cm lateralto (N.C.) border: Liver - 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm injury over right lobe, anteriorsurface of liver, spleen, kidney, intestine bladder - normal, Head - normal,skull, brain, membrance - normal, Spinal Cord - normal".He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of injury toVital Organs and Hypovolemic shock.4.6. PW-8, Dr.Then, heexamined PW-7, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and recorded his statement.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses wereexamined, 18 documents and six material objects were marked.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against them, they denied the same as false.On their side, onewitness was examined as DW-1 and four documents were exhibited as [EX-D1 to EX-D4].Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the abovematerials, the Trial Court convicted the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3, asdetailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished themaccordingly.That is how, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are now beforethis Court with this Criminal Appeal.As we have already stated, the secondaccused died during trial and thus, the charges framed as against him stoodabated.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit thatas per the case of the prosecution, when the deceased, PW-1 and PW-3 were sitting in the front side entrance of the house, the accused Nos.1 to 3 camethere and indulged in quarrel by abusing them in filthy language.In the saidquarrel, the first accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his shoulder,chest, stomach, hand, leg and cheek.The accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked the deceased with sticks.On seeing the occurrence, PW-1 and PW-3 tried to prevent the first accused from stabbing further.The accused pushed them downand on account of the same, PW-1 and PW-3 fell down.At that time, PW-2 rushed to the place of occurrence and prevented the accused from attackingfurther.The accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked PW-2 with stick.On hearing the hueand cry, the villagers gathered there.The accused Nos.1 to 3 fled away fromthe scene of occurrence.The learned counsel for the appellants, narrating the case of theprosecution, would try to make out a case that PW-1, in her evidence, has notmentioned about the presence and participation of PW-3. PW-1, during cross-examination, has admitted that the accused Nos.2 and 3 had also sustained injury in the very same occurrence and in respect of the same, theInvestigating Officer examined her.Thus, according to the learned counselfor the appellants, though a counter case in Crime No.95 of 2010 wasregistered and final report was filed, no such document has been produced.Thus, the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands and true versionof the occurrence.In the saidAmbulance, the accused party went to the hospital, which would, undoubtedly,show that the accused party also sustained injuries in the very sameoccurrence, which was not investigated properly.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, byinviting the attention of this Court to EX-P12, the Accident Register, whichpertains to PW-2, would submit that in EX-P12, it has been mentioned that PW-2 was alleged to have been assaulted by eight known and unknown persons at 11.00 PM, on 04.04.2010 with sticks and rod, whereas, according to PW-1 and PW-2, the occurrence took place at 09.00 PM.Therefore, the entry made in EX-P12 would show that two occurrences would have taken place on the same day, one at 09.00 PM and another at 11.00 PM in two different places.However,this was not properly investigated by the Investigating Officer.In thisregard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants makes reliance onthe Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpat Vs.State of Haryana and others, reported in 2010 STPL 23023 SC : 2010 (12) SC 59 : 2011 (1) SCC (Crl)309, wherein it has been held that "when two groups of people clashed interse with weapons causing injuries to each other, we hold that the complainantparty was the aggressor and in the absence of definite material andexplanation from the prosecution side, the High Court was right in acquittingall the accused".Therefore, she was partly treated as hostile.The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that fromEX-P17, it could be seen that the houses of all the accused party and thedeceased party are situated very adjacent to each other.Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 that on hearing the alarm, he came out of the house and rushed to the placeof occurrence is highly doubtful.Thus, the presence of PW-2, at the time ofoccurrence and that he had sustained injury in the very same transaction ishighly doubtful and the occurrence would not have taken place, as it isprojected by the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit thatduring cross-examination conducted, on 25.04.2016, PW-1 has stated that since there was no light facility, she could not identify the persons as to who hadattacked the deceased, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.While concluding his arguments, in the alternative, the learnedcounsel for the appellants would submit that the occurrence took place in asudden quarrel.There was no premeditation for the accused to commit thecrime.It was purely sudden.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethis Criminal Appeal stoutly.He would point out that theprosecution has explained that the injuries sustained by the accused Nos.2and 3 were very minor in nature at the hands of the other accused, when thefirst accused cut the deceased and the accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked theinjured eye-witnesses with sticks.Thus, according to him, the injuriessustained by the accused Nos.2 and 3 have been duly explained by the prosecution.Insofar as the case in Crime No.95 of 2010 is concerned,according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation wasdone thoroughly and a final report was also filed and the same was referredto as "mistake of fact".Thus, according to him, the prosecution has not atall suppressed any fact.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that amere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to mention about thehouse of PW-2 in EX-P17 would not create any doubt in the case of theprosecution and his presence at the time of occurrence is natural, since thedeceased, PW-2 and the accused party were all brothers and they were residingin the adjacent houses.He would further submit that on appreciating theevidence, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellants alone guilty,which does not require any interference at all at the hands of this Court.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused thematerials available on record carefully.PW-1, in her evidence, has categoricallystated that when the deceased, PW-1 and PW-3 were sitting in the frontentrance of the house, the accused Nos.1 to 3 came there and indulged inquarrel by abusing them in filthy language.In the said quarrel, the firstaccused stabbed the deceased with knife on his shoulder, chest, stomach,hand, leg and cheek.On seeing the occurrence, PW-1 and PW-3 tried to prevent the first accused from stabbing further.The accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked thedeceased with sticks.The accused pushed PW-1 and PW-3 down and on account of the same, PW-1 and PW-3 fell down.At that time, PW-2 rushed to the place ofoccurrence and prevented the accused from attacking further.The accusedNos.2 and 3 attacked PW-2 with stick.The evidence of PW-1 is cogent,convincing and inspires the confidence of the Court.Her evidence is dulycorroborated by the medical evidence also.Though PW-1 has been cross- examined at length, nothing has been brought on record so as to disbelieveher version.Thus, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be doubted.Moreover, PW-2 isan injured eye-witness, who has also spoken about the occurrence in a vividmanner.Insofar as thecase in Crime No.95 of 2010 is concerned, the investigation was donethoroughly and a final report was also filed and the same was referred to as"mistake of fact".Thus, the prosecution has not at all suppressed anymaterial fact.Moreover, on the side of the accused, they examined theInspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, DW-1, who has stated that thecomplaint lodged by the accused party was also investigated.However,subsequently, it was found that the accused party had not sustained anyinjury and therefore, the case was closed as "mistake of fact".Now, coming to the submission of the learned counsel for theappellants that the house of PW-2 has not been mentioned in EX-P17, in ourconsidered view and as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, a mere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to notedown the house of PW-2 in EX-P17 is not fatal to the case of the prosecutionand it is a flaw committed by the Investigating Officer.PW-2 is an injuredeye-witness and thus, his presence at the time of occurrence is natural andcannot be doubted.Furthermore, the deceased, PW-2 and the accused party were all brothers and they were residing in the adjacent houses.Fine amount, if any paid by the first accused, shall be adjusted towards thefine amount now imposed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the third accusedunder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and he is acquittedof the charge framed against him.Fine amount, if any, paid by the third accused shall be refunded to him.Bailbond executed by him and the sureties shall stand terminated.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.2.The Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. . | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 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. |
73,933,674 | hy This first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant ad of bail has been filed on behalf of applicant Juney Thomas in M connection with Crime No.634/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 506 of the IPC and Section 9 read with 10 of of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 rt registered at Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh.ou The applicant is in judicial custody since 19.11.2017 in the aforesaid offence.The incident relates to 18.11.2017 where as per C the prosecution case as reflected from 161 statement of the child h prosecutrix, the father of the child-prosecutrix working at Bhopal ig was informed that his daughter, the prosecutrix herein, had H reached Chowki Bandakpur and had registered a complaint against the applicant herein wherein she has stated that on 18.11.2017, the applicant herein had kissed on her lips and touched inappropriately on her chest, on account of which she ran away with the help of one Manoj and reached Chowki Bandakpur.The FIR is registered on 19.11.2017 and the statement of the child prosecutrix has also been recorded on the same date.While opposing the bail application, learned counsel for the State has read out the 161 statement of the child witness in which she has stated the same thing as mentioned in the FIR.However, learned counsel for the State in all fairness has also drawn the sh attention of this Court to the 164 statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Magistrate on 27.11.2017 in which she has not e ad given any single statement against the applicant herein.She has stated that she did not like staying in the hostel and so she is stated to have run away from there and all alone while she was passing by the jungle, on account of fear, she is said to have Pr a hy caused self-inflicted injury on her wrist with a blade.This M Court is inclined to give credence to the 164 statement of the child-of prosecutrix as the same was recorded before a Magistrate.Under the circumstances, I am inclined to allow application rt and I direct that the applicant be enlarged on bail upon his ou furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty C thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.h ig Certified copy as per rules.H (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE C CHRISTOPHER Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482005, st=Madhya Pradesh, PHILIP 2.5.4.20=8b08d804553df19ff5378dc648d203e10f08e120c9c20505ca 205b5cf060dbf3, cn=CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Date: 2017.12.06 15:23:15 +05'30' | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,393,384 | The first accused/husband of the deceased did not take up any useful employment, but cruelly treated his wife, the deceased and pledged her jewels, one by one towards funding his wayward life.When accused called at the house of PWs.2 and 3, parents of the deceased girl on 17.4.2004, A1 and A3 demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards purchase of an auto and that articles like rice grinder and mixie be handed over before the 1st of the month.The first accused threatened and beat the deceased stating that if the demands were not met, she would meet her end.It is the prosecution case that as a result thereof, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 26.04.2004 at 02.00 p.m. A1 and A3/appellants before us were charged of offence under section 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 22 Exhibits and 4 material objects.On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined and one exhibit was marked.On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court acquitted all the accused of offence under section 304-B r/w 34 IPC, acquitted A2 of offence under section 498-A, convicted the appellants/A1 and A3 for offence under section 498-A IPC, sentenced each of them to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- each i/d 3 months R.I.Heard Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for appellants and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).Since the appellants stand convicted only for offence under section 498-A IPC, it would suffice if evidence there regards alone is appreciated.PW-1, brother of the deceased, is the first informant.He as also his parents PWs.2 and 3 have spoken to the occurrence on 17.04.2004 wherein demands, as alleged by the prosecution, were made.They have all spoken to PWs.4 and 5 having intervened and pacified the accused.It is the evidence of PW-4, a neighbour of PWs.2 and 3 that the accused called at the house of PW-2 on 17.04.2004, that an issue arose therein and that he had gone over to PW-2's house.PW-2 informed him of the demands made by the accused.Upon being pacified by PW-4 stating that PW-2 was facing difficulties and that the demand would be met, the accused left.The evidence of PW-5, another neighbour, is to the same effect.To further prove the allegations of cruelty against A1, the prosecution has marked Exs. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
739,424 | JUDGMENT M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The appellant Mst.and was sentenced to death together with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of tine toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.She was also convicted under Section 498A 34 Indian Penal Code .The record is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence.The appeal and death reference are being disposed of by this common judgment.The married life of the deceased Krishna and Kishan Lal, according to the prosecution, lacked connubial felicity and was marked by constant bickerings and quarrels, the cause of this discord being the dowry demands of the appellants.It is the prosecution ease that the deceased was being subjected even to maltreatment.Deceased Krishna complained to her father Harichand (P.W. 9)and sister Neeru (P.W. 1) about the cruel treatment meted out to her by the appellants.The immediate provocation for the appellants stepping up their ill-treatment of the deceased was their demand for a motor cycle and also half share of the sale proceeds of the house belonging to her father.(3) According to the prosecution on 13-11-1988, the deceased was beaten up by her husband as a result whereof she had sustained a bleeding injury over her left arm.Thereafter, on the same day at about 8.30 to 8.45 p.m. the appellant Mst.Chandrawati and the deceased had a quarrel during the course of which the appellant Mst.Chandrawati dragged the deceased inside the bed room.threw kerosene on her and set her on fire.In the meantime, atabout 9.05 p.m., somebody informed the Fire Station Shanker Road over phone about the fire at the appellants' house, which brought leading Fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) at the spot, and who took the deceased to the Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital.New Delhi.I was locked in a room by my mother-in-law Smt. Chandrawati in, the evening and she put kerosene on me and burnt me.My sister-in-law Geeta, Pushpa and Mamta were present in the house at the time of incident but were out of the loom.Sheela (P.W. 2) pertaining to the facts mentioned above can be accepted as true and reliable.Neeru (P.W. 1) testified that on 13-11-1988 at about 6[6.30 p.m., appellant Kishan'syounger brother Along with another person came to the house of her father (P.W. 9) and told her that Kishan had met with an accident and her father (P.W. 9) had been called to the appellants'house.Thereupon, she Along with Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5)proceeded to the appellant's house at Ranjit Nagar.When they reached Ranjit Nagar, appellant Kishan's brother and the person accompanying them left them at the bus stand Ranjit Nagar anddisappeared.According to Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) somehow she managed to reach the appellants' house.On reaching the house,the appellant Mst.Chandrawati informed her that no such accident had taken place and she had summoned her father.Neeru (P.W. 1) deposed that thereafter, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati started making several complaints and levelling allegations against the deceased Krishna upon which she expressed her desire to leave and on this Krishna also expressed her desire to accompany her.(30) MST.Neeru (P.W. 1) further added that she requested the appellant Chandrawati to allow Krishna to accompany her but she declined her request and thereupon Krishna startedweeping.At that time.Krishna's left arm was bleeding.On enquiry, Krishna told her that she was beaten up by her husband with a cricket bat.She then protested to the appellant Kishan but he denied having beaten Krishna whereas Krishna maintained that she was being given beatings regularly for the previous fourdays.Thereupon, she again requested the appellant Mst.Chandrawati to send Krishna to her father's house but she refused and threatened that only her dead body would go from the matrimonialhouse.She insisted to take the deceased with her and was proceeding towards the room of Krishna, she was caught by hair by the appellant Chandrawati who dragged her back and the brother of the appellant Kishan, who had gone to call them, slapped heron face.Appellant Kishan's sister and one fat lady pushed her and Sheela (P.W. 5) out of the house.At the same time, Satish,son-in-law of the appellant Chandrawati started beating Krishna and dragged her inside.When she and Sheela (P.W. 5) went to the back side of the appellant's house, they heard Shrieka and alarm raised by Krishna.As they looked up, they noticed fire and smoke billowing out and heard Krishna crying; "MausiMujhe Bachao." Thereupon, they raised an alarm which attracted several people and they requested them to save Krishna who had been set on fire, but.none of them came to Krishna's reseue.(31) MST.Neeru (P.W. 1) also deposed that she Along withMst.Sheela (P.W. 5) rushed to the police station in a three wheeler and reported to the police that Krishna was being burnt alive at her matrimonial home.Police then accompanied them to the appellants' house.Fire brigade had already arrived at the appellants' house and she saw Krishna being brought downstairs by the firemen.She also saw the appellant Mst.Chandrawati weeping and at that time Mst.Chandrawati told the police that she (P.W. 1) and Mst.Chandrawati was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under Section Indian Penal Code .and sentencedto pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Appellants KishanLal and Harkesh were convicted u/s 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code .and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each and in default of payment of fine to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences.The deceased was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the said hospital at about 9.40 p.m. where she was examined by Dr. S. Kumar, who found her to have sustained 100 per cent burns vide M.L.C. (Ex. Public Witness 2 A & 10 A).Dr S. Kumar referred the deceased to the Surgical Emergency Ward, where the deceased was examined by Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) in the presence of Dr.Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).After examining Krishna, Dr. Gupta(P.W. 6) recorded her dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6 A).(4) At about 9.10 p.m. a telephonic message was received at the Police Station, Patel Nagar from S.I. Suraj Bhan of Police Control Room about the alleged incident.Pursuant to this information, S.I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24) requested the S.D.M. ShriV. K. S. Chalihan (P.W. 13) to record the dying declaration of the deceased, Immediately thereafter, S.D.M. Suri Chauhan (P.W.13)rushed to the hospital but he could not record the dying declaration as the deceased was unfit to malice the statement.On 14-11-1988 at 10.30 a.m. the deceased succumbed to her burn injuries.S.D.M. Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) prepared the in guest report (Ex. Public Witness 13 A) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.(5) On 13-11-1988, the investigating officer S.I. Inder Singh(P.W, 24) seized one half burnt Gadda and pillow, one small.cane containing kerosene oil, one match box and two burnt matchsticks from the bedroom vide seizure memo (Ex. Public Witness 191A).(8) In order to.prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses.The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution found that the charges under Sections 302 and 498A 34 Indian Penal Code . were fully brought home to the accusedMst.He also found that a charge under Section 498A 34 T.P.C. has been proved against the accused Kishan Lal and Harkesh.That being the case.Chandrawati to be hanged.In addition to this, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati was convicted u/s 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code .and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to suffer imprisonment for six months.The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted and sentenced the appellants Kishan Lal and Harkesh under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code .to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for.(9) The case of prosecution rests mainly on three categories of evidence: (1) evidence of Smt.Neeru (P.W. 1), Smt. Sheela(P.W.6) and Harichand (P.W.9);(2) the dying declaration(Ex.P.W I 6/A) made by the deceased Smt. Krishna; and (3)evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) and the Investigating Officer Inder Singh (P.W. 24).Evidence was also produced toshow the alleged torture of Krishna for some time preceding theoccurrence over demands for a motor cycle and also half share of sale proceeds of the house belonging to her father.that the appellant Mst.Chandrawati is the mother and the appellant Harkesh is the father of the appellant Kishan Lal.It is also evident from the evidence of Smr.Neeru (P.W. 1), Smt. Sheela (P.W.5), Hari Chand (P.W.9), Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6), Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3), ShriV. K. .S. Chauhan (P.W. 13) and S.I. Inder Singh.(P.W. 24)that on 14-11-1988 the deceased Krishna died of bum injuries.There could be three alternatives for her being burnt (a) suicide;(b) accidental fire; and (c) being put on fire.The plea of accidental fire has not been advanced either by the prosecution orby the defense.That apart, the theory of accidental death hadto be brushed aside in view of presence of kerosene on the scalp of the deceased.Deceased Krishna suffered burn in furies in a bedroom of the appellant's house.Accidental fire as the.reason of death has.therefore rightly not been pressed into service leaving the two other alternatives of suicide and the intentional killing by burning her, for consideration.As stated earlier, there is no eve witness to testify to the act of setting fire to Krishna which is the prosecution case.It must be remembered that since such crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential house and in secrecv, independent and direct evidence is.The Apex Court observed in the case of Om Parkash Vs.State of Puniab, 1992 Crl.L.J. 3935(1): "....It is the duty of the court, in a case of death because of torture and demand of dowry, to examine the circumstances of each case and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, for recording a finding on the question as to how the death has taken place.While judging the evidence and circumstances of the case,the court has to be conscious of the fact that a death connected with dowry takes place inside the house,where outsiders who can be said to be independent witnesses in the traditional sense, are not expected to be present.The finding of guilt on the charge of murder has to be recorded on the basis of circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced before the court. . . .."(11) The prosecution has examined Smt. Neeru (P.W. 1) andSmt.Sheila (P.W. 5) to prove that at the relevant time, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati having belaboured Krishna, dragged her inside the room and immediately thereafter they heard shrieks and alarm raised by Krishna and when they looked up they noticed smoke and fire in the house while Krishna was shouting for help.Before we refer to the oral evidence of these witnesses, it is appropriate to deal with the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) made by the deceased.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed strops reliance on the said dying declaration in holding the appellant Mst.Chandrawati guilty of murder.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mst.He further submitted that having reward to the nature and severity of the bum injuries.Krishna could not reasonably be expected to have been in a position to make the dying declaration attributed to her.In Lallubhai Devchand Shah Vs.(17) Dr. D Gupta (P.W. 6) testified that on 13-11-1988, he was posted as Senior Resident Surgeon in the Surgical Emergency Ward of the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, He further testified that on that day at about 9.50 p.m. Dr. S. Kumar had referred Krishna to his ward and he had recorded her dying declaration(Ex.Public Witness 6/A) in the presence of Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).Dr.Sandeep 'Chopra (P W. 7) also swears to the same effect.My husband Kishan was sent to another room.My mother-in-law and he was present in the house but out of the room at time ofincident.Also my husband does not do any work and drinks alcohol and beats me up regularly.13-11-1988"(18) Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) deposed that the deceased Krishna was mentally fit and coherent when she had made her statement (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) before him and she had not been given any sedative before she was transferred to his ward.Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) also swears to the same effect.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant Mst.Chandrawati has invited our attention to the evidence of leading fireman RajKumar (P.W. 16), and Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) and theM.L.C. report (Ex. Public Witness 2/A & Ex. Public Witness 10/A) in support of his submission that the deceased was not in a fit mental and physical condition to make a volitional statement after she had reached the hospital.Leading fire man Raj Kumar (P.W. 16)testified that on 13-11-1988 at about 9.05 p.m., a call was received at the fire station about a fire at the house of the appellants,and pursuant to this call he rushed to the spot; that on reaching there he found the deceased Krishna lying burnt in the house and that he took Krishna to R.M.L. Hospital.He further adtied that at that time, Krishna was unconscious and she did not make any statement before him.According to the prosecution, RajKumar (P.W. 16) was the first person before whom Krishna had made an oral dying declaration.Since this witness has not supported the prosecution version on the said point, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution.During cross examination,his attention was invited to his case diary statement portion marked A to A in Ex. Public Witness 16[A, but he had disowned the saidstatement.It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid contradiction has not been proved by the statement of the Investigating Officer Inder Singh (P.W.24).S.I. Inder Singh (P.W.24) has no where stated in his evidence that Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) had made the statement portion marked A to A in Ex. Public Witness 16/A before him during investigation.(19) Section 145 of the Evidence Act mandates that if any contradiction in the evidence of any witness, from his previous statement reduced to writing, is intended to be used in the case,the attention of the witness must be called to that particular part of his previous statement.If he admits the previous statement, it is unnecessary to prove it.If he denies the previous statement,such statement has to be proved in an appropriate manner.If this is not done, the evidence of the witness cannot be assailed in respect of those statements.(Somnath Vs.Tehsildar Singh Vs.State of U.P.; (20).In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid contradiction portion marked A to A in Ex. Public Witness 16)A has not been proved in accordance with law.The mere fact that Raj Kumar (P.W.16) has been declared hostile by the prosecution and allowed to be cross-examined does not make him an unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether.(Rabindra Kumar Dev Vs.State of Orissa (20) The prosecution has produced the M.L.C. (Ex. Public Witness 2/A & Ex. Public Witness 10/A), which shows that Krishna was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the Hospital on 13-11-1988 at about9.40 p.m. It also contains an endorsement made by the Examining Medical Officer Dr. S. Kumar that "Patient states that her mother-in-law threw oil on her and put fire to her by burnt match sticks." Surprisingly, the prosecution has not examined Dr.G S. Kumar to prove the said dying declaration of the deceasedKrishna.However, the M.L.C. (Ex. P. 2)A & Ex. Public Witness 10/A)clearly shows that at 9.40 p.m., when Krishna was admitted in the hospital, she was mentally fit to make any volitional statement.This document has lent material corroboration to the testimony of Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra(P.W. 7) that Krishna was in a fit mental and physical condition to make a dying declaration.Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6)" who recorded the dying declaration, was the best person to opine about the fitness of the deceased to make the statement.D. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of both the doctors to show that they were biased in favor of the prosecution or ill disposed towards the appellant Mst.Thus the negative testimony of Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) is not strong enough to wipe out the positive evidence of the said doctors about fitness of the deceased to make the statement.(21) Learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) on the ground that the evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) shows that after examining the deceased he ordered resuscitation proceedings to be initiated and in the meantime he recorded the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A).Relying upon the dictionary meaning of the word 'resuscitation'as "revival after apparent death" contained in the Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, learned counsel further submitted that an attempt was made by the attending doctors to revive Krishna before recording her dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) and that would wholly improbablise, if not render altogether, false the said dying declaration.We do not find any merit in the saidsubmission.Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) has 'nowhere stated that Krishna was clinically dead at the time of recording her dying declaration.Both the medical mennamely, Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7)were conscious about her condition and, therefore, they would not have attached any importance to her statement if they had any doubt about her mental capacity.One important thing to notice in connection with the cross examination of Dr. Gupta(P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) is that there is not even a whisper of a suggestion in their cross examination to show that they were motivated in giving false evidence.(22) It is significant to note that the evidence of fireman RajKumar (P.W. 16) shows that none of the accused persons accompanied him when Krishna was being taken to the hospital.They chose to remain in the house.The M.L.C. (Ex. P. 2jA &Ex.P.W. 10/A) shows that Krishna was brought to the hospital by Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) The evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6-)and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) shows that none of the deceased's relatives was present in the hospital at the time of recording her dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A).The evidence of Neeru (P.W. 1), Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) and Hari Chand (P.W.9) shows that they reached the hospital at about 12.30 a.m. The dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) was completed at 9.55 p.m.Even no police officer was present at that time.According to the Investigating Officer S.I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24), he reached the hospital at 10 p.m. In a frantic effort to undo the effect of the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6iA), a suggestion was put to Dr.Gupta (P.W. 6) that he had recorded the dying declaration at the instance of the police.This suggestion has been denied byDr.Gupta (P.W. 6).There is no substance in the suggestion because Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7)are independent witnesses and they have no axe to grind against the appellant Mst.The deceased Krishna was quite near to her creator at 9.50 p.m. dangerously so indeed, and we may accept that her mind was then free from failings which afflict the generality of human beings, like involving enemies in falsecharges.Had there being tutoring there would have been no difficulty for Krishna in implicating her husband and father-in-lawalso.This by itself shows that the deceased had no tendency to implicate innocent persons.The evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6)and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) leaves no room for doubt that no relation of the deceased was present at the time of recording of dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) and the deceased had made the statement without any influence or rancor.The occurrence had taken place inside the house.It cannot be said that there was mistaken identity of the assailant or that the deceased had no opportunity to see the assailant.Moreover, the defense has no where suggested that the deceased would have no opportunity to observe and identify the assailant.(23) The dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6,A) finds ample corroboration from the case history (Ex. Public Witness 6:A) recorded by Dr.Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) at 9.50 p.m. He is an attesting witness of the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A).The case history (Ex.P.W. 6jC) clearly shows that the statement had been made toDr.Sandeep Chopra's hearing and had been recorded in hispresence.The dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) and the case history (Ex. Public Witness 6/C) are contemporaneous documents which go to show that the deceased had made the statement before the medical men.There is a consistency in the statements of the deceased Krishna as recorded in the M.L.C. (Ex. Public Witness 2 & Ex.P.W. 10/A) the case history (Ex. Public Witness 6/C) and the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A).the corroboration presided by the said documents invested the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A)with a stamp of truth, which went a long way towards inculpating the appellant Mst.but the last two lines containing the statement (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) of the deceased to the effect that "Also my husband does not do any work and drinks alcohal and beats me up regularly" do not find place in the case history (Ex. Public Witness 6/C).Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the placement of the deceased's thumb impression at point 'B' in the dying declaration Ex. Public Witness 6/A. We have ourselves examined placement of the deceased's thumb impression point 'B' with the help of a magnifying glass and find that the said last lines were added after obtaining the thumb impression on the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A).The two parts of the dying declaration are severable and the correctness of one part does not depend upon the correctness of the other part.Consequently, the subsequent addition of the last two lines in question in the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) does not vitiate the whole of it.In the dying declaration(Ex.Public Witness 6/A) before us, the statement so far as they went to implicate the appellant Mst.Chandrawati in the affair were quite categoric in character and they definitely indicated that it wasthe appellant Mst.Chandrawati who had set the deceased Krishna on fire.(25) Learned counsel for the appellant Mst.It has come in the evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) that upper part of the deceased's face and forehead showed 2nd degree burns and her scalp hairs were partially burnt.He has nowhere stated in his statement that nails of the deceased's thumbs wereburnt.Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7)have unequivocally stated in their statements that the deceased had affixed her thumb impression on the dying declaration.(26) As stated earlier, the evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6)and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) clearly shows that at the relevant time, the deceased was mentally fit to make a dying declaration.Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) testified that on internalexamination, he found that scalp bones were intact, scalp tissues,neck tissues and brain ware normal.Thus the testimony ofDr. L. T. Ramani (P.W.3) has lent material corroboration to the testimony of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Chopra (P.W. 7)regarding mental fitness of the deceased to make a dying declaration.Consequently, we find that the capacity of the deceasedKrishna to remember the facts stated in her dying declaration(Ex.Public Witness 6/A) had not been impaired at the time she was making the statement.(27) Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant Mst.Chandrawati forcibly sprinkled kerosene oil and set the deceased on fire, the deceased must have raised hue and cry and many people would have heard and that there is no evidence of any one in the locality having heard such cries and absence of any such cries would support the theory of suicide.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the State has strenuously urged that it has come in evidence of Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) andMst.Sheela (P.W. 5) that at the time of the alleged incident they were present at the house of the appellants; that they saw the appellant Mst.Chandrawati catching hold of Krishna and dragging her inside the room and when they went towards the backside of the appellants' house they noticed fire and smoke billowing out and heard Krishna crying "MAUSI Muj he BACHAO".Sheela (P.W. 5) had set her daughter-in-law on firs.When Krishna was being taken out of the house, she and Sheela (P.W. 5) returned home.On reaching home, she informed her father about the alleged incident. 'According to Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1), she along with" her father (P.W. 9) 'and Mst." Sheela (P.W. 5) reached the hospital at about 12.30 a.m. Mst.Neeru (P.W.1) and Mst.Sheela (P.W.5) does not find place in the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 61A).Krishna has nowhere stated in the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6jA) that on the day in question her husband had assaulted her with a cricket bat as a result whereof she had sustained a bleeding injury on her left arm.Even the M.L.C. (Ex. P-2!A) and other contemporaneous medical documents (Ex. Public Witness 6/C, Ex. Public Witness 6/D, Ex. Public Witness 6/E,Ex.Public Witness 6/F) and the post mortem report (Ex. Public Witness 3/A) are conspicuous by absence of any such injury on the deceased's leftarm.She has nowhere stated in her dying declaration about the presence of both the witnesses at the time of the alleged incident.It has come in the evidence of Neeru (P.W. 1) and Mst.Sheela(P.W. 5) that immediately after the alleged incident they had gone to the police station and Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) had reported to the police that her sister was being burnt alive at her matrimonial house and further the same polios officer had accompanied them to the appellants' house.Strangely enough, no such police report has been produced in the court to substantiate the statements made by both the witnesses.none of the police personnel who accompanied these witnesses to this appellants'house has been produced in the witness box.(33) It is also significant to note here that after arrival of The police, they did not go upstairs and did not ask the police that they wanted to go upstairs to see what had happened inside the house.Although thev saw that Krishna was being removed to theR.M.L. Hospital, thev did not go to the hospital directly from the place of.occurrence and went thereafter visiting their house and reached the hospital at about 12 mid-night or 1 a.m. Such a strange conduct of these witnesses assails their version and render sit doubtful.(34) DECEASED'S father Hari Chand (P.W. 9) testified that at about 11 p.m. her daughter Neeru (P.W. 1) informed him about the alleged incident and immediately thereafter he Along with Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) went to the police station Jahangirpuri, where he was informed, by a police officer that the deceased had been admitted in Willingdon Hospital (R.M.L. Hospital).They then went to R.M.L. Hospital and found the deceased in a poor condition with severe burns all over her body.Surprisingly, neither HariChand (P.W. 9) nor Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) had lodged any report at the Police Station, Jahangirpuri about the alleged incident.What prevented them from lodging a report of the alleged incident at the police station is shrouded in mystery.Moreover, evidence ofMst.Neeru (P.W. 1) shows that she knew that Krishna had been removed to the R.M.L. Hospital and in such a situation there was no necessity for them to go to the P. S. Jahangirpuri to locate the deceased.The fact that Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) Mst.Sheela (P.W.5) and Hari Chand (P.W. 9) went to P. S. Jahangirpuri to locate the hospital where the deceased was admitted for medical treatment clearly indicates that their version about their visits to the appellants' house prior to and after the alleged incident is anafterthought, or an embellishment introduced in their evidence so to add credence to the prosecution story.(35) As demonstrated earlier, both the witnesses namely Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) want us to believe that they were present in the appellants' house at the time when Krishna was in fiames.But they made no attempt to save her.Although they deposed that they had raised an alarm and shouted for help but nobody cam" forward to save Krishna.It is significant to note that the prosecution did not examine any resident of that locality who could have corroborated the testimony of the said witnesses regarding the alarm alleged to have been raised by them.The normal ordinary human conduct would be that when Krishna was in flames, they would have made every endeavor to save her life and call the people to come to their rescue to save her life.The circumstances pointed out earlier clearly indicate that Krishna did not lodge any report at the police station regarding the alleged incident.Both the witnesses did not accompany the deceased when she was being removed to thehospital.At least, Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) should have accompaniedthe deceased to the hospital and should have expressly or by her behavior disclosed her feelings about the well being of her realsister.The said strange conduct of both the witnesses militates against the veracity of the core of their testimony as the same is not in conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of theirtestimony.Consequently, we are not inclined to accept their testimony relating to their presence in the appellants' house at the time where Krishna was in flames.(36) It has to be borne in mind that the whole occurrence had taken place inside the room and it is quite possible that the cries if any raised by the deceased could not have been heard by the neighbourers.(37) The next circumstance relied upon by the learned counsel is that there were no marks of violence found on the dead body and according to him some force must have been used by the appellant before setting her on fire which should have left some marks of violence.According to the medical opinion, the deceased had suffered 100 per cent bums and if there were any marks ofviolence, they would have disappeared.(38) Yet another circumstance relied upon by the learned counsel in this context is that the door was bolted from inside.At the outset, we must make it clear that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the door of the room in question was bolted from inside.Site plan (Ex. Public Witness 15/A) prepared by the Investigating Officer Devender Singh (P.W. 15) shows that the room in question has one door.Constable Narendra Kumar (P.W.22) had taken the photograph (Ex. Public Witness 22/2) of the door, which was in broken condition.There is not an iota of evidence on record to show as to who had broken open the door.According to the learned counsel the fact that the door was broken open, speaks for itself and it was inferable from these circumstances that the deceased had committed suicide by setting herself on fire after bolting the door from inside.He further submitted that inter alia.bolting the door from inside was a pointer towards such apossibility.(39) It is pertinent to note that nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1), Mst.Sheela (P.W.5) and Hari Chand (P.W. 9) to show or suggest that the deceasedKrishna was in the frappe of mind to commit suicide.There was no question of her being broken hearted and frustrated so as to resolve to commit suicide.There was no cause or occasion to makeher suddenly opt for suicide on the fateful day.Putting all the sepieces together, there appears to be no possibility of the deceased having made up her mind to end her life either due to frustration or desperation or to take revenge on her husband or in laws for ill-treating her day in and day out.(40) It is also pertinent to mention that the deceased sustained bum injuries inside the appellants' house.Admittedly, the appellants including the appellant Mst.Chandrawati were inside the house at the time of the occurrence.No explanation whatsoever has come forth from the appellants as to how the deceased received bum injuries inside the house.They have not offered any explanation as to how the door of the room was broken and who did it.The appellants instead of giving any explanation feigned ignorance about the alleged occurrence.The normal ordinary human conduct would be that when one of their inmates was inflames, they would have made every endeavor to save her life,if it were a case of suicide, and call the people to come to their rescue to save her life.No such attempt was made nor evenattempted.The evidence on record established that the deceased was burnt by pouring kerosene oil on her body.The appellants were present in the house when the incident took place but none of them attempted to save her life,which showed their indifference and hard hearted conduct.The appellants did not inform the parents of the deceased, nor they made any report regarding the occurrence to the police.The appellants or any of their family members did not take injured Krishna to the hospital.In appreciating the dying declaration, these circumstances become highlyrelevant.It is a settled law that the conduct of an accused in an offence previous and subsequent to the crime are relevant facts.These are the most telling and crucial facts apart from repulsivein human conduct of the appellants.Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the deceased had bolted the door of the room from inside.Fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) who almost reached the scene of occurrence immediately found that the deceased was lying with bums and he took the deceased immediately to theR.M.L. Hospital.Taking an overall view of the circumstances outlined herein before, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Krishna was not suicidal but homicidal.We, therefore,have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6 /A) is intrinsically sound and in accord with probabilities.(41) Learned counsel further submitted that the S.D.M. Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) has specifically mentioned in his inquest report (Ex. Public Witness 13 /F) that "since Krishna died without her statement recorded, a very valuable piece of evidence i.e. dying declaration could not be adduced in evidence" and this circumstance throws doubt on the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A).It has come in the evidence of Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) that on13-11-1988, he reached the hospital within one hour after receiving request from the investigating officer but the deceased's dying declaration could not be recorded as she was found unfit to make any dying declaration.It is pertinent to mention that there are two inquest reports on the record and both were prepared by ShriChauhan (P.W. 13.).His first inquest report (Ex.. Public Witness 13/A)is dated 15-11-1988 and the second inquest report (Ex. Public Witness 13/F) is dated 21-2-1990-.The inquest report (Ex. Public Witness 13/F) was not filed before the court Along with the charge sheet.Trial Court'sorder sheet dated 13-12-1989 shows that on its motion, this report(Ex.Public Witness 131F) was requisitioned by the trial court.Subsequent order sheets recorded by the trial court go to show that after repeated directions, an incomplete report was produced before the court on 22-2-1990 and on that day the court directed theS.D.M. to appear personally and pursuant to that direction this report (Ex. Public Witness 13/F) was filed before the. court, on 2-3-90.Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) has not given any explanation whatsoever regarding the inordinate delay in preparing this report (Ex.P.W. 13/F).Since the inquest report (Ex. Public Witness 13/A) prepared by Sdm (Ex. Public Witness 13) is already on record, the report (Ex.P.W. 13/F) can't be treated as an inquest report.What actually prompted the Sdm to prepare this report (Ex. Public Witness 13/F) is shrouded in mystery.The manner and the circumstances in which this report (Ex. Public Witness 13/F) was brought into existence have completely robbed its efficacy.At any rate, this report (Ex. Public Witness 13/F) is not strong enough to wipe out the positive evidence ofDr.Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).(42) After giving our anxious, consideration, we are satisfied that the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness .6/A) duly recorded by Dr.D. Gupta (P.W. 6) and attested, by.Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7)fully implicates the appellant Mst Chandiawati.Having subjected the dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness 6/A) to a close scrutiny; we aresatisfied, that it does not suffer from any infirmity.The deceased had no. motive to falsely implicate the appellant and to screen the real offender who had set her on fire.On the contrary the appellant had motive for committing this ghastly offence, on account of greed.and avarice foe dowry.The root cause for killing young bride is avarice, and.the learned trial court that, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati had caused the death of the deceased Mst.Chandrawati Consequently, we find the appellant Mst.Chandrawati guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code .and accordingly confirm the appellant Mst, Chandrawati's conviction thereunder.(43) Learned counsel for the appellant have also assailed their convction n/s 498/A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code .Prosecutionwitness who deposed about the harassment of the deceased Krishna are Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) Mst.Sheela (P.W.25) and Harichand(P.W.9).Relying upon the testimony of the said witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code .Deceased's father Harichand(P.W. 9) deposed that after the deceased's marriage, he suffer eda heart attack and was hospitalized for one month and during that period, his elder son-in-law Rakesh (husband of Neeru Public Witness I ) served him well in the hospital.According to him, after his discharge from the hospital, he purchased a scooter and gifted it to Rakesh.After about a month of his discharge from the hospital,Krishna was sent to his house after giving beatings.She told him that she was being harassed by her husband and parents-in-law and asked that he (P.W.9) should .give a three wheeler and halfsale proceeds of his house.He then went to the appellants' house who had repeated the said demands.One important thing to notice in connection with the cross examination of this witness is that it was not even suggested to him that the deceased was never subjected to maltreatment or harassment by the appellants and further that no such demand as alleged by him was ever made by the appellants.Thus, the said testimony of Harichand (P.W. 9)has been left unchallenged by the appellants.(44) It is also evident from the evidence of Mst.Neeru (P.W.1) that her father :(P.W. 9) had gifted a scooter to her husband as her husband had served her father well during his illness and on that account the appellant Kishanlal used to demand a scooter from Krishna.She testified that the deceased Krishna had told him that the appellants Mst.Chandrawati and Kishanlal had demanded half share in her father's house.She further testified that whenever Krishna used to visit her, she always used to complain about the maltreatment w harassment by the appellants.She also added that Krishna had come to her parental house and "stayed about three moa-this prior to Diwali, 1988, when she was beaten up by her in-laws.It is significant to -note here that her aforesaid testimony has been left unchallenged by the appellants.In addition to this, Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) deposed that the deceased Krishna had complained to her about the demand of a scooter made by the accused KishanLal.On the morning of 10-6-1984Veena died of burn injuries.There was no eye witness to say whether the fire to her clothes was accidental from the kerosene stove or whether the Veena committed suicide.Chandrawati, and instead sentence her to imprisonment for life.(50) Learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed in the instant case a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant Mst.In Palaniappa Gounder Vs.Chandrawati has made or is likely to have made any pecuniary gain by committing the alleged offence.Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not even attempt to consider whether the appellant has mean'sto pay such a heavy .fine imposed on her.Chandrawati's appeal shall stand dismissed.The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 366 Criminal Procedure Code .(52) Before we part with the case.we would like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri K. B. Andley, Advocate, who has appeared as amices Curiae in this case.Criminal reference of Chandrawati for confirmation of death sentence has rejected and accordingly she was sentenced to lifeimprisonment.The sentence of fine of Rs. 10.000 Was also setaside.So far as the other two appellants Krishan Lal and Harkeshare concerned their convictions u/s 498-A Indian Penal Code was uphed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,945,578 | Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19/04/2010 passed by III Additional Judge (FTC) to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen at Begumganj in Sessions Trial No.14/2007, whereby respondent nos.1 to 4 viz. Rakumar, Babbu alias Babulal Harijan, Malthu and Omprakash alias Ramprasad Harijan have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05/10/2006 appellant Mahendra Singh lodged a report that when his father Narayan Singh was working at the fields, then accused persons namely Rajkumar, Malthu Baretha, Babbu Harijan and Omprakash assaulted Narayan Singh with Gupti, Danda and Axe.While the appellant alongwith Ramraj Thakur was taking his unconscious father to hospital, he died in the way.On the aforesaid information Crime No. 280/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and deserves to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.Mahendra (PW1) testified that respondent Rajkumar was armed with a Gupti enclosed in its sheath, respondents Malthu and Babbu were having Dandas while Omprakash was having an Axe and they all had assaulted the deceased on his head and back, who had received several injuries.His evidence, not being supported by that of Jagat Singh (PW2), was disbelieved by the trial Court.Jagat Singh, despite knowing all the respondents, deposed that Rajkumar and Babbu had caused injuries to the deceased by Lathis along with two other unknown persons.He was declared hostile.Besides this, Dr. J.P.Patel (PW3), who conducted the autopsy, noticed only one lacerated wound on the fronto pairetal region of the deceased and no injury by Lathi was found.Blood stain was found on the Gupti, allegedly seized at the instance of Rajkumar, whereas, as per the deposition of Mahendra, it was enclosed in its sheath.Admittedly, there was a dispute pertaining to land between the parties and respondent Rajkumar is real brother of the deceased.The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,946,953 | , as are necessary, for deciding these Appeals can be stated as follows :-Deceased Jyoti, the daughter of PW-4 Kamal Suryawanshi, was married with Accused No.1 about four years prior to the incident.After the marriage, she was residing jointly along with Accused Nos.1 andShe had two children out of the said wedlock and at the time of incident, on 2nd June, 2006, she was four months pregnant.Her marital life was, however, not happy.From time to time, she had complained about the demand of Rs.5,000/- and Ganthan made by Accused No.1 to her and also the beating and physical torture on that count.Just few days before the incident, she was staying in the house of her mother for two - three months on account of the said ill-treatment.Her husband, at that time, was demanding Rs.10,000/- for getting the employment.When her mother assured to give the said amount after two months, her husband took Jyoti to his house.However, on 2 nd June, 2006, her mother received the message that Jyoti was burnt and admitted in Rural Hospital at Phaltan.When she went there to meet Jyoti, she found burn injuries on her face, hand and chest.On enquiry, 3/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: Jyoti told her that her husband and her mother-in-law beat her for whole night and in the morning, her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::Meanwhile, on the receipt of requisition from Satara City Police Station, PW-1 Shivaji Nalawade, Special Judicial Magistrate, recorded the Dying Declaration of Jyoti vide Exhibit-19, in which Jyoti reiterated whatever she has told to her mother.PW-9 API Ramdas Taware of Phaltan Police Station also went to Civil Hospital, Satara, on 4th June, 2006 and recorded the statement of Jyoti, implicating, both, her husband and mother-in-There are also oral Dying Declarations made by deceased Jyoti before her mother PW-4 Kamal, her maternal uncle PW-5 Janardan Shinde, her sister PW-6 Aarati and her aunt PW-7 Suvarna Joshi.The evidence relating to Dying Declaration is also supported and corroborated with the oral evidence of her mother and other relatives as to the demand of Rs.5,000/- and ill-treatment meted out to Jyoti during her life-time.As per facts on record, as deposed by her mother, marriage of Jyoti with Accused No.1 was performed about four years prior to the incident and since marriage, she was residing jointly along 7/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: with her husband and mother-in-law.Though she had two children out of the wedlock and she was carrying pregnancy of four months for the third time, her marital life was not at all happy or smooth.From time to time, she was driven out of the house after beating and harassment, to coerce her to meet the unlawful demands of the Accused.Initially, the Accused were demanding Rs.5,000/- and Ganthan and thereafter Rs.10,000/-::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::Resultantly, on several occasions, after the harassment, being driven out of the house, Jyoti had to come and stay in the house of her mother.When, after the message, they went to meet Jyoti in the hospital, there also Jyoti told them that it was Accused No.1, who has poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.In cross-examination of these witnesses, it is true that, Defence Counsel has succeeded in eliciting some inconsistencies or discrepancies, but, in our considered opinion, they do not affect the core of their testimony as to the demands and harassment mated out by Accused Nos.1 and 2 to Jyoti.He explained to Jyoti that he was a Special Judicial Magistrate and asked her question as to how it happened.Then whatever she has stated before him, he has recorded it in writing as per her narration.As she was unable to sign due to burn injuries, he obtained her thumb impression at the foot of the statement.law, for the cause of her death.The said statement (Exhibit-36) was treated as F.I.R. and PW-9 API Taware registered C.R. No.177 of 2006 on the said F.I.R. against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 323 and 504 r/w.Further investigation of the case was taken over by PW-11 PSI Ranjit Sawant.On 10th July, 2006, he recorded further statement of Jyoti (Exhibit-34) in the hospital.After the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-24), her dead body was sent for postmortem examination.The cause of her death was found to be "52% superficial to deep burn injuries".The Postmortem Report (Exhibit-25) was obtained accordingly.The statements of witnesses were recorded.The seized muddemal articles from the spot of incident, like, the plastic kerosene can and match box, were sent to Chemical Analyzer vide requisition letter (Exhibit-::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::39).Further to completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet came to be filed in the Court against both the Accused.The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses and on appreciation of their evidence, the Trial Court was pleased to convict and sentence Accused Nos.1 and 2, as aforesaid.No specific instances of the harassment and ill-treatment have been given.In view thereof, according to him, the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the Appellants, as aforesaid.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::They unerringly attribute the cause of burn injuries to Accused No.1 by pouring kerosene on Jyoti and setting her on fire.The evidence of PW-4 Kamal, Jyoti's mother, and other relatives also goes to prove that Jyoti was since beginning subjected to, both, physical and mental torture in order to coerce her to meet the unlawful demands of Accused persons.APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: Therefore, according to learned A.P.P., the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellants.These Appeals, in opinion of learned A.P.P., hold no substance.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::Ultimately, when her mother assured Accused No.1 that she would make some arrangement for satisfying the demand, she was accepted in the house of the Accused.But thereafter, her mother got the message of Jyoti sustaining the burns and being admitted in the hospital, where, on enquiries, Jyoti told her that Accused Nos.1 and 2 beat her for whole night and then set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her.There is also corroborating evidence of PW-5 Janardan, Jyoti's maternal uncle, who has deposed that four months after the marriage, Jyoti was sent by her husband to parent's house 8/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: with a demand of money and gold ornaments and for satisfying these demands, Accused were beating and harassing her.This witness acted as a Mediator and tried to convince Accused Nos.1 and 2 to behave properly with Jyoti and left Jyoti in their house, but thereafter also, her harassment and demands of the Accused continued.As per evidence of this witness, Accused No.1 had come to his house and demanded Rs.10,000/- for securing employment in the Port Trust.As there was Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.5,000/- in the name of Jyoti, he somehow assured Accused No.1 that the said amount will be paid after the maturity of the Fixed Deposit Receipt.With this assurance, Jyoti was sent to the house of the Accused.However, thereafter he received the phone call that Jyoti has sustained the burn injuries and admitted in the hospital.When he went there and made enquiries with her, Jyoti told him that there were quarrels in the house.In the morning her husband beat her by wooden stick and then poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.Thereafter her husband, Accused No.1, and Accused No.2 went out of the house.Then, at the instance of the neighbours, Accused No.1 extinguished her fire by pouring water and brought her to the hospital.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::Lastly, there is evidence of real sister of Jyoti, PW-6 Aarati and PW-7 Suvarna, her maternal aunt, who have also deposed about the demands and harassment to Jyoti, initially, for the purpose of Ganthan and thereafter for cash amount of Rs.10,000/-.Jyoti has informed to them also about this harassment and beating.Instead of making their evidence suspect in any way, these discrepancies act as inbuilt guarantee of their truthfulness.Considering that marital life of Jyoti was about four to five years and there were several instances of the cruelty meted out to her and also of the unlawful demands, it is but natural that the evidence of witnesses cannot be a parrot like version.To brush 10/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: aside the evidence of these witnesses on the ground that the allegations are of general and omnibus nature, is to adopt totally an unrealistic and insensitive approach to the plight of a married woman who is at the mercy of her husband and in-laws and whose married life consists not of one or two isolated instances of cruelty but is of constant cruelty.In our considered opinion, therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is more than sufficient to prove the cruelty and harassment, which was meted out to Jyoti at the hands of Accused Nos.1 and 2, so as to prove the charge under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::Now coming to the evidence relating to Dying Declaration, the evidence of PW-1 Shivaji Nalawade, Special Judicial Magistrate, goes to prove that on 3 rd June, 2006, he received requisition (Exhibit-18) at 11:45 pm for recording Dying Declaration of Jyoti.Hence, on the next day, he went to Civil Hospital, Satara and after verifying from the Doctor, who was on duty, as to whether Jyoti was in a condition to give the statement, he has recorded her statement.He has deposed that Doctor was present there and confirmed that she was in a condition to give the statement.At the time of recording the 11/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: statement, except for the Doctor, no one else was present near Jyoti.He himself signed on it and then handed over the original statement to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::In this Dying Declaration (Exhibit-19), Jyoti has stated that, on the previous night, her husband has told her to get up at 5 am.When she asked him for what purpose, her husband gave her two slaps.Then on the next day, in the morning, her husband again picked-up a quarrel with her and severely assaulted her with stick.When she shouted, he again slapped her.Then he picked-up the kerosene can, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze with match stick.When she shouted, her husband and mother-in-law went out of the house.The persons nearby shouted that she was ablaze.Then her husband returned to the house and poured water on her.Both, her husband and 12/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: her mother-in-law, gave her abuses and threatened her not to disclose the true facts.She has further stated that her husband and mother-in-law were always harassing her and beating her like they were beating to dog.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::There is absolutely no cross-examination of PW-1 Shivaji Nalawade, Special Judicial Magistrate, to challenge his evidence in any way.The only infirmity brought out in his cross-Moreover, the evidence on record proves that the burn injuries sustained by Jyoti were only 52% and she has survived thereafter for more than one and a half month.Therefore, it is not the case that she had sustained 100% burns and, therefore, her condition can be said to be critical so as to disbelieve the 13/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: Dying Declaration merely because it does not bear the endorsement of a Doctor.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::As per his evidence also, he met the Doctor, who was present in the Burn Patients' Ward, and confirmed that Jyoti was in a position to give the statement.Doctor opined that she was conscious and oriented to give the ig statement.Doctor also made an endorsement to that effect on the said statement and then, in the presence of the Doctor, he recorded the statement of Jyoti, as narrated by her.He read over the said statement to her in order to verify whether it is recorded as per her narration.She admitted it to be correct and then he obtained her thumb impression at the foot of the statement and signed below it.This statement (Exhibit-36), which is subsequently treated as F.I.R., clearly bears the endorsement of the Doctor that she was conscious and oriented to give the statement.This statement reveals that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and mother-in-law since three months after the marriage.The demand was of Rs.5,000/- initially.They 14/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: were abusing and beating her.On 1st June, 2006, her husband beat her and when she got up in the morning on 2 nd June, 2006, he again beat her by stick, asking as to why she did not get up early in the morning.Then he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.He went out of the house, but, at the instance of neighbours, he again returned and extinguished her fire.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital.This statement (Exhibit-36) thus completely supports and corroborates the Dying Declaration (Exhibit-19) as to the core substance.In this statement (Exhibit-34) also, which was recorded in the presence of PW-8 Dr. Jeevan Lahoti, Jyoti has attributed the cause of her burn injuries to her husband.PW-8 Dr. Lahoti has proved recording of this Dying Declaration by PW-11 PSI Sawant and also proved that at the relevant time, Jyoti was conscious and well oriented to give the statement.Further, there is evidence relating to oral Dying 15/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: Declarations of Jyoti before her mother PW-4 Kamal, her maternal uncle PW-5 Janardan, her sister PW-6 Aarati and her maternal aunt PW-7 Suvarna.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::In this case, therefore, though there are multiple Dying Declarations, all of them are consistent with one another as to the inculpatory act attributed to Accused No.1 of pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze.Since the time of incident till the last, Jyoti was consistent about the cause of her burns.These Dying Declarations are also thoroughly consistent as to the harassment and ill-treatment in her marital life and also as to the beating with stick on the night before and on the day of incident.We have, therefore, absolutely no hesitation to place implicit reliance on these Dying Declarations to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC and of guilt of Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.If at all any corroboration is required, then there is also corroborating evidence of the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-24) and the Postmortem Report (Exhibit-25), which are admitted in evidence by learned Counsel for the Accused, and they go to 16/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: prove that the cause of Jyoti's death was "52% superficial to deep burns".The Accused have also not set out any case of accidental burns.No such suggestions have been given to any of the witnesses.The presence of burn injuries on the back and lower limbs also goes to prove the case of homicidal burns.The Spot Panchanama (Exhibit-23), proved through the evidence of PW-2 Panch Shamrao Aadagale, and the C.A. Report (Exhibit-43) goes to further prove that the burn injuries were caused to Jyoti by pouring kerosene from the can.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::The entire evidence brought on record points to the guilt of Accused No.1 alone for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and of Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 r/w. 34 of the IPC.Hence, as regards the Appeal preferred by Accused No.1, Jyoti's husband, we find no reason at all to make any interference therein.Hence, it deserves to be dismissed.As regards the Appeal preferred by Accused No.2, the mother-in-law of Jyoti, she is held guilty only for the offences 17/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 r/w. 34 of the IPC.The maximum sentence imposed on her is of R.I. for two years.Hence, considering that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 and at the relevant time also, she was of the age of 45 years, the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellants that punishment already undergone by her be considered sufficient, deserves to be accepted.Hence, the order.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::(1) Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2008 preferred by Appellant No.1 / husband - Dattatraya Jagannath More stands dismissed.(2) Criminal Appeal No.1068 of 2007 preferred by Appellant No.2 / mother-in-law -Her Bail Bonds stand cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 19/19 APEAL-105-08 & 1068-07.doc ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 :::::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 23:57:39 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,947,064 | "DD No.3A dated 23.02.2015 was recorded when the victim came to PS at 12.30am and reported wrong act CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 1 of 15 with her by her neighbour.The statement of victim was recorded to the effect that she is living with her family at E-Block, Sultan Puri where one known neighbour Balram (accused herein) had been establishing physical relations with her since last 6-7 years.She is mentally weak and suffers from its.Accused also threatened her for life if she informs anyone about his acts.On 20.02.2015, accused came to her house under the impression that she was alone at home and started teasing her but her younger sister N who was at home saw him and informed her elder sister P. P made inquiries from her after accused had ran away and then she informed their father about the acts of the accused.After consultation at home, it was decided to lodge a complaint against accused.On this statement, present FIR was registered.Victim was taken for medical examination.Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.The prosecutrix was examined as PW-11 and during her examination-in-chief she deposed as under:"Accused Balram, present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness from the design of wooden partition) was known to my family as he was residing at E-3 where we were residing earlier.Our house and house of accused Balram were adjacent to each other.Accused used to fly pigeons on roof of his house and whenever he used to get opportunity, he used to call me on the roof and used to take me inside the annexi (darba of pigeons) and used to do wrong act with me.my clothes and thereafter used to commit rape upon me.My elder sister Poonam used to go for her job and my younger brother and sister used to go their school.I used to remain alone at home many times.Accused had committed the same act of rape with me when we had shifted to E-6 on a rented house.Once I was present at my home with my brother B and sister N. Accused Balram came at my home and sent my brother to bring chowmeen.My sister N was studying in the room, I was cooking egg in the kitchen.Accused Balram quietly came in the kitchen and started doing chedkhani with me.I objected to it and asked him to remain in his limit.Q: What do you mean by chedkhani?A: He was touching my private parts and hugging me which was seen by my sister N.I warned accused that now onwards he should not touch me otherwise I will disclose about his conduct to everyone.In the evening, my sister CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 6 of 15 Poonam came back from her job, I and my sister N had narrated the incident of that day to my sister Poonam.My sister Poonam had advised me to stab a knife in case accused again dare to repeat the same act with me.Accused had been doing this wrong act (rape) with me when I was at the age of probably 10- 11 years.CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 6 of 15My sister N informed my parents and thereafter, they took me to the police station where my statement was recorded which is now Ex.PW11/A bearing my signatures at Point A."During cross-examination, PW-11 (Prosecutrix) deposed as under:-"I have been taking treatment for seizure for about last one year.I had left my school on account of aforesaid problem.Prior to one year from today, I had no problem of seizures and as such there was no problem in my studies and had further no problem regarding memory.I had not told the name of accused to the doctor at the time of preparation of my MLC.xxxx xxxx xxxx court question: Can you tell as to how many times the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault upon you over a period of time?Answer: He might have done it 3 or 4 times.I had also told he Ld.CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 10 of 15"On 20.02.2015 in the afternoon, accused had come to our new house.At that time, I had come back from my tuition class and was present in the house.I was studying in my room.My sister K was preparing food in the kitchen.XXXX XXXX XXXX Vol.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JThe present leave petition is instituted on behalf of the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in SC No.57/2015 arising out of FIR No.186/2015, under sections 363/376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") and Section 6 of POCSO ACT registered at Police Station Sultanpuri whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 363/376(2)(n)/506 IPC.IO prepared the site plan at the instance of victim.Accused was arrested and was medically examined and the exhibits were seized and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.Copy supplied.Charges for commission of offence punishable u/s 6 POCSO Act or in the alternate 376(2)(n) IPC and 8 POCSO Act and in the alternate 354 IPC and 506 IPC were framed accused on 01.05.2015 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 1 of 153. Prosecution to prove its case, has examined as many as 14 witnesses and two court witnesses.Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he had stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the victim at the instance of her parents in order to avoid payment of friendly loan and no such CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 2 of 15 incident had happened.Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 2 of 15The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions recorded acquittal in favour of the accused for the charged offence.Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State contended that the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2019 is based on conjectures and surmises and has disregarded the cogent evidence, and needs to be set aside.Learned APP further stated that it is a settled law that the accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix even if there are minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony which do not go to the root of the case, and given the mental condition of the prosecutrix such minor contradictions ought to be overlooked.Learned APP further contended that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the testimonies of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses in correct perspective as it had come on record that PW-11 was being harassed and raped by the accused for a continuous period of 6-7 years and she did not disclose about the incident due to the constant threats of the accused.We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the entire material available on record.Further, her sister PW-9 stated that they had left their house at E-3 Block about 6-7 years ago.In these circumstances, how the accused continued to rape the victim at his roof during these 6-7 years remains unexplained.The victim specifically stated in her cross examination that her sister N was not at home at the time of the incident.The possibility of N being planted cannot be ruled out.Further victim stated that her father was informed about the incident on the same night at about 8:00 pm, when he returned back to the home.The elder sister P of the victim stated that the father was not informed about the incident on the same day as they were scared and had no idea to how the father would react.Further, there is no PCR call on 20.02.2015 as stated by the victim whereas her father stated that no PCR call was made and he brought the victim straightway to PS.Further, the alleged incident of 20.02.2015 was reported to the police at 12:30 am on 23.02.2015 and the delay of almost two days remains unexplained.If father was informed CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 4 of 15 about the incident on 20.02.2015 at about 8:00 pm then why it was not reported to the police immediately.The father of victim stated that accused was not on visiting terms to their new residence.The same is contrary to statement of victim and her sister P who stated that they are on visiting terms.CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 4 of 15Usne meri chaati dabai or meri peshab wali jagah pe hath lagaya.Mene kafi mana kiya.Phir jese hi meri behan aai to mene shor machaya or balram ko chanta mara.Phir mene 100 number pe phone kiya.Bas yehi kehna hai."CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 5 of 15Magistrate who had recoded my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that the accused had been committing penetrative sexual assault upon me for the last 6-7 years.I had also told that accused had threatened me not to disclose about the said assaults to anybody failing which he would liquidate me.I had told that my sister N was present in the house at the time of incident.I had also told about the date of incident.CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 7 of 15Xxxx xxxx xxxx On the date of incident, a call at number 100 was made by me to the police.The police had not come to our house on that day.I had told the entire facts to my father on the date of incident and my father had reported the matter to the police on the same day.xxxx xxxx xxxx The accused had come to our house on the date of incident at about 2.00 p.m. Again said at about 4.00 pm.He remained at our home for about half and hour.He had left the house before my sister Poonam had come back from her office.At the time of incident, my sister N was not at home."From the perusal of the statement of the PW-11 (Prosecutrix), it is evident that there are various inconsistencies and improvements which go to the root of the matter.a) PW-11 (Prosecutrix) in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had stated about the incident of molestation by the accused and there is no mention of repeated rape, for a period of 6-7 years, however, during her examination-in- chief she improved upon her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposed that "He used to press my breast and used to remove my clothes and thereafter used to commit rape upon me" further during her cross examination she improved upon her earlier testimony and deposed that "the accused had been committing penetrative sexual assault upon me for the last 6-7 years".CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 8 of 15b) The prosecutrix during her examination in chief deposed that "My sister N was studying in the room, I was cooking egg in the kitchen.Accused Balram quietly came in the kitchen and started doing chedkhani with me.I objected to it and asked him to remain in his limit.She further reiterated her stand by deposing that 'he was touching my private parts and hugging me which was seen by me sister N." however to the contrary during her cross-examination she deposed that "At the time of incident, my sister N was not at home".CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 9 of 15The younger sister of the prosecutrix 'N' was examined as CW-2 and she deposed as under:I was accused touching my sister K inappropriately at her breasts and private parts while she was working in the kitchen.My sister K was asking the accused to desist from doing all that but he persisted with it.I felt really bad.Thereafter, the accused left our house after about 15 minutes.After sometime, my brother Bunty came to the house with place of chowmeen.I ate the same.I thought of telling about the act of accused to my elder sister Poonam when she would return from her work.Before I could disclose the same to my sister Poonam, my sister K herself disclosed about the same to her.I also communicated the facts to my sister Poonam and parents."He during his examination-in-chief deposed as under:"...Q. What do you mean by misbehaviour? A. the accused was hugging my daughter K and was trying to kiss her which was seen by my daughter N, who had told this to my another daughter P and who had further told to me about this..."PW-4 (father) during his cross examination deposed as under :"Prosecutrix was born in Delhi at Sultanpuri at my residence.I did not get her birth registered with the MCD.I do not have any document to show that she was born on a particular day at my residence.I do not remember her exact date of birth.I had got recorded her DOB at the time of her admission in school on the basis of approximation.It is quite possible that the age of prosecutrix as on today may be around 19 years.CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 11 of 15xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I was told about the incident at about 10.00pm in the night when I had returned back from my work.I did not make a call at number 100 after coming to know of the aforesaid fact.I took prosecutrix to the police station directly.I did not inquire the matter from my neighbours after coming to know of the facts.Before I could disclose the same to my sister Poonam, my sister K herself disclosed about the same to her." to the contrary PW-4 (father) deposed that "the accused was hugging my daughter K and was trying to kiss her which was seen by my daughter N, who had told this to my another daughter P and who had further told to me about this".b) Further in the cross examination PW-4 (father) had deposed that "I and my daughter had gone to police station and I had not taken anybody else" however at a later stage CRL.L.P. 432/2019 Page 12 of 15 he stated that "The statement of prosecutrix was recorded in the presence of NGO and at that time I was made to sit outside.However, my daughter P was there in the PS with the prosecutrix". | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,951,942 | Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J).We have heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned A.G.A for the State.This capital appeal arises from the judgement of the District and Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar dated 6.2.2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant Tufail Ansari to death under section 302/34 I.P.C and fine of Rs. 20,000/. Under section 376 I.P.C, the appellant was convicted to ten years RI and awarded a fine of Rs. 20,000/ and under section 201 I.P.C, the appellant was convicted to seven years RI and fine of Rs. 10,000/. For not depositing the fine under section 302 I.P.C, the appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment for five years.Likewise, in default of payment of fine, under section 376 IPC, the appellant has to undergo five years SI and in default of fine under section 201 IPC, he has to undergo two years simple imprisonment.The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR, lodged by informant Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, father of the seven year old deceased girl child Anshu was that on 12.1.2010 at about 3.00 p.m, the appellant Tufail Ansari enticed away the deceased on his motorcycle.When the informant visited Tufail's house, then Tufail and his father stated that they did not know the whereabouts of the girl and chased him away.After that the informant and others kept searching for Anshu.Then Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, resident of village Pipra Jarampur met them and informed them that he had seen the deceased girl with the appellant on the 'Kachcha' road to the north of the Veterinary Hospital in front of the 'brick-kiln' going along in the direction of the bushes.The informant also claimed to have knowledge that his daughter had been murdered by Tufail Ansari.Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, the informant, resident of Hydel Colony Kuberasthan lodged this report on 12.1.2010 at P.S. Kuberasthan at 9.15 p.m. Constable Munna Singh registered the FIR, under section 302/201 I.P.C and prepared the check FIR, and made the necessary G.D entry.PW-6 SI Jeet Narain Singh, who was present at the police station made the necessary entries in the case diary and recorded the statements of the informant and scribe etc and identified the documents prepared by constable Moharrir Munna Singh.On 13.1.2010 SI Jeet Narain Singh arrested the appellant and recorded his statement.On the pointing out of the appellant, the corpse of Km.Anshu was recovered from the bushes near the raised surface (bheeta) on the East of the Bhoop Sagar water tank and its recovery memo (Ext. Ka 7) was prepared, which bore the signatures of the appellant Tufail, the informant and witnesses and SI Jeet Narain Singh.He also prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka 9) and recorded the statements of the persons, who were present there as Samai Sakshi (hearsay evidence).According to this G.D. entry, the appellant was aged about 25 years.The appellant had received a few injuries at the time of his arrest at about 00.45 hours but he was not complaining of misbehavior by the police at the time of being placed in the police station lock up.The father of the appellant was present at the time of arrest.The appellant is said to have made a confessional statement before the police.He claims to have taken the deceased to the bushes near the "Bhoop Sagar Pokhara" and tried to commit rape on the deceased and to have strangulated the deceased with her own inner clothes and thereafter to have hidden the cadaver in the bushes.He also conducted the inquest on the body of Km.Anshu on 13.1.2010 at 7.00 a.m which was concluded at 8.30 a.m. vide Ext. Ka-2A. The recovery memo shows that the body was found lying in the bushes three paces from the Bankat tree, which was 18 paces from the pathway.The mouth of the deceased was stuffed with clothes and the neck had been strangulated with her inner clothes.The deceased was wearing a green underwear which showed the presence of some liquid like substance.She was wearing a muddy coloured T shirt and a sweater with red checks.She was also wearing small yellow earrings in her ears.In the opinion of the witnesses, the cause of death was due to strangulation.After preparing the photo lash (Ext. Ka-11), letter for postmortem, he sealed the body and sent it for postmortem examination.PW-5 Dr. A.K. Singh, conducted the autopsy on the deceased Anshu aged 7 years on 13.1.2010 at 3.00 p.m at the Post-mortem house, at Kasya.The body was of an average built female child.Her mouth was open, both eyes were closed.Subcutaneous bleeding was present.Brain, Pleura, Larynx, Trachea and both lungs were congested.Left chamber of heart was empty and right chamber was full of blood.The stomach contained undigested food and small intestine contained semi-digested food with gases.Large intestine contained faecal matter with gases.Gall bladder weighed 800 grams, and was half full.The death had taken place one day earlier and the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries.There was evidence of attempt at rape but for confirmation of the same, the slide of vaginal smear was handed over to the Constable for pathological examination.PW-4 Dr. Abdul Kalam, Pathologist at District Hospital, Kushi Nagar examined the smear slide of the deceased.He found epithelial cells, plenty of RBC and polymorphs, (but no spermatozoa) and he submitted his report on 18.1.2010 (Ext. Ka-3), opining that the vaginal smear showed signs of haemorrhage.According to the Pathologist, the presence of R.B.Cs showed that the injury which had been caused might have been the result of penetration of the male organ.He prepared paper no.3 of the case diary, in which he recorded the statement of Suresh Kumar Jaiswal.PW-1 Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal deposed that on 12.1.2010 at about 3.00 p.m the appellant, a resident of Kuberasthan had enticed away his seven year old daughter Km.Anshu and taken her away on his motor cycle.At that time the witness was not present at his house.When he returned home, then he learnt from his wife that the appellant had taken away Anshu.He searched for his daughter everywhere in the Bazaar but he did not find her.During the course of the search for Anshu, PW-2 Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Piprai Rampur met him, and informed him that he had seen the appellant taking away Km.Anshu on his motor cycle near the Brick kiln of Om Prakash Gupta and then he had gone home.The wife of the informant had visited the house of Tufail but she was scolded by Tufail's father and was asked to go home.Even after search when he still could not find his daughter, then he became suspicious that Tufail had murdered his daughter.He then submitted a report at the police station (Ext. Ka 1).After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer began to search for Tufail, whom he met in his house.On interrogation, Tufail disclosed that he had taken the deceased on his motorcycle and has committed rape on her in the bushes near Dhoop Sagar Pokhara and that he had murdered her by throttling her neck because he did not want Anshu to disclose these facts to anyone.The police had then taken Tufail to the bushes near Dhoop Sagar Pokhara at 2.30- 3.00 a.m. The inquest of the dead body was conducted the next morning in the presence of the informant and other villagers.The appellant has shown the place of incident to the Investigating Officer, who had also recorded his statement regarding the incident.PW-2 Suresh Kumar Jaiswal has deposed that on 12.1.2010 after closing his shop at Kuberasthan at 4-5 p.m, he was proceeding to his house in village Pipra Jarampur.Near the Dhoop Sagar Pokhara, he saw the appellant coming away from the side of village Pipra Jarampur along Kumari Anshu on his motorcycle.The appellant stopped his motorcycle near Om Prakash's brick kiln and was proceeding towards the bushes.He had also given a statement to the Investigating Officer.PW-3 Smt. Babli Jaiswal, wife of informant and mother of deceased has deposed that on 12.1.2010 at about 3.00 p.m, she had gone to her neighbour's house in Kuberasthan along with her two daughters.She had started knitting a sweater there while her girls were playing in a house at the Hydel Colony.After some time, her elder daughter Km.Saumya had come and told her that the appellant had taken away Anshu, aged 7 years, on his motorcycle.Then she had come out side to stop Anshu.Saumya rushed out side and tried to stop Anshu from going with Tufail and when Saumya tried to stop Anshu then Tufail caught Anshu's arms and put her on his motorcycle and had taken her away.When she came out, she saw that the appellant was taking away Anshu in the direction of the Temple.After half an hour, the appellant had returned alone and was roaming around at the market.She asked Tufail as to the whereabouts of Anshu, but he told her that he had left her near the temple.He was not giving any proper answers or he was abstaining from giving any replies.Then Tufail's relations had taken him home.Thereafter Anshu's father had gone to the police station.After that the police vehicle had arrived and after catching hold of Tufail, the police searched for Anshu the whole night.Rigor mortis was present on both upper and lower limbs.Postmortem staining was present over dependent parts of the body.The following ante-mortem injuries were seen:1.Abrasion 5 cm x 4 cm over dorsum of right hand covering right index, middle and ring fingers.Blood clot was present.2.Contusion 12 cm x 5 cm over front of neck covering both sides of neck, just above supra sternal notch.3.Abrasion 1 cm x .5 cm over left side of labia majora of vagina.4.Swelling and abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over labia minora.5.Hymen ruptured.6.Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm over medial aspect of right thinh below inguinal region 7 cm below the right illiac crest.7.Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm over medial aspect of right thigh 7.5 cm below illiac crest.8.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over right side of neck 2.5 cm below to the right angle of mandible.On internal examination, he found fracture of hyoid bone present.He also recorded the statement of wife of of informant Smt. Babli Jaiswal, mother of the deceased and Km.He perused the autopsy report and pathologist report which confirmed that rape has been committed on the deceased and he added section 376 I.P.C. He also sent the corpse of the deceased for examination and prepared the documents and sent it on 5.2.2010 for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Varanasi.After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet under sections 302, 201 and 376 I.P.C against the appellant (Ext. Ka 17).Apart from the aforementioned formal witnesses, the prosecution has also examined three witnesses of fact; they are PW-1 Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, informant, PW-2 Suresh Kumar Jaiswal and PW-3 Smt. Babli Jaiswal, mother of the deceased.Then on the pointing out of Tufail, the corpse of Anshu was found.The I.O had recorded her statement.Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant, (who has not filed written arguments), argued that there was no reliable evidence for connecting the appellant with this crime.The FIR was registered after the dead body had been found, hence the FIR was lodged under section 302/201 I.P.C and not under section 364 I.P.C which would not have been the case if the body had not been found and the deceased had disappeared.According to the witnesses, the police appears to have reached at about 8.00 p.m or earlier.The body was recovered, then the recovery was said to have been made on the pointing out of the appellant.No independent witness of recovery has been produced.Also other persons such as brick-kiln workers, or the temple priest or witnesses who were present at the time of recovery were not produced and examined.The last seen evidence of PW-2 Suresh Kumar Jaisal, who was a close relation of the informant was not reliable.He was a chance witness as he claims to be coming in that direction after closing his shop.He also did not make any inquiry as to why the girl was going with the appellant.Also he gave out this information on the next day.He also argued that there were illicit relations between Smt. Babli Jaiswal and Suresh Kumar Jaiswal and that Tufail had knowledge of this fact, hence Babli and Suresh had murdered Babli's daughter and falsely implicated the appellant for this crime.Saumya, sister of the deceased was not produced.The FIR appears to be ante-timed and the report was lodged after information was given on telephone to the police, who arrived between 7 or 8 p.m and then foisted the case on the appellant.The conduct of the accused of having returned back home and not absconding was suggestive of his innocence.The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case because there had been an agitation by the Hindu Vahini and only to show the case as solved, the appellant was falsely implicated for this crime.He also argued that the chain of circumstance were not complete and lastly, he submitted that this was not the rarest of rare case, where a death sentence should have been awarded.Learned Government Advocate (who has filed written arguments) on the other hand argued that there was evidence of last seen given by PW-2 Suresh Kumar Jaiswal which was wholly reliable.The allegations of illicit relations between Babli and Suresh Kumar Jaiswal about which the appellant is alleged to have information, was a completely far fetched reason for Babli and Suresh to murder Babli's seven year old daughter, only for implicating Tufail in this crime, who might have otherwise exposed them.Also no evidence of the alleged illicit relations of Suresh and Babli has been adduced.The dead body of the deceased was recovered only on the pointing out of the appellant after his arrest at 00.45 a.m, i.e. at 1.40 a.m. Even if PW-1 had stated that the arrest had taken place at 9.00 p.m, it would not affect the quality of the evidence relating to the discovery, as the body of the deceased could not have been found in the the winter night of 12th January, unless the appellant had actually shown the body to the police and witnesses.As the recovery had taken place late in the night, there was little chance of other village witnesses being present.However, one villager Anup Krishna was present, who has been shown as a signatory in the recovery memo along with the informant and the appellant, although he has not been produced, but there is no need to multiply witnesses of recovery, and if private witnesses do not appear, there is no reason to discard the evidence of the police witnesses of recovery The Pathologist as well as the doctor conducting the autopsy have clearly affirmed the rape charge and that the injuries to the deceased could have been caused due to penetration of the male organ because the hymen was ruptured.Even if it was assumed that the police had arrived a little earlier, that would not mitigate the value of the prosecution evidence as the corpse could only have been found on the pointing out of the appellant during the night as it was hidden in the bushes, at the side of the raised platform (bhita) and the evidence of discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act was available against the appellant.The mere averment in the FIR that the informant had information that his daughter had been murdered, and that no case under section 364 IPC was registered at the time of the FIR, could not give rise to an inference that the body had been already recovered, and the same was then planted on the appellant.The statement that the informant had knowledge that his daughter had been murdered was only a loose expression, and only implied that the informant had drawn an inference that the appellant who had taken away his daughter might have murdered her as she could not be found inspite of search in all nearby areas, and Tufail was giving no proper answer regarding the whereabouts of his daughter, and by using such an expression that probably Tufail had murdered his daughter, the informant might have hoped that the police would get more active and pick up Tufail and interrogate him for locating the whereabouts of his daughter.ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE:The crucial issue which arises for consideration in this case is as to how the dead body of the deceased was discovered; whether police or the witnesses had come across the body on their own or whether the same could only have been discovered on the pointing out by the appellant, after he was arrested.One important aspect of this case is that not even the slightest suggestion has been given to the witnesses of fact or to the formal witnesses including the I.O PW-6 Jeet Narain Singh that the body was recovered earlier and thereafter it had been falsely claimed that the recovery had been made on the pointing out of the appellant.When the FIR was lodged at 9.15 p.m on 12.1.2010, although it is mentioned that the deceased had probably been murdered but the body had not been discovered.However, the fact that the appellant and the deceased had been seen going on a Kachcha road towards the bushes on the motorcycle along with the deceased had been seen by PW-2 Suresh Kumar Jaiswal.We also find that it was the cold night of 13.1.2010 when the said body was discovered in the bushes in the night time itself, and this was not possible if the appellant had not himself pointed out the location of the dead body.Also the presence of Anoop Krishna, another independent witness of recovery has been shown in the recovery memo as being present at the spot who has signed the recovery memo although he has not been examined, but in the cold night when the body was discovered, only close family members of the deceased i.e. her father and one or two other persons might have accompanied the police for searching the dead body along with the appellant and the absence of other witnesses of recovery is of no significance, and there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the evidence of the investigating officer on the point of recovery as it is corroborated on the touchstone of probabilities.It has thus been laid laid down in Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111, at paragraphs 32 to 35, where the case law on this point have been considered:An argument was advanced about reliance based on the evidence of investigating officer. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,958,054 | This is second application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 3.11.2017 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 20.10.2017 in connection with Crime No.764/2017 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 456 of IPC and under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix and her aunt have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile.At present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to 2 MCRC No.22327/2017 the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.2 MCRC No.22327/2017 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,043,920 | Heard learned counsel for the parties.Both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, they are decided by the present common order.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.15/2016 registered at Police Station Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar, (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of locality and they don't have criminal past alleged against them.Except of offence punishable under section 452 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is not alleged against any of the applicants that they entered in the premises with any weapon and, therefore, prima facie no offence under section 452 of IPC is made out against the applicants.At the most offence under section 451 2 M.Cr.C. No. 4186/2016 & 4187/2016 of IPC may constitute which is bailable.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicants and the police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Applicants assure this Court that they will co-operate in the investigation.Under these circumstances, applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.2 M.Cr.C. No. 4186/2016 & 4187/2016Learned Penal Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Consequently, the present applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicants, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Sonu, Vraj Bihari, Vraj Mohan, Jugal Kishore, Rakesh & Rajesh be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a 3 M.Cr.C. No. 4186/2016 & 4187/2016 limited period so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider the applicants' application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.3 M.Cr.C. No. 4186/2016 & 4187/2016 | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
740,445 | harassment and defamation of the petitioner and for taking up proceedings against respondent nos.4 to 7 for filing a false case against the petitioner.The petitioner has also prayed for initiating disciplinary proceedings against respondent nos.1 to 3 and to quash order dated 13.4.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora under section 125 CrPC.The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that there being a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner's son and respondent nos.4 to 7, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his family members under sections 323, 506-B and 498-A read with 34 IPC.It is stated that the aforesaid proceedings were false and frivolous and serious allegations were made against the petitioner and his family members with a view to socially defame them.It is stated that thereafter the petitioner initiated proceedings against respondent nos.4 to 7 under section 500 IPC for 2 Santosh Kumar Kachhi vs. A. K. Tripathi & Ors.defamation which were rejected by order dated 22.7.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur against which the petitioner had filed a revision which was also dismissed by order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.It is also stated that the respondent no.6 initiated proceedings under section 125 CrPC against the petitioner's son in which an order has been passed on 13.4.2010 directing payment of a sum of Rs.700/- per month to respondent no.6 as maintenance which is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.The petitioner who has appeared in person submits that respondent no.4 and 7 initiated false proceedings against him, his son and his family members under section 498-A IPC and also made false and incorrect statement in the said proceedings which resulted in social defamation of the petitioner and caused tremendous mental harassment to him.It is stated that respondent nos.1 to 3 also conducted the case filed by respondent no.6 in an improper manner thereby causing undue hardship to the petitioner.In such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for initiating proceedings against respondent nos.4 to 6; disciplinary proceedings against respondent nos.1 to 3 and quashing of order dated 13.4.2010 passed under section 125 CrPC.From a perusal of the averments made by the petitioner in the petition it is apparent that the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.6 against the petitioner and his family members have already been dismissed and that the proceedings taken up by 3 Santosh Kumar Kachhi vs. A. K. Tripathi & Ors.the petitioner against respondent nos.4 to 7 seeking punishment for defamation have also been dismissed which order has also been affirmed in revision. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,054,539 | 13911/SS/2009 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 65 th Court at Andheri.The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' for the sake of clarity and convenience).::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:43 :::mentioned as the accused, in the complaint, but after examining the complainant on oath as contemplated u/s.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate issued process only against five of them, i.e. the petitioners and three others.The allegation against the petitioners and other accused is in respect of offences punishable under section 447 IPC, 504 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC.Aggrieved by the order issuing process against them, the petitioners approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision.A number of objections to the order issuing process as passed by the learned Magistrate were taken, but the learned Addl.Sessions Judge who heard the revision found that a prima facie case in respect of an offence of criminal trespass, had been made out.Holding so, he dismissed the revision application.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process against them, and the order dismissing their revision application, as passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.6 I have heard Mr.Jatin Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners.I have heard the respondent no.1 who initially appeared in person, and I have thereafter heard Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar, his counsel.With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the revision, the annexures thereto and more particularly the complaint, as filed by the complainant, and the order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:43 :::That the complainant is the owner and landlord of a house property known as 'Pundlik Nivas' situate at Vile Parle (East).The petitioners and the other accused are the tenants/occupants of different premises in the said property.(One of the accused i.e. accused no.6 is a civil contractor, but against him no process has been issued).It also appears that the tenants and occupants of the said property have formed an association, and are after the complainant for disposing of his property by giving it to a developer or builder.The complainant is not ready to dispose of his property just for the convenience of the tenants/occupants, and therefore, there exists civil dispute between the complainant and the accused persons, including the petitioners.That, on 30 May 2009, the complainant noticed that the accused had unlawfully put up scaffolding on the southern side of the said property without his permission.That, the accused persons had thus committed trespass on the open area forming part of the said property.That, when questioned, the petitioners and the other accused, instead of being apologetic for their unlawful trespass, started abusing the complainant's son in a filthy language.The complainant came there, and he was also abused by the petitioner and the other accused.It is on these averments that an allegation of an offence punishable under section 447 of the IPC and 504 of the IPC, has been levelled in the said complaint against the petitioners and other accused.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:43 ::: | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,057,696 | The facts of the case are as under :-The applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 are related as husband and wife.This application is filed praying therein for quashing and setting aside the proceedings bearing Misc.Criminal Complaint No. 160/2004 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and further to discharge the applicants therefrom.That, since all the efforts made by the applicant No.1 and his family members failed, the applicant No.1 was left with no other option but to file a petition under Section 13(I)(i-a) and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:37 ::: 3 (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.The said petition was registered as H.M.P. No. A-422/2004 before the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:37 :::During the pendency of the proceedings, on 19-6-2009 the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2 consented for mutual divorce and accordingly before the Marriage Counselor, Family Court, Nagpur both of them agreed to take mutual consent divorce by withdrawing all the allegations made against each other.Accordingly orders in terms thereof was passed whereby certain clauses were incorporated in the said order to which the parties agreed.After the consent terms, the applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 preferred an application on 1-7-2009 for grant of permission to convert the petition filed by the applicant under Section 13(I)(i-a) and (i-b) to under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of mutual divorce.On 3-7-2009 evidence of applicant No.1 and non-applicant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:37 ::: 4 No.2 was recorded by the Family Court in the said petition in which they have categorically stated that after separation her family members have tried to press to reconcile the matter but in futile and when they realised that it is impossible for them to reside together, they have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent out of Court and have filed the petition for mutual consent divorce on certain terms and conditions.Apart from other conditions, same were - they would withdraw all allegations leveled against each other and accordingly withdrew the same.The non-applicant No.2 i.e. wife specifically agreed to co-operate to withdraw the complaint filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants and they would not litigate further in future.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:37 :::On the very same day the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur by its judgment dated 3rd July, 2009 disposed of the H.M.P. No. A-422/2009, thereby dissolving the marriage dated 26-12-2002 between applicant no.1 and non-applicant No.2 by decree of divorce with mutual consent.Thus, both the husband and wife are residing separately and the marriage between them now legally dissolved.In the said matter, the present applicants are impleaded as accused and charge is not yet framed in the matter.However, in view of the decree of divorce by mutual consent, the marriage is already dissolved and as per Clauses 8 and 9 of the consent terms dated 19-6-2009 the non-applicant No.2 was to withdraw the said proceedings.Hence, now in the event of decree of divorce in mutual terms and for the interest of justice of both the parties, the proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside and therefore, this application is filed by the applicants before this Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::This Court by order dated 8th October, 2009 issued notices to the non-applicants and in pursuant to the issuance of notices, the non-applicants have appeared in the matter.The Advocate appearing for the non-applicant No.2 prayed week's time to file affidavit in reply.On 25-11-2009 the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 ::: 6 applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have filed affidavit on behalf of the deponents.The joint affidavit prays for quashing of proceedings bearing Misc.Criminal Complaint No. 160/2004 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::The learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties have agreed for final disposal of this matter.Hence, Rule.Heard with the consent of the parties.Since the applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have filed affidavit jointly and prayed to quash and set aside the proceeding bearing Misc.Criminal Complaint No.160/2004 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in the light of the averments in the annexures thereto and also joint affidavit of applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2, I proceed to decide the application finally.The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants as well as non-applicant No.2 submitted that since the dispute between the parties is settled by way of compromise, the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur may be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 ::: 7 quashed and set aside.It is further submitted that, non-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::applicant No.2 wants to withdraw the complaint but due to non-compoundable offence, the complainant cannot withdraw the complaint.Therefore, they filed present application as there is no other remedy to the applicants.The learned A.P.P. appearing for the non-applicant No. 1/State submitted that it is true that the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code under its inherent jurisdiction do not get curtailed by Section 320 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 ::: 8 Criminal Procedure Code.The non-applicant No.2 remained present in the Court.The applicant No.1 husband was also present in the Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the applicants and non-applicant No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1, I am of the considered view that in view of the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Biswaroop Ghosh & others v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008(7) LJSOFT 99=2008(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)44, the present application can be disposed of.I have carefully perused the contents of the application and annexures thereto.At Annexure-A there is a copy of F.I.R.and Final Report.At Annexure-B there is a copy of the order passed by the Marriage Counselor, Family Court, Nagpur.At Annexure-D there are copies of the deposition of the applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 and at Annexure-E there is a copy of the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur.Perusal of paragraph 6 of the judgment passed in Petition ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 ::: 9 No.A-422/2004 reproduced hereinbelow :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::"Both the petitioners have stated that they have no allegations against each other.The petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs only) to the child Purvesh towards his maintenance which he has deposited in the Court and the petitioner No.2 can withdraw the said amount after passing a decree of divorce.The petitioner No.2 shall deposit the said amount in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank and she can withdraw the interest thereon for child's needs and in case of emergency, the petitioner No.2 can withdraw the amount of Rs. Three Lakhs from the bank with prior permission of Court.There is also no dispute between them regarding stridhan, ornaments and articles as it is already over it.The petitioner No.2 would co-operate the petitioner No.1 to withdraw the case under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed against him and his family members.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::There is also no dispute between them in respect of right over the movable and immoveable property of each other.They have further agreed that they would withdraw all the cases/petitions filed against each other, if any and would not interfere in each others personal life after passing a decree.We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the F.I.R. lodged under Section 498-A, I.P.C."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::In the result, the application succeeds.JUDGE adgokar ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:38 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,060,425 | 1 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. 2992 of 2013 Sanatan Das & Ors.State of West Bengal For the Petitioners : Md. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Sandipan Banerjee For the State :Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) pk | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,060,700 | P. No.51/2012 Page 2 of 10I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the record.The case FIR No.95/2011 under Sections 364/302/201/120-B IPC, PS Saket has been registered on the basis of statement made by elder brother of the deceased wherein he mentioned the following facts:-(i) His younger brother Sanjeev Kumar aged about 30 years was working with Mishan Singh Tomar and his wife Shashi Kiran and they were running business at F-562, Laddo Sarai under the name Perfect Jodi Matrimonial.(ii) His brother Sanjeev Kumar was responsible for the business of the firm.(iii) On 07.03.2011 he left for his office on his motorcycle No.(iv) The complainant also returned from Shillong on 08.093.2011 and made inquiries from the office of the company of his brother to ascertain whereabouts of Sanjeev Kumar.(v) The employee in the office Ms.Vandana informed that on 07.03.2011 at 1.45 pm Sanjeev received a call from Mishan Singh Tomar and thereafter he left the company office saying that the matter would be finally decided, as to whether he would run the company or Mishan Crl.P. No.51/2012 Page 3 of 10 Singh Tomar and his wife Shashi Kiran would run.She also informed that this issue was going on for many days.P. No.51/2012 Page 3 of 10(vi) Motorcycle of Sanjeev Kumar was found parked outside the office.(vii) On 06.03.2011 he had accompanied his brother to the house of Mishan Singh Tomar and Shashi Kiran where both of them and their son Shekhar pressurised them to clear the account by paying Rs.1.5 lacs which was due to them and in a threatening voice said 'Rupaye to hum nikaal hi lenge'.(viii) He suspected Mishan Singh Tomar, Shashi Kiran and their son Shekhar to be behind the murder of his brother and he also identified the dead body of his brother in a Mortuary in Bullanshehar, U.P.(ix) After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted.No doubt conspiracy has been hatched in secrecy.In direct evidence of any nature is possible for establishing the offence of conspiracy yet to frame the charge there should be at least some evidence to connect the accused with the charge of conspiracy.In the present case the evidence of mobile phone call made by Shashi Kiran to the driver of her husband is not sufficient to frame the charge.Moreover, it is the duty of every wife to know about the whereabouts of her husband if the husband does not pick phone then she naturally would talk to the driver.P. No.51/2012 Page 5 of 10Perusal of the material collected by the prosecution against the respondent Shashi Kiran - the discharged accused brings on record the following facts:-(i) The deceased Sanjeev Kumar was partner of Shashi Kiran in the business under the name and style M/s Perfect Jodi Matrimonial Services at Laddo Sarai.(ii) There was a dispute between the business partners for the alleged financial irregularities by the deceased during the period Shashi Kiran was not able to attend the office because ill-health of her husband i.e. accused Mishan Singh Tomar.(iii) On 07.03.2011 the deceased received a phone call from Mishan Singh Tomar and thereafter he left the office and did not return thereafter.He has also stated that Shashi Kiran left the police station and did not return thereafter.(vi) The declaration on stamp papers showing that Shashi Kiran was selling the said firm to Sanjeev Kumar were recovered at the instance of Shashi Kiran.Statement under Section 161 CrPC of Vendor Sudhir Kumar Jain has also been recorded to the effect that on 26.02.2011 he has sold the stamp paper mentioned at Serial No.230609 in the name of Crl.The State is aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2011whereby the learned ASJ has discharged the respondent Shashi Kiran in case FIR no.95/2011 under Sections 364/302/201/120-B IPC, PS Saket, Delhi.The grievance of the State is that it was a case of conspiracy to eliminate Sanjeev Kumar - the business partner of the respondent Shashi Kiran who stands discharged.There was enough material on record to establish the motive on account of financial dispute between the deceased Crl.P. No.51/2012 Page 1 of 10 and the respondent over the money which the deceased was earning from the business but allegedly not properly accounting for.P. No.51/2012 Page 1 of 10The grounds on which the impugned order has been challenged by the State are:-(i) The learned Trial Court did not consider that the complainant Manoj Kumar - brother of the deceased levelled allegations against the respondent about financial dispute with the deceased.(ii) The threats being given by the respondent and her husband Mishan Singh Tomar to face dire consequences if financial dispute is not resolved.(iii) The documents of declaration shown to the deceased Sanjeev Kumar when he was called at the parking at Mehrauli were also seized at the instance of respondent.(iv) The respondent was in constant touch with other two co-accused persons, one of whom is her husband and another driver, before and after commission of the crime.(v) The dead body of Sanjeev Kumar was recovered from Gulawati in Uttar Pradesh and the location of the mobile phone of one of the accused is also of that area and respondent was in constant touch with the co- accused during that time.On behalf of respondent, Mr.L.K.Verma, Advocate has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Trial Court after considering the entire material against the respondent.She has been rightly discharged on finding that there was not sufficient evidence on judicial record to connect her with the crime.It has been further Crl.P. No.51/2012 Page 2 of 10 submitted that after the framing of charge, 53 witnesses have been examined and if the impugned order is interfered with, it will cause lot of inconvenience to the co-accused persons.Even call details record of the mobile phones were obtained which revealed that respondent was in constant touch with co-accused person.At the stage of charge, vide impugned order the learned Trial Court had charged the two accused Sarvender Singh and Mishan Singh Tomar recording that counsel for the accused persons had conceded that charge be framed against them.Thus, so far as accused Sarvender Singh and Mishan Singh Tomar are concerned, they have been charged without any discussion about the alleged conspiracy hatched to eliminate the business partner of Shashi Kiran.At the stage of consideration of charge, on behalf of respondent Shashi Kiran the only submission made by learned defence counsel which has been recorded by learned Trial Court in the order dated 20.08.2011 reads as under :-P. No.51/2012 Page 4 of 10'So far as the accused Shashi Kiran is concerned, he argued that there is the iota of evidence on the judicial record to connect the accused with the alleged crime of conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.' (It appears that word 'no' is inadvertently missing in the above sentence before the word 'iota'.)Since for respondent Shashi Kiran charge was not conceded, the learned ASJ has discharged her for the following reasons :-'During the course of investigation, IO apprehended Mishan Singh Tomar and Sarvernder Singh as well as accused Shashi Kiram.Against accused Shashi Kiran there was only evidence of telephone call made by her to the phone of Sarvender, co-accused on the alleged date in the night when she had asked them about the work.In the above circumstances, accused Shashi Kiran is discharged of the offence u/s 364/302/201/120-B IPC, order accordingly.'Rajesh Mahajan, learned ASC for the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in recording that the only evidence against Crl.P. No.51/2012 Page 5 of 10 Shashi Kiran was of telephone call made by her on the phone of Sarvender Singh at the alleged night.Learned ASC for the State has prayed for setting aside the impugned order with direction to frame charge against the respondent Shashi Kiran as well.(iv) The CDR of mobile of the respondent for the relevant period/duration provided a link between the discharged accused namely Shashi Kiran and two accused persons Mishan Singh Tomar - her husband and Sarvender Singh - driver who have been charged for committing the offence punishable under Sections 364/302/201/120-B IPC.As per the call detail record of mobile of respondent Shashi Kiran, she made calls at mobile No.9810837241 of Sarvender Singh and also received calls at her mobile No.9818792676 from the mobile number of Sarvender Singh at 12.10 hrs., 12.19 hrs., 19.51 hrs., 19.52 hrs., 19.54 Crl.P. No.51/2012 Page 6 of 10 hrs., 20.40 hrs., and 23.02.hrs, which shows that she was in constant touch with the co-accused Sarvender around the time of incident and was an active participant in the conspiracy.As per the CDR analysis, the respondent was allegedly in touch with both the co-accused soon before as well after the commission of crime.P. No.51/2012 Page 6 of 10(iv) It has come in the disclosure statement of all the three accused persons that mobile phone Mishan Singh Tomar was switched off as part of the plan and that the discharged accused Shashi Kiran was to visit the police station next day for lodging the missing report of Sanjeev.(v) Statement of HC Satender Kumar is to the effect that on 08.03.2011 when he was on duty as Duty Officer from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm at PS Saket, Shashi Kiran w/o M.S.Tomar R/o C-222, Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab came to him to lodge the report that Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh.He has also stated that she was asked to bring the photograph of the missing person and mobile numbers of his relatives and also to bring some office relative.P. No.51/2012 Page 7 of 10 Sanjeev Kumar and stamp paper mentioned at Serial No.230610 in the name of Shashi Kiran to one woman and one boy.P. No.51/2012 Page 7 of 10P. No.51/2012 Page 9 of 10LCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,070,768 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of sh the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the e petitioner Ravishankar Lodhi in crime no.505/2017 ad registered by P.S.-Themi, District-Narsinghpur under Pr Sections 294, 307, 324, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC.a hy As per the prosecution case, the petitioners party had a family dispute with victims party.At about 8:00 p.m. on ad 30.11.2017, victim Jhalkan was returning home.In front of M Radheshyam Lodhi's house, petitioner Ravishankar Lodhi and co-accused Sateyendra, Sandeep and Shivkumari Bai armed of with stick and baka came and filthily abused Jhalkan;rt whereon, first informant, Annu @ Anil rushed to the spot ou along with his sister-in-law, Rajkumari.Co-accused Sandeep Patel, who was armed with a baka, struck a blow on the head C of the victim Jhalkan.As a result, he sustained injury to his h head and started to bleed.Present petitioner Ravishankar ig and co-accused Sateyendra beat Jhalkan with sticks.Ravi also H beat Annu @ Anil on right knee and Sateyendra beat Annu @ Anil in the lower back.Rajkumari beat Shivkumari Lodhi with stick.Victim Jhalkan sustained comminuted, displaced fracture in the left high parietal bone and hemorrhagic contusion in the left high parietal lobe.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the first information report, petitioner did not assault the victim with a hard and sharp object.He also did not hit victim Jhalkan on any vital part of the body.He has been in custody since 30.11.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.sh Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 e of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the ad petitioner Ravishankar Lodhi, is allowed.Pr It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a solvent surety in the a same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance hy before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with ad the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of M Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.of (C V SIRPURKAR) rt JUDGE ou C h ig vai H Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.01.31 20:54:17 -08'00' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
57,942,659 | The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in Cr.No.495 of 2018 as against the petitioner herein, pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 495 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 420, 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC based on the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent as against the petitioner herein and the same is pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under under Sections 420, 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC .He would further submit that all the points raised by the petitioner are to be considered only during the trial.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard, Mr. S. Pushpakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.Moreover, all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial.The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the Court below during the trial.In this context, it is pertinent to refer the case of Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
57,944,943 | The wife of the absconding accused viz., Govindamani was suffering due to some illness and for the purpose of curing it, he approached P.W.1, who promised to cure the same by giving talies on receiving a sum of Rs.300/-.However, P.W.1 sought some time to part with the same.Aggrieved by the same, the absconding accused forcibly took the bike of P.W.1 bearing registration No.TN-49-3233 and handed over the same to one Ayyappan with an instruction that until P.W.1 gives thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 said sum of Rs.300/-, the vehicle should not be returned.In this regard P.W.1 also lodged a complaint on the file of Madhukkur Police Station and therefore, they developed an enmity.2.3.On 27.07.2005 at about 2.30 p.m., P.W.1 along with his elder brother Kamatchi and P.W.2 were proceeding in the two wheeler – M.O.6 to Periakottai in Perugavazthan main road and when they were nearing Avvaiyandi Road Paraiyan burial ground Bridge, the first accused viz., Apti @ Thiyagamani came in a Ambassador Car bearing registration No.TN 49 0049 from Avvaiyandi Road and hit the motor cycle and thereafter halted it.The accused in the present sessions case along with the absconding accused chased them and got the deceased in the field of one Senthil and attacked him with lethal weapons and wooden logs and he sustained grievous injuries.The occurrence was also witnessed by the persons, who were in the neighbouring lands and also the other eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.3, 5 to 7 and 12 and from the field of Senthil, the injured was taken to the main road and the service of a TATA Ace was used to take the injured initially to the Government Hospital, Pattukottai, where he was seen by P.W.9,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and after examination P.W.9 issued Ex.P.W.14, who was the Inspector of Police attached to Madhukkur Police Station and on receipt of the F.I.R. commenced investigation on 27.07.2005 at 16.30 hours and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of Chandran and Maheswaran prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P.8 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P.9 and in the presence of the same witnesses had recovered blood stained earth M.O.7 and sample earth M.O.8 under the cover of mahazar Ex.Thereafter, P.W.14 examined P.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 7, Chandran and Maheswaran and recorded their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. P.W.14 went in search of the accused and on 29.07.2005 at 8.00 a.m. effected arrest ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 Govindamani and Kriti @ Balakrishnan and accused Govindamani voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement and as per the admissible portion of the confession statement he recovered M.Os.1 to 5 under the cover of Mahazar Ex.The deceased's body was kept in the mortuary and at about 9.00 a.m. on 30.07.2005, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars viz., Rajkumar, Shanmugam, Jeyabalan, Poyyamozhi and P.W.2 and the Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P.W.14, thereafter made a request for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased and sent a requisition letter through P.W.10 Head Constable to Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur.Vijalakshmi was the Police Surgeon and Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and based on the request received from P.W.14/Investigation Officer at 11.45 p.m. on 30.07.2005, seen the body of the deceased at 12.00 noon on 30.07.2005 and noted the following features before commencing the postmortem:“(1) An old wound scar over the middle of front of left Thigh.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 (2) A black mole over the middle of medial aspect of right upper arm.(3) Tatoo MARKS: 1.Figure of Lion over both infra clavicular areas.2.Figures of OM MURUGA over the front of right forearm.Its condition then was Rigor mortis present all over the body.Appearances found at the postmortem: Moderately nourished body of a male.” The following external injuries as well as other features were noted:Plaster of paris cost dressing noted over the whole of left upper limb and right lower limb.A curved oblique sutured cut lacerated wound with intact silk sutures noted over the left side parietal eminence areas measuring 8cmx2cmxbone deep with surrounding abraded contusion and the cut lacerated Brain matter was found coming through this wound.A vertical sutured cut wound with intact silk sutures noted over the middle of right side occipital region measuring 6cmx1cmxbone deep.Multiple oblique cut wounds noted over the palmar aspects of bases of right thumb, Index finger and middle fingers each measuring 3cmx2cmxbone deep with cut fractures of the underlying phalanges which were found exposed outside.An oblique sutured cut wound with intact silk sutures noted over the upper third of front and medical aspect of Right leg measuring 10cmx2cmxbone deep with wide cut fracture of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 underlying Tibia Bone.A Transverse cut wound found sutured and with intact silk sutures noted over the middle of front of right leg measuring 10cmx2cmxbone deep with cut fracture of the underlying Tibia bone.An wide gaping Transversely placed sutured cut wound with intact silk sutures noted over the back of left wrist measuring 14cmx3cmxwrist joint cacity deep with Traumatic amputation of left Hand from the wrist level exposing the cut fractured portions of all the carpal bones and lower ends of Radius and Ulna Bones.An wide gaping cut wound over the whole of base of left Thumb on the palmar aspect measuring 7cmx3cmxbone deep found sutured with silk sutures with Traumatic amputation of left thumb.An oblique sutured cut wound with intact silk sutures over the upper part of front and medial aspect of left upper arm measuring 7cmx1cmxbone deep with cut fracture of the underlying humerus bone.10. 10 A cut wound over the left scapular area measuring 2cmx2cmxbone deep.Diffuse contusion over the left scapular area over an area of 4x4cm.” The doctor after concluding the postmortem opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to multiple cut wounds involving the vital organ namely the brain.The postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P.7.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 2.7.P.W.14 continued with the investigation and on 31.07.2005 at about 6.00 a.m. near Keezhakurichi Bus Stop, arrested A2 to A5 and sent them for judicial custody.The vehicle was handed over to A1 subject to certain conditions.It also appears that petitions were filed for transfer of investigation and trial and therefore, the trial was transferred from Sessions Court, Thanjavur to Sessions Court, Pudukkottai.As directed by this Court, P.W.14 re-examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and on 09.01.2006, he examined Subramanian, Driver Rakesh, P.W.9-Dr.Chellappan, Dr.The Committal Court issued summons to the accused and three of them had absconded and on the appearance of the accused herein, they were furnished with copies of documents under Section 207 CrPC and having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, had committed the same to the Principal District Court.Thanjavur, who took it on file in S.C.No.The respondents 2 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 5 were issued with summons and on their appearance, charges under Sections 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC have been framed.2.9.The prosecution, in order to sustain its case, examined PWs.1 to 14, marked Exs.The respondents 2 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 5 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them and they denied it as false.The respondents 2 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 5 did not examine any witness and not marked any document.2.10.The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had found the respondents 2 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 5 were not guilty of the offences and acquitted them as stated above, vide impugned judgment dated 05.04.2017 and challenging the legality of the same, the wife of the deceased filed the present Criminal Appeal.P.W.1 has categorically spoken about the dispute between him and the absconding accused Govindamani as to the remedial measures suggested by tying talis and demand for return of money and as such the motive has been proved by the prosecution.It is also the case of the prosecution that on 27.07.2005, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased were proceeding in a two wheeler and the accused came in an Ambassador Car and halted it and all the accused chased P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased and since the deceased was unable to run and rather unable to cope up with the pace of P.Ws.1 and 2, he stopped in the field of one Senthil and he was done to death by the accused simply because he is the brother of P.W.1 and therefore it cannot be stated that the motive aspect has not been proved by the prosecution.(ii) The trial Court has disbelieved the eyewitnesses P.Ws.3, 5 to 7 and 12 on the ground that Ex.P.1 did not speak about their presence there.The said finding is un-sustainable for the reason that the F.I.R., which is registered on the basis of the complaint Ex.(iii) The trial Court committed a grave error in giving a finding that the place of occurrence has been shifted or rather not identified overlooking the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased stopped on the field of one Senthil and thereafter he was surrounded and done to death by the accused and the Observation Mahazar – Ex.P.8 would also disclose that the occurrence took place in the field of one Senthil and Ex.P.9 is also to the said effect and M.Os.7 and 8 were also recovered from the said place and therefore, it cannot be said that the place of occurrence has not been identified.(iv) The trial Court has given much importance to testimony of P.W.9 and Ex.P.14 overlooking the fact that the contents of the accident report can be relied upon only for the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured and it is not the substantive piece of evidence; however, the trial Court has given undue importance to the entries made in the accident register.(v) The trial Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the confession as well as recovery has not been proved on the ground that the witness to the arrest and recovery viz., P.W.8 had turned hostile, overlooking the fact that the Investigating Officer – P.W.14 spoken about the said fact and it would suffice to conclude that the arrest and recovery has been proved by the prosecution.(vi) The trial Court has also given undue importance as to the non- production of the records relating to the treatment given to the injured between 27.07.2005 and 30.07.2005 at Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, overlooking the evidence of Dr.K.Tamilmani, who had spoken about the autopsy conducted by Dr.Vijayalakshmi coupled with Ex.P.7 – postmortem report, which proved the fact that the deceased died on account of head injury sustained by him and thus the prosecution has proved that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence and it was the accused who caused his death.(vii) The trial Court had concluded that the blood stained clothes from P.Ws.1 and 2 have not been recovered by ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.14, who had stated that the said witnesses did not say that their clothes were tainted with blood while taking the injured to the Hospital and as such there was no necessity to seize the alleged blood stained clothes worn by P.Ws.1 and 2 and even in the absence of seizure of blood stained clothes said to have been worn by P.Ws.1 and 2, the prosecution through the exhibits and the material objects proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.(viii) It is also to be pointed out that on account of the abscondence of three accused, the trial Court could not proceed with the case, despite the occurrence took place on 27.07.2005, the examination of witnesses commenced only on 28.09.2016 and therefore, due allowance has to be given to the memoryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 of the eyewitnesses.(ix) In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife of the deceased that the trial Court, by pointing out the probabilities with triviality had granted the benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, prays for conviction of respondents 2 to 6 and imposition of sentence of imprisonment and fine as well as compensation.S.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/State would submit that the State did not prefer appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal and insofar as the absconding accused are concerned, the accused with fatal overt act viz., Govindamani continued to be absconding and insofar as other absconding accused viz. Kriti @ Balakrishnan and Sankar are concerned, the matter is still pending in committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.62 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai and undertakes to instruct the investigating officer to take the case seriously and to apprehend the absconding accused and to split up the case in respect of other two accused.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and 6/A1 to A3 and A5 made the following submissions:(i) In Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1, the presence of other eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.3, 5 to 7 and 12 have not been stated and therefore, they cannot be stated as eyewitnesses to the occurrence.(ii) P.Ws.1 and 2 said to have purchased grocery and they along with deceased came in a two wheeler on the fateful day, however, the said grocery said to have been purchased has not been seized.(iv) There is a vital and grave discrepancy with regard to the scene of crime and that according to the eye-witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, they were chased for some time along with the deceased and whether the occurrence took place in the road or in the field of Senthil has not been established and that apart P.W.14 also did not examine the owner of the field, in which, the deceased is said to have been found dead and as such in the absence of proof regarding the scene of crime, it cannot be said that the prosecution has provedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 its case beyond reasonable doubt.(v) The material witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 had made very many improvements from that of the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. during the investigation and contradictions were also elicited through the investigating officer – P.W.14 and if the contradictions are taken into account the presence of second respondent/A1 in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and with regard to the overt acts attributed to the rest of the accused there are very many material improvements and since there are material improvements, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the said witnesses and the trial Court has also concluded so.(vi) Insofar as accident register, marked as EX.P.4 coupled with the evidence of P.W.9 is concerned, according to the testimony of P.W.2 when P.W.1 went to police station to lodge the complaint, he alone took the injured and gone to Pattukottai Government Hospital, and if he has really accompanied the injured his initial statement would have been recorded in the relevant column in EX,.P.4 and therefore, the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence was also highly doubtful.(vii) Even as per the evidence of P.W.2, the deceased was having very many disputes with very many persons and they might have grouse against him and in the absence of tenable and quality evidence, the trial Court has rightlyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 reached the conclusion to award the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them.P.1 – complaint and in his testimony as P.W.1 has stated that on 27.07.2005, when he along with P.W.2 and his deceased brother were proceeding in a two wheeler, the accused came in an Ambassador Car halted the vehicle and thereafter got down from the vehicle and at the instance of absconding accused Govindamani chased them and all the three of them started running and the deceased Kamatchi could not keep pace with them and he was done to death in the field of Senthil and for this there is a direct charge for the commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution projected the case on the testimonies of eyewitnesses.In the case of eyewitness, the motive aspect pale into significance.Therefore, the prosecution was unable to prove the presence of A1 in the scene of occurrence.Similarly in respect of A3 viz. Saminathan the charge was that he cut the deceased on the left side of the shoulder and with regard to the said statement contradiction was elicited through the testimony of P.W.14 and he has deposed that he has not stated as above.As regards recovery of blood stained clothes from P.Ws.1 and 2 is concerned, according to P.W.14, P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not say so during the examination at the time of investigation.P.W. 14 would further admit that with regard to the treatment given to the injured in Thanjavur Hospital between 27.07.2005 and 30.07.2005, he did not seize any records from the Government Medical College Hospital at Thanjavur and though P.W.14 would state that the commission of offence was witnessed by the persons who were grazing their cattle, he did not take any steps to record their statements.17.In the cross-examination done on behalf of A4, P.W.14, the investigation officer would state that the witnesses did not state that after halting the motor cycle the accused did not suddenly got down from the car and also made a crucial admission that P.Ws.1 and 2 during the course of investigation did not specifically state that except them the rest of the witnesseshttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 were aware of the incident.Contradictions made by the concerned witnesses were also put to P.W.14 investigation officer and the cross-examination would reveal that the material witnesses as well as the eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 made material improvements from that of the submissions recorded during the examination under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C..18.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial has commenced nearly after 11 years from the date of occurrence and hence there may be some memory loss and he is right to say so.However, as pointed out, the improvements are major and material in nature from that of the statements recorded during the investigation.The testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 would disclose that except them all the eyewitnesses projected by the prosecution would not have seen the occurrence and it is also fortified by the cross examination done on behalf of A4 with the investigation officer as pointed out supra.26.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 05.04.2017 made in S.C.No.111 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
579,458 | JUDGMENT Anantanarayanan, J.These are connected criminal appeals by Velu (accused No. 1) and Maragatham alias Lakshmi (accused No. 2) in Sessions case No. 8 of 1959 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of Vellore.The two accused, who are husband and wife, having been convicted of the murder of their female infant.Rani, aged about 1-1/2 months under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in each case. .They were further convicted of the offence of attempt to commit suicide (S. 309 I.P.C.) and each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; the sentences to run concurrently.The facts are simple and tragic, and not in dispute.The two accused were starving for about ten days previous to this offence, and could find neither work nor any one to give them food.They determined to put an end to their lives and also to put an end to the life of their female infant.Rani, probably feeling that none could look to the child after them.On 7-1-1959 at about 5-30 a.m. they proceeded to a well in their village, Narayanakuppam, and jumped into it, carrying the female infant.The evidence makes it clear that they had tied themselves together with a rope, before jumping into this well.3. Rajagopal (P.W. 1) was passing that way, and heard a sound from the well, and peeped into it.He saw the two accused inside the well, apparently spasmodically struggling for life.He jumped into the well, and, while, in the water, was able to get at the rope that had bound these unfortunate people together.He pulled the rope, and swam towards the steps leading into the well.By this means he was able to drag both accused 1 and 2 towards the steps.The wife (accused 2) was somewhat unconscious, and P.W. 1 had to carry her out of the well.The husband (accused 1) was sufficiently restored to be able to climb up the steps.He (P.W. 1) questioned accused I who told him that, finding no work and unable to bear the pangs of hunger, both the accused had determined to put an end to their lives, and jumped into the well with the child.Rajagopal (P.W. 1) then went and informed his father, the village munsif (P.W. S), Accused 2 was still a little unconscious, even when P.W. 3 came to the spot.When P.W. 3 questioned the husband (accused 1) he repeated the extra-judicial confession set forth above.P.W. 3 then sent his vadasts to the police and magistracy (Exs." Accused 2 admitted that both of them tied themselves with a rope, and jumped into the well with the child, in order to put an end to the lives of all the three. | ['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
579,557 | a) the complaint dated 16.7.2001 refers to all 13 accused by name with details and description about the role of each one of them with other particulars.The petitioners before us are accused numbers 7 to 12 in the said complaint.The said complaint runs into about 8 pages of single space typed sheets, in various paragraphs with sub paras etc, and the main paragraphs being total 12 in number.There are specific allegations in relation to each of the accused persons, at different places in the said complaint. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
579,565 | JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.All the aforesaid three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment.However, the remaining four appellants i.e. Iqbal, Ayyub, Jamil and Israt Hussain have been acquitted.The brief facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court were that on 27-1-94 in the night at 10.45 p.m. in Pramilaganj Alote, PW-4 Omprakash alias Guddu along with his brother deceased Pappu was witnessing T.V. programme in their house and their mother was sitting outside the house.At that juncture, they heard the voice that Laxinarayan has been surrounded by some persons, on which, they rushed towards Pramilaganj square, Alote, and saw that Babu cyclewala having a country-made pistol in his hand along with Gullu, Muzaffar, Abid and others had encircled Laximinarayan.When Omprakash and Pappu reached over there, Muzaffar and Gullu inflicted blows on the head of Omprakash and Abid and his companions inflicted knife-blows to Pappu.The appellants Babukhan and Chhotekhan have filed Cri.Appeal No. 222/96 and they are also appellants Nos. 4 and 5 in Cri.Therefore, this judgment shall also govern the disposal of both these appeals.The abovenamed six appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302/149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 97/94 on 6-3-94 who sentenced each of the appellants to suffer R.I. for two years under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, Abidkhan, Babukhan, Chhotekhan, Gullukhan, Muzaffar Dilwar to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment whereof to further undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 302 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 323/149, Indian Penal Code.Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these appeals.Initially, ten accused persons were tried, but the learned trial Court finding the aforesaid six appellants guilty convicted and sentenced them.The remaining assailants were having lathi and Farsa with them.When Omprakash and Pappu fell down on the ground, a vehicle belonging to S.P. reached over there, seeing which, the assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence.It is said that there was a dispute pertaining to money transaction between Laximinarayan and Muzaffar and the present incident is the outcome therof.In the said vehicle of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Omprakash (PW-4) went to the Police Station and lodged the report (Ex. P/5) which was reduced into writing by PW-10 Satish Sharma, Station House Officer, Alote on the basis of which Cr.No. 26/94 was registered and investigation ensued.PW-10 Satish Sharma inspected the place of occurrence in the same night where he noted some blood.Since, injured Pappu was in a serious state, Tehsildar was requested to record his dying-declaration.However, Pappu breathed his last, therefore, his dying-declaration could not be recorded.The accused persons were arrested and weapons of offence were seized at their instance and after completing all formalities of investigation, they were charge-sheeted before the Court.The accused persons denied the charges and some of them took the plea of alibi.To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses while the accused persons examined one witness in their defence.After conclusion of trial and hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.Dr. B. I. Chaturvedi (PW-9) performed the postmortem examination of the deceased and opined that deceased Pappu died because of shock and profuse bleeding from the wounds within six hours from the time of postmortem examination.Thus, having regard to the medical evidence given by Dr. Chatuvedi (PW-9) which is duly corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P/29), it is amply proved that the deceased Pappu me a homicidal death.Even otherwise the fact of homicidal death has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants.We have heard Senior Advocate Shri H. S. Oberoi assisted by Shri Manoj Soni and Shri Sanjay Sharma Advocates for the appellants.According to the learned counsel for the defence, though the Police Station was at the distance of one furlong from the scene of occurrence, yet the First Information Report lodged after delay.The conviction is based on the testimony of interested and partisan witnesses.The material witnesses like Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) and the other of the deceased have not been examined.Therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn by the learned trial Court and the injuries found on the persons of the appellants were not explained by the eye-witnesses and the independent witnesses have narrated a story altogether different from what has been stated by the interested injured witnesses.It is also submitted that there was no sufficient light to identify the assailants and the witnesses have given contradictory versions.Therefore, no implicit reliance could be placed on their testimony.Lastly he has submitted that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit murder of Pappu who reached on the scene of occurrence after some time and who was assaulted by the appellant Abid.According to him, the common object of the assembly was to extract stamp paper from Laxminarayan and in prosecution of this common object, if the appellant Abid had used knife causing injury to deceased who was not the target of the unlawful assembly and who reached after hearing the alarm regarding encircling of PW-6 Laxminarayan by the appellants, all the appellants could not be held responsible for committing murder of Pappu.To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in Bharosi v. State of M. P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 1686: (2002 Cri LJ 4322), Sukhah Raut v. State of Bihar, 2002 Cri LJ 560: (AIR 2002 SC 319) and Bhargavan v. State of Kerala (2003) 9 (IT) (SC) 513 : (2004 Cri LJ 646).To combat this argument, the learned deputy Advocate General Shri Desai has supported the judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court.According to him, specific plea of right of self defence of person has not been taken by the appellants.Even they have not tried to prove that they sustained injuries in the same incident.They were medically examined on 29-1-94 i.e. much late after the incident and they had also not lodged any report anywhere.He submitted that for proving the common object of the assembly, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the individual acts of the appellants.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having perused the entire record carefully, it emerged that the incident was witnessed by the injured eye-witnesses Omprakash, brother of the deceased, PW-6 Laxminarayan, and other independent witnesses PW-5 Ramchandra and PW-7 Virendra.The learned trial Court, replying on the testimony of these witnesses, convicted six appellants while acquitted other four accused persons namely, Iqbal, Ayyub, Zamil and Ishrat mainly on the ground that their names did not find place in the First Information Report lodged by Omprakash (PW-4), injured witness and brother of the deceased.On perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and the statement of Investigating Officers, we find absolutely no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-examination of mother of the deceased and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) who had reached on the spot.The law is well settled in this regard that the prosecution need not examine all the witnesses on the same point.In this case the prosecution has already examined two injured and two independent eye-witnesses, and there is no evidence on record that the witnesses who are said to have not been examined were material witnesses and the prosecution has withheld and not examined them with ulterior motive.The Court has to see the quality of the prosecution evidence and not the quantity.Apart from this, if the defence was feeling importance of the evidence of the witnesses who were not examined by the prosecution, the defence could have called them in defence.But, no such steps were taken by the defence.This shows that they have raised this objection only for the sake of arguments.We are also not convinced by the submission of the learned counsel for the defence regarding non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused for the reason that no such specific questions were put to the eye-witnesses about the injuries sustained by the appellants in the same incident.The appellants have also suffered superficial injuries which were not required necessarily to be explained by the witnesses especially when on the spot more than 15 persons were present and the witnesses themselves were also assaulted.The burden was on the appellants to establish that they had received the injuries in the same incident and for this purpose, they did not lead any evidence.Neither they had lodged the report at the police Station nor complained to any authority in this regard.They did not surrender themselves immediately after the incident so that they could be got examined medically by the police.They were arrested on 29-1 -94 and got medically examined by PW-8 Dr. Anil Palod.So their medical examination was also done after lapse of long duration.The burden was on the appellants as per provision under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to prove their defence.The said burden is not so heavy and onerous as on the prosecution, but at the same time, they have to prove by preponderance of probabilities regarding falling of their case within the purview of any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code.The appellants had to discharge this burden.Similarly, there is no substance in the argument in regard to delay in lodging of the First Information Report.The incident took place on 27-1-94 at 10.45 p.m. whereas the report was lodged in the same night at 11.15 p.m. i.e. after half an hour.We have carefully gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses and do not find any material exaggeration and contradictions in their statements going to the root of the case causing damage to the very foundation of the prosecution case.The defence has not pointed out any specific major inconsistency, exaggeration or embellishment in the statements of the eye-witnesses.The defence has also led stress on the point of non-leading of evidence regarding source of light on the scene of occurrence by the prosecution.This argument appears to have been advanced only for the sake of argument otherwise the facts are very, clear that the appellants and the witnesses were known to each other prior to the date of incident and at the time of the incident, they were within very close proximity.Therefore, there was no difficulty for a known person to identify in the night especially when the incident had taken place on a triangular square of the town.One road from this square goes to the Railway Station.Therefore, the street-light must be available and reasonable light from other source like houses and shops must be there.The defence suggestion was denied by the witnesses that there was no source of light.The witnesses have said that the light was there and houses and shops are also situated there.The Supreme Court in the case of Bharosi (2002 Cri LJ 4322) (supra) has observed that Even in faint darkness, the faces of the accused could be identified, more so when they are known to the witnesses'.Now, the last flank of arguments for consideration is whether the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of Pappu.In this regard, on perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses PW-4 Omprakash, PW-6 Laxminarayan, PW-5 Ramchandra and PW-7 Virendra as well as the First Information Report (Ex. P/5) lodged by PW-4 Omprakash, the fact reveals that PW-6 Laxminarayan was surrounded by the appellants on the road.At that time, the deceased Pappu and his brother Omprakash (PW-4) were not present there.They were viewing television inside their house and their mother Gyanibai was sitting outside of the house on a platform (OTLA).At that time, somebody had informed their mother that PW-6 Laxminarayan was surrounded by some persons.Thereafter, their mother came inside the house and informed them.On receiving this information, their mother, deceased Pappu and Omprakash (PW-4) rushed towards Pramilaganj Traingular square.PW-6 Laxminarayan has specifically stated in para 2 that he was surrounded by the appellants and, thereafter, they demanded the stamp-paper of the loan-transaction.He was also assaulted by Dilawarkhan and Chhotekhan.At that time, deceased Pappu and PW-4 Omprakash reached over there.Pappu was assaulted by knife by appellant Abid and acquitted co-accused Jamil.Thereafter, the appellants also assaulted PW-4 Omprakash.Yeshwant who has not been examined by the prosecution and PW-6 Laxminarayan by hard and blunt object.They all have received simple injuries on their persons.The deceased sustained one incised wound, two stab injuries and one abrasion.Out of four injuries, incised wound was on the side of right palm and both stab wounds were on the right scapula region.One stab wound was behind the right lung and another was between 7th and 8th ribs.The abrasion was on the left shoulder.His right lung was damaged at two places.In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died because of shock due to excessive bleeding because of cumulative effect of the injuries.Sharp edged weapon was used for causing injuries to the deceased by two persons, one is the appellant Abid and the other was acquitted co-accused Jamil.Jamil has been acquitted because his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report and he was also not identified in the Test Identification Parade.Now, in the light of these facts the common object of the appellants was only to obtain written stamp paper regarding loan amount and they attacked only on PW-6 Laxminarayan.Before opening assault on Laxminarayan, they had asked for return of the said document.Thereafter, beating was given to Laxminarayan.Injuries on the person of Laxminarayan are clearly indicating that he was assaulted by hard and blunt object like lathi which the appellants were having in their possession.At that time, some of the appellants were also having knives and one appellant Babukhan was possessing a pistol.He also threatened PW-6 Laxminarayan by showing the pistol, but, neither of the appellants had used knife or the pistol for causing any injury or even grievous injury by dangerous weapon to Laxminarayan.This aspect of the case is completely eliminating that the ultimate common object of the assembly was to commit murder and the same was done in furtherance thereof.In this regard we can profitably refer the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhargavan v. State of Kerala (2004 Cri LJ 646), Sukhan Raut (2002 Cri LJ 560) and Bharosi (2002 Cri LJ 4322) (supra).It is very easy to discern that when Laxminarayan was surrounded by the appellants and demanded stamp-paper, for that purpose, he was also being given some sort of beating.His brothers Pappu (the deceased) and Omprakash (PW-4) reached over there all of a sudden and they must have tried to save their brother.At that juncture, the appellant Abid and one more unidentified person gave a knife-blow to the deceased.Therefore, for the individual act of two persons, it could not be said that all the appellants formed an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of the deceased Pappu and in furtherance of the same, they had done so.It was an individual act of the appellant Abid and unidentified accused.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellants had formed unlawful assembly and the said unlawful assembly had assaulted the witnesses.Therefore, all are responsible for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 323/ 149, Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries to the witnesses.For commission of murder of deceased Pappu, the only appellant Abid would be responsible who gave a knife blow and the same proved to be fatal.The blow by knife was so forceful which had pierced and damaged his lung.The eye-witnesses have specifically stated that the appellant Abid and unidentified accused caused knife-injuries on the scapula region and right palm of the deceased.The postmortem examination report, the doctor has found two stab injuries on scapula region and both have caused serious damage to the lung at different places.(See para 3 of the statement of PW-4 Omprakash and paras 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the statement of Dr. Chaturvedi PW-9).The right lung was cut at two places and this could be only by two separate blows and the deceased could succumb to one injury which pierced into the lung and out of two injuries at least for one injury appellant Abid could be held responsible.The appellant Abid is the author of the injury to the scapula region.Having regard to the nature of weapon and the depth of the injuries, we are of the opinion that the appellant Abid had dealt forceful blow having firm intention to commit murder of deceased Pappu.Therefore, we hold appellant Abid guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He is also held responsible for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.In the wake of the abovementioned evaluation of the facts and law involved in the present case, we set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/ 149 Indian Penal Code, but convict only the appellant Abid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result, the appeals stand allowed in part.The conviction and sentences of the appellants except appellant Abid for the offence under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code are setaside.However, the conviction and sentences of all the appellants for the offences under Sections 148 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code as passed by the learned trial Court are maintained.Let a copy of this Judgment be sent together with the record to the trial Court for immediate compliance.A. No. 253/1996 and 254/ 1996 and the original be retained in the record of Cri. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
579,607 | The facts of the case, in short, are that marriage of Abha Sharma (deceased), daughter of the applicant was solemnized on 15.05.1991 with Arvind Sharma (convicted accused).It is undisputed that the non-applicant no. 1, Halki bai is mother and the non-applicant No. 2 Raghunandan is elder brother of Arvind Sharma.It is alleged that after marriage, accused Arvind Sharma along with non-applicant nos. 1 and 2, ill treated Abha Sharma(deceased) regarding dowry and also demanded motor cycle.Since, the applicant was unable to fulfill their demand of dowry therefore, on 11.02.1992 accused Arvind, at his residence at Bhopal after pouring the kerosene oil on Abha Sharma set her ablaze.It is also alleged that Abha Sharma(deceased) was admitted in Hamidya Hospital, Bhopal.On receiving information of incident, applicant rushed to the hospital.There Abha Sharma (deceased) narrated the story of incident to the applicant.She also disclosed that the accused threatened her and got her statement recorded in his favour.According to prosecution story dying declaration of Abha Sharma was duly recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, Nisar Ahmad Rizvi (PW-10).On 15.02.1992 Abha Sharma succumbed to her burn injuries.Dead body was sent for post-mortem.Dr. B.P.Dubey(P.W.-5) performed the autopsy on the body of deceased and found one to third degree burn and opined that, death was due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complication.He prepared post-mortem report (Ex. P-9).As per G.S. Solanki,J.:This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.94, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No. 378/92 by which the non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the charge, punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, in alternative under Section 304-B of IPC.It is, further, alleged that the applicant tried to report at police station but his report was not recorded then he lodged a written report on 24.02.1992 to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and sent copies to Higher Authorities.After investigation Arvind and non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 were charge-sheeted.Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, framed the charges against them.They abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.On critical appraisal of 3 evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted the non- applicant nos. 1 and 2 and convicted Arvind Sharma under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 8 years rigorous imprisonment.On the other hand, learned counsel for the non- applicant nos.1 and 2 supported the judgment and finding of trial Court.We have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other materials on record especially dying declaration (Ex. P-12) recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, Nisar Ahmad Rizvi (PW-10) and statement of Dr. S.K. Nigam (PW-6) along with the statements of applicant Madan Mohan Dubey (PW-2), father of the deceased, Rajkumar(PW-3), brother of the deceased and Chandrabhan Dubey(PW-11), uncle of the deceased.The applicant, Madan Mohan Dubey and his near relatives Rajkumar (PW-3) and Chandrabhan Dubey(PW-11) have stated regarding oral dying declaration in relation to demand of dowry and other incident.On the contrary, dying declaration (Ex. P-12) recorded by independent witness, Naib Tahsildar, Nisar Ahmad Rizvi (PW-10) shows that Abha Sharma(deceased) narrated him that the incident took place when she was preparing the food.This fact finds support from the version of Dr. S.K. Nigam(PW-6) who examined Abha Sharma and prepared MLC report.He stated that Abha Sharma disclosed him the fact that she was burnt during the preparation of the food.This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution therefore, version of this witness is binding on the prosecution.This fact was disclosed by Abha Shama when she came to her matrimonial house.But this very fact did not find place in dying declaration (Ex.P-12), recorded by independent witness, Naib Tahsildar, Nisar Ahmad Rizvi (PW-10).Therefore it might be an after thought.Considering the fact that incident took place at Bhopal whereas the non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 resided in village Heerapur, trial Court was of the view, that allegation of torturing to deceased, is not believeable. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
57,961,242 | This is the First bail application filed by the applicant /accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.135/15, Police Station Kotwali, District Sagar, offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-D, 323 and 506 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that the applicant accused has been falsely roped into this case.The allegations made against the applicant accused are totally false and concocted because the prosecutrix, aged 23 years, fell in love with the applicant accused, due to some misunderstanding she lodged a report against him.Counsel further pleads that as per the allegations in the case diary when the prosecutrix was going to hospital, the applicant accused stopped her and proposed her to marry him.On her refusal, the applicant accused assaulted her.Counsel further pleads that the punishment of the offence is not more than 7 years and after investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of bail application.Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the punishment of the aforesaid offence and the charge sheet having been filed by the prosecution, the application is allowed.It is ordered that the applicant- accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety bond for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial /committal Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE | ['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. |
57,967,473 | This petition is filed to direct the respondent police to alter the FIR No.150/2016 dated 17.06.2016 by adding the Sections 107,341,307 and 506(2) IPC against the said accused A.Gnanasekaran, P. Kumaresan, Jagan and others, pending investigation according to law.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.No.149 of 2016 has been registered on the complaint given by P. Kumaresan for offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(1) IPC, & Cr.With the above observation, this petition stands closed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,235,795 | JUDGMENT S.T. Karche, J.Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in both the applications.These two applications involve common question of facts and law and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.The short question that arises for consideration in these proceedings is whether interim custody of the motor vehicle can be given pending the criminal prosecution.Applicant/accused Milind is the nephew of complainant Arvind.Both of them contended that the Hero Honda Motorcycle is owned by them and, therefore, sought the release of the said motorcycle on supratnama by filing applications before the learned J.M.F.C., whereby the applications filed by both of them came to be rejected.Being aggrieved by the said order, criminal revisions were filed in the Court of Sessions Judge and the said criminal revisions were also dismissed.In Criminal Appln.It is contended that on that day the transfer papers were signed and were handed over along with the said motor cycle to the applicant.According to the complainant Arvind, he was the registered owner of the said Hero Honda motor-cycle which was stolen on 22-4-1998 at about 7-00 p.m. from the premises of his office.The name of the suspect was not mentioned in the report.It is contended that the traffic police had challaned the said Hero Honda motorcycle of the applicant Milind on 22-4-1998 at about 11-00 a.m. and he was required to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on that day.He appeared in the police station along with the documents of the motor cycle.Thereafter on 25-7-1998, the applicant was again called in the police station and at that time the said Hero Honda motorcycle was seized and, as such, it is in the custody of the police.In Cri.No. 1678/99, the case of the applicant/complainant Arvind is that the said Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-31/L-5096 was stolen away and hence he had lodged report against Milind on 24-4-1998 on the basis of which offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 119 of 1998 was registered and the said Hero Honda motorcycle was seized from the possession of Milind.Thereafter he had filed an application for return of the said vehicle on supratnama in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. which came to be rejected.Being aggrieved by that order, revision was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge and the revision also came to be rejected on the ground that no interference was required in the interim order passed by this Court. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
123,585,330 | A.No.371/2015 Page 2 of 21size 0.5X0.5 cms placed 10 cm below the scapular spine and 5 cm middle to the midline.The direction is inwards and backwards and downwards.No blackening, singeing and tattooing present.Reddish abrasion of size 2x0.5 cms present over the middle of forehead.Reddish abrasion of size 1x1 cms present over the left side inner middle front of forehead."The cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries to the multiple internal organs (heart and both lungs) produced by projectiles of a rifled fire-arm.The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.On the question of homicidal death, we would be subsequently referring to the testimonies of Arvind Kumar Mandal (PW-1) and Rejnath Mandal (PW-4), the latter stately an eye witness to the occurrence who has turned hostile.Statements of the police officers, Inspector Dharamvir (PW-26), HC Rajinder Singh (PW-16) and S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22) are also relevant.PW-1/A, the FIR was registered.He has testified that the deceased Arun Mandal used to run a dental lab from D- 499, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.The deceased used to reside in a room on the third floor of the same property, and had long working hours of about 12 hours from 10:00 a.m. to COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 3 of 2110:00 p.m. On 08.01.2007 between 6:00 to 6:30 p.m. one Ramesh came to PW-1s address at G-754, Shakurpur, Delhi to inform that Arun Mandal was lying unconscious in his room on the third floor of D-499, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.PW-1 went to the aforesaid property and touched unresponsive Arun Mandal.On opening Arun Mandals clothes, he noticed wounds on Arun Mandals chest and under-arm.PW-1s hands got blood-stained.He took Arun Mandal to Muni Maya Ram Hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctors.Arun Mandal was bought back and made to lie on the ground floor.PW-1 informed the police, who came and recorded his statement, lifted evidence in the form of blood lying on the floor, blood-stained earth, etc. vide seizure memo (Ex.PW- 1/B), which was signed by PW-1 at point A. A piece of an iron almirah, which had a bullet mark was cut and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/C).Two bullet shells were found and seized vide seizure memo (PW-1/F).The aforesaid cartridges were identified by PW-1 in the court after breaking the seal of FSL, AKS, Delhi, and the same were marked as Ex.Pradeep would also sometimes work for them.PW-1 identified Ramesh as the person, who used to do ceramic and grinding job and Pradeep would grind the metal.In his cross- examination, PW-1 has stated that the police had seized empty cartridges and one lead from the spot.In Ex.He denied other suggestions given by the public prosecutor.He was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused/appellant.Pradeep Kumar Mandal (PW-7), turned hostile after accepting that he used to work at property D-499, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi, which belonged to Arun Mandal (deceased), claiming that for about 2 months he was in his village.PW-7 has accepted that he had attended the funeral of Arun Mandal and due to the murder of Arun Mandal, he had left the job in the laboratory and expressed his inability to state anything else.The court granted permission to the public prosecutor to cross-examine PW-7 and several suggestions were put to him, relying upon his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. marked Ex.PW-7/A. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused, who also belonged to district Supol and that due to fear, he had deposed falsely and deliberately did not identify the appellant.On cross- examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-7 proclaimed incredibly that his statement was never recorded by the police and he did not know the appellant present in court, prior to the said date.He claimed that no one had threatened him.Rejnath Mandal (PW-4) has accepted that in the year 2007, he used to reside at Shakurpur and was working in the laboratory run by the deceased Arun Mandal at D-499, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.On 8th January, 2007 at about 6:00 p.m. he had seen three persons, who had caught hold of Arun Mandal.One of them had fired upon Arun Mandal, who fell down, thereafter the assailants left the spot.We have already referred to the testimony of Arvind Kumar Mandal (PW-1), who has stated that two bullet shells were seized and sealed by the I.O. vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/F).He had also identified the two bullet pieces in the court.In his cross-examination on 2nd February, 2009, PW-1 testified that the police had seized empty cartridges and one lead while recording his statement.It is pertinent to mention that Rukka (Ex.PW-1/A) recorded at 9:20 p.m. on 8th January, 2007 specifically records that two empty cartridges and two leads of fired bullets including one deformed lead were recovered from the third floor bed-room at the time of inspection.The seizure memo of the empty cartridges and leads marked Ex.PW-1/F records that the fired cartridges had "KF 02-9mm 2Z" engrossed thereon.The crime team report (Ex.PW-11/A) records that empty cartridges 9 mm 2 KF 9mm 2Z and 2 fired leads were found at the spot.The report (Ex.PW-11/A) mentions the locations where the fired cartridges and discharged lead were found.The said report was proved by S.I. Satpal Singh (PW-11), who was then the in-charge of Crime Team, North West District, Pitampura.It was highlighted that there is discrepancy regarding the two or one lead recovered from the spot.In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 had used the term two bullet shells were seized from the spot and sealed by the investigating officer vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/F).In his cross-examination, as noticed above, he has mentioned that the police had seized empty cartridges and one lead.The seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/F) as noticed above refers to recovery of two leads including a deformed lead and two empty cartridges with the words "KF02-9mm-2Z" engrossed thereon.The cartridges were of 9 mm diameter and 1.9 cm of length.The diagram / sketch of the said bullets were also prepared at the spot itself vide Ex.PW-22/B. The size of the lead recovered from the spot is 1.5 cm.The recovery of the leads and the fired cartridges from the spot has been mentioned in the Rukka and Crime Team report (Ex.PW-11/A).We would at this stage explicate depositions of other police witnesses, who visited the spot and affirm recovery of fired cartridges and two leads from the room on the third floor.Sketch of the empty cartridges marked Ex.-PW-22/B was drawn by S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22), who has deposed that two empty cartridges were found lying near the bed and near the door.He has also deposed that two leads were found in the room.Team In-charge has testified that two empty shells of cartridges and two bullets were found lying in the room on the top floor.He identified the cartridges cases as Ex.EC-1 and Ex.The testimony of SI Satpal Singh to the extent of lifting and seizure of the fired cartridges and leads of fired bullets remained unchallenged and unquestioned.Inspector Dharamvir Singh (PW26), the Investigating Officer in categorical terms refers to recovery of one fired cartridge near the iron almirah and the second cartridge near the bed.He had prepared the sketch of the fired cartridges (Ex.PW-22/B) and had sealed the same vide seal of DS.Two leads were also recovered.The recoveries were taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/F).PW11/A), we accept the prosecution version regarding recovery of the two fired / empty cartridges and two fired leads.Inspector Dharamvir (PW-26), has deposed that he had recorded the disclosure statement marked Ex.PW-9/A, and thereafter, the appellant had led them to his house i.e. B-67, Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, Goyala Dairy, Najafgarh, Delhi and from COPY -there they had recovered one pistol of Italian make with Crl.It is correct that Inspector Dharamvir (PW-26) has testified that one magazine contained 9 live cartridges and has also stated that on checking the pistol one magazine with 7 live cartridges was found.As per the prosecution case, in all 25 live bullets were found and recovered from the residence of the appellant - Chandarjeet Kumar @ Kishan.This figure of 25 live cartridges includes the live cartridges found in the two magazines.The aforesaid factual position is affirmed by Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9), who has stated that one loaded pistol and one loaded magazine and 9 live cartridges were found.The loaded pistol COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 16 of 21and the loaded magazine had 7 and 9 live cartridges respectively.Sketch of one live cartridge was prepared.Importantly the sketch prepared by Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9) gives its detail and description of the pistol, cartridges and magazines.Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9) had identified the said pistol with the words PETRO and SROATA Italy made engraved thereon.The length of the pistol was 18.6 c.m.with butt of 10.4 c.m.The total length being 22.2 cm.The magazine had the length of 11.5 c.m. with width of 3 c.m.As per S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22) one pistol with tagged magazine containing 7 live cartridges, one spare magazine containing 9 live cartridges and 9 live cartridges lying loose in the iron box i.e. 25 live cartridges in all were recovered.This corroborates the version given by the Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9).We would now turn to the forensic evidence in the form of the ballistic reports marked Ex.PW-21/A and Ex.PW-21/B, which are crucial and important in the present case.The reports were proved by Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic), COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 17 of 21FSL Rohini (PW-21), who has testified that on 27th September, 2007 six sealed parcels with the seal of AKS, FSL Delhi and two parcels with the seal of DS were received by the Ballistic Division of FSL, Rohini.The seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals.On opening of parcel no.5, two 9 mm cartridge cases, one bullet and one deformed bullet were taken out and marked as Ex.EC-1, Ex.EC-2, Ex.EB-1 and Ex.EB-2 respectively.On opening of parcel No.10, one improvised pistol of 9 mm caliber with number N-44337 and one spare magazine were taken out and marked Ex.F-1 and Ex.M-1 respectively.From parcel no.11, twenty five 9 mm cartridges were taken out and marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.On examination the improvised pistol, marked Ex.F-1, was found to be in working order and test fire was conducted by using two cartridges marked Ex.A-1 and Ex.The test fire cases were marked TC-1 and TC-2 and recovered bullets were marked as Ex.TB-1 and Ex.On microscopic comparison of the individual characteristic of the firing pin marks present on Ex.EC-1 and Ex.EC-2 with the test fire cartridge case marked Ex.TC-1, they were found to be identical.Similarly the bullets marked Ex.EB-1 and Ex.PW-3/A, which records two fire-arm entries wound over left side front of the chest, as elucidated by Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-3), in his testimony:-Fire arm entry wound of size 0.3X0.3 cms with abrasion collar present over the left side middle front of chest placed 6 cm inside horizontally to the left nipple, the projectile goes inwards slightly backwards horizontally into the cavity of the chest after piercing the edge of sternum at the fourth intercoastal margin.Left and right atrium of heart through and through into the right chest cavity, pierces the middle lob of lung and coming out from the chest cavity right side at the anterior axillary line placed 14 cms below and outwards to the right nipple of size 05.X05 cms and placed 27 cms above the anterior superior iliac point.No singeing, blackening, tattooing present.Fire arm entry size 0.3X0.3 cms present over the left side chest outer aspect in the anterior axillary line placed 9 cm outwards and downwards to the left nipple, abrasion collar present.The projectile goes inside the chest cavity after piercing the skin subcutaneous tissues, third intercoastal space into the parenchyma of left lung, upper middle lower pierces through and through and comes out from the exit wound at the back of the left side chest of COPY -We straight proceed to decide the primary and core issue; whether the appellant Charanjeet Kumar @ Kishan is the culprit and perpetrator, who caused the fire arm injuries on Arun Mandal.Arvind Kumar Mandal (PW-1), is the first informant on whose statement, Ex.The piece of iron almirah was examined and identified after breaking the seal of FSL, AKS and the same was marked as Ex.On a leading question being put by the public prosecutor, PW-1 accepted as correct that Pradeep Mandal had told him that about 40-42 days prior to the incident one Kishan with two other associates had visited and threatened Arun Mandal that he should pay Rs.50,000/- or he would be killed.PW-1 answered in affirmative that he knew the said Kishan and COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 4 of 21identified the present appellant, Charanjeet as Kishan.In his cross-examination, PW-1 has accepted that the property bearing No.D-499 and D-505, Shakurpur, Delhi were in the name and were owned by his deceased brother Arun Mandal.PW-1, unmarried at the time of occurrence (having got married in March, 2000), has deposed that was living with his family in house No.G-754, Shakurpur, Delhi; his elder brother (Dharmu) was also living with him, but on the date of occurrence he had gone to his village.Property No.D-499, Shakurpur, Delhi was constructed on a plot admeasuring 25 sq. yrds., and the third floor consisted of one room and a separate WC-cum-bathroom.Ramesh would help on the ground floor but was not a regular worker.PW-1/A, Arvind Mandal (PW-1) did not name and identify the perpetrator and the culprit has been described as an unknown person.The aforesaid statement was transmuted into Rukka after endorsement by Inspector Dharamvir Singh (PW-Thereafter, FIR in question bearing No.21/2007 was recorded at the police station Saraswati Vihar under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).Affirming DD No.34-A dated 08.01.2007, was recorded at 9:30 p.m. COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 5 of 21Ramesh Kumar Mandal (PW-6) has deposed that on 8th January, 2007 he had finished his work in the laboratory at about 5:00 p.m. and had gone to the market.Arun Mandal, the owner, was working in the same dental laboratory.At about 6:15 p.m. he came to know about the occurrence as somebody had called him from the laboratory, but he did not remember his name.The said person informed him that someone had come to D-499, J.J. Colony and shot Arun Mandal.On reaching the spot, PW-6 found that Arun Mandal was unconscious; somebody had called the police, who had come and had inspected the third floor.He was cross-examined by the public prosecutor, but denied the suggestion that Pradeep Mandal was working on the said day with him, claiming that on 8th January, 2007, Pradeep Mandal had gone to his native place.Arvind Kumar Mandal i.e. PW-1 had taken Arun Mandal to the hospital and subsequently, the police came to the spot.As PW-4 was resiling from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he was cross-examined on behalf of the State.In his cross- examination PW-4 accepted that one of the assailants had fired at Arun Mandal in his presence, but denied that it was the COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 7 of 21appellant (Chanderjeet Kumar @ Krishan), who had fired.PW- 4, however, accepted that the appellant, who was even earlier known to him, was present along with Sachin and Uday (Sachin and Uday are proclaimed offenders).PW-4 denied knowledge of any conversation between the deceased Arun Mandal and the present appellant.He was confronted with portions of his statement under section 161 CrPC marked Ex.PW-4/A. It was suggested but decided by PW-4 that he was scared and afraid and because of fear had intentionally not named and implicated the appellant or PW-4 had been threatened with dire consequences that he would be killed if he would disclose the incident to anyone.Pertinently, as per the police case, the appellant, Chanderjeet Kumar @ Krishan was arrested on 13th January, 2007 at the pointing out and on identification by Rejnath Mandal (PW-4).However, Rejnath Mandal (PW-4) denied the said fact, claiming that he had not stated or participated in the events leading to arrest of the present appellant on 13th January, 2007, near bus stop Shakurpur near Ring Road or that he had identified the present appellant.Apposite, Rejnath Mandal (PW-4) accepts his signatures on the arrest memo (Ex.PW-4/A) and the personal search memo of the appellant Charanjeet (Ex.PW-4/B), both signed by PW-4 at point A. PW-4 professed that he was illiterate and could only sign.In his cross-examination only one question was put-forward to PW-4 to the effect; whether Arun Mandal belonged to his native COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 8 of 21He accepted the said suggestion "that deceased Arun Mandal belonged to his native village".On the question of arrest of the appellant (Chanderjeet Kumar @ Krishan), we have decisive testimony of Inspector Dharamvir Singh (PW-26), who on 8th January, 2007 was posted as additional SHO.He has deposed that on 13 th January, 2007, he with S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22) and Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9), had arrested the present appellant, when he was sitting at the bus stand, Ring Road, J.J. Colony.One of the eye witnesses was also present with them and at his instance the present appellant Chanderjeet Kumar @ Krishan was identified.Inspector Dharamvir Singh (PW-26) has proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW-4/A), which was signed by him at point D and signed by the appellant at point X and personal search memo, which was signed by him again at point D and signed by the appellant at point X. Similar statements regarding arrest of the appellant Chanderjeet Kumar have been made by Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9) and S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22).The present appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has accepted that he was arrested on 13.01.2007 and stated that he has been falsely implicated and was innocent and the police had lifted him from his house at B-67, Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, Goyala Dairy, Najafgarh, Delhi.A.No.371/2015 Page 9 of 2122) and Inspector Dharamvir Singh (PW-26) that the present appellant (Chanderjeet Kumar @ Krishan) was arrested on 13th January, 2007 at the instance or on identification of Rejnath Mandal (PW-4), who is a signatory of the arrest memo (Ex.PW-4/A) and personal search memo (Ex.PW-4/B).The version given by PW-4 that he had only signed the said memo but had not participated and he was not aware of the said arrest / detention is per se false and incorrect.From the aforesaid ocular evidence it can be held with certainty that Arun Mandal had died as a result of gun-shot wound suffered by him between 5 to 6 p.m. on 8 th January, 2007 at D- 499, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.The appellant-Chandarjeet Kumar @ Kishan was known to the deceased and was identified by Arvind Kumar Mandal (PW-1).Rejnath Mandal (PW-4) had identified the present appellant, who was arrested on 13th January, 2007 vide arrest memo PW-4/A, as deposed to by Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9), S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22) and Inspector Dharamvir Singh (PW-26).The appellant does not dispute the date of arrest, but has disputed the place of arrest.Rejnath Mandal (PW-4) has accepted that the appellant-Chandarjeet Kumar @ Kishan was present at the time of firing along with Sachin and Uday (both proclaimed offenders).The said segregation is permissible and can be resorted to in the light of the judgment in Khujji (Supra) and Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors.v/s State of Gujarat (2011) 11 SCC 111, to the effect that evidence of a hostile witness to the extent it is truthful and reliable remains good and it is open to the court depending upon facts of each case to rely upon the dependable and acceptable part of the statement made by a hostile witness, provided that it is possible to segregate and separate truthful statement of facts from untruths, exaggerations or improvements.However, the aforesaid ocular evidence and other materials by themselves would not lead us to a definitive conclusion or firm finding that the appellant was the perpetrator, who had killed Arun Mandal by causing injuries by using fire arm.To uphold the said finding we would rely upon the ballistic report, recovery of the used cartridges and leads from the spot i.e. the place of occurrence and the fire arm recovered from the place of residence of the appellant- Chandarjeet Kumar @ Kishan, at his behest.With regard to the presence and recovery of two leads, the purported "discrepancy" from COPY -This incriminating material was lifted from the spot.Head Constable Rajinder Singh (PW-16) has similarly deposed that one bullet led was found near the door and another bullet lead was found near the bed and two empty cartridges were found lying in the room.S.I. Satpal Singh (PW-11), Crime COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 13 of 21The iron almirah having bullet marks was cut and taken into possession and produced before the Court and marked Ex.In light of the said copious and affirmative evidence, as deposed to by SI Satpal Singh (PW-11), Rajinder Singh (PW-16), SI Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22) and Inspector Dharmvir Singh (PW-26), as contemporaneously documented and recorded in the Rukka (Ex.PW1/A) and the crime team report (Ex.A.No.371/2015 Page 14 of 21 magazine.The said magazine had live cartridges.The sketch of the pistol, magazine and one live cartridge was prepared and marked Ex.PW-9/C. Pertinently Head Constable Rajinder Singh (PW-16) has deposed that on the date of occurrence itself they had gone to the residence of the appellant at B-67, Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, Goyala Dairy, Najafgarh, Delhi, but the same was found locked.Enquiries were then made from the neighbours, but the appellant could not be traced.He has also affirmed and corroborated the version given by Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9), who had drawn and proved the sketch of the pistol and the magazine and one live cartridge marked Ex.PW-9/C. Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9) has deposed that at the instance of the appellant, the weapon of offence i.e. one loaded pistol engraved with the words PETRO and SROATA was recovered from his house.He has given dimensions and the fact that the pistol was of 9 mm caliber and was identified by him as Ex.He identified the jar and 23 live cartridges and two used cartridges as Ex.P-3 etc. Inspector Dharamvir (PW-26) had also identified the cartridges, two magazines as Ex.PX-2 and Ex.The appellant highlights certain discrepancies on the question of recoveries of the pistol, magazines and the cartridges.PW-9/A) does not mention that the pistol and the magazine was kept in an iron box.This purported discrepancy with reference to disclosure statement (Ex.The disclosure statement would reflect and record what is stated by the detenu and the facts stated may be correct or false.EB-2 matched the test fire bullets marked as Ex.TB-1 and Ex.TB-2 as the individual characteristic of firing marks, were found to be identical on microscopic comparison.He proved the detailed report dated 27th September, 2007, Ex.PW-21/A. PW-21 had also examined holes, Ex.H-1 to Ex.H-11 and different clothes which were worn by the deceased and opined that three holes on the jacket COPY -The live bullets / cartridges recovered from the residence of the appellant - Chandarjeet Kumar @ Kishan had earlier been examined by the ballistic expert (Mr.Puneet Puri).Moreover, the words engraved on the bottom of the cartridges has also been noticed and in fact the Head Constable Radha Krishan (PW-9) had initially given COPY -engraving on one of the live cartridges i.e. OK 93 9mm 2z".He later on corrected himself and had stated that the cartridges did not bear the engraving of OK but KF.In other cases, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.When we examine the aforesaid facts in light of our findings recorded above, the irresistible conclusion is that Charanjeet Kumar @ Kishan was the perpetrator, who had fired from the firearm, which led to death of Arun Mandal and, therefore, he has been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the question of sentence, the trial court by order on sentence dated 25 th August, 2014 has sentenced Charanjeet Kumar @ Kishan to rigorous imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.It has been directed that fine amount of Rs.1 lac, if deposited, shall be paid to the family of Arun COPY -A.No.371/2015 Page 20 of 21Mandal as compensation.For the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.The sentences are to run concurrently and Section 428 Cr.P.C. would apply.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and noticing the conduct of the appellant and the nature and manner in which the offence was committed, we are not inclined to interfere with the order on sentence.We express no opinion on their involvement.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
123,588,587 | In the instant case admittedly both the parties are engaged in share business as broker of Calcutta Stock Exchange and also practiced in the transaction of share purchase and sale.of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the petitioner is that one Dilip Mehra lodged a complaint against the present petitioner alleging an offence under Section 420/417/418 of the Indian Penal Code and prays for investigation of the same under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.The Behala Police Station received the said application and registered the Behala P.S. Case No. 136 2 dated March 16th, 1996 under Section 420/417/418 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner was arrested on March 17th, 1996 and was enlarged on interim bail.The fact and the circumstances of both the complaint appears almost same and identical.In the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act is filed automatically for dishonour 4 of cheques on the ground in arranging for.The cheques were issued in connection with purchase of shares.The complaint under Indian Penal Code has been filed subsequent to the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.So, in the instant case Court is to find out whether complaint under Indian Penal Code filed by the opposite party No. 2 5 herein ahs been able to prima facie make out a case of deception which was caused on account of cheque and the deception was practiced from the beginning.Accordingly in presence of the contract the petitioner (opposite party No. 2) herein purchase the share for the accused person but accused person despite entering into the agreement had been deceived the share therein in time and as a result the opposite party No. 2 herein sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 26,00,000/-.Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis.(Asim Kumar Mondal, J.) | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
123,598,411 | Shri R.K. Raghuvanshi, counsel for the objector.Applicant has no criminal past and is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant used to follow the prosecutrix.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 30/09/2019 18:20:26 | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
123,602,700 | The wife of the first accused is one Mrs.Sridevi.The deceased in this case was one Mr.Shankar.It is alleged that Mr.Shankar had illicit intimacy with Sridevi.When this came to the knowledge of the first accused, he warned his wife as well as the deceased to give up such kind of illicit intimacy, but they did not stop.This has resulted in a very strong enmity between the accused and the deceased.In pursuance of the same, it is alleged that the first accused decided to do away with the deceased.He took the help of his brother, the fourth accused and his friend the third accused for the said purpose.It is further alleged that with the help of the accused 3 and 4, the first accused took the deceased to Senguttai hill.The second accused, had given his unlicensed gun to the first accused.The first accused, shot the deceased on his chest once at Senguttai hill and caused his death.Then, the accused 1, 3 and 4 threw the dead body into Senguttai odai with a view to erase the evidence.On these allegations, final report was filed by the respondent police.So far as the second accused is concerned, the accusation is that he was in possession of an unlicensed gun which is an offence punishable under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.On 25.08.2009 at 09.00 p.m. when the occurrence had happened no one witnessed the same.P.W.1 was a Forester working at Kottapatti Forest Range.On 28.08.2009 at 03.00 p.m. when he was on rounds into the forest area at Thumbal Beat, he heard from the general public that there was a dead body of a male lying in Senguttai odai.He rushed to the said place at 04.00 p.m. and found the dead body in a highly decomposed condition.Maggots were crawling all over the body.He enquired the people who arrived at the scene of occurrence about the identity of the dead body.They told that the dead body was that of the deceased Shankar.Stomach empty, skull skull bones intact.Brain semisolid."P.11 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the death of the deceased would have occurred within 72 - 80 hours prior to the conduct of the postmortem.Further he opined that the death of the deceased was due to the pellets injuries.After getting the opinion from the doctor, who conducted autopsy, P.W.9 altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. He examined many more witnesses and recorded their statements.On 02.09.2009, at 07.00 a.m. when P.W.3 the then V.A.O. of Sittling village was on duty, the first accused appeared before him and gave a voluntary confession.P.W.3 reduced the same into writing (vide Ex.P4).Then he prepared a report under Ex.P3 and he took the accused along with Exs.P3 and P4 and produced him before P.W.9 at 09.15 a.m on the same day.P.W.9 arrested him and while in custody, the first accused at 09.30 a.m. gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a gun, torch light and Koduval.P.W.9, recorded the same in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness.P.W.9 recovered the same under a mahazar and returned to the police station.He forwarded the first accused for judicial remand and handed over the material objects 1 to 3 also to Court.Then, he altered the case into one under Sections 364, 201, 203 I.P.C. and 79(e) r/w 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.On 03.09.2009 at 07.45 a.m. he arrested the second accused.The doctor who conducted autopsy had collected seven pellets from the body of the deceased.P.W.9 made a request to forward the said pellets along with the gun to the forensic lab for ballistic expert's opinion.The investigation was taken over by P.W.10, his successor.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.The second accused in this case was one Mr.Raju and the fourth accused is one Ilayaraman.The trial Court framed as many as six charges against the accused as detailed below:Serial Number of charge Charge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1302 of IPC2A3 & A4302 r/w 34 of IPC3A1, A3 & A4364 of IPC4A1, A3 & A4201 of IPC5A225(1)(b) of Arms Act6A2202 of I.P.C.The trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and convicted the third accused under Section 302 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.P.W.8, the then Head Constable, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.239 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.2.6. P.W.9, the then Inspector of Police, Kottapatti Police Station took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 07.00 a.m. on 29.08.2009 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for postmortem.2.7. P.W.6 Dr.Balasundaram conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 29.08.2009 at 03.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:"External injuries: (1) Multiple holes (entrance wound) present over the right chest.(2) An entrance wound about 3x2x2cm over the right side of the chest.(3) Multiple entrance wound about 1x1 cm on right side of chest.Internal Examination: (4) A pellet exist in right side of the sternum bone.(5) ribs: right side 2nd, 3rd, 4th fracture.3rd rib cut and separated near the interior side of right side lung.(6) Hyoid bone intact.(7) Heart is semisolid an entrance wound present, 4 (four) pellets present in heart chambers.(8) Lungs multiple entrance wound present right side lobe and 2 (two) pellets present (9) Liver, Kidney c/s congested semisolid.On completing the investigation he laid the chargesheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, which the accused denied.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined, 17 documents and 3 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 who are forest officials has stated that they found the dead body of the deceased on 28.08.2009 at 04.00 p.m. at Senguttai Odai in a highly decomposed condition.They found that maggots were crawling all over the dead body.P.W.1 made a complaint to the police.P.W.3 the then V.A.O., Sittling village has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch at the place of occurrence.He has further stated that on 02.09.2009, at 07.00 a.m. the first accused appeared before him and made a voluntary confession.He has further stated that he produced the first accused before P.W.9 and P.W.9 took him into custody.While in custody, the first accused made a voluntary confession and out of which M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered.P.W.4 the Head Clerk of the Court had stated that he forwarded the material objects to the forensic lab for examination.P.W.5 the ballistic expert from the Tamil Nadu Government Forensic Science lab has stated that the seven pellets recovered from the dead body was made of iron.He has further stated that these seven pellets could have been fired from a smooth bore firearm.He has further stated that M.O.1 was in a working condition.P.W.6 Dr.Balasundaram has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7 the head constable has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence and handed over the same to the Doctor for conducting postmortem.P.Ws.9 and 10 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused 1 and 3 alone as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records, carefully.As we have already pointed out, there is no eyewitness account to prove the occurrence.The prosecution relies only on circumstantial evidence.P.Ws.1 and 2 are forest officials, who had seen the dead body on 28.08.2009 at 03.00 p.m. P.W.6 Dr.Balasundaram has given opinion that the death was due to the pellet injuries.From this, the prosecution has proved that the deceased had died before 04.00 p.m. on 28.08.2009 due to pellet injuries.But, absolutely there is no evidence either from the family members of the deceased or from anybody else as to when the deceased was lastly seen alive.No investigation whatsoever was done to ascertain as to when the deceased was lastly seen alive and where.The Doctor P.W.6 has given opinion that the deceased would have died within 72 to 80 hours prior to the time of postmortem.Whether on 24.08.2009 or 25.08.2009, the deceased was alive and whether he was seen alive has not been proved by the prosecution at all by examining any witness.It is surprising that even the family members of the deceased have not been examined to speak about the above vital fact.In this case, the opinion of the doctor in respect of the time of death is approximate.Further the opinion of the doctor should be supported by materials which are the foundation of the said opinion.At any rate, the serious flaw in not proving as to when the deceased was lastly seen alive creates doubt in the case of prosecution.Absolutely, there is no other evidence against either the first accused or the third accused.It is the settled law that the confession of a co-accused cannot be the foundation to convict the other.Now turning to the case against the first accused, as we have already pointed out, the prosecution relies on only two circumstances.The first is that he gave a voluntary confession.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first accused had no acquaintance with P.W.3 and therefore the first accused would not have gone to P.W.3 at all to make such an extra judicial confession.We find force in the said argument.He was a witness for the observation mahazar and rough sketch.The prosecution has not let in sufficient evidence so as to prove the guilt of the the accused. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
123,603,980 | M.C. 2372/2015 Page 1 of 5M.C. 2372/2015 Page 1 of 5I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.On perusal of the bail application, it reveals that the counsel omitted to disclose registration of FIR under Sections 8/12 POCSO Act also.In the status report, the Investigating Officer, however, reported registration of FIR under Sections 8/12 POCSO Act. Though the IO W/SI Neeraj appeared in person at the time of consideration of bail application on 25.02.2013, she did not point out the omission of offences under POCSO Act in the bail application.Certain conditions were put at the time of grant of bail.It was disposed of after notice to the accused, his counsel and the Crl.M.C. 2372/2015 Page 2 of 5 Investigating Officer.It records assurance of the Investigating Officer to remain careful in future.The Trial Court was fair enough to record that there was an irregularity in passing the bail order which she was unable to rectify.Certain observations about the functioning of the IO / SHO were also made.The said order was challenged before Special Court.By an order dated 24.07.2013, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge dealing with POCSO matters declined to cancel the bail.M.C. 2372/2015 Page 2 of 5Main grievance of the petitioner is that learned Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain and grant bail to respondent No.2 as offences under Sections 8/12 POCSO Act were exclusively triable by a Special Court.Without going into controversy as to whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to grant bail under POCSO Act, it is to be noted that at the time of grant of bail, the Trial Court was of Crl.M.C. 2372/2015 Page 3 of 5 bonafide belief that respondent No.2 was booked by the Investigating Agency only for commission of offences under Sections 354/506/452 IPC.The counsel for the respondent No.2 had not revealed in the bail application if Sections 8/12 POCSO Act were also there in the FIR.Since respondent No.2 was in custody for the last two days and the statement of the prosecutrix had already been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court deemed it fit to grant bail putting certain conditions.In other copy of the said FIR (At page-30 'annexure P-4') Sections 8/12 POCSO Act appear against column No. 2(ii).It is not clear as to how and when, these Sections came to be added in the original FIR.Apparently, Special Court dealing with POCSO matters has considered the merits of the case and did not find fault with the bail granted to the respondent No.2 on merits.Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case whereby due to bonafide mistake, bail was granted by the Trial Court and Crl.M.C. 2372/2015 Page 4 of 5 the fact that the said order was upheld by the Special Court, no sound reasons exist to cancel bail specifically when the investigation is over and charge-sheet has already been filed before the Special Court.M.C. 2372/2015 Page 4 of 5The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 20, 2015 / tr Crl.M.C. 2372/2015 Page 5 of 5M.C. 2372/2015 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
481,181 | JUDGMENT (1) On 29-4-1965, at about 1-30 p.m., when Sri Ram Parkash (P. W. 1 ) along with his friend Sri kanhaiya Lal (P. W. 3 ) were passing though the lane on the backside of house NO. 489 /6, situate in prem Gali, heard the shrieks of a child form inside the house.They peeped though the window of that house which abutted the lane and which was open and they saw that the appellant shanti devi was holding a razor in her right hand and cutting the neck of a child (her own child), aged about one year and that the child was crying and blood was oozing out of his neck.Btoh of them hurriedly entered the house through its main gate on the toher side of the wall, while raising an alarm with a view to save the child's life.Meanwhile, Shiv Shankar (P.W. 4), a boy residing in the neighborhood, also came to the spto.Seeing all the three people, Smt. Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, left the child, sat down on a cto and threw the razor under the cto.Leaving Shri Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.) and Shri Shiv Shankar (P.W) at the spto, Shri Ram Parkash went to Gandhinagar Police Station of North Delhi District and gave a report of the occurrence.On this, the police came to the spto, took up the investigation and prosecuted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering the child.The learned Magistrate in whose court the challan was submitted found a prima facie case against the appellant and committed her for trial by the Court of Sessions under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by his judgment dated 25-1-1966, found her guilty of her child's murder and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for life.As the learned Additional Sessions Judge posed before himself, there were two questions for decision in the case before him: one was as to whether Mst.Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, killed the child with a razor as alleged by the prosecution and the second a question was as to whether she was insane, nto capable of understanding the consequences of her acts, at that time.On the first question, on the evidence available, he came to the conclusion that Smt.Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, killed the child with a razor.On the second question he came to the conclusion that the evidence before him did nto establish the plea of insanity set up by the appellant herein.It is on the basis of this conclusion of his, he convicted the appellant and sentenced her as mentioned above.Hence this appeal by Smt. Shanti Devi.(2) The only point that was argued before us was that the appellant herein was insane at the time when she killed her child so as to be entitled to the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence placed before the learned Additional Sessions judge clearly established that the appellant herein, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing nature of the Act, which she committed, when she killed her own child .After carefully when she considering the evidence available in the case and the surrounding circumstances, we have come to the Conclusion that the appellant herein is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.We shall refer to the evidence available in this case and also the reason why the learned Additional Sessions Judge did nto consider the evidence sufficient to establish the plea of insanity put forward by the appellant herein.As stated already.P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were eye-witnesses to the occurrence.P.W. 6, Smt Sumitra Devi, was a lady constable who joined the investigation of this case and at the place of occurrence, she removed a dhtoi from the person of the appellant, having some blood-stains.P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W. 4 stated that when they reached the room, the appellant was sitting on a cto and the child was lying in the room at a distance of about one foto only from her and that she was sitting there quietly, without weeping or laughing and without making any effort to conceal the child or to run away and she did nto say anything to any of those persons.P.W. 4, who was living in antoher portion in the same premises, further stated that he had heard that she had earlier in the year gone to Jaipur for treatment and about one month before the occurrence, the appellant would sometimes laugh without reason and sometimes weep without reason and she was nto insane, but she was suffering from some mental trouble.P.W. 6 also stated that when she removed the dhtoi from the person of the appellant.She remained "gums" and she was neither laughing nor weeping.P.W. 9 was the person who was sent to take the phtoographs on the spto and he took the phtoographs at 5 p.m., on the same day.He deposed that when he went to take phtoographs, the appellant was present and she was sitting quiet, silent and she was neither excited nto in tears nor was she crying or sobbing.P.W. 10 was the Sub-Inspector of Police of Gandhinagar Police Station, who was entrusted with the investigation of the case.According to him, the appellant was present on the spto, sitting on a cto and she was replying to questions put to her, but toherwise she was quiet.Even he admitted that, excepting the name of the deceased, he did nto ask any toher thing from the appellant and during the two hours he was there, the appellant continued sitting there and she did ntohing by way of concealing anything and she just sat quietly.P.W. 11 of the C.I.D special staff and S.H.O., police station, Gandhinagar, who went that when he reached the spto, the appellant was sitting in her room and she was all right at that time and was replying to his questions.Even though he said that the appellant was perfectly in a sane condition when he interrogated her at the spto and there was ntohing she was talking to him as if ntohing had happened and she did nto make any effort to conceal and to run.This was all the evidence available with respect to the condition and reaction of the appellant at the time of the occurrence.(3) There was evidence that prior to the occurrence, the appellant was admitted into the Mental Hospital, Jaipur, and was under treatment.Shri S. K. Pandey, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Mental Hospital, Jaipur, was examined as D. W. 3 and he stated that the appellant was admitted into the hospital on 17-1-1965 and remained in the hospital up to 5-3-19665, on which date she was discharged and that she was asked to come after a month for check-up.According to him, the record showed that she was suffering from Maniac Depressive Psychosis, a type of insanity.He had deposed that the appellant was suffering from Schizophernic Psychosis, a type of insanity; it was an acute illness; she was talking incoherently; she had auditory and visual hallucinations; she was abusive; she was assaultive, throwing stones and trying to run away; in that state, she was nto able to understand what she was doing and the consequences of her actions; she was suffering from insanity.He also stated that she was discharged on 5-3-1965 when she had recovered from her illness and at the time, she was quite all right and she was nto abusive, nor violent and in cases of this type, he used to ask the patient to come up again since sometimes relapse takes place.There was the evidence of Dr. Ambresjh Gupta, who was examined as D. W. 8, that even earlier in November 1964, she was under his treatment and she was too much talkative, talking all irrelevant matters and her general condition showed that she was insane and everything which she was doing was without reason and he judged that it was a case of insanity.Dr. R. M. Sehgal, who was examined as D. W. 2, stated that in April, 1965, the appellant was under his treatment and he had diagnosed her as a mental case and asked her husband to have a specialised treatment.According to him, at the time when he was consulted, she was nto in a position to understand things as a normal man is expected to do and she did nto know what she was talking about and she was answering his questions irrelevantly and it was an acute case when she came to him.This was all the evidence, in the form of medical evidence, about the mental condition of the appellant before the occurrence.Subsequent to the occurrence, she was examined and treated by Dr. S. B. Mathur, Psychiatrist, Mental Hospital, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.He deposed that the appellant came to the Central Jail on 30-4-1965, was referred to the Mental Hospital on 25-5-1965, under the orders of the Magistrate and she was sent for observations of her mental state; he submitted a report on 28-5-1965, wherein he had stated that the she needed further observations and she was unfit for attending the Court.In his final report dated 10-6-1965, he stated that she was suffering from severe mental Schizophrenia and needed hospitalisation and treatment.According to him, it was difficult to say how long she had been suffering from this illness and the illness could arise all of a sudden and also gradually and he could nto give an answer to the question that how long gradually it would take to reach the stage at which he examined her.To a specific question put to him, as to whether he could exclude the possibility of such a mental illness and incapacity to understand being the culmination of the deterioration for a month or so, he gave a negative answer; obviously, this period was with reference to 10-6-1965 on which date he sent his final report about the mental condition of the appellant.This was the only evidence available with reference to the mental condition of the appellant, after the occurrence.(4) Thus, we have the medical evidence as to the insanity of the appellant before the occurrence and after the occurrence.We also have the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves as to the condition and the reaction of the appellant at the time of the occurrence itself.The only question is whether all these materials taken together can be said to substantiate the plea of the appellant, based upon Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.As pointed out already, the learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived this plea.Though he stated that the evidence of D. W. 2 Dr. R. M. Sehgal did nto inspire confidence and it appeared to him that he had come forward to help the appellant, he did nto reject the evidence as to the appellant having been treated in the Mental Hospital, Jaipur, during the months of January to March 1965 and the evidence as to her subsequent mental condition as deposed by D. W. 1 Dr. Mathur.But he concentrated solely on the fact that there was no evidence to show that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant was insane.In this context, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly consider and appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves as to the condition and the reaction of the appellant at the time of the occurrence. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,120,364 | I do not find any ground to entertain this revisional application.Hence, the revisional application being CRR 1675 of 2018 stands dismissed. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,812,377 | (2.2) Sadaram (PW-3) is the father-in-law of Shyamlal and he is the resident of village Manegaon-Tola.(2.3) The distance between the village Manegaon and Manegaon-Tola is about 1 k.m.(2.4) Deceased Mukesh resided with his maternal-grand-parents Sadaram and Shantibai (not- examined) in village Manegaon-Tola.Internal Injury The trachea was highly congested.Dr. M.K. Ghormare opined that all the (6) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 external injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injury Nos.(xiii) and (xiv) were caused by hard and sharp object and except burn injuries the remaining injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Deceased Mukesh was died of asphyxia due to the pressure being brought on his neck and mouth.He died 14 to 18 hours before the commencement of the post-mortem by him.Upon queries made by the investigating officer of the case, he opined that the perpetrator of the crime had also made an attempt to commit sodomy with deceased Mukesh.He gave the post-mortem report Ex.P-19 and queries reports Ex.(3.3) In the course of Marg enquiry, Anil Vajpayee recorded Marg statements of the witnesses.They have stated that in the evening of 17.08.2003 the appellant carried deceased Mukesh with him, saying that he would take him to his parents at village Manegaon.(3.4) Anil Vajpayee took over the investigation.On 27.08.2003, he took the appellant into his custody.Thereupon, he interrogated him in the presence of said Shyamlal and Dama (PW-2).Upon the information furnished by the appellant, he recorded disclosure statement Ex.P-12 of the appellant and later at his instance he seized one pair of scissors, one half-pants and one shirt vide seizure memo Ex.He also seized from the possession of the appellant as many as 20 articles vide seizure memo Ex.The appellant inquired from him about his wife.Later on, he told deceased Mukesh that he was going to meet his parents.He also asked deceased Mukesh to accompany him.Since deceased Mukesh knew him, he got ready to go with him.On the next day morning i.e. 18.08.2003, he saw deceased Mukesh's dead body lying in the veranda of the school building of village Manegaon.We have carefully read the cross- examination of this witness and we find that there is (14) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 nothing adverse in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence.In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or otherwise the appellant has not offered as to the place and time when deceased Mukesh had parted his company.(2.1) Deceased Mukesh, aged about 8 years, was the son of Shyamlal (PW-1), the resident of village Manegaon.She lives with the family of Shyamlal, the father of the deceased.The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial, in brief, is as under:-(3.1) On 18.08.2003, Shyamlal made an oral intimation at Police Station Kirnapur of district Balaghat that the dead body of his son Mukesh is lying naked with multiple injuries in the veranda of the school building of his native village Manegaon.Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 (3.2) On 18.08.2003, Dr. M.K. Ghormare (PW-7) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mukesh and he found following external and internal injuries:-(i) Swelling on the left side of head size 3'' X 2''.(ii) Clotting of blood on the left ear.(iii) A burn injury on the outer side of left eye size 3 c.m. X 3 c.m. skin deep.(iv) A burn injury inside the left eye size 3 c.m. X 3 c.m. skin deep.(v) A burn injury on the left cheek size 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. skin deep.(vi) A burn injury on the lower side of left shoulder size 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. skin deep.(vii) A round shape crushed injury over the left cheek size 1'' X 1'' skin deep.(viii) A burn injury on the left shoulder size 3 c.m.X 3 c.m. skin deep.(ix) A burn injury on the left scapula size 2 c.m. X 2 c.m. skin deep.Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4(x) A burn injury on the right scapula size 2 c.m.X 2 c.m. skin deep.(xi) A burn injury on the left index finger size 2 c.m. X 2 c.m. skin deep.(xii) A burn scar on the left middle finger size 2 c.m. X 2 c.m. skin deep.(xiii) An incised wound on the right index finger size 1'' X 1'' muscles deep.(xiv) An incised wound on the left ring finger of size 1'' X ''.(xv) A burn injury on the left hip size 2 c.m. X 2 c.m.(xvi) Swelling on the anal region size 3'' X 3''.(xvii) A Contusion over the upper lip size 3'' X 3''.(xviii) A Contusion over the lower lip size 3'' X 3''.(xix) Swelling on the front side of neck size 4'' X 4''.(xx) Swelling on the left side of neck size 1 c.m. X 1 c.m. over which a thumb mark is visible.P-14 at the time of his arrest vide arrest memo Ex.On various dates, he recorded the case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses.On 17.11.2003, he got identified the articles seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-13 by Shyamlal and Sadaram, the father and the (8) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 maternal-grand-father of deceased Mukesh respectively.In this regard, he prepared identification memo Ex.(3.5) Upon the completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for his prosecution under Sections 302 and 377 IPC.The learned trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 302 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and opted to contest the trial.In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., except admitted facts the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and the evidence appearing against him in the case.His defence, simpliciter, was of false implication on the ground of enmity.Upon marshelling of all the facts and circumstances as also analyzing and evaluating the evidence, the learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the following circumstances against the appellant:-(i) On 17.08.2003, the appellant took with him (9) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 deceased Mukesh, saying that he would meet him with his parents at village Manegaon.(9)(ii) On the very next day i.e. on 18.08.2003 deceased Mukesh was found murdered.(iii) The appellant has not offered any explanation in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or otherwise as to the time and place where he parted with the company of deceased Mukesh, meaning thereby deceased Mukesh remained in his company all the time before he was murdered.Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant filed jail appeal.Later, Smt. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel, appeared on his behalf.She further submitted that the witnesses of all the memorandums are the relative witnesses.Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.In reply, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty upon the close scrutiny of the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution.Upon these submissions, he prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed because it lacks merits.(11)Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4We have sincerely considered the rival submissions made before us and perused the impugned judgment and material on record.Sadaram (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that on 17.08.2003 at about 6:00 P.M., the appellant came to his house when he was teaching his grandson deceased Mukesh.He noticed that the dead body of deceased Mukesh was ridden with injuries and his neck was tied with a red colour cloth.(13)The defence has not produced any evidence as to why this witness has enmity with him.In our opinion, if there had been enmity between this witness and the appellant, the appellant would have not come to his house and this witness would have not sent deceased Mukesh with him to meet his parents.From this point of view, we can say that there was no enmity even marginally between the appellant and this witness at the material point of time.On the other hand, they had very cordial relationship.As per the evidence of this witness, the appellant is the son of his nephew's daughter and appellant's Mosi Imli Bai resides with deceased Mukesh's father, as stated earlier these are uncontroverted facts.Therefore, we hold that it is conclusively proved that deceased Mukesh remained in the company of the appellant from the evening of 17.08.2003 till 18.08.2003 at about 10:00 A.M., the time when his dead body was found.(14)Anil Vajpayee (PW-6), the investigating officer of the case, has stated that upon the outcome of the Marg enquiry he arrested the appellant on 27.08.2003 vide arrest memo Ex.P-15 in the presence of witnesses namely Shyamlal and Dama.On the same day, he interrogated the appellant.At that time, the appellant revealed amongst other things that he had buried deceased Mukesh's wearing clothes and a pair of scissors on the bank of a water canal that flows through underneath a culvert situated on the Mohra Road.Thereupon, he prepared the disclosure statement Ex.P-12, (15) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 in which he has written all the particulars in his words which the appellant furnished during the interrogation.Later on, the appellant, the aforesaid witnesses and he went to the said place.This witness has flatly refuted the allegation.After going through his cross-examination, we find that there is nothing adverse to disbelieve his evidence.(15)Both the witnesses Shyamlal (PW-1) and Dama (PW-2) have corroborated the aforestated evidence given by Investigating Officer Anil Vajpayee.The defence has criticized the credibility of their evidence on the ground that Shyamlal is the father of deceased Mukesh and the relation between Shyamlal and Dama is like the son-in-law and the father-in-law.Upon the perusal of their cross-examinations, we find that the defence has not elicited any evidence in (16) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 their favour to discredit their testimonies on the point of said seizure.(16)Both the witnesses have also stated in their evidence that they have identified the clothes of deceased Mukesh.Therefore, after placing full reliance upon his evidence, we hold that it is conclusively proved that deceased Mukesh was subjected to an attempt of sodomy/anal sex first and thereafter he was murdered by strangulation.Upon putting together the aforesaid circumstantial evidence, we find that a complete chain is formed which unerringly points out that it is the appellant who had first made an attempt to have anal sex with deceased Mukesh and thereafter he murdered him by strangulation.We, therefore, proceed to explore the appellant's motive behind the murder of deceased Mukesh.As per seizure memo Ex.P-14, I.O. Anil Vajpayee seized from personal search of the appellant two chilams amongst other things.(19)(19)Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 04 7 /2 00 4 As per common knowledge, a chilam is used for smoking Ganja.Autopsy surgeon Dr. M.K. Ghormare has stated that he had found a swelling of size 3'' X 3'' around the anal area of deceased Mukesh (see injury No. xvi).On the basis of the said injury, he has opined that deceased Mukesh was subjected to an attempt of anal sex.Upon his opinion, we can say with a certitude that the appellant made an attempt to have anal sex with deceased Mukesh and in order to screen his said abominable act from deceased Mukesh's parents, grandparents and the society at large, he murdered him by strangling his neck.Thus, we hold that the motive behind the murder of deceased Mukesh by the appellant was to screen his act of attempted anal sex with him. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,132,526 | (SHER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) 4 Jabalpur, Dated : 01-07-2020 (Through Video Conferencing) Mr. N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.Mr. Utkarsh Agrawal, learned P.L. for the State.This appeal has been filed by the appellants in connection with Crime No.33/2020 for offences U/s.294, 323, 506, 436 R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C. and U/s.3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(4) of the SC/ST Act registered at P.S. Badi, Distt.The appellants are in judicial custody since 26.2.2020 in the aforementioned case.But for the offence U/s.436 of the I.P.C., all the offences registered against the appellants are bailable in nature.The allegation against the appellants is that they entered into an altercation with the complainant, abused him and caused simple injuries and threatened him with dire consequences and also committed arson by burning the roof of the complainant's hut.The Jail authorities shall have the appellants checked by the Jail Signature Not Verified doctor to ensure that they not suffering from the corona-virus and if SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2020.07.01 14:39:43 IST 2 CRA-2355-2020 they are, they shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment.If not, they shall be transported to their place of residence by the Jail authorities.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,142,299 | This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relatingto FIR in Crime No.183 of 2016 dated 31.03.2016 on the file of the Inspectorof Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District and quash thesame.It is seen that a case in Crime No.183 of 2016 for the allegedoffences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act,has been registered against the petitioner / Accused.If the compromise isentertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.?Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated26.04.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedingsagainst the petitioner, who is the sole accused in this case in Crime No.183of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 26.04.2016 shall form part of this order.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 506 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. |
156,819,863 | Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed to this extent. | ['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. |
156,844,233 | By order of sentence dated 7th October, 2013, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment but no fine has been imposed.The impugned judgment and the prosecution primarily rely upon the testimonies of Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) who were residing with the appellant Munna Pandit and the deceased Megh Nath Pandit at factory No. 193, Sector 3, DSIDC Bawana, Delhi.Mukesh (PW7) from his mobile phone with sim card of Megh Nath, made a telephone call to Munna but could not speak due to inadequate balance.Thereupon, appellant Munna called Mukesh (PW7).Munna was informed that Megh Nath had been killed.B. Appellant and deceased though brothers used to quarrel with each other.On 13-14th April, 2011, Munna Pandit had learnt on telephone that his son had expired.He demanded money from Megh Nath to go to the village.Megh Nath had refused stating that it would serve no purpose and his child would not be reborn.Appellant had then retorted that Megh Nath would understand if he had a child.Megh Nath, responded by asking "whether the appellant knew that the child was his?" On 3 rd May, 2011, in the morning both of them had quarreled and appellant had threatened Megh Nath that he would kill him.They had then intervened and thereafter left for work.Kapil Dev (PW22) is on similar lines.However, as per the police version there was a lot of blood in the room where the body of the deceased was found.Blood had spilled all over the wall, clothes etc. The appellant had visited the room along with Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7).Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) are not the eye witnesses and do not claim that they had seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased but have deposed about purported motive and extra judicial confession made to them by the appellant.The prosecution also relies upon recovery of blood stained clothes of the Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 1 of 14 appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex. PW17/A) and the FSL report (Ex. PW 22/D and PW22/E), as per which human blood of group O was found on the T-shirt (Ex. 9B) recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement.Appeal 100/2009 Page 1 of 14We have examined the statements of Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) but observe that their court depositions on the question of motive and extra judicial confession are untrustworthy, if not dubious.Both Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) were working in factory No. H-167, Sector 3, Bawana and belonged to the same village as that of the appellant and the deceased.They have deposed that on 3rd May, 2011, both of them returned from duty at about 9.15 PM and found Megh Naths dead body in a pool of blood.The appellant Munna was not present there.They came down and went back to their factory where they met with one Ashok (PW3).Within a few minutes, the appellant came to the factory H-193 Sector 3, DSIDC, Bawana and all of them went up to the room.The said Raj Kumar Jha did not depose and appear as a witness.It is claimed that Raj Kumar Jha had a stall outside the factory/residence, where the appellant, deceased, PW6 and PW7 used to live.Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) have stated Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 2 of 14 A. The appellant had confessed to Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) that he had committed the murder and threatened/warned them not to tell this fact to the police or they would also suffer the same consequences.Appeal 100/2009 Page 2 of 14Learned counsel for the appellant has contested the testimony of Lal Babu Shah (PW-6) and Mukesh (PW-7) on A and B above for several reasons and grounds.We find merit in the said submissions for reasons set out below.(a) The FIR in question was registered on the basis of statement made by the appellant-Munna Pandit, which was converted into Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 3 of 14 rukka and thereupon tehrir was written and First Information Report was recorded on 4th May, 2011 at 15 minutes past mid night (Exhibit PW-1/B).It is apparent that till then, PWs-6 and 7 had not uttered a word about the alleged extra judicial confession.Appeal 100/2009 Page 3 of 14There was no cause, ground or reason for the appellant to make the said confession.In fact, his confession or admission would have surely implicated and ensured his arrest.(d) There is no evidence or material to show that the appellant had developed emotional bonding and relied upon PW-6 and PW-7 for support.(e) PWs 6 and 7 both were also suspects.(f) PWs-6 and 7 have deposed that the appellant had threatened them not to tell the police about the confession/motive otherwise they would be killed in the same manner.This again is rather abnormal and strange as it is apparent that PWs- 6 and 7 were friends and were two in number.In case any such threat was extended, PW-6 and PW-7 could/would have immediately spoken as they were the suspects and involvement Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 4 of 14 of the appellant was not contemplated or doubted till the FIR was recorded.Appeal 100/2009 Page 4 of 14(g) PWs-6 and 7 have deposed about the motive and the cause why appellant-Munna Pandit had killed his brother.On the said aspect/motive, we are constrained to make the following observations:-(Exhibit PW-7/D1) was recorded after the arrest of the appellant on 4th May, 2011 at 8 P.M. vide arrest memo (Exhibit PW-17/D).PW-7 in his statement (Exhibit PW- 7/D1) did not mention regarding death of the child of appellant, request for money, refusal of Megh Nath and the words purportedly exchanged between the deceased and the appellant.(iii) Similarly, we have examined the two statements of Lal Babu Shah (PW-6) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even in the second statement of PW-6, which was recorded after the arrest/disclosure statement of the appellant, there were no such averments.PW-6, however, was not confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the cross-examination.(iv) Both PWs-6 and 7, it appears, have exaggerated and have made up a story of death of the child of Munna Pandit in Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 5 of 14 the village and the resultant conversation, which became the motive for the appellant-Munna to kill his brother.Thus, we have grave doubt and hesitation in believing the said story regarding death of the child of Munna Pandit and the resultant conversation between the appellant-Munna and Megh Nath as true and correct.No question was put to Munna Pandit in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. relating to death of his son and consequent exchange of words between him and the appellant.It appears that the trial court felt that the aforesaid facts have not been proved or were beyond the charge-sheet as originally filed.Appeal 100/2009 Page 5 of 14(h) It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove motive in each case, yet motive may have relevance when it is alleged that the appellant; brother of the deceased, was responsible and was the killer.As per the prosecution version this was a cause and reason, which had propelled and moved the appellant-Munna to commit the said offence.However, the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved and established the cause or motive.As per Police Control Room form (Exhibit PW-13/A) call was received at No. 100 at about 2221 hours wherein the caller had informed that "perhaps a boy has been murdered, 3-4 boys had come to commit the murder and the wall is smeared with blood".As per the prosecution, the said call was made by one Raj Kumar Jha, who was running a small shop outside factory No. 193, Sector 3, DSIDC Bawana, Delhi.The said Raj Kumar Jha could not be produced as a witness because he was untraceable (see order dated 16th October, 2012 of the trial court).Thus, as per Police Control Room form, one Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 6 of 14 Raj Kumar Jha had informed that, 3-4 boys had probably committed the murder.PW6 and PW7s assertion that the said Raj Kumar Jha had stated wrong facts at the behest of the appellant is again unnatural and not acceptable.It is in this context, that the prosecution probably felt the necessity to refer and rely upon the motive which had propelled the appellant to commit the said offence.On motive, Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) in their statements under Section 161 Cr.The said Raj Kumar Jha did not appear as a witness, as it was stated that he was untraceable.Hence, the aforesaid assertion by PW6 and PW7 remains uncertain.Appeal 100/2009 Page 11 of 14The last piece of corroborative evidence in the present case relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of blood stained clothes Crl.Blood stains normally should have come on the clothes worn by the appellant if he had gone to the room or on the clothes of the appellant which were lying in the room.In the photographs, blood on the clothes lying in the room is visible.No independent witnesses were present at the time of recovery of the said clothes.In these circumstances, presence of the blood etc. on the clothes, do not inspire confidence and grave doubt persists/remains.Appeal 100/2009 Page 12 of 14The Trial Court in the impugned judgment has referred to the last seen theory and failure of the appellant to offer any explanation for an additional or missing link evidence.The deceased Megh Nath used to reside in the property where he was found murdered.The appellant had gone to work and was working when this information was received.The appellants working hours were from 9 PM to 9 AM every day.Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) had gone to the said room and as per their testimony Megh Nath Pandit was found lying in a pool of blood.FIR in question was lodged on the statement of the appellant.The appellant Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 13 of 14 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that he had very cordial relations with his brother and they were staying together.They did not have any argument or quarrel.He came to know about the murder of his brother through his roommates Lal Babu Shah (PW6) and Mukesh (PW7) and they might have killed him.He fully cooperated and remained in the house.We do not think that in the facts of the present case, the onus by any stretch can be put on to the appellant to explain and state how the deceased was murdered.This would be contrary to law.In addition, Police Control Room form (Ex. PW13/A) recorded at 22.21 hours records a different set of facts as stated/informed by Raj Kumar Jha.Appeal 100/2009 Page 13 of 14In view of the aforesaid reasons, we accept the present appeal and conviction of the appellant Munna Pandit for murder of his brother Megh Nath Pandit on 3rd May, 2011, is set aside.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (G. P. MITTAL) JUDGE May 13, 2014 Kkb/VKR Crl.Appeal 100/2009 Page 14 of 14Appeal 100/2009 Page 14 of 14 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,846,252 | The prosecution case in short is that on 23.11.2012 at about 02:00 am the complainant-Neha Gupta was alone at her house.Her husband was in the fields.When she went to throw the debris, out of 2 Cr.R. No.3381 of 2015 her house, at that time the applicant came there.He caught hold her hand and squeezed her breast.When the complainant started crying, the applicant fled away from there.The complainant received injury on her wrist from bangles.The complainant (PW-1) stated that on 24.11.2012 during day time at about 02:00 pm when she was busy with house hold activities at that point of time applicant-Sunil came over there and 4 Cr.Shri L.C. Chourasiya, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent.An FIR was lodged by the complainant under Crime No.164/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 506-B of IPC.After due investigation the applicant was charge-sheeted.2 Cr.R. No.3381 of 2015Learned trial Court framed the charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 (two counts) and 506 Part-II of IPC.The applicant abjured his guilt and therefore, he has set for trial.During trial prosecution examined complainant-Smt.Neha Gupta (PW-1), Tulsidas (PW-2), Dinesh (PW-3), Matadeen (PW-4), Dr. Kamlesh (PW-5) and Narayan Das.(PW-6) and exhibited documents Exh.P-1 and Exh.Defence does not choose any witness.The learned trial Judge after appreciation of the prosecution evidence, recorded the judgment of conviction against the applicant for the offence under Sections 354 and 323 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid but acquitted the applicant for the charge punishable under Section 506 Part-II of IPC.Against which the appeal has been preferred by the applicant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the applicant under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC (with regard to injured-Dinesh) and sentenced him as stated above, hence, this revision.The learned Courts below erred in relying upon 3 Cr.R. No.3381 of 2015 the testimony of prosecution witnesses namelyTulsidas (PW-2), Dinesh (PW-3) and Matadeen (PW-4) as they clearly stated in their cross- examination that they are not present at the place of incident.The judgment delivered by the learned Courts below is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.Finally, it is averred that revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC.3 Cr.R. No.3381 of 2015R. No.3381 of 2015 caught hold her hand and squeezed her breast, she also stated when she raised alarm, applicant fled away and during incident her bangles were also broken.She also clarified that on her written report (Ex.P-4) FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered, seizure memo (Ex.P-2) with regard to broken piece of bangles and spot map (Ex.P-3) were also prepared.During her elaborate cross-examination she clarified all the questions raised by the defence.4 Cr.R. No.3381 of 2015Tulsidas (PW-2), husband of the prosecutrix and Dinesh (PW-3), brother of Tulsidas also supported the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1).Head Constable Narayan Das (PW-6) also supported the factum of seizure and broken piece of bangles and preparation of spot map.Other discrepancies which have been highlighted do not really earn the status of contraction to make the evidence of prosecution witnesses impeachable, incredible or not beyond reproach.Therefore, the conviction of the applicant as referred herein above deserves to be maintained.Now, the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence.The legislation in its wisdom does not prescribe any such minimum period of sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC.Only fine can be imposed for these offences.5 Cr.R. No.3381 of 20155 Cr.R. No.3381 of 2015It is apparent from the perusal of the record at the time of incident on 23.11.2012 age of the applicant was mentioned 20 years and he is facing this criminal trial for four years and running in his thirties.The revision, to that extent, is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified.The applicant is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged. | ['Section 354 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. |
156,848,170 | Sections 193, 209 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Kolkata.The facts giving rise to this application are very briefly stated hereinafter.Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as TISCO filed an application for winding up of the petitioner company being C.P. No.277 of 2004 in this Court.In the said application, it was alleged that a sum of Rs.30,78,781/- was due and payable by the petitioner to TISCO.The petitioner claims to have filed an Affidavit-in- Opposition making a counter claim.It was alleged that the petitioner had done various jobs for the respondent No.2 for which various amounts were claimed.An Affidavit-in-Reply was filed on behalf of the TISCO refuting the counter claim raised in the affidavit of the petitioner.Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the Affidavit-in- Reply various false averments have been made.According to the Counsel, the following false averments have been made in the said Affidavit-in-Reply:(ii) In paragraph 3(e), 11 and 14 in the said affidavit dated 17.09.2004 the respondent No.1 again most falsely stated that the petitioner was not entitled to get any amount on account of commission or on any other account.(iv) In paragraph 15 in the said affidavit dated 17.09.2004 the respondent No.1 finally most falsely claimed that the petitioner had no claim against the respondent no.2 in any respect whatsoever."The winding up application was taken up on 14 th October, 2004, when the claim of TISCO was admitted for a sum of Rs.19,16,444 odd along with interest at 6% on and from 10 th March, 2003 till payment to the petitioner.TISCO later filed an Execution Case No.51 of 2005 and recovered its alleged dues to the extent allowed by this Court. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,686,478 | P.W. 10 saw in Travancore certain lottery tickets similar to Exs.P-83 series and was led to believe that a lottery would be held.He then purchased from P.W. 9 Exs.P-83 series and paid cash for them.The accused never held the lottery.P.W. 9 was, according to his evidence, the outright purchaser of the tickets--P-83 series--from the accused and was not a mere agent to sell the tickets on their behalf.For the purpose of deciding the preliminary question of jurisdiction the truth of this evidence must, of course, be assumed. | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,655,746 | Heard on the question of admission.Record be called for.Heard on I.A. No.7456/15 an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and release the appellant on bail.The appellant has been convicted by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Sessions Trial No. 73/2010 vide judgment dated 21.08.2015 and sentenced as follows:-He has not misused the same.He will be given the benefit of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.Cr.A. No. 787/2015 Keeping in view the appeal will take a considerabel time for decision I.A.No.7456/15 is allowed and it is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended till the disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail on depositing the fine amount (if not deposited) and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for regular appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 03.11.2015 and thereafter on such dates as may be fixed by the office for his presence during the pendency of this case.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge mani | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,686,598 | As is revealed in this very case, from the other orders and it is inconceivable on record that an Executive Magistrate at Hatpipliya would give the title to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagli to an order passed by him.Even copying it is said needs a certain degree of application of mind but that too is missing.As admitted the record had to be re-arranged for being produced in this Court.It appears that a slipshod attempt was made for inserting this statement; otherwise this bail application, should have found its place at page 13, as originally given thereon.It is not possible to make out as to when this notice was in fact issued, put in despatch for being served on the non-applicants and to whom was it addressed for service and who in fact effected the service.At this stage it would be worthwhile to record that the non-applicants were already in custody, as they were arrested for an alleged offence under Section 307, I. P. C.On 14-8-85 a memo of appearance was filed on behalf of the non-applicants by their Advocate. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,671,191 | Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have decided to reside together.DATE : 02.11.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.] 1] Heard.Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.2] This Application is filed with the following prayer:B] The complaint bearing Crime No.161/2017 dated 15.5.2017, registered at Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable u/sec.498-A, 323, 504, ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:43:33 ::: 4742.2017 Cri.Appln.odt 3 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., may kindly be quashed and set-aside.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:43:33 :::3] Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, respondent no.2 has caused appearance through her Advocate.She has filed affidavit in respect of terms of compromise duly verified before the Registrar [Judicial] of this Court.The affidavit is already placed on record.On specific query to respondent no.2, who is present in the Court, she stated that it is her voluntary act to file affidavit and pray therein to quash the First Information Report.She further stated that already she is residing in the matrimonial home with applicant no.1 since 1 month.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:43:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:43:33 :::5] Keeping in view the judgment in the case of Gian Singh [supra], we are inclined to allow this application.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:43:33 :::4742.2017 Cri.Appln.odt 7 6] Accordingly, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B. Rule is made absolute on above terms.The application stands disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:43:33 ::: | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 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. |
168,671,544 | This realizationis one‘s signature and self-determined design.The natural identity of an individual should be treated to beabsolutely essential to his being.Then about penetration.Creating awareness about mental health and illness and reducing stigma associated with mental illness.The appropriate Government shall take all measures to ensure that,—For members of the community, hostility andexclusion aimed at them, drive them into hiding, away from public expressionand view.The group consists of persons from the LGBTQ community.Emanating from the133 Ibid.He also had to endure “a local prayer group that visited the warddaily to provide spiritual support to patients” which “prayed at his bedside torectify his “devious” sexuality.When he requested that they leave, or that hebe transferred to another ward, the nurses did not intervene, and the prayergroup visited regularly to continue to recite their homophobic prayers.The nurse at the hospital asked certainquestions to discern potential risk behaviours.When asked why she did notuse condoms or contraception, P revealed that she did not need to on accountof her sexuality.The nurse immediately exclaimed that P was not at risk forHIV, and that she should “go home and not waste her time any longer.” P hasnot attempted to have another HIV test since.202These examples are illustrative of a wider issue: individuals across the worldare denied access to equal healthcare on the basis of their sexual orientation.The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.There shall beno order as to costs.Between 1806, when reliable figures begin, and 1900,8,921 men were indicted for sodomy, gross indecency or other‘unnatural misdemeanours’ in England and Wales.Ninety menper year were, on average, indicted for homosexual offences in 5 this period.About a third as many were arrested and their case considered by magistrates.Most of the men convicted were imprisoned, but between 1806 and 1861, when the death penalty for sodomy was finally abolished, 404 men were sentenced to death.A charter ofmorality made their relationships hateful.an affidavit.”111 The Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador was the first Constitutional Courtin the Global South to decriminalise sodomy laws.254 The constitutionality ofArticle 516 of the Penal Code, which penalised “cases of homosexualism, thatdo not constitute rape”, was challenged before the Tribunal.253 Robert Wintemute, “Same-Sex Love and Indian Penal Code §377: An Important Human Rights Issue for India” National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, (2011). | ['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,686,791 | JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. 798/2000 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' in short), registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar on 19-09-2000 and the trial going on in the Court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi.The complainant respondent No. 2 Page 3021 herein had alleged in her complaint to the police on 19-9-2000 that at the time of marriage no demand for dowry was made but two days after her marriage with petitioner No. 1 all the petitioners started harassing, taunting and torturing her for bringing less dowry and not fulfillling their expectations which forced her to lodge an FIR.After the completion of the investigation challan was filed in Court and the trial is going on in the Court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, MM, Rohini.During the pendency of the above said criminal proceedings, complainant and the petitioners after having resolved their claims, disputes have arrived at an amicable settlement as regards the custody of the child, maintenance, stridhan/dowry articles etc. and then respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent.Since the offences for which the petitioners were being prosecuted were not compoundable as per the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR and the resultant criminal proceedings in Court.Notice of the petition was sent to the State and respondent No. 2-complainant.Although office report Respondent No. 2 appeared in person on 11-9-2007 before this Court and she affirmed that disputes have been amicably resolved and so she is no more interested in pursuing her case against any of the petitioners nor had she any claim of any kind against anyone of the petitioners. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,680,146 | Ct.28 RP 100 CRM 13156 of 2017 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.12.2017 in connection with Baranagar P.S. Case No.876 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017 under Sections 498A/354/354B/323/427/384/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Anjali Manna & Ors..... Petitioners Mr. Debasish Kundu, Adv...... For the Petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Adv.Ms. Sima Biswas, Adv.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,681,403 | (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Belghoria P.S. Case No. 960 of 2017 dated 09/11/2017 under Sections 366A/370/370A/376/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections /3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and under Sections 17/18 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of: - Mampi Dhali @ Mampi Dhole @ Mamon ....petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,880,070 | There are chances of conciliation.FIR is delayed, the victim herself jumped from the window to commit suicide.It was the husband and his mother, who took her to the treatment and saved her life.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.According to prosecution version, on 29.8.2013 at 11.00 p.m. from the house of the present applicant, situate at Buddheshwar Mohan Road within P.S. Para, District Lucknow, Smt. Julie was thrown from the window of the second storey of the house on the road by the present applicant (brother-in-law), husband and mother-in-law.There are allegations that husband, present applicant and family members were harassing, beating and torturing Smt. Julie for dowry.The case was registered on 2.9.2013, under sections 498-A, 323, 325, 307, IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,888,065 | Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Sunni @ Sunil in Crime No.161/2018 registered by P.S. Damoh Dehat, District Damoh under Sections 456, 354A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 27 years old married woman with two children.At about 11:00 p.m. on 10.03.2018, she was sleeping in her room.Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping in the adjacent room.At that time, the petitioner entered her room and embraced her.He caught hold of her hands.When the prosecutrix shouted, her mother-in-law Kusumrani and father-in-law Gopal arrived on the spot.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Sunni @ Sunil, is allowed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,885,264 | None for victim, though noticed.Case diary perused.This first appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Dindori.The allegations of the prosecution is that on 6.7.2018 at about 9:00 am applicant had restrained the prosecutrix aged about 15 years 2 months and 24 days in the village Paudi, under the jurisdiction of police station Dindori when she was going to get the admission in the school and taken her to Budhar.He had also beaten and threatened her.It is alleged that he had made obscene and objectionable conversation with her.It is also alleged that the applicant had taken her to the back side of the house of his maternal uncle with bad intention, but the Budhar Police had reached there and interrogated him.On that the applicant has misguided the police by saying that they both are in love relation and prosecutrix has come with him with her own consent, but the prosecutrix has narrated the real thing to the police.On that basis concerned police had taken them to police station Dindori from where the police had left the prosecutrix to her parents house and lateron, on the basis of The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A.No.9851/2018 (Ameen Khan Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 written complaint of prosecutrix the police had registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant and arrested him.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.The prosecutrix has gone with him with her consent.He is a permanent resident of the address shown in the appeal and is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for State has opposed the appeal for grant of bail.Though there are allegations of taking the prosecutrix with him against the appellant, but it is not alleged that any overt-act has been committed by the appellant for outraging her modesty or tried for any offence of graver nature.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed.The impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Dindori dated 20.11.2018 is set aside and it is directed that the appellant Ameen Khan shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the appellant.Consequently, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and disposed of.C.C., as per rules. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,688,936 | The appellant, who is convicted for having committed murder of his wife Nita, was married to her about 7 or 8 years back.According to the prosecution, after the birth of the eldest son, the appellant who was unemployed, got addicted to liquor and in an inebriated condition, used to assault his wife principally on account of demand for money made by the deceased wife for meeting the household expenses.According to the prosecution, things continued in this manner and ultimately on 3.2.1994 at about 4 p.m. in the residential house of the accused situated in Somnathpura in Rajura Tahsil, District Chandrapur, the appellant is alleged to have quarreled with the deceased and had asked his son P.W. 2 Deepak to fetch a match-box from the shop and after Deepak had brought the match-box, the appellant is alleged to have poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze.The prosecution further alleges that the appellant thereafter wrapped a blanket around the deceased and extinguished the flame.On the pretext of informing the relatives, the appellant is alleged to have left his residential house.P.W. 9 Gaurabai Atram, who was the neighbour of the deceased, reached the house of the appellant while the accused was extinguishing the flame.P.W. 10 Shantabai, another neighbour of the deceased, had taken the deceased to the hospital.Since the deceased had suffered burns, the doctor at Rajura had advised that the deceased be shifted to the General Hospital at Chandrapur.The deceased, accordingly, was admitted in the General Hospital at Chandrapur.P.W. 11 - PSI Raghunath Fuge, who was on patrolling duty, received a message from the Rajura Police Station, informing him about the admission of the said lady in the Rajura Hospital.P.W. 11, accordingly, rushed to the Rajura Hospital, but was informed that the deceased had been shifted to Chandrapur Hospital, and he, therefore, proceeded to Chandrapur Hospital.PSI Fuge then recorded the statement of Nita, the deceased, and sent his report to the PSI Rajura.JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/original accused in Session Case No. 110 of 1994, challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Joint District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, is default to suffer R.I. for six months, respectively.During investigation, P.W. 5 Sudhakar Rotkar, Naib Tahsildar, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.The original dying declaration of the deceased was sent in a sealed envelope to the police.P.W. 1 Dr. Ramchandra Jakkipelli, who had examined the appellant on 9.2.1994, had found three superficial wounds.According to P.W. 1, the age of the injuries was more than two days, but less than 5 to 6 days.P.W. 1 had opined that these injuries were possible by burn.After the death of Nita on 14.2.1994, the inquest panchanama Exh. 11 came to be drawn.Another piece of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution relies heavily, is the seizure of the clothes of the deceased and the appellants, on which kerosene was detected by the Chemical Analyser.The trial Court framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.In respect of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution examined P.W. 3 Bhima, father of the deceased Nita, and P.W. 4 Ganpat, the brother of deceased Nita.In respect of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution examined P.W. 2 Deepak, son of the appellant and the deceased Nita, P.W. 8 Dadaji Dhandare, who had recorded the statement of the deceased, P.W. 5 Sudhakar Rotkar, Naib Tahsildar, who recorded the dying declaration Article 11, P.W. 9 Gaurabai and P.W. 10 Shantabai, neighbours of deceased Nita, who had rushed to her house on seeing smoke coming out of the house of the deceased and of course, P.W. 11 Raghunath Fuge, the Investigating Officer.For offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court found that on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, the prosecution had proved that the appellant had treated his wife deceased Nita with cruelty and was demanding money to be fetched by her from her father.On the basis of this, therefore, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.With the assistance of Mr. M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. K.S. Dhote, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, we have gone through the entire record comprising of the exhibited documents and testimonies of the witnesses.At the outset, we agree with the submissions advanced by Mr. M.R. Daga, that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved by the prosecution.The evidence of P.W. 3 Bhima and P.W. 4 Ganpat is extremely vague and ingredients of Section 498A have not been proved by the prosecution.On the material aspect P.W. 3 Bhima, father of the deceased, has made improvements when he states that he had not informed the police that after the birth of P.W. 2 Deepak, the appellant began ill-treating and beating deceased Nita, and that P.W. 3 used to give grains to Nita whenever the deceased was in need.P.W. 3 Bhima also states that the deceased, on Inquiry, had told him that the appellant had burnt her.In the cross-examination, he admits that he had not lodged any report on 4.2.1994 when the deceased is alleged to have made an oral declaration to him.We feel it highly unsafe to rely on Bhima (P.W. 3) for the purpose of conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, or for the purpose of relying on the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased.The evidence of P.W. 4 Ganpat, brother of deceased, according to us is wholly insufficient for proving the offence under Section 498A of I.PC.Again vague and omnibus allegations are made of ill-treatment by the appellant, beating of the deceased under intoxication by the appellant.P.W. 4 Ganpat had also produced two letters, Articles 9 and 10, alleged to have been written by the deceased Nita.The Trial Court found that the prosecution had not been able to prove that these were the letters sent by deceased Nita to P.W. 4 Ganpat and accordingly no reliance was placed on these two letters.After giving our anxious consideration to the evidence against the offence under Section 498A, I.PC.we are made unable to agree with the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the appellant will, therefore, have to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C.Now in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302/I.P.C. Mr. Dhote, the learned A.P.P. for the State, has submited that Exh. 40, the First Information Report, in which the statement of the deceased Nita is reproduced, in unequivocal terms referred to the act of the appellant in setting the deceased ablaze.Before adverting to Exh. 40, it will be useful to make a reference to evidence of P.W. 8 Dadaji Dhandare, who is alleged to have recorded the statement P.W. 8 Dadaji, in clearest possible terms, has admitted that he had not obtained any endorsement of the Medical Officer that deceased Nita was in a fit condition to give her statement.He also admits that he had not taken any endorsement from any Medical Officer of the ward in which deceased Nita was admitted, before the deceased had made a statement to him.Apart from these lacunas, we find further infirmity in accepting this statement Exh. 40 and the infirmity is that before recording the statement, P.W. 8 had found the mother of the deceased Nita present with her.This assumes great significance in view of the fact that P.W. 10 Shantabai, who had accompanied the deceased to the hospital, admits in cross-examination that when deceased Nita was admitted in the hospital at Rajura, the doctor had questioned the deceased regarding her injuries and the deceased had stated that she caught fire because of the sudden flame in the oven.This admission of P.W. 10 Shantabai, stands further corroborated by Exh. 42, which is a wireless message sent from Police Inspector, Rajura to Police Inspector, Chandrapur City, requesting them to record the dying declaration as the deceased had stated .that she had sustained bums while cooking food.In view of this oral dying declaration, which is earliest in the point of time, which was made to the Medical Officer by deceased Nita, the averments in Exh. 40 that the oral dying declaration had been made because of threat given by the appellant, assume importance as the mother of the deceased Nita was present when P.W. 8 Dadaji went to record her dying declaration.It is quite possible, therefore, according to us that Exh. 40 may be a creation because of tutoring of deceased Nita and for the reasons stated above, we feel it highly unsafe to accept this piece of evidence for sustaining the conviction for offence under Section 302 of I.PC.It is also extremely doubtful whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition when Exh. 40 was made as the prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer who was attending to deceased Nita in the hospital.The learned trial Judge has relied on Article 11, the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 5 Sudhakar Rotkar.As we have pointed out earlier, Article 11 is the xerox copy which was produced by P.W. 5 Sudhakar Rotkar.The Investigating Officer P.W. 11 Raghunath Fuge makes a vague statement that the original dying declaration was not found in the Police Station.Even otherwise, the Trial Court has not found it fit to exhibit Article 11 and consequently, the contents of Article 11 could not have been read in evidence.The next circumstance relied by the learned trial judge is the evidence of P.W. 2 Deepak, who is the son of the appellant and the deceased.P.W. 2 claims to be an eye-witness and states that on the day of the incident, he was at home.His father had come in an intoxicated condition and was assaulting his mother, deceased Nita.The appellant had asked P.W. 2 Deepak to fetch a match-box and after P.W. 2 Deepak had given the match-box to the appellant, the appellant had poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze.In the cross-examination, the child witness P.W. 2 Deepak admits that he had come to the Court along with his maternal grand-father.In para 6 of his deposition, he admits that his grand-mother and grand-father had told him to give evidence against his father and that his grand-father had told him to state that his father (the appellant) beat his mother and had burnt her.A child witness is certainly a competent witness to depose before the Court.The Court would be justified in convicting an accused on the basis of the evidence of a child witness.If the Court finds that the child witness has the capacity of understanding and gives truthful answers, a conviction could be based on the evidence of such child witness.In this case, we have absolutely no difficulty in rejecting the evidence of P.W. 2 Deepak for the reason that he admits that he had been tutored.Apart from this, P.W. 9 Gaurabai does not show presence of P.W. 2 Deepak in the house at the time when the deceased is alleged to have been set ablaze.In fact, P.W. 9 Gaurabai says that when she had gone to the house of deceased Nita, at that time, Deepak was in the house of one Jitendra.This delay has gone unexplained by the prosecution and, therefore, submission of Mr. M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant that version given by P.W. 2 Deepak is not a true version as possibility that he had been tutored to give such version could not be ruled out, appears to be justified.We are left with the last circumstanced i.e. finding of traces of kerosene on the clothes of the appellant and that of the deceased.The C.A. report at Exh. 32 does show the presence of kerosene on the clothes of the appellant and the deceased.According to us, this is not substantive evidence.Since we have held that P.W. 2 Deepak cannot be relied upon as also the dying declaration cannot be accepted, according to us, this lone circumstance is by itself insufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result, therefore, we allow the appeal and quash and set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1994 and acquit him of the aforesaid charges.The appellant be set at liberty forthwith and amount deposited if any, be refunded to the appellant. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,688,994 | Arti was an extremely accomplished person.She had a very impressive academic record.She had also excelled in the extra-curricular activities.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner had spent a lot of money in the marriage of deceased Arti and gave her goods and articles much beyond his capacity.On June, 1998 when Arti came to her parental house, she informed her mother that her in-laws had high expectations about the dowry and were passing oblique remarks.It is also stated in the petition that on the eve of Karvachauth, the petitioner's wife came to Delhi and brought a lot of things for her newly married daughter.She also gave a cash amount of Rs.10,000/-.It is stated in the petition that Arti insisted her mother to take her to Jammu as she was not willing to stay in her matrimonial house due to atrocities inflicted on her by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members.It is further stated that the petitioner's wife tried her level best to sort out the differences between her daughter and her in-laws.At that time Arti told her mother that her husband and other family members used to harass her and had even started man-handling her with abusive words.Rakesh Bali, husband of the deceased, demanded Rs.2 lakhs as he was in urgent and desperate need of money.The petitioner's wife told Rakesh Bali, her son-in-law that , they belonged to a service class family and they were unable to arrange the money at the 11th hour.It is further stated that on every occasion the petitioner used to give gifts and cash to the family members of Rakesh Bali.It is stated that on 17.5.1999 the petitioner's wife received a telephone call from his daughter Arti telling her that she is facing cruelty and atrocities at the hands of her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and she would not survive and apprehends her death, at any time in her matrimonial house.On 28.5.1999, the sister-in-law of Arti rang up at the petitioner's house and informed that Arti had swallowed some poisonous substance and she was unwell.The petitioner called up at the matrimonial house of Arti and was informed by respondent No.5 that Arti had committed suicide in her bed room by hanging herself with her dupatta.I gave Rs. 4 to 5 thousand to mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and to my daughter.At that time my daughter asked me to take her to Jammu and said that she will not come back to Jammu for the reason that her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law used to beat her Along with her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.I purchased wrist watch for Arti's husband for Rs.3,500/= and gold nose pin of 4 gms and one silver pen for Rakesh on his birthday and sent it to them.Rakesh told that you must have spent some amount, but you should also send cash.After that on the occasion of Lohri festival I gave goods worth Rs. 2-3 thousand Along with cash of Rs.2,000/-.When my daughter was pregnant, I had sent my younger daughter Shivani to Delhi with clothes and cash of Rs.5,000/= to be delivered to these persons, but Rakesh returned the clothes and mentioned that these are not of our standard.At that time the sister-in-law of Arti told that you had not given clothes of good quality, so in future instead, send money to us.Rakesh told my daughter Shivani that you should take your sister with you, I will perform another marriage.I went to my daughter's house after two or three days and I gave Rs.10,000/= in cash and goods worth Rs.2,000/= to these people and Rakesh also told me that he will get married again and send the boy to the hostel and will finish her.Arti told me that in case I go from Jammu I will not return back.Do not send me back otherwise they will kill me.I had a talk with my daughter on 17.5.1999 on telephone she told me that all these persons are maltreating me here and they are annoyed with her.On 28.5.1999 at about 2:30 p.m. Nandoi of Arti made a telephone call at my house and said that Arti is sick and serious so you and uncle must come immediately to Delhi by aeroplane.After that I made a telephone call at Arti's place, and her mother in law told me that Arti had put her Duppatta around her neck and gave no answer and cut off the telephone.After one and half an hour I received another telephone call from the Nandoi of Arti and was informed that Arti had died.ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J.This is a petition under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the unfortunate father of Arti, who had committed suicide on 28.5.1999 about one year after the marriage.The petitioner -father of the deceased- is aggrieved by the order passed by Shri R.S.Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent No.3 (Rakesh Bali) on 6.8.1999 and granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.4 to 9 on 31.7.1999 & 4.8.1999 in a case where there are clear and specific allegations that the unfortunate incident of Arti's death had taken place because of harassment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry.According to the petitioner, the court was not justified in granting bail to Rakesh Bali and anticipatory bail to the other accused persons, particularly, when there was so much material on record regarding the harassment of the deceased on account of demand of dowry.The petitioner has prayed that the bail granted to Rakesh Bali be cancelled.He also prayed that the anticipatory bail granted to other co-accused persons be cancelled.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:Immediately, after hearing about the untimely death of Arti, the petitioner and other close family members rushed to Delhi.They informed their family friend Pramod Kumar Taneja regarding this unfortunate incident who in turn reported the matter to the police at Patel Nagar and a case under Section 498A/304B/34 of IPC was registered.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded the statements of the petitioner, his daughter Shivani and his wife Sanyogita Dutta.The SDM also directed the S.H.O. to register the case under the relevant provisions of the IPC.It is alleged in the petition that from the very beginning the investigating officer of the case and the SHO, Patel Nagar took no interest to get the case properly investigated.The Investigating Officer refused to accept the written statement submitted by the petitioner.The Investigating Officer also refused to receive the statement of Shri Mohsin Zaidi and warned him not to interfere in the process of law otherwise he would have to face dire consequences.It is mentioned that when the anticipatory bail petition was moved on behalf of the other accused before the learned A.S.J., the Investigating Officer of the police station Patel Nagar and the Public Prosecutor intentionally and deliberately with malafide intentions concealed the material facts of this case from the Court and even did not place the case diary of the Investigating Officer before the Court.All other accused persons who moved the bail application under Section 438 were granted bail by the order of the learned A.S.J.-Shri R.S. Verma.Six out of seven accused persons got anticipatory bail by the order of the learned A.S.J.. The learned A.S.J. -Shri R.S.Verma - on 6.8.1999 enlarged Rakesh Bali (husband of the deceased) on regular bail.It is also mentioned in this petition that on 22.8.1999, the petitioner's wife Along with her daughter and son were in Delhi and she was threatened by the accused persons.They warned her not to proceed with the case otherwise she and all others would have to face the dire consequences.They also threatened the petitioner that they are very influential people and they can get anything done which is impossible for a common man.They also indicated that they had already managed to get anticipatory bail and warned that in case anybody from the petitioner's family is found or seen in Delhi that person would be eliminated.A report of this incident was filed before the in charge, Police Post, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.Where the petitioner could not get any help from any quarter then the petitioner has moved this Court for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons.The relevant portion of the anticipatory bail order by which the six accused persons were granted anticipatory bail is reproduced as under:"Present: APP for the State.Counsel for the Applicant.IO Insp.Parvati is also present"In the order it is mentioned that the Inspector Parvati concedes that parents, brother and Bhabhi of the husband of the complainant have already been granted anticipatory bail.I.O. also concedes that there are no allegations of harassment caused to the deceased soon before her death on the ground of dowry demand.On the other hand, the defendants' counsel has placed on record the copies of the statements of the parents and brother of the deceased, as recorded by the S.D.M. which contains the allegations of harassment by the accused persons.It is pertinent to mention that Parwati Kaur, Inspector, Distt.Crime Cell West had filed an affidavit before this Court in which she had submitted that she carried out the investigations in this case.Paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit read as under:"That on 17th June, 1999 I appeared in the Hon'ble Court of ASJ Tis Hazari Court to attend the Anticipatory Bail Matter of Accused Yogesh Bali and Vinay Bali and again appeared on 29th July, 1999 for anticipatory bail of accused Vinay Bali and on 16.7.1999 for Regular Bail of accused Rakesh Bali who was under going the judicial custody and again on 5.8.1999 for accused Rakesh Bali.At all these occasions I filed my written reply strongly opposing the bail of the accused persons through APP for state and also pleaded for not granting bail to the accused person.Apart from it I also submitted my strong opposition for granting bail to the accused persons on 31.7.1999 and 6.8.1999 through APP when the Hon'ble Court had granted bail to the accused persons.That I had not concealed any fact of demand of dowry and allegations of being harassed by the accused person.I made my submissions in writing to the Hon'ble Court of ASJ Tis Hazari too opposing the bail application.In support of my version I place Photocopies of the reply submitted in the bail matters of accused persons.Copies of the same are filed herewith as Annexure-I collectively."It is submitted by the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have decided the case on the basis of the available record including the statements recorded by the S.D.M. instead of concession by the A.P.P. through the Investigating Officer.It may be pertinent to mention that the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit before this court categorically denying that she made no concession before the court.On the contrary she strongly opposed the bail applications.Some extracts of the statements recorded by the S.D.M. are reproduced to have the comprehensive view of the entire case.Ms Shivani Datta aged about 24 years, sister of deceased Arti was examined by the S.D.M.. The relevant portion reads as under:"I came to Delhi on 11.5.1999 with items of gifts and a cash of Rs.5,000/=. My sister told that, "My husband, my mother in law, father in law, brother in law and sister in law used to beat me and torture me.My brother in law started beating my sister before me, while she was pregnant and told me to take her with me.He also told me that I cannot tolerate her and I will make second marriage, and the sister in law of my sister asked me that we should bring cash instead of clothes, etc. My sister further told me that these people are harassing me for want of dowry and they can murder me also.Tell Mummy and papa that they pass oblique remarks on me and they ask for more money."The statement of the father of the deceased was also recorded by the S.D.M. The relevant portion of the statement of Balbir Singh Dutta reads as under:" When my daughter after her marriage came to Jammu Along with her husband, she also told me that her husband mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister in law are harassing her for bringing less dowry and they had not appreciated the dowry articles given to them.They did not allow her to meet her relatives and used to beat her even on trivial matters.I had suspicion that my daughter had been murdered by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law & sister-in-law and legal action be taken against them."The statement of Smt. Sanyogita Datta, mother of the deceased was also recorded.The relevant portions of the same is reproduced as under:"We had spent much more money on the Arti's marriage than our status.Yogesh Kumar, Rakesh and his mother Vinay Bali said that marriage should be solemnised in a good hotel so we arranged the marriage at 'Hotel City Palace', and performed ring ceremony in 'Hotel Kranti' which costed us about Rs.1,75,00/=. We gave Rs.65,000/= in cash and jewellery worth Rs. 75,000/= and clothes worth Rs.70,000/=. After the marriage Arti came in June, 1998 to our house Along with her husband and she told me that these people are highly temperamental and whatever had been given in dowry was disliked by these people.Best possible goods be, presented to these people.Arti's husband told me that the choice of the residents of Jammu is very sub-standard so you give us money in place of commodities.When my daughter and her husband left our house, I gave them articles of their choice along with cash.I went to Delhi on the eve of Karvachauth.Half an hour before I telephoned to Rajouri that Arti has consumed poison.I have a doubt that my daughter had been killed by her husband, mother in law, father in law and jeth for want of dowry."The S.D.M. also recorded the statement of Mohsin Zaidi s/o Yousuff Zaidi, a close family friend and whom deceased Arti treated like her brother and her (Arti) parents treated him as their son.The relevant portion of the statement reads as under:"Arti was married on 17.4.1998 at Jammu in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.Parents of girl had spent much money on the marriage beyond their limits.I used to talk with her once in a while after her marriage, she told me on telephone that her husband (Rakesh Bali) her mother-in-law (Vinay Bali) her father-in-law (Yogesh Bali) her elder brother-in-law Vikesh and Rinku (Jeth and his wife) used to torture me for want of dowry.I am too much harassed by them.Many a times my husband used to beat me at the instance of my mother in law jeth and jethani.I consoled Arti that every thing will be O.K.On 24.6.1999 Arti gave birth to a male child and in this regard I was informed by the father of Arti on telephone at my office and I was further informed that Arti is being maltreated at her matrimonial house for insufficient dowry so I should go and see her.On hearing this I went to Arti's house on 23.5.1999, it was Sunday, at Patel Nagar.Arti was residing with her in laws on the first floor.I saw that Arti was not well and she was frightened.I congratulated her on being a mother of a boy and enquired as to why she was so nervous.She with some difficulty told that ' My brother in laws are very cruel and greedy', she told me that they are demanding two lakhs of rupees from me and from my parents.In case the amount is not paid they will turn me out of the house.I told them that my father is not in a position to give me so much money.They had already spent a lot of money, on the marriage.On that my mother-in-law and father-in-law gave me severe beatings even my jethani did not spare me and beat me and my jeth witnessed the same quietly standing there.They had given me beating many a times and they had made my life hell.There was no joy in the family even when a boy was born.They kept torturing me and directed me to bring two lacs of rupees."The aforesaid statements were available with the learned Additional Sessions Judge when he decided the bail applications of the petitioners.In view of the these statements, no concession of any kind was required from the A.P.P. The concession even if was given is quite contrary to the available record of the case.The concerned Inspector who conducted the investigations - Ms Parwati Kaur has filed an affidavit before this court.She mentioned that a written reply strongly opposing the bail application of the accused persons was filed through the A.P.P. It is mentioned in the affidavit that she had strongly opposed the bail applications of these accused on all dates of hearings.In para 3 of the affidavit it is mentioned that she had not concealed any fact of demand of dowry and allegations of harassment by the accused persons.It is not necessary for this Court to decide the issue whether the A.P.P. on the instructions of the investigating officer had in fact made any concession or not.In view of the available material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have based his orders on the strength of the so called concession.The impugned orders dated 31.7.1999, 4.8.1999 and 6.8.1999 granting bail and anticipatory bail to the accused persons are accordingly set aside.However, the accused persons would be at liberty to move the learned Additional Sessions Judge again for the grant of bail.The concerned Court would be at liberty to decide the matter afresh on the available material on record.This petition is accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,905,716 | The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that F.I.R. was got registered on 22.08.2019 against the applicant.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) 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.(ii) 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 HIS UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Vikram | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,689,058 | ORDER S. Muralidhar, J.This petition under Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 16th March, 2001passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) summoning the Petitioner to face trial in Complaint Case No. 711/1 of 2008 titled Bhajan Singh Samra v. Kanwaljeet Singh Sidhu and Ors.under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.The complaint describes the complainant as a British citizen running a business of clothing, manufacturing and knitting of fabrics under the style of K and B Hosiery Company Coventry U.K. During his visit to India between 12th and 23rd March, 1994, the complainant was approached by Accused 1 to 3, including Petitioner 2 herein, that a company called M/s. Goodwill Foods Private Limited Petitioner No. 1 herein (of which they were Directors), was in need of money and that the complainant would be given an attractive rate of interest if he could lend the company some money.Based on this assurance, the complainant made available to the accused a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs on 8th December 1994 by way of a loan for a period of two years.At the expiry of the period of two years the complainant demanded repayment of the loan.The money was not returned but the accused suggested that the loan could be converted into shares in the company.Acting on this assurance and the assurance that the complainant would be made a director of the company, the complainant agreed to the proposal.Later in January 1997 when the complainant got apprehensive about the fate of his money, he got evasive replies from the accused.In June 1999 on visiting India and checking the records of the company, the complainant was shocked to learn that he was neither made a director of the company nor was there any entry regarding the investment made by him in its shares.Thereafter the present complaint was filed.It was further submitted that the summoning order is cryptic and does not give the reasons for summoning the accused and therefore should be quashed.After perusing the complaint and examining the pre-summoning evidence recorded in the form of depositions of the complainant s witnesses, the learned MM passed the following order:I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.From the material on record, I am of the view that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons Under Section 420 IPC and 120B IPC.On perusing the complaint as well as the pre-summoning evidence recorded by the learned MM, this Court is of the view that there was sufficient material on record for the learned MM to pass an order of summoning the Petitioners under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,908,685 | Allowed md.CRM No. 7564 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7th September, 2018 in connection with Anandapur Police Station Case No. 86/2014 dated 22.10.2014 under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/307/506/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In Re:-Tarun Roy ... Petitioner Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr.Indeed, some of the sights of high police officials walking in tow with politicians are revolting and completely destroy the confidence of the common man in the system meant for the citizens' security.1 2 The petitioner herein is associated with a political party which, at present, is not in power.There was an incident in October, 2014 when the de facto complainant's sister-in-law was, unfortunately, killed.Indeed, she was murdered as she suffered a gun-shot injury.In a sudden light-bulb moment, the husband recalled that there was sufficient light in the middle of the night for the husband to have seen the assailants; and such assailants were named.The petitioner is said to be one of them.In a bid to cement the subsequent stand of the husband of the victim, a magisterial recording of the husband's statement was arranged under Section 164 of the Code.The husband parroted the second statement rendered by him to the police.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 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,918,658 | CRM 3323 of 2011 akd Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11th April, 2011 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 191 dated 5th July, 2008 under Sections 147 / 148 / 149 / 186 / 341 / 307 / 323 / 325 / 353 / 332 / 333 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Nathuram Samanta..... Petitioner.... For the Petitioner.... For the State.It is submitted that apprehending the arrest in connection with this case, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court.However, during the pendency of hearing of the said application, the petitioner was arrested by the police.It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody 2 CRM 3323 of 2011 for about 69 days and other similarly placed co-accuseds have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.The above fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State.Considering the above aspect of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Midnapore.After being released on bail, he shall not tamper with the prosecution case and shall not commit any offence.Thus, the application for bail stands disposed of.( J. N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE) (ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.) 3 CRM 3323 of 2011 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,919,452 | No.2418/2016 Page 4 of 4No.2418/2016 Page 4 of 4By this application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.0286/2016 under Section 354-D/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi.The present case is registered on the complaint of one Ajay Jaiswal, stating therein that the petitioner had molested and hurled filthy language to his daughter Jhanvi (aged 7 years).No.2418/2016 Page 1 of 4Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the report of the Investigating Officer dated 05.11.2016 to the effect that "alleged Umesh and his father have been examined in the present case.But they have denied the allegations leveled upon them."It is further contention of the petitioner that on a query from the learned Additional Sessions Judge the investigating officer has replied that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the present accused as he has joined the investigation, but still the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected and there is no such observation in the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.Sub-Inspector Dinesh, investigating officer of this case is present in court and informed this court that the petitioner has joined the investigation and he is not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation.Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner is charged with the offence punishable under Section 354-D/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, and his two anticipatory bail applications have already been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.No.2418/2016 Page 2 of 4After careful scrutiny of the case and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and there is no averment made on behalf of the State that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation or that the petitioner has tried to tamper with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer and in the event of arrest, the petitioner - Umesh Kumar be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence, not to influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on Bail.No.2418/2016 Page 3 of 4 the merits of the case during trial.No.2418/2016 Page 3 of 4With aforesaid directions, the present application stands disposed of.P.S.TEJI, J DECEMBER 05, 2016 pkb Bail. | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,106,901 | JUDGMENT D.G. Karnik, J.The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") filed a complaint bearing Case No. 446/MISC/95 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai alleging that the petitioner and one nursing staff working under her were guilty under Section 304 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C.").The allegation of the complainant is that his wife was suffering from cancer and was admitted to Jagjivan Ram Hospital, owned by the Western Railway.At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as a doctor in the Jagjivan Ram Hospital.The complainants wife was referred to the Tata Memorial Hospital for a check up.Tata Memorial Hospital advised certain injections to be given to the wife of the complainant at intervals of one week.Contrary to the instructions of Tata Memorial Hospital, the petitioner and an unnamed nurse gave injections everyday instead of every week resulting in the death of the wife of the complainant.The complainant, therefore, alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 304 read with Section 144 of the I.P.C.According to the complainant, he had gone to the police station for lodging a First Information Report, but as the police failed to take any action he moved the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate with a private complaint.On perusal of the complaint, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was of the view that the issuance of process should be postponed and he may himself conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr.P.C.").He required certain documents and papers for the enquiry.Accordingly, he issued a summons to the Jagjivan Ram Hospital for production of medical case papers of the wife of the complainant.Thereupon, the petitioner became aware of the proceedings filed against her.She thereafter made an application for quashing the proceedings on the ground that she was a public servant appointed by the President of India by a notification published in the Gazette of India dated 30th September 1978 at page 1329, Part 2 thereof.She further pleaded that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was necessary prior to the filing of the complaint and as the sanction was not obtained, the complaint was not maintainable.The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who heard the application made by the complainant, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a public servant to whom Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was applicable and as the necessary sanction for the prosecution was not obtained the complaint was not maintainable.He therefore dismissed the complaint.Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate dismissing his complaint, the complainant filed a revision, bearing Criminal Revision Application No. 219 of 1996, before the learned Sessions Judge.The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was arrayed as an accused in the complaint, has no locus to appear before the Magistrate nor had any locus standi to make an application unless and until process was issued against her. | ['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,693,692 | Beed is the husband of PW-3 Shobha andfather of PW-2 Janabai Pandhare.Accused Dnyanoba and Lilawatibai are thehusband and wife, resident of same village Babhalgaon, Taluka Ambejogai.The Victim Tukaram was the real brother of accused Dnyanoba and bothwere eking livelihood by doing agricultural labour work.The relations inbetween the family of the victim Tukaram and accused Dnyanoba were strainon account of partition of joint family property.On the fateful day of incident, i.e. on 2.1.2009, in the noonhours, victim Tukaram, and his daughter PW-2 Janabai were at home.Thewife Shobhabai had been to fetch water, unaware of the tragic end of herhusband Tukaram on that day.There was a vacant plot of accused Dnyanobaabutting to the dilapidated mud house of victim Tukaram.The common wallin between the mud house of victim Tukaram and vacant plot of accusedDnyanoba was collapsed and its bricks were lying nearby it.According toprosecution, at about 2.00 p.m. accused Dnyanoba and his wife accusedLilawati arrived in bullock cart at the house of victim Tukaram.The accusedstarted collecting the bricks.The victim Tukaram and his daughter PW-2Janabai raised objection for taking away the bricks without counting it.The ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {3} crapl 228.13.odtaccused Dnyanoba became furious and hurled abuses to both, victim Tukaramand his daughter Janabai.There was endeavour to give understanding to theaccused Dnyanoba but he was not in a mood to listen.The accusedDnyanoba took out the weapon - knife ( Barcha ) and dealt a blows ofweapon at the abdomen, thigh, limbs etc. of the victim Tukaram.Shobha -wife of Tukaram also rushed to the spot after hearing the cries.The PW-2Janabai made endeavour to intervene in the scuffle, but accused Lilabaiprevented and pushed her down on the ground.The accused Lilawatipicked up heir and beaten up Janabai with kicks and fists.The accused No.1Dnyanoba also assaulted Janabai with knife on her left forearm.The victimTukaram and daughter Janabai received bleeding injuries.They yelled forhelp.The onlookers thronged at the spot.The victim Tukaram and Janabaiwere escorted to the hospital at Ambejogai.The Medical experts attendedthe victim Tukaram and got him admitted for medical treatment.Sincebeginning, victim Tukaram was in unconscious condition.PW-2 Janabai wasalso hospitalized for medical treatment of her bleeding injuries at forearm.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::Meanwhile, police personnel of Bardapur police station,received information about the occurrence of incident of assault on victimTukaram and his daughter and they were taken to Government Hospital atAmbajogai for Medical treatment.The police of Bardapur Police Stationimmediately rushed to Government Hospital Ambejogai to take stock ofsituation.It was informed to the Police that victim Tukaram is admitted inICU and he is in unconscious condition.The police personnel reduced intowriting the statement of injured Janabai.She verbalized about the incident ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {4} crapl 228.13.odtof assault and blamed the accused for the injuries sustained to herself andher father Tukaram.I.O. dealt with the mortal remains of deceased Tukaram and drawninquest Panchanama.The dead body was referred for autopsy to determinethe exact cause of death.The medical experts conducted post mortem andopined that the victim succumbed to stab injuries at his abdomen.The I.O.apprehended accused for the sake of investigation.The weapons of crimei.e.They both are eye witnesses in this case for the murderousattack on the victim Tukaram, as alleged by the prosecution.20] The PW-2 Janabai deposed that on the day of incident on2.1.2009, she was at home accompanied with her parents.In the noonhours, at about 2.00 p.m. accused arrived in the bullock cart to collect thebricks of the common wall of mud house of victim Tukaram.PW-2 Janabai ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {18} crapl 228.13.odtfurther stated that they opposed the accused/appellants for taking away thebricks without counting it.The appellants reprimanded them, saying that thecollapsed wall was belonging to them.The appellants/accused startedhurling abuses to them.In the altercation, appellant Dnyanoba took out theweapon knife (Barcha) and dealt blows on the stomach, thigh as well as onthe form arm of victim Tukaram.PW-2 Janabai made endeavour to intervenein the scuffle but the accused Lilawatibai prevented and pushed her on theground.The accused Lilawatibai assaulted the PW-2 Janabai by kicks andfists.Meanwhile, accused Dnyanoba also attacked PW-2 Jababai withweapon knife (Barcha) at her fore-arm.conviction under Section 302, 323, 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and resultantsentence of imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, indefault, R.I. for one month, preferred the present appeal to redress theirgrievances.The learned trial court also held both the accused guilty for the ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {2} crapl 228.13.odtoffence punishable under sections 323 and 324 of IPC.However, the trialcourt did not award separate sentence being a lesser offences.2] The factual matrix giving rise to the prosecution of theappellants in this case, in brief, is as under :-::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::That, the ill-fated victim Tukaram Baburao Pandhare r/o.Babhalgaon, Taluka Ambejogai, Dist.In view of nature of allegations, the concerned P.S.O.registered the Crime NO. 3 of 2009 under Sections 307, 234, 504, 506 r/w.34of IPC and set the investigation in motion.The I.O. recorded statement ofwitnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.The concerned doctor tookefforts to resuscitate the victim Tukaram, but unfortunately, he succumbedto injuries.The police applied Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against theaccused.knife (Barcha) came to be recovered from the house of accused.TheI.O. collected medical certificates and other relevant documents.Aftercompleting entire formalities, I.O. preferred the charge sheet against boththe accused before the learned Magistrate, Ambajogai.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::After receipt of charge sheet and investigation paper thelearned Magistrate verified the charges pitted against the accused andtransmitted the matter to learned Sessions Judge Ambajogai, Dist.Beed forfurther process.The learned Session Judge framed the charges against boththe accused under Sections 302, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC.The accuseddenied the charges pitted against them and claimed for trial.In order tobring home guilt of the accused, prosecution adduced the evidence of PW-1Bhanudas Jankar (Exh.39), PW-2 Janabai Pandhare, (Exh. 41), PW-3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {5} crapl 228.13.odtShobhabai (Exh. 45), PW-4 Dr.Gunal Jadhav (Exh.46 and 118), PW-5 ShaikhSammat Shaikh Jilani (Exh.49), PW-6 Shri Vishnu Nivaruti Sonwane (Exh. 52),PW-7 Shri.Dr. Chandrakant Chavan (Exh. 55), PW-8 Shri.Vikas HanumantKarpe (Exh. 69), PW-9 Shri.Bibishan Sidram Karpe (Exh. 80), PW-10 Shri.Narsing Patolba Gitte (Exh. 82), PW-11 Shri.Baburao Pandhare (Exh. 85).PW-12 Smt. Simintabai Pandhare (Exh. 87), PW-13 Shri.Govind Baste (Exh. 107),PW-15 Shri.Vishwanath Nilange (Exh. 121), PW-16 Shri.Madhav Gundile(Exh. 125), and PW-17 Dr. Sidheshwar Birajdar (Exh. 151).::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::The Learned Sessions Judge, recorded the statement ofaccused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the learnedtrial court arrived at the conclusion that both the accused are guilty ofmurder of victim Tukaram, and assault on PW-2 Janabai with deadlyweapons.Therefore, the learned trial court convicted both the accusedunder section 302, 324, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and imposed the resultantsentences, as indicated above.Being dissatisfied with the findings expressedby the learned trial court, the appellants preferred the present appeal toredress their grievances.learned trial court did notappreciate the oral and circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective.Prosecution witnesses P.W. 2- Janabai and P.W-3 Shobhabai are theinterested/related witnesses in this case.The law contemplates that ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {6} crapl 228.13.odtevidence of interested witnesses should be examined carefully.Moreover,evidence of injured also must be in consonance with probabilities.Thelearned counsel for appellants assailed that there are material discrepanciesin the evidence of P.W. 2- Janabai and P.W-3 Shobhabai.Their versionsappear to be inconsistent with probabilities.In such circumstances, it wouldnot just and proper to draw adverse inference against the appellants-accused on the suspicious evidence of such interested/related witnesses.Hedrawn attention to the circumstances that except related witnesses P.W. 2-Janabai and P.W-3 Shobhabai as well as police personnel and medical expert,rest of the witnesses turned hostile and they did not support the prosecutioncase.Therefore, versions of so-called eye witnesses P.W. 2 - Janabai andP.W-3 Shobhabai is doubtful and not inspire confidence.The trial Courtcommitted error in convicting appellant No. 2 Lilawatibai by applying section34 of the IPC, in this case.She had not assaulted victim Tukaram nor she wasarmed with any weapon at the time of incident.The complicity of accusedLilawatibai for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34of the IPC is not sustainable and not as per the provisions of law.Accordingto learned counsel Shri Salunke, there is delay in lodging the FIR.Therewere hospitals located on the way leading from village Babhalgaon toAmbajogai.The victim Tukaram was escorted to the hospital at Ambajogaiinstead of admitting him in nearby hospitals en-route to Ambajogai.Thebehaviour and conduct of the prosecution witnesses creates doubt abouttruthfulness and veracity of the allegations nurtured against accused.Thelearned counsel fervidly contended that the trial Court ought to have held ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {7} crapl 228.13.odtthat prosecution has failed to prove the charges against accused.4] The learned counsel for appellant relied upon on the medicalevidence of Indoor Patient Papers produced on record in the cross-examination of PW-7 Dr. Chandrakant Chavan.The learned counsel fervidlycontended that PW-17 Dr. Birajdar was custodian of the record of Hospital.The OPD Register, MLC Register and Indoor Patient Papers of the victimTukaram were maintained and preserved in the hospital.In these medicalpapers, history of assault by bull horn on Patient Tukaram was mentioned.According to learned counsel the history of assault by bull horn written inmedical papers caused serious doubt in the prosecution case.Therefore, heprayed to set aside and quashed the impugned judgment and order ofconviction and sentence imposed on the appellants and appeal be allowed.5] The learned counsel for appellants in support of his submissionsplaced reliance on the exposition of judicial pronouncement in case of : [1]Narayan Kanhu Datavale V/s State of Maharashtra 1997 Cri.H.C.) [5] Champak Balu Patel V/s State ofMaharashtra 2013 Cri.L.J. 1589 (Bom.H.C.) [6] Kiran Ashok Jadhav V/s Stateof Maharashtra 2014 All M.R. (Cri.) 3850 (Bom.H.C.) ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {8} crapl 228.13.odt6] In refutal, learned APP vociferously opposed the contentionsput forth on behalf of appellant-accused.He submitted that the evidence ofP.W.2 - Janabai and P.W-3 Shobhabai established the involvement andparticipation of the appellants in this crime.The victim Tukaram wasattacked by the appellant Dnyanoba in brutal manner with lethal weaponknife for the trifle reason of collecting bricks of common wall.According tolearned APP, the medical evidence corroborates to the version of eyewitnesses.The P.W.7 - Dr. Chandrakant Chavan stated the cause of death ofvictim Tukaram as homicidal death.He testified that victim Tukaramsuccumbed to his abdominal stab injury.The learned APP submitted thatthere was no possibility of accidental death of victim Tukaram after assaultwith bull horn.The learned APP asserted that the nature of injuriessustained to the victim Tukaram were serious and in view of stab injury thereis no possibility of assault by bull horn.The Single stab injury would not bepossible in case of attack by bull with horn.The learned APP fervidlycontended that the entire evidence of witnesses and medical expert provedthat the accused are the author of injuries received to victim Tukaram.Theappellant-accused No.2 Lilawatibai was also responsible for the injuriescaused to victim Tukaram as she has an involvement and participation in thecrime committed by her husband.There are circumstances that accused No.2 Lilawatibai shared the common intention and in-furtherance of commonintention both the accused committed murder of victim Tukaram.Therefore,learned APP urged that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonabledoubt and there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {9} crapl 228.13.odtorder of conviction passed by the learned trial court.He prayed for dismissalof the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::7] We have carefully considered the rival submission advanced onbehalf of both the sides.We have also perused the relevant materialproduced on record.It seems that except the PW-2 Janabai, PW-3Shobhabai, the daughter and wife of victim Tukaram, the Medical Expertsand Police personnel, all rest of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile anddid not support the prosecution case.The evidence of Medical experts and policepersonnel, also available on record to corroborate the ocular evidence ofthese related witnesses.8] Before adverting to the merits of the matter for assessment ofguilt of the appellant/accused, it would apposite and justifiable at thethreshold to determine the exact cause of death of victim Tukaram andthereafter only, it would be convenient to evaluate the evidence ofprosecution witnesses for ascertaining the nexus and proximity of theappellants/accused with the alleged cause of death of victim Tukaram.9] The prosecution examined PW-7 Dr. Chavan of Department ofForensic Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Ambejogai.PW-7 Dr. Chavan conducted the Post Mortem on the mortal remains of thevictim Tukaram on 4.1.2009 in between 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. His associateDr.Raut was also accompanied with him at the time of autopsy.During the ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {10} crapl 228.13.odtexternal examination, the medical experts came across with the followinginjuries :-::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::[1] Sutured wound over abdomen 28 cm.In length extending from epigastrium upto 5 cm below the umbilicus, vertically placed 27 stitches present.On opening the stitches a stab wound is present 4 cm above the umbilicus, 4 cm in length surgical wound starts at upper and lower ends cavity deep angle cannot be defined due to surgical wound.[2] Sutured incised wound present over posterior aspect of left arm, middle 1/3rd, 4 stitches present.Length 7 cm.On opening the stitches, tailing downward medically, subcutaneous tissue deep.[3] Stitched incised wound present over lateral aspect of left forearm, lower 1/3rd and L shape one arm of 10 cm in length and second arm is 5 cm in length, subcutaneous tissue deep.[4] Sutured incised wound present over aspect of right thigh lower 1/3rd and lateral aspect of knee, 11 stitches present, length 18 cm.on opening it is muscle deep.[5] Contusion present at 1 cm lateral right to stab stab wound in injury no. 1.2 cm X 1 cm in size, reddish brown in colour.[6] Abrasion present over front of right knee 6 x 5 cm in size, dark brown in colour.[7] Abrasion present over sheen, upper 1/3rd on right leg, 10 x 7 cm in size dark brown in colour.[8] Abrasion present over lateral aspect of left thigh rd middle 1/3 , 10x8 cm.In size, dark brown in colour.[9] Multiple intravenous injection marks present over front of both forearm and back of wrist.[10] Surgical stab wounds present over both flanks.[11] Surgical stab wound middle 1/3rd on right side of neck, one stitch present.Injury nos. ten and eleven are surgical treatment ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {11} crapl 228.13.odt injuries.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::10] The Medical Experts also carried out the internal examinationand observed injuries at the abdominal part of victim Tukaram, which werecorresponding to the external injuries as mentioned above.There was alsostab wound present over the interior wall of the stomach and incised woundon the lower border of the left lobe.PW-7 Dr. Chavan, categorically deposedthat the victim Tukaram died owing to "Abdominal Stab Injuries".PW-7 Dr.Chavan and his associate Dr. Raut issued the Post Mortem report ( Exh.56).The medical experts certified that the abdominal injury caused to victimTukaram was fatal and sufficient to cause death of human being in ordinarycourse of nature.The injury sustained by victim Tukaram could be possibleby the weapon knife recovered in this case shown to medical experts.There was no arduous cross-examination devastating the significance ofmedical evidence in this case.The evidence of PW-7 Dr. Chavan is sufficientto draw the inference that the death of victim Tukaram was homicidal innature.11] Learned Counsel Shri Salunke appearing for the appellantstrenuously submitted that the victim Tukaram received the injuries at hisabdomen accidentally due to assault by the bull horn while working in thefield day before the alleged incident.He drawn attention to the history ofpatients recorded at multiple places in the patients case papers of victimTukaram while he was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment.These documents are maintained and preserved in the Government Hospital,Ambajogai.Learned Counsel Shri Salulnke pointed out that the date ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {12} crapl 228.13.odt2.1.2009 at about 9.30 a.m. is mentioned in the patient's treatment papers(Exh.64) being the date and time of hospitalization of victim Tukaram formedical treatment.He added that victim Tukaram was attacked by the bullwhile working in the field.He received injuries owing to bull hornaccidentally day before the alleged incident.Therefore, ShriSalunke vehemently contended that accused have no concern at all with thealleged injuries caused to victim Tukaram.These circumstances createddoubt in the version of prosecution witnesses about occurrence of actualincident of assault on victim Tukaram.There was an attempt to implicatethe accused for the death of victim Tukaram falsely.12] The minute scrutiny of the evidence of PW-7 Dr. Chavan, PW-4Dr.Kunal Jadhav and PW-17 Dr. Birajdar reveals that there was no possibilityof injuries to victim Tukaram following assault by the bull horn.It is hard tobelieve that victim Tukaram received injuries after attacked by the bull withhorn day before the alleged incident while working in the field.There wasno first aid treatment provided to victim Tukaram, and, lateron, he wastaken to Government Hospital, Ambajogai on 2.1.2009, in the morning hoursat 9.30 a.m. for medical treatment.The circumstances ruled out thepossibility that at the time of hospitalization, victim Tukaram was inconscious condition and gave history to the concerned doctor about the ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {13} crapl 228.13.odtaccidental injuries caused to him due to attack by the bull.Thestory/theory propounded on behalf of appellants referred above seems basedon figment of imagination.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::13] At this juncture, it is essential to take into consideration theevidence of PW-4 Dr. Kunal Jadhav who was examined on second occasion asPW-14 in this case.The PW-4 Dr. Jadhav deposed that on 2.1.2009, he was onduty as Medical Officer in Casualty Ward of Swami Ramanand Tirth MedicalCollege and Hospital, Ambajogai.During his duty hours, two patients,namely, Tukaram Pandhare and Janabai Pandhare were brought to thehospital for medical treatment.He clinically examined the patient Tukaram,There were fresh injuries on his right thigh, incised wound on left arm andabdomen wall was seen perforated in epigastric region.According to PW-4Dr.Kunal Jadhav the injuries sustained to victim Tukaram were serious andhe was in critical condition.Therefore, his daughter gave history of injury as"assault by known person".PW-4 Dr. Jadhav also stated that on examinationof PW-2 Janabai he noticed contused lacerated wound on her left form armof size 4 cm x 1 cm.The injury was simple in nature and caused within 24hours of examination.The medical expert - PW-4 Dr. Kunal Jadhav producedthe MLC certificate of PW-2 Janabai (Exh.47) and extract of MLC register ofvictim Tukaram ( Exh.120) on record.These documents of hospital indicatedate of examination of injured Tukaram and Janabai by PW-4 Dr. KunalJadhav on 2.1.2009 at around 3.35 p.m. PW-17 Dr. Birajdar also concededabout these factual aspects of hospitalization of victim Tukaram and hisdaughter Janabai on 2.1.2009 in noon hours at about 3.35 p.m. The version ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {14} crapl 228.13.odtof PW-4 Dr. Jadhav and PW-17 Dr. Birajdar belies the theory propounded onbehalf of accused/appellants that the injured Tukaram was admitted in thehospital in the morning hours at about 9.30 a.m. on 2.1.2009 and no suchincident of assault by accused ever occurred in the noon hours at 2.00 p.m.on 2.1.2009, as alleged by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::14] Learned Counsel Shri Salunke, gave much more emphasis onthe patient case papers produced on record marked as (Exhs.59 to 67).Hesubmitted that these patient case papers of victim Tukaram were maintainedand preserved in the Govt. Hospital Aurangabad.The pages Exhibits 64 and65 demonstrate that victim Tukaram was admitted in the hospital on2.1.2009 at 10.00 a.m. and he was clinically examined at about 10.20 a.m.The history of the patient, i.e. "assault by bull horn before one day in field"was also mentioned in these hospital case papers.He, therefore, submitsthat the circumstances created doubt in the prosecution case for inferenceof homicidal death of victim Tukaram.15] We are unable to persuade ourselves to accede to the so calledtheory propounded on behalf of appellants.It is to be noted that thesecontroversial documents of patient case papers (Exhs.59 to 67) are broughton record at the behest of appellants/accused during the cross-examinationof PW-7 Dr. Chavan.It is worth to mention that the PW-7 Dr. Chavan did notattend the patient for providing medical treatment in the ward, nor heperformed surgery on victim Tukaram.His evidence is concerned with theautopsy on the dead body of the victim Tukaram to determine the exact ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {15} crapl 228.13.odtcause of his death.The evidence of PW-7 Dr. Chavan is material to provethe recitals of Post Mortem report (Exh.56) pertaining to the cause of deathof victim Tukaram.He is not the author of patient case papers (Exh.59 to::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::67) nor he was aware about the genuineness of the recitals mentioned in thedocument.The evidence of PW-7 Dr. Chavan is totally alien to the recitalsof patient case papers (Exh.59 to 67).PW-4 Dr. Kunal Jadhav, PW-17 Dr.Birajdar, both of them are also seems not related with there documents northey are authors of the patient case papers (Exh.59 to 67).The PW-4 Dr.Jadhav categorically stated that these case papers does not bear hissignature nor these documents are in his handwriting.Admittedly, theauthor of the relevant entries, particularly about date, time of admissionand history of patient Tukaram shown written in the patient case papers(Exh.59 to 67), did not step into the witness box, to prove the contents ofthese vital documents.In such circumstances, in absence of proper proof,the particulars recorded in the patient case papers cannot be read inevidence.In contrast, the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Kunal Jadhav, (Exh. 46 and118) as well as PW-17 Dr. Birajdar (Exh. 151) conjures up the image that thevictim Tukaram and his daughter PW-2 Janabai were brought to the hospitalat Ambajogai on 2.1.2009 in the noon hours at around 3.35 p.m. The allegedincident of assault by the appellants/accused was occurred in the noonhours at about 2.00 p.m. on 2.1.2009 and thereafter the injured werebrought to hospital.The so called history of patient, written in the medicaltreatment papers in regard to assault by the bull horn, could not beappreciated in the absence of evidence of its author.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::{16} crapl 228.13.odt16] The PW-4 Dr. Jadhav was on duty as Medical Officer in CasualtyWard and the patient were brought to him initially for clinical examinationprior to get them admitted in the hospital for medical treatment.We are atour wit's end, that how the history of assault by the bull horn came to bewritten in the patient case papers, when the PW-4 Dr. Kunal Jadhav,specifically noted down the history of the patient as "assault by knownperson", at the inception, in MLC register, while admitting the patients -Tukaram and Janabai for medical treatment in the hospital.Moreover, therewere exercise of writing the history of accidental injury due to attack by bullhorn, at several places in the patient case papers.These attempt to writdown the history of patient repeatedly without any reasonable cause smackssomething amiss, in regard to its genuineness and truthfulness.We do notintend to go deep to examine the ramifications of these suspiciouscircumstances, but such things should not be happened in the cases of gravenature like murder of human beings.17] Albeit, we are not inclined to accept the arguments advancedon behalf of appellants/accused about the cause of injuries to victimTukaram by attack of bull horn.He has also given explanation that after attack with the hornby bull, there would be CLW and not stab wound as the horn of bullpenetrated in the stomach would not revert back from the stomach in thesimilar direction.There would not be a stab injury in case of attack by bull ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {17} crapl 228.13.odthorn.PW-7 Dr. Chavan deposed that stab injury caused on the abdomen ofvictim Tukaram was due to sharp pointed edged weapon like knife shown tohim in the court.PW-7 Dr. Chavan denied the possibility of assault with hornby the bull for the stab injuries received to victim Tukaram on his stomach.18] The overall analysis of evidence of Medical Expertsdemonstrates that the Victim Tukaram received the fatal injuries on hisabdomen by lethal weapon like knife and while medical treatment in thehospital, he succumbed to the injuries.In the aftermath, we have nohesitation to draw the inference that the death of victim Tukaram was notaccidental but homicidal in nature.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::19] Now, turning to the another spectrum of the matter, in regardto nexus and proximity of the appellant/accused with the alleged cause ofdeath of victim Tukaram, it has been alleged that the appellants/accused arethe authors of the injury received to victim Tukaram and they areresponsible for his homicidal death.In order to prove the complicity of theappellants in this case, the prosecution relied upon the ocular evidence ofPW-2 Janabai, PW-3 Shobhabai, daughter and wife of victim Tukaram,respectively.She yelled for help.The denizensBaban Sonawane, Bibhishan Karpe and others rushed to the spot.Theappellants after giving threats of life to the family members of victimTukaram made their escape good from the spot.The injured Tukaram andhis daughter Janabai were escorted to the hospital for medical treatment.After receipt of information, about the incident of assault, police ofBardapur P.S. arrived in the hospital and recorded the FIR of PW-2 Janabai.She blamed the accused for the injuries sustained to herself and her fatherTukaram.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::21] PW-3 Shobhabai is the mother of PW0-2 Janabai.PW-3Shobhabai was also the eye witness to the incident.She stepped up in to theshoe of daughter PW-2 Janabai and verbalized the incident of assault by theaccused on victim Tukaram and Janabai.PW-3 Shobhabai, at the time ofincident, had been to fetch water.While returning, she heard the cries.Therefore, she rushed to the spot.She witnessed the incident of assault by ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {19} crapl 228.13.odtthe appellant - Dnyanoba with knife on her husband Tukaram and daughterJanabai.She stated about the overt act of accused Lilawati while assaultingPW-2 Janabai.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::It would be unsafe to act upon theevidence of PW-2 Janabai solely on the ground that she received the injuriesin the alleged incident.The evidence of these interested witnesses shouldnot be appreciated without any corroboration.Both these witnesses areinterested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence is required to bediscarded and brushed aside.23] As regards to the admissibility of evidence of PW-2 Janabai andPW-3 Shobhabai being closely related to deceased as daughter and wife, it isto be appreciated that there is no bar for consideration of the evidence ofrelatives.In the instant case, as observed above, except the daughter and ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {20} crapl 228.13.odtwife of the victim Tukaram, rest of the prosecution witnesses, excluding themedical officers and police personnel all made volte-face and turned hostile.They did not support the prosecution case.Ultimately, prosecution heavilyrelied upon the sole evidence of PW-2 Janabai and PW-3 Shobhabai to provethe charges of brutal attack by the appellants/accused resulting into deathof victim Tukaram.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::24] At this juncture, it is to be borne in mind that the HonourableApex Court, time and again in series of decisions, has held that where theevidence of interested witnesses is consistent and duly corroborated bymedical evidence, it is not permissible to discard the same, merely on theground that they are relatives or interested witnesses.When there is an allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established.It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {21} crapl 228.13.odt person.Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.The PW-2 Janabai herself received bleeding injuriesafter the attack with knife by the appellant Dnyanoba.Her presence at thescene of occurrence appears probable and natural one.The medicalevidence of PW-4 Dr. Kunal Jadhav is also corroborated the version of PW-2Janabai.The Medico-legal Certificate of PW-2 Janabai is produced onrecord at (Exh.47) in which the Medical Officer PW-4 Kunal Jadhav observedCLW on her left fore-arm.These circumstances, strengthen the version ofPW-2 Janabai about the actual facts leading to occurrence of incidentinflicting bleeding and fatal injuries to herself and victim Tukaram.PW-3Shobhabai corroborated to the version of PW-2 Janabai on the factualaspect of participation of appellant/Dnyanoba in the incident of assault aswell as his overt act for the fatal injuries to victim Tukaram.We do not comeacross with material contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of thesestar witnesses of the prosecution.Learned counsel Shri Salunke madeendeavour to point out the circumstance that PW-2 Janabai in her evidencedid not make reference about the presence of PW-3 Shobhabai at the sceneof occurrence on the day of alleged incident.But, the sole omission to thatextent would not render entire occular evidence of eye witnesses' accountdoubtful.The PW-3 Shobhabai deposed that, at the time of incident, shehad been to fetch water and while returning, she heard the cries.Therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {24} crapl 228.13.odtshe rushed to the spot of occurrence and witnessed the incident.There maybe possibility that when the incident was going on, at that time, PW-2Janabai might have not paid attention to the arrival of her mother on thescene of occurrence.Therefore, it would improper to assume that both theseinterested witnesses attempted to embroil the accused falsely in this case.26] Moreover, in the evidence of the police personnels it hasbrought on record that after receipt of information about the occurrence ofincident, police personnels rushed to the hospital.They learnt that victimTukaram was in unconscious condition.Therefore, the police personnelrecorded the FIR of PW-2 Janabai in which she verbalized the overt act ofthe appellants/accused inflicting fatal blows to her father Tukaram.ThePolice personnels immediately returned back to the police station andpursuant to the FIR of Janabai, registered the crime under Section 307 r/w.34 of IPC.The FIR (Exh. 42) being a formal document renderedcorroboration to the oral testimony of PW-2 Janabai as envisaged underSection 157 of the Evidence Act.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::27] It is true that PW-2 Janabai in her evidence before the Courtstated that the denizens Baban Sonawane and Bibhishan Karpe and othersrushed to the spot.The prosecution made endeavour to adduce theevidence of eye witness Pw-9 Bibhishan Karpe to prove the case againstaccused.But he turned hostile and retracted from his earlier statementmade before police.The parents of victim Tukaram PW-11 Babarao andPW-12 Simintabai also refused to support the prosecution case and made ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {25} crapl 228.13.odtattempt to shield the son - accused Dnyanoba from the legal punishment.There is no doubt that now-a-days, the witnesses are less prone to getthemselves involved in the criminal matters.Ultimately, the prosecutionhas to keep reliance on the evidence of relative and family members of thevictim to bring home guilt of the accused.The Honourable Apex Court in thematter of Shyam Babu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012)8 SCC 651, inpara.22, reiterated the principles as under :-::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::This Court has repeatedly held that the version of an eyewitness cannot be discarded by the court merely on the ground that such eyewitness happened to be a relative or friend of the deceased.It is also stated that where the presence of the eyewitnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence, it will not be permissible for the court to discard the statement of such related or friendly witnesses.To put it clear, there is no bar in law on examining family members or any other person as witnesses.In fact, in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured.If the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known to the parties affected is credible, reliable, trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party of friend, etc. These principles have been reiterated in Mano Dutt V. State of U.P. And Dayal Singh V. State of Uttaranchal."28] In the light of above principles, we do not find any impedimentto accept the evidence of eye witnesses PW-2 Janabai and PW-3 Shobhabai inthis case.We find that their evidence is cogent, credible & inspireconfidence.The medical evidence brought on record also strengthened theversion of these eye witnesses.There are no material discrepancies andcontradictions to affect the credibility and trustworthiness of these ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {26} crapl 228.13.odtwitnesses.As discussed above, it is proved that the appellant/Dnyanobawas the author of the fatal injuries received to victim Tukaram on hisstomach.The accused Dnyanoba dealt multiple blows of lethal weapon inbrutal manner and inflicted fatal injuries to victim Tukaram on vital part ofthe body.The number of blows by dangerous weapon and nature of injuryinflicted to victim Tukaram shows the intention of appellant Dnyanoba to killvictim Tukaram to take umbrage of family dispute on account of partition ofagricultural land.The findings expressed by the trial court in regard tooffence of murder under Section 302 against accused Dnyanoba appearssustainable and appreciable one.Therefore, we are not prepared to causeany interference in the impugned judgment and order of conviction andsentence, under Section 302 of IPC, so far as accused Dnyanoba isconcerned.The conviction of appellant Dnyanoba for the offence of murderof Tukaram under Section 302 is hereby confirmed.Obviously, the sentenceof life imprisonment awarded to the appellant Dnyanoba needs nointerference.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::1O and 11 as under :-Theappellant Lilawatibai did not possess any weapon at the time of allegedincident.The sequence of events of assault on victim Tukaram by accusedDnyanoba, indicates that both the appellants arrived on the spot to collectthe bricks of common wall.But, they were prevented by victim Tukaram andhis daughter PW-2 Janabai.The appellant Dnyanoba dealt with multipleblows of knife at vital part of body of victim Tukaram.The overt act ofappellant Dnyanoba and nature of injuries sustained to victim Tukarammanifestly reflects that the appellant Dnyanoba had an intention to killTukaram to take umbrage of family dispute on account of partition ofagricultural land.31] After taking into consideration the totality of the circumstanceson record, it reveals that the appellants had the common intention to assaultvictim Tukaram and his family members.But, intention to commit murderappears to have been developed on the spot and it may not be result of per-arranged plan or pre-meetings of minds.Therefore, it would hazardous to ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {30} crapl 228.13.odtbelieve that appellant Lilawatibai had shared the common intention ofhusband accused Dnyanoba to kill victim Tukaram.Her criminal act duringthe alleged incident would not liable to be considered to fasten liability ofmurder of Tukaram with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.Admittedly, appellantLilawatibai shared the common intention of her husband to attack victimTukaram and his family members and to cause hurt to them.But, thecircumstances did not permit to draw adverse inference against appellantLilawatibai, for commission of murder of victim Tukaram with the aid ofSection 34 of IPC.We reiterate that, in the instant case, the appellantLilawatibai cannot be held guilty on the principle of joint liability for thecriminal acts done by her husband Dnyanoba for murder of victim Tukaram.The liability of appellant Lilawatibai for offence committed by her husbandcannot be considered at par with the criminal liability of her husbandaccused Dnyanoba .The evidence of PW-2 Janabai and PW-3 Shobhabaiestablished the assault on victim Tukaram by appellant Dnyanoba andappellant Lilawatibai attacked PW-2 with kick and fists.34 of IPC is sustainable instead of offence punishable underSection 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.We, therefore, confirm the conviction ofappellant Lilawatibai under Section 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and proceed to modifythe sentence awarded to her.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::32] In the above premises, we are of the considered opinion thatthe prosecution has proved that appellant Dnyanoba is guilty of offencepunishable under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of victim ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: {31} crapl 228.13.odtTukaram.Therefore, the resultant sentence of imprisonment for lifeimposed upon the appellant No.1 Dnyanoba is hereby maintained.Theconviction of appellant Dnyanoba under section 324 of IPC for assault withlethal weapon on PW-2 Janabai is also confirmed.But no separate sentenceis required being lesser offence.She is exonerated from the charge of murder of victimTukaram under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and instead of that her convictionunder Section 323 r/w.34 of IPC is maintained for the assault on PW-2Janabai by kicks and fists after using criminal force.Her sentence ofimprisonment for life imposed by the trial court for the offence undersection 302 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby quashed and set aside and same issubstituted with imprisonment for the period which she has alreadyundergone.The appellant No.2 Lilawatibai is on bail, her bail bonds standscancelled.The acquittal of both accused under Sections 504 and 506 of IPCstands confirmed.P.C. before the learned trial court, Ambajogai.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:07:34 ::: | ['Section 34 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 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,069,719 | The gist of the case of the prosecution as could be seen from the available materials is :-There was a civil dispute between A-1 and Kandeepan, since deceased, in respect of a landed property, which after trial went in favour of the deceased.Therefore, A-1 was looking out to take revenge on the deceased.A-2 to A-5 were the close friends of A-1 and they shared the common object of murdering the deceased.On 10.5.96, the accused armed with veech aruval and knives were waiting for the arrival of Kandeepan near Iyyappan Institute.At about 7.15 p.m., when Kandeepan came near the institute, A-4 stabbed him on the hip.When Kandeepan ran inside the bakery, all the accused chased him and attacked him indiscriminately.P.W.s 4 and 8, who were the sons of the deceased, on coming to know, rushed to the spot and they also claim to have witnessed the occurrence.The accused, thereafter, fled away from the scene of occurrence and Kandeepan was found in a pool of blood.3. P.W.18, the Circle Inspector of Police, when he was on duty at 8.00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P-1, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in crime No. 86 of 1996 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC.On receiving information that the injured Kandeepan has breathed his last, the crime was altered to one under Section 302 IPC and Ex.P-14 is the express report in the altered crime.P.W.18 took up investigation in the crime, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-2 in the presence of witnesses.A rough sketch, Ex.P-15 was also drawn.M.O.s 3 to 5 were recovered under a cover of mahazar.P.W.17, the police photographer was summoned and he took photographs at the place of occurrence.M.O.s 9 to 15 and 23 to 26 are the negatives and M.O.s 16 to 22 and 27 to 30 are the photographs.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The accused/ respondents stood charged under Sections 148, 449 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 IPC and on trial they were acquitted.Following the same, the investigating officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatadars and witnesses and prepared inquest report, Ex.Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the hospital with a requisition to the doctor to conduct autopsy.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.15, Senior Medical Officer attached to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries :- "Injuries (Antemortem) :I) (a) A lacerated wound is seen present over the left forehead obliquely, roughly in the middle of the left side of the frontal region 10 cms x 2 cms x 1.5 cm deep exposing the lacerated meninges and brain.(b) A lacerated wound is seen present over the left side of the face extending from the middle of the left eye brow downwards and forwards across the left nostril up to the left side of the chin, 15 cms x 3 cms x bone deep.This lacerated wound is seen extending on the left cheek from the left nostril with two bifurcations, one upwards and other downwards, 4 cms x 0.5 cms and 5 cms x 1 cm respectively.(c) A lacerated wound is seen present over the right forehead from the frontal region downwards across the orbital region up to the right maxilla 2 cms away from the nostril 12 cms x 3 cms x bone deep.(d) Lacerated wound is seen present over the right cheek 6 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep 3 cms away from the angle of the mouth.Entire facial skin adjacent to lacerations mentioned above shows contusion.II) Incised wound are seen present over the following regions of the body :-(a) Over the left subclavian region 6 cms x 1.5 cm x muscle deep.(b) Just below the injury mentioned in II (a) 2.5 cms x 1.5 cm x muscle deep.(c) Over the front of the chest just below the right shoulder, 7 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.(d) Back of the right forearm 5 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep situated 7 cms below the elbow joint and 4.5 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep situated 8 cms above the wrist joint.(e) Middle of the sole of the left foot 2 cms x 1 cm x skin deep.III) Left thumb is seen amputated at the metacarpophalangeal joint with a tag of skin adherent.IV) Linear contusions dark red in colour are seen present over the following parts of the body :-(a) between the right nipple and the sternum vertically placed 10 cms x 0.5 cm.(b) Left hypochondriac region in the anterior axillary line vertically placed 6 cms x 0.5 cm.(c) just above the left nipple obliquely placed 8 cms x 0.5 cm.(d) between the left nipple and the sternum vertically placed 11 cm x 0.5 cm.(e) just above the right shoulder 6 cms x 0.5 cm.(f) over the right suprascapular region 8 cms x 0.5 cm." The doctor issued Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died on account of shock and haemorrhage.Thereafter, further investigation was taken up by his successor, P.W.19, who arrested all the accused.The accused gave confessional statements pursuant to which A-1 produced M.O.1, A-3 produced M.O.8 and they were seized under a mahazar.The other accused also produced the weapons of crime and they were also seized under different mahazar.After examining some more witnesses and recording their statements and after obtaining the final opinion from the doctor, who conducted autopsy, final report was filed against all the accused/respondents and the case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and relied on twenty exhibits and thirty-two material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.They denied all the incriminating circumstances.The trial court, after hearing both sides and on scrutiny of the materials available, acquitted all the accused.Hence the present appeal by the State.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in his sincere attempt to assail the judgment of the trial court would submit that the trial court has neither marshalled the evidence proper nor considered the same, but has acquitted the respondents.In the instant case, P.W.s 1 and 2 have been examined as eye witnesses and it is true that they have not identified the accused, but their evidence was to some extent available for the prosecution to prove that the occurrence had taken place and the respondents were found at the scene of occurrence at about the time of occurrence.P.W.s 1 and 2 have spoken to that effect.Added further the learned counsel, the medical evidence is in support of the prosecution case.Further, all the material objects have also been recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statements given by them.That part of the evidence of the prosecution remains unshaken as regards the weapons of crime seized in pursuance of the confessional statements of the respondents and from this the trial court should have found the truth of the prosecution case.Added further the learned counsel that M.O.2, the knife recovered from A-5, when subjected to chemical analysis, the presence of blood tallying with the blood group of the deceased was found on the weapon of offence.The above circumstances would clinchingly prove the case of the prosecution, but the trial court without considering the aspects of the mater and the evidence in the proper perspective have acquitted the respondents and hence the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside.The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions and also perused the recorded evidence, both oral and documentary.In the instant case, it is not in controversy that the deceased Kandeepan, who was attacked at the place of occurrence died shortly thereafter and in order to substantiate the same, the prosecution examined P.W.15, the doctor, who conducted autopsy and marked Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate issued by him.The doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage.It is also pertinent to point out that the respondents have not disputed the cause of death either before the trial court or before this Court.On the medical evidence we hold that the deceased, Kandeepan, died on account of homicidal violence.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused/respondents, the prosecution marched P.W.s 1 and 2 as eye witnesses.P.W.1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police and P.W.2 is the owner of the bakery-cum-residence where, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place.It is also pertinent to point out that it was P.W.1, who gave the first information statement to the police on the strength of which a case came to be registered.Thus, while the prosecution came forward with a case that P.W.s 1 and 2 were eye witnesses, they could not identify the assailants either during the identification parade or even in the court hall and, therefore, the trial court was perfectly correct in rejecting their evidence.It is true that an occurrence took place during which Kandeepan, the deceased, was attacked and murdered. | ['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. |
110,698,455 | Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant/injured Suresh was doing the business of 'Kabadi'.He was residing as tenant at H.No.1203, near Masjid, Yamuna Pushta, Multani Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.His landlord had been repeatedly asking him to vacate the tenanted premises.On 25th September, 1991 at about 2.30 pm, while he was returning from the market, appellants Juber and Naseem Ahmed @ Guddu met him and abused him.They asked him about his decision regarding vacation of tenanted premises as had been asked by the landlord Ibrahim.In the meantime, appellant Mukhtiar (since expired) and accused Dabar (since expired), who were armed with dandas, also reached there.Appellant Mukhtiar uttered the words 'Ab Dekhte Kya Ho, Aaj Iska Kaam Kardo', Juber caught hold of him and appellant Naseem @ CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 2 of 7 Guddu took out churri from his pant and attacked him (complainant) with churri which hit on left side of his chest.When he tried to run, accused Dabar gave him a danda blow and caught hold of him.Then Naseem @ Guddu again attacked him with churri but he (complainant) managed to snatch the churri from Naseem @ Guddu.On this, all the four accused caught hold of him and when Naseem @ Guddu tried to snatch churri from him, the blade of the churri caused injuries on the right hand of Naseem.Madan Lal, who also used to work as Kabadi, raised alarm and on this, all the accused persons caught hold of Madan Lal and gave a danda blow on the head of Madan Lal due to which he (Madan Lal) received injuries.The matter was reported to the police and the injured was taken to the hospital.CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 2 of 7Both the injured were discharged on the same day.Although initially the opinion regarding the injuries suffered by injured/complainant Suresh was not given, later on the nature of injuries was opined as 'simple' caused by sharp and blunt objections.As per the MLC of injured Madan Lal, the nature of injuries was opined as 'simple' caused by blunt object.The appellants Mukhtiar Ahmed (expired during pendency of this appeal), Naseem Ahmed and Juber Ahmed have preferred these appeals under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order on sentence dated 23rd January, 2002 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide which the appellants have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 307/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and further to undergo RI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.On the basis of statement made by injured/complainant Suresh, FIR No.220/1991 under Section 307/323 IPC and under Section 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered at PS Gandhi Nagar.The accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.On the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution, all the accused persons were charged for having committed the offence punishable under Section 307/323/34 IPC.Accused Naseem was CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 3 of 7 additionally charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 3 of 7The learned Trial Court after concluding the trial held the appellants guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/323/34 IPC and sentenced them in the manner aforesaid.Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing these two appeals.In this case, accused Dabar had expired during the trial and accused/appellant Mukhtiar Ahmed has expired during the pendency of this appeal.During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants Naseem Ahmed and Juber Ahmed submitted that appellant Juber Ahmed was a tenant of Ibrahim (DW-3) and running a business of embroidery work at the first floor of the building bearing H.No.1203, Yamuna Pushta, Multani Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar.The complainant/injured Suresh and injured Madan Lal were also tenants of Ibrahim (DW-3) in the same building and doing the business of kabadi from the godown of the said building.Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that more than a quarter century has passed when this occurrence has taken place.Though the nature of injury suffered by Madan Lal and Suresh were simple in nature, however, the appellants Naseem Ahmed and Juber Ahmed are not challenging their conviction under Section 307/323/34 IPC and pray for a lenient view, only on the quantum of sentence.Learned counsel for the appellant Naseem Ahmed has CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 4 of 7 submitted that the appellant Naseem Ahmed was 17 years 11 months old on the date of occurrence and was yet to attain the age of majority.It has been further submitted that the school certificate showing the age of the appellant at the time of occurrence has been duly verified by the State.The appellant was tried as an adult accused for the reason that he was above 16 years of age on the date of occurrence and was not a juvenile.The occurrence had taken place on 25th September, 1991 i.e. almost 26 years ago and except this case the appellant has no criminal antecedent.CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 4 of 7Learned counsel for the appellant Juber Ahmed has submitted that the appellant is critically ill as he is suffering from kidney failure, he is on dialysis and has been advised kidney transplant.It is submitted that role attributed to Juber Ahmed is that he caught the injured.He is also having clean antecedents with only this criminal case registered against him which was about 26 years ago.Learned counsel for the appellant Juber has submitted that even prosecution case against Juber is that he caught hold of the injured.Hence in view of the role attributed to both the appellants, the fact that they had never misused their liberty during the last 26 years and their age at the time of occurrence, a lenient view may be taken against them.Learned APP for the State submits that on verification the age of Naseem Ahmed was below 18 years but as at that time he was above 16 years of age, he was not tried as juvenile.It is not disputed that except this case the appellant had no other criminal antecedents.So far as the appellant Juber is concerned his medical record has CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 5 of 7 been verified from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.It is also verified that he is undergoing treatment at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital in the category of 'Economically Weaker Section' (EWS) and needs urgent kidney transplant.CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 5 of 7Taking into consideration the facts and the mitigating circumstances and the submissions made on behalf of the appellants Naseem Ahmed and Juber Ahmed, while maintaining their conviction under Section 307/323/34 IPC, their substantive sentences awarded for committing the offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC and u/s 323/34 IPC are reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody in this case.However, the fine imposed on the appellants Naseem Ahmed and Juber Ahmed is enhanced from 1000/- (each) to `20,000 (each).In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.It is informed that fine of `1000/- imposed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order on sentence has already been deposited and receipts are also placed on record.The appellants are directed to deposit the balance fine amount with the Registrar General of this Court by 1st August, 2017 and place on record the proof of depositing the fine amount within two days thereafter.However, if the appellants fail to deposit the balance fine amount by 1st August, 2017, they shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent for undergoing the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine.Both the appeals are partly allowed and impugned order on sentence is modified to the extent aforesaid.CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 6 of 7Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.As prayed, copy of the order be also given dasti to learned counsel for the appellant under the signature of Court Master.PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) JULY 28, 2017 'hkaur' CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 7 of 7CRL.A.Nos.76/2002 & 149/2002 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,705,617 | Two days earlier also Darshan Singh had objected to the repair/construction of the wall, saying that it was a common wall and that he should raise his own wall.The complainant told Darshan singh with folded hands, that he is getting his own wall constructed, on which his sons Avneet @ Bobby and Kanwaljeet @ Bunty, started quarrelling and abusing the complainant.Complainant son Naresh also came out and he tried to persuade Darshan Singh and his son, but Darshan Singh asked his sons that Naresh Kumar be caught, where after Darshan Singh and Kanwaljeet caught hold of Naresh Kumar outside his house near to the gate and Avneet hit something like knife in the left side of the abdomen of Naresh kumar and then all the threDarshan., Avneet @ Bobby and Kanwaljeet @ Bunty fled away from the spot.Naresh Kumar was removed to hospital by complainant.He succumbed to injuries at 07.05 p.m. on the same day."% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the appellants herein seek to challenge the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 28th August 1998 and 29th August 1998, respectively whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has convicted them for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment together with imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in Crl.A. No.391/1998 Page 1 of 23 default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.Crl. A. No.391/1998 Page 1 of 23To bring home the charges, the prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses.After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the all the three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Crl.A. No.391/1998 Page 2 of 23 Cr.P.C. and in their statement, they pleaded innocence and false implication by the prosecution.Crl. A. No.391/1998 Page 2 of 23After addressing some arguments to assail the findings of the learned trial court on merits of the judgment and to plead for acquittal of the appellant, Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant mainly confined his arguments to urge that the offence committed by the appellants would fall under clause 4 of Section 300 of IPC, punishable under Section 304 (Part II) IPC.The contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant was that there was a sudden fight which had taken place between the accused persons on the one hand and the complainant and his son (deceased) on the other hand on a construction of wall, both being immediate neighbours.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no previous enmity between the parties and the row of controversy between them was the construction of a common wall.Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the prosecution failed to prove the weapon of offence used by the accused Avneet Singh through which the stabbed injury was inflicted on the deceased, as there is an inconsistent stand of the prosecution witnesses who entered into witness box pertaining to this fact.Inviting attention of the court to the deposition of Narinder Kumar (PW-2), the counsel submitted that he in his examination-in-chief deposed that the other co-accused Avneet Singh @ Boby thrusted something like a knife and similarly Sarditta Mal (PW-4) father of the deceased in his deposition stated that the accused Avneet Singh @ Boby brought a weapon like a knife and again said that the accused Avneet Singh @ Boby was already having a knife in his possession and he had just taken out and stabbed my son, Naresh.Crl. A. No.391/1998 Page 3 of 23Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that such inconsistencies in the deposition of the said eye-witnesses creates enough Crl.A. No.391/1998 Page 4 of 23 doubt on the recovery of the weapon of offence during the alleged disclosure statement of Avneet Singh and the sketch of dagger proved on record as Ex.PW-6/A. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even as per the prosecution, the main assailant was Avneet Singh, who has already died and not the present appellants, who as per the prosecution had merely caught hold of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even appellants had no knowledge of the fact that the other co-accused Avneet Singh was in possession of a sharp edged weapon through which he could cause serious injury to the deceased Naresh.Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the present appellants have already suffered incarceration for a period of around seven years and they are not involved in any other criminal offence and their antecedents are very clean.Learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that leniency be shown in awarding the sentence.Learned APP for State also submitted that not merely these appellants caught hold of the deceased but exhorting the other co-accused by uttering that Naresh Kumar may not be spared (bach ke na jane paye).Learned APP for State also argued that all the accused persons had fled away after committing the said crime, which further proves the criminal bent of mind of these appellants.Crl. A. No.391/1998 Page 6 of 23 | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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. |
110,705,839 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.53 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioner.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act as against the petitioner.He would further submit that the on the complaint lodged by the petitioner as against the husband , case has been registered in Crime No.33 of 2019 on the file of the very same first respondent.Hence he prayed to quash the same.O.P.(MD) No.13053 of 20109 premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner which has to be investigated.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in both the crime numbers and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.19.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Inspector of Police Keeranur Police Station Dindigul District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13053 of 20109 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,070,869 | Thereafter somehow she informed her brother and informed him that she is being beaten by the applicants.Heard on the question of admission.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.611/2017 registered by Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent No.3 made an oral complaint to the effect that she was married to the applicant No.3 on 1.7.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals.Immediately after her marriage, the applicants started beating her and harassing her on the question of bringing less dowry and they were demanding Rs.10,00,000/-.On 8.6.2017, she went back to her maternal home and on 3.7.2017 her brother received a phone call from the applicants that the respondent No.3 may be left in her matrimonial house.Accordingly, the brother of the respondent No.3 brought her to the matrimonial house, at that time also the applicants had enquired that whether the respondent No.3 had brought the money or not.When she replied that her father does not have so much of money, then they started assaulting her.The applicant No.1 caught hold of her hand, whereas the applicants No.2 and 3 assaulted her by fists and blows.They also restrained the respondent No.3 to talk to her relatives on phone and food 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.22444/2017 (Smt. Vimla Devi & Ors.vs. State of M.P.) was also not given to her.On 18 th July, she came to her maternal home at Dabra.On the basis of this complaint, the police has registered the FIR for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in fact the applicants have been falsely implicated.The applicant No.3 has also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the FIR has been lodged on false allegations. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,379,279 | 3.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- During the intervening night of 23.06.2010 and 24.06.2010, the office of Venugopala Temple, Anavathukkal, Mahehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 was broke open.One iBell DVD Player worth of Rs.1,450/- and cash of Rs.450/- were stolen.On the next day i.e on 24.06.2010 at 09.30 a.m, the Secretary of the Temple noticed about the burglary and lodged a complaint before the respondent police.The case was registered in Crime No. 58 of 2010 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. .DVD player and cash have been stolen, from the locked premises.The revision petitioner herein is the second accused in C.C.No.26 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mahe.This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court convicting him for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.The same, on appeal, was confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Pondicherry.In the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police received a report from Kannur Town Police Station that three persons namely, K.A.Niyasudeen, Riyas @ Kuyyali Riyas and Arafath were arrested in Crime No.697 of 2010 and they have confessed about their involvement in the case under the investigation by Mahe Police regarding theft in Venugopala Temple.Since these three persons were already arrested and were under the judicial custody, formal arrest was effected.On completion of investigation, final report was filed against them for the offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 4To prove the charges, the respondent-police have examined 6 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits.The accused persons have not chosen to examine any witness.When they were questioned about the incriminating circumstance against them in the evidence of prosecution, they denied their complicity.The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of prosecution held that the complaint[Ex.The evidence of PW- 1[Bhaskaran] is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 [Santha], who is the attender of the temple who was present along with PW-1 when the temple office was opened.The stolen DVD player [M.O.3] was recovered from A2/revision petitioner based on his confession statement to the police in the presence of PW- 3[A.K.Mohandas].Through the evidence of PW-3, the prosecution has proved, the recovery of stolen article from the possession of A2 leading to the presumption that A2 is the thief under Section 114(A) of the Indian EvidenceA2 was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 457of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment and sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone by the accused was ordered to be set off.As far as the charges against A1 and A3 is concerned, Since there was no other incriminating material against them except the confession statement of A2 co- accused, which is only corroborative piece of evidence and not substantive piece of evidence.The trial Court acquitted them for want of evidence.Before the lower appellate Court the accused contented that the trial Court failed to note that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and evidence of PW-3 regarding confession and recovery is highly unbelievable.Same witness for confession as well as recovery is doubtful.Mere recovery of corpus delicti, based on the confession of a person in the custody of the police is unsafe to rely and convict.Before this Court, under the revisional jurisdiction, the convicted second accused is questioning the manner in which the Courts below has appreciated the evidence.Pointing out that PW- 1 Secretary of the temple and PW-2 is the Temple Attender have not spoken about the involvement of the accused.So, he pleads that the benefit of doubt should have been extended to thishttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 revision petitioner also as it was extended to the other two accused persons.9. Heard both sides and perused the records.The crime has come to light on the next day when PW-1 came to the temple office of open it.Therefore, expecting some eye witness to the act of burglary during the night is preposterous.Just because PW-1 and PW-2 were not witnessed to the occurrence, their evidencehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 regarding the theft which they have noticed on the next day when they came to the office to open it can not be brushed aside.Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment:-Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house- breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”The DVD player and cash of Rs.450/- were found missing on the next day.Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code reads ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 under:-Theft in dwelling house, etc. --- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”The stolen DVD player has been recovered from this revision petitioner, based on his confession statement.PW-3 an independent witness has deposed about the recovery.There is no reason to doubt his evidence nor doubt the voluntariness of the confession statement just because the accused was under judicial custody.Under Section 114(A) of the Indian Evidence Act any person, who found in possession of stolen property, is bound to explain satisfactorily about his possession.If he fails to explain the possession, then it has to be presumed that he is the person, who has stolen the property or the person who has received the stolen property with knowledge.Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.26 of 2010 dated 20.10.2010 is confirmed.The respondent police is directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off.Both the sentence is ordered to run concurrently.Bail bond if any executed by the accused shall be cancelled.28.02.2019 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no ari To The II Additional Sessions Judge Pondicherry.The Judicial Magistrate, Mahe.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.G.Jayachandran,J.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 ari Judgment made in Crl.R.C.No.18 of 2012 | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,381,970 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Jai Hind in crime no.111/2017 registered by P.S.-Bandri District- Sagar under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 506 and 190 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was 17 years 2 months old on the date of the incident.The petitioner practiced deception upon her and told her that her father was ill.On that pretext, he asked her to take some money with her and accompany him.Consequently, the prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner after taking Rs.10,000/- from her home.The petitioner took her to various places and ultimately they went to Bhopal.During aforesaid period, the petitioner is said to have raped the prosecutrix twice.He threatened that if she disclosed the matter to anyone, he would kill her and her parents.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prosecutrix was a minor, she had attained the age of knowledge and understanding on the date of the incident.She had accompanied the petitioner of her own free will and accord.It is not possible to abduct a girl in public and take her to various places simply by threatening to kill her and her parents.The first information report was lodged 5 days even after the prosecutrix had returned home.The petitioner has been in custody since 24.05.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.It is directed that the petitioner 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 his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,839,029 | Heard on IA No. 5436/2015, which is an application under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of applicants for suspension of their jail sentence and grant of bail to them.The applicants were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326/149 & 323/149 on two counts by the learned JMFC, Seondha in Criminal Case No. 526/2007 vide judgment dated 20.2.2013 and the applicants were convicted as follows:Conviction Imprisonment Fine amount Detail lieu of fine 326/149 of IPC 3 years RI 1000/- 3 months 323/149 One month RI Rs.200/- Seven days Section 148 6 months RI Rs.200/- One month On filing an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha in Criminal Appeal No. 15/13 the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated Cr.Revision No. 530/2015 ( 2) 19.6.2015 and all the applicants except Applicant No.1 Naval, have been convicted under Section 326/149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three years RI each with fine of Rs. 1000/- each.While applicant No.1 Naval has been convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-.All the applicants have further been convicted under Section 147, 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 148 of IPC each.The applicants have preferred this revision and challenged the impugned judgment.Applicants were on bail during the period trial as well as during appeal, they have not misused the liberty granted to them.It is directed that execution of jail sentence of applicants shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the Cr.Revision No. 530/2015 ( 3) like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/8/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge dcs/- | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,400,719 | Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for complainant.This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 20/10/2014, in connection with Crime No.329/2014, registered at Police Station Sabalgarh, District Morena for the offence punishable under Section 323, 506, 324, 354, subsequently added 325 of IPC.It is alleged that, on 19.10.2014 the prosecutrix lodged a report that in the morning at 8 AM when she was going to field near the field of Mangi, applicant Mukesh armed with Axe was standing there, caught the hand of the prosecutrix and pressed the breast of the prosecutrix.On her shout, applicant caused injury on her head.When the brother of the applicant Gyan Singh came to the scene and given four to five blows by Lathi which resulted into several injuries.On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that there was a report lodged against the prosecutrix and her husband, in which offence under Section 302, 341, 147, 148, 149 of IPC was ( 2) M.Cr.C .No.10928/14 registered.On behalf of the complainant / prosecutrix application is opposed on the ground that there has been several injuries and ulna bone of right hand and left hand were fractured.It is also stated that the applicant and his brother caused injuries with intention to kill the prosecutrix.Learned PL also opposed the application on the ground that there are five injuries, out of which two were fractured.In the FIR itself enmity is reflected between the parties. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,125 | P-6, which is given to the Tahsildar; I have written the complaint to the Tahsildar because the police was trying to help the Dalmia family."P.W.20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Ashok Nagar police station.He was on patrolling duty from 7.00 a.m. till 2.00 p.m. on 30.1.01 in the areas lying within the jurisdiction of Ashok Nagar and Kumaran Nagar police station, watching for commission of crimes.At about 11.15 a.m. On that day, when he was patrolling the 4th Avenue in Ashok Nagar, he received a message from the Control Room, Egmore, that he must visit No.1, Baroda 3rd Street, West Mambalam, since there was fire in the terrace.He was asked to give a report after inspection.This made him go to the said place immediately and on reaching the place he found the fire service unit already there.The second floor was an open terrace.P.W.14, the fire service officer, was already there.P.W.20 observed the charred dead body of Archana and the body was lying near the water tank with face upwards.He recovered it.He recovered M.O.2, a five litre capacity can containing varnish to its 3/4th level.Then he informed the Asst.Commissioner of Police as well as the Control Room.He found, on the door leading to the open terrace, bloodstains.He also noticed bloodstains in the steps leading from the 2nd floor to the first floor.Goel, present in court, was also there at that time.P.W.20 is not acquainted with Hindi and the constable present with him also do not know Hindi.A-1 and A-3 talked among themselves in Hindi.Then, whatever they stated in Tamil, he reduced the same into writing as a complaint. A-1 and A-2 asked these authorities to take the signature of P.W.1 in the complaint.Then A-1 and A-2 took the signature of P.W.1 and gave it to him.P-26 is the complaint reduced into writing by the constable present with him.Then he came back to the police station and registered it and prepared Ex.P-27, printed first information report.The Asst.P.W.27 is the Asst.Commissioner of Police during the relevant time in Greater Chennai.Since it has come to light that Archana died within two years after marriage, he forwarded the express records to the Personal Assistant (General) to the Madras District Collector through the Sub-Inspector of Police.Then he reached the scene of occurrence, where in the presence of P.W.25 and another prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P-46 and the rough sketch, Ex.P.W.25 witnessed the above proceedings.Then P.W.27 sent for the photographer to take photographs of the scene of occurrence as well as the dead body.P.W.18 is the photographer, who accordingly photographed the crime scene as well as the dead body.M.O.23 and M.O.24 series are the photographs and negatives.P.W.27 sent the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem.From the crime scene he recovered M.Os.1 to 9 under Ex.Then he sent those properties through the Tahsildar for chemical examination.He examined P.W.24 and others by recording their statements.P.W.20 had already sent the express records to the Personal Assistant (General) to the Madras District Collector.P.W.27 also sent a report to the Personal Assistant (General) to the Madras District Collector about the crime.The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy was directed to conduct inquest.P.W.23, during the relevant time, was Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam circle.He was directed to conduct inquest regarding the death of Archana.P-34 is the requisition given by P.W.27 to the Collector to conduct inquest.P.W.23, accordingly, went to the Royapettah Government Hospital where the dead body kept in the mortuary was identified to him, which he observed.Then in the presence of panchayatadars, he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P-25, inquest report.He noticed traces of blood on the left hand elbow of the dead body.He sent a requisition for conducting post-mortem by atleast two doctors.Accordingly, P.W.23 permitted videographing of the dead body before commencement of post-mortem.P.W.26 is the videographer, who on the request of the President of Lions Club, Royapuram, went to his office and with him he went to the crime scene.He photographed the bloodstains found in the staircase of the first floor; the wall on either side of the staircase and the screen just at the beginning of the staircase.He was asked to photograph those persons present there and the police personnel.P-50 is the video cassette.The police personnel there asked him to take photographs also as his video camera had a provision to take photographs.Accordingly, he took photographs also and Ex.P-51 series are the photographs.On 7.2.01 P.W.1 gave a complaint and on the same day Rakesh Kumar, brother of the deceased (not examined) sent to him sixteen photographs taken from the scene of occurrence along with a letter.P.W.23 sent those photographs to the Assistant Director of Forensic Laboratory.P-40 is the letter given to him by Rakesh Kumar.The Asst.The inquest conducted by this witness revealed that it may be a case of dowry death and, therefore, he sent his report to the District Collector for investigation by the police.Ex.P-43 is his report.P-44 is the requisition given by him to the hospital authorities to conduct post-mortem.He received a report only in respect of three objects out of twenty-one from the scientific laboratory, which report he sent to the Asst.From the paper cover; from the parapet wall in the open terrace; from the place east of the parapet well and from the place where Archana would have died, he removed bloodstains with cotton swabs.Then by using cotton swab procedure, he recovered bloodstains noted by him on the plywood door leading to the open terrace; from the open terrace floor and from the plastic ropes (yellow and green colour); blood sample from A-5, who is stated to have helped the victim and then handed over the same to the Asst.Commissioner of Police for their onward journey to the laboratory.P.W.27 continued his investigation.Further witnesses were examined by P.W.27 by recording their statements.He sent all the case properties recovered in this case to the laboratory for chemical examination.By examining the employees of Airtel (mobile service provider) he verified the duration of certain outgoing calls stated to have been made by A-5 to her fiancee (would-be husband).He collected the post-mortem report from P.W.23 and as the post-mortem report disclosed internal injuries on the head of Archana, and since drops of blood were noticed in several places in the crime scene and witnesses have stated that Archana, before her death, was subjected to cruelty, he altered the section of offence from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. into one under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC.P-54 is the altered express first information report.The alteration is also on the basis of the statement made by the doctor, who did post-mortem.At 2.00 p.m. on 19.2.01 he arrested A-1 and then sent him for judicial remand.On 22.2.01 he sent the post-mortem report to the court.He examined further witnesses by recording their statements.Administrative Officer in the LIC Branch at Anna Nagar during the relevant time.He had filed copies of all the four policies (the policies are already marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4).His duty is to go to every house for collecting clothes for ironing and then delivering the ironed clothes.During the course of such work, he had gone to the house of the accused also several times who reside opposite to the shop where he is working.Besides A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5, Archana was also living there.Their residential accommodation consists of a ground floor, first floor and an open terrace and he had gone to their house several times to collect clothes for ironing.On some occasions, he had noticed Archana in a happy mood and on some occasions in a dejected mood.Archana told him that in the absence of the household servant main, she used to wash clothes and whenever ironing charges are asked, she used to reply that she will not ask for money from the others and P.W.11 can directly ask others.On occasions when he used to go to the house of the accused to collect clothes, he had seen A-5 and Archana quarrelling and immediately they will cool down and then go back to their routine moods.P.W.12 is the Manager of Bank of Baroda.But, however, there is no trace of fire in the first floor.When he asked A-1, he directed him to go to the upper floor, where he found a 25 year old female lying fully charred covered by a bed spread.One of her hands alone was visible.He had also stated that the injuries found on the head of Archana are not sufficient to cause death.But, however, as a result of those injuries, the victim could have become unconscious.But he cannot say the duration of such unconsciousness.He then deposed that the 4th injury found on the head of the dead body could have been caused by the blunt side of a weapon and such injury is not possible if the head comes in contact on its own with another object.All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature.He then stated that immediately after post-mortem he visited the crime scene.P.W.28 was continuing his investigation by examining witnesses and recording their statements."1) Demand for Rs.25,000/= by A-1 ;"2) Change of nominee's name in the LIC policies ;3) A-1 demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh to expand his business; second time he wanted Rs.25,000/= and the third time he wanted a sum of Rs.4.75 lakhs ;In the result, the criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision fails and they are dismissed.1) The Presiding Officer, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai.2) The District Collector, Chennai.R.C. NO.1588 OF 2004P.C. Goel .. Petitioner VsStare rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Crime Branch, CID Metro Wing Chennai 2. .. Respondents Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed against the judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai, in S.C. No.377 of 2001 dated 6.4.2004 as stated therein.For Appellants : Mr.Sanjay Ramasamy For Petitioner : Mr. S.Anantha Narayanan (For Intervenor in CA No.576/04) For Respondents : Mr. N.R.Elango, APP in CA 576/04 & for R-2 in Crl.R.C. No.1588/04 Mr. Sanjay Ramasamy for R-1 in Crl.R.C. No.1588/04 COMMON JUDGMENT(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY R.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.) Five persons were tried in S.C. No.377/01 on the file of the Court of Mahalir Neethi Mandram at Chennai under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found A-1 to A-3 alone guilty of the above referred to offences and, accordingly, sentenced A-1 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and A-2 and A-3 each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the same offence.The compensation amount, to be paid to the minor, was directed to be invested in a nationalised bank till the minor attains majority.A 1 to A 3 are therefore challenging their conviction before this Court in this appeal.Challenging the acquittal of A-5, P.W.1 in that sessions case is before this Court in the accompanying revision.The State had not challenged the acquittal of A-4 and A-5 in the judgment under challenge.Heard Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.The defence examined one witness on their side as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D-1. C.W.1 was examined as a court witness through whom Exs.C-1 to C-3 came to be marked.3. A-1, A-4 and A-5 are the sons and daughter of A-2 and A-3 (A-2 and A-3 are the father and mother of A-1).Archana is the deceased in this case.In other words, P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and the brother of the deceased.We will extract hereunder in extenso as to what P.W.1 spoke in court on material aspects:-I have two sons and one daughter; P.W.3 is the eldest of the three and he is my son; my second son is Rakesh Kumar and Archana is my daughter.and I do not remember the year; during the betrothal, I gave gold chain, gold ring, gold coin, bracelet, silver coin and cash; but, however, I do not remember how much cash I gave at that time; I have spent about Rs.75,000 to Rs.80,000 on the betrothal function; the Tilak function was held in GRT Grand hotel on 20.1.99; At that time I gave Rs.1 lakh to A-1 as demanded earlier; I also gave bracelet, chain, diamond ring, wrist watch and suit to A-1; I had given a gold jewellery set to A-3 and to A-5 I gave half jewellery set; half jewellery set means without bangles; on the Tilak function day itself I gave 150 silver coins and I spent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/= for that function; only the bridegroom should perform the Tilak function; however, for that function, the expenses were equally shared; the marriage took place in Radha Park hotel on 22.1.99 for which I spent a sum of Rs.3 lakhs; for a few days after marriage my daughter was happy; thereafter, A-1 demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/= from me, which I sent through my daughter.3.2. A-3 insisted that the nomination under the four LIC policies should be changed in the name of A-1 and, accordingly, I changed the nomination in the name of A-1; Exs.Even after marriage, all the accused were living as a joint family; A-1 was doing fruit canning business; to expand his business, he wanted a sum of Rs.1 lakh first; then he demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/= and lastly he demanded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/=; A-5's betrothal was held at Delhi; since A-2 and A-3 asked me to look for alliance for their daughter, I arranged an alliance and proposed to them; A-2 came to Delhi along with his family members and he finalised the proposal; the betrothal was in fact held at Faridabad; I did not know how much money was spent for that betrothal function; but, however, that alliance did not go through; the accused wanted me to give them a sum of Rs.1 lakh finding fault that because of me only they spent for that betrothal; through my daughter they made a demand on me to pay Rs.1 lakh to meet the expenses which they have incurred in that betrothal function; however, I did not give the money.For the second time there was a betrothal function at Chennai for A-5's marriage for which I was invited; at that time I noticed my daughter totally upset; I also saw my daughter's jewellery were worn by A-5 and my daughter was wearing only imitation jewellery; my daughter was so upset on that also; I gave a chain to A-3 on the seventh month function of my grandson born through my daughter; I gave a chain to A-2 and A-1; as directed by A-2 and A-3, I gave money to the relatives as well; I gave gold coins and silver articles; in January, 2001, I went to Tirupathi; all the accused and my daughter also came and at that time my daughter told me that all the accused are quarrelling with her often and they wanted her to give her jewels to A-5; I told my daughter not to part with the jewels till I tell her; my wife died on 2.9.00; even thereafter, my daughter was alright; but, however, she was very sad over her mother's death; on 23.1.01 A-1 contacted me; After A-5's betrothal A-1 telephoned to me and asked me to give a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for his sister's marriage; I expressed my inability; again he said that the marriage is finalised for April and even then I said that I cannot give money; On 30.1.01 my second son (not examined) received a phone call; the caller said "Hello" and then put down the phone; my second son told me that he got the call on 29th and I therefore asked him to contact Dalmias' (A-1, A-2 and A-4 have the surname Dalmia) and enquire as I did not get the telephone line; on 30.1.01 I went for a medical check-up with my eldest son and I returned by about 9.15 a.m. and at that time my second son told me that he spoke to Archana over telephone and Archana cried at that time that she must be taken home immediately; I asked my elder son to speak to Archana over telephone and at the receiving end the phone was attended by A-3 and by calling my daughter by name she gave the phone to my daughter; I heard Archana in tears requesting my elder son to call me and, accordingly, the phone was given to me; it was around 10.00 a.m.; my daughter told me that I must take her immediately and she would tell in person the details; I told her that my second son (not examined) would reach her house by 12.00 noon to pick her up and that she must be ready by that time.At 12.00 noon, A-1 telephoned, which call my elder son attended; we were informed that Archana has died and when asked as to what is the cause, the phone was put down; on hearing that, I was totally upset; I, along with my sons and P.W.2 went in a car to see Archana; my elder son made a call on the mobile phone to find out the cause for my daughter's death and the cause was that she committed suicide by pouring kerosene; on reaching the house we found a fire service vehicle opposite to the house; police personnel were also there; we went to the first floor and on the way we found bloodstains in the steps; bloodstains were seen in the screen and the steps; in the first floor, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were there; A-5 was not there; in the second floor also I noticed bloodstains in the wall; we tried to see Archana's dead body and some persons unknown to me prevented me from proceeding further; I got emotional and I wanted to go up and see, but I could not; I did not have the courage; my two sons told me that they will take care of the situation and advised me to sit by the side; some unknown persons took me and my daughter-in-law to a nearby place where police came and took my signatures in blank papers; I refused to sign; I was taken inside a room where I found A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and one C.M.Goel; there was a white paper containing some written material; the aforesaid persons asked me to sign; I signed and Ex.P-5 in the said white paper is my signature; in two papers they have taken my signature, one contained a printed material and the other unwritten material; when I asked them as to why I am asked to sigh, they told me that only then I would be in a position to receive the dead body and in the second paper my signature was taken for the purpose of post-mortem; the Dalmia family members were there and they were keeping quiet; the funeral took place on 1.2.01; I was not keeping good health, I returned home and recovering composure and strength through my second son, I sent a complaint on 7.2.01 giving details of the cruelty meted out to my daughter; that complaint is Ex.He also found broken bangle pieces strewn all over the steps.He ensured that nobody tampered with the evidence as per the directions given by the Asst.Commissioner of Police.Then he asked the father-in-law of Archana (A-2) and her husband (A-1) to give a complaint and they directed this witness to enquire Archana's father (P.W.1).P.W.23 examined Rakesh Kumar (brother of the deceased and not examined in this case), A-1 and the panchayatadars by recording their statements.A-1 brought the panchayatadars.In the crime scene, which is an open terrace in the second floor of the house, he found dots of blood and blood spread in the open terrace floor; parapet wall; the door leading to the open terrace and on the side wall of the stairs leading to the open terrace.Post-mortem was conducted by a team consisting of P.W.22 and others.Rakesh Kumar, the brother of the deceased, asked permission from P.W.23 to videograph the post-mortem and he accordingly permitted it.He also noticed broken bangles on the sides of the stair case and plastic pipes.Then he was taken to the open terrace where he was shown the smoked area and he was asked to photograph it.With the permission of the police he photographed it.By 6.30 p.m. on the day, he completed the work and took sixteen photographs.P-48 series are the videoed photographs (16 Nos.) and the negatives are Ex.P-49 series.The Lions Club President asked him to go to Royapettah Government Hospital to photograph the dead body.Accordingly, he reached the mortuary in the Royapettah Government Hospital on 1.2.01 and he videographed as directed by the doctor.Commissioner of Police, Saidapet, sent twenty-one objects recovered by him in connection with this case to him on 7.2.01 and those properties were also sent by this witness to the forensic laboratory as an enclosure to his letter, Ex.On 19.2.01 P.W.1 sent another letter (Ex.P-42).P.W.27 continued his examination further by examining witnesses and recording their statements.On 2.2.01 P.W.22 (the doctor, who did post-mortem) inspected the crime scene and then examined A-5, who was admitted as in-patient in SRM Hospital.The incrimination objects recovered by P.W.24 from the crime scene and handed over to P.W.27 were sent by him to the forensic laboratory through the inquest Tahsildar.P-53 is the said requisition.On 27.2.01 he arrested A-2 to A-5 from their residence at West Mambalam and then sent them for judicial remand.Pursuant to the orders obtained by P.W.1 and another in the High Court by filing O.P. Nos. 2656/01 and 3279/01 and as per the directions of the Director General of Police, the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch CID, Greater Chennai and, accordingly, he handed over the entire case diary to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai.M.O.9 was recovered under Ex.P.W.28, during the relevant time, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Metro.He took up further investigation in the case as per the orders of the High Court and as per the directions of the Director General of Police.P-61 is the High Court's order.Then he summoned P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and others to his office and examined them.P.W.s 1 and 2 did not know Tamil and, therefore, P.W.3 translated their disclosure in English, which he recorded.P.W.s 1 and 2 gave a statement in Hindi.P.W.28 informed the remand court that Crime Branch CID is doing further investigation in this case.He examined several witnesses by recording their statements.Then from P.W.23 he recovered Exs.9. P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and wife of P.W.3 and the sister-in-law of Archana, since deceased.However, we state even at this stage that if there is any variation between her evidence and P.W.1 on any material aspect, we will highlight it in the discussion portion.P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and husband of P.W.2 and elder brother of Archana, since deceased.His evidence also is more or less on the same lines as P.W.s 1 and 2, and as noted for the evidence of P.W.2, we will highlight any variation in his evidence, if any, when compared to the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 during discussion time.Since we have already extracted in extenso the oral evidence of P.W.1, we will highlight what exactly P.W.s 2 and 3 spoke regarding the occurrence proper while we discuss the merits and demerits of the prosecution and defence cases.10. P.W.4 is a resident of Delhi.But, however, she has been living in Chennai for the last thirteen years (she was examined on 13.5.02) after her marriage.She noted the presence of Goel in court.She had come to know C.M.Goel four or five years prior to she giving evidence in court on her visit to Gita Ramayana Sabha and at that time he suggested to her that she must find out an alliance for her sister's son (A-3 is his sister).The talk regarding the proposed marriage and finalisation was in the house of C.M.Goel.Dalmias' family (the accused are Dalmias') wanted to know whether the marriage would be performed as per their desire and C.M.Goel told that A-1 is a nice boy, which P.W.4 believed.It was talked at that time that during marriage gold and silver ornaments, besides a cash of Rs.1 lakh should be given.Giving electronic articles also was in the talk.It was indicated that a total sum of Rs.10 lakhs would be needed for the marriage.That sum would take care of the marriage and betrothal expenses.After marriage, Archana and A-1 were living at West Mambalam as members of a joint family and initially they were happy.Over telephone Archana used to tell her that A-5's conduct is not conducive and in addition to that, her in-laws, namely, A-2 and A-3 are also pestering her often for money and giving troubles to her in that regard and, therefore, requested P.W.4 to come over and see her.Archana told her that A-1, A-4 and A-5 are irritating her and on occasions A-1 under intoxication of liquor used to assault her. P.W.4 advised Archana that these are all common features in a joint family and as days goes on everything would become alright.P.W.1 had taken four LIC policies in the name of Archana besides one Indra Vikas Certificate and all that was prior to marriage.After marriage, A-5 insisted that the nomination in the policies and Indra Vikas Certificate should be changed in the name of A-1 and finding no way out, P.W.1 changed the nomination from his name to that of A-1's name in the LIC policies.Archana gave birth to a boy and the naming ceremony of that child was held in Geetha Bhavan; Archana's wedding anniversary was held at Hotel Sindoori and on the same day in the same hotel, A-5's betrothal also took place.P.W.4 participated in the function along with her family members.At that time she noticed Archana very sad and when she asked her as to why she is so sad, Archana told her that A-3 and A-5 had taken all her jewels and this witness saw A-3 and A-5 wearing those jewels.Archana also told this witness that she must give all the jewels to A-5 for her marriage.Archana was found to be heart-broken and sad and this witness noticed Archana wearing imitation jewellery.Pursuant to demands made after marriage for money, P.W.1 had given in all a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the accused.For the marriage of A-5, A-1 demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from P.W.1 through Archana, since deceased and P.W.1 replied that he would think about it.She came to know on 30.1.01 that Archana died and she immediately went to her house along with her husband.But, however, she did not see the dead body as by that time it had been taken to the hospital.She noticed, in the walls of the first floor, dots of blood and in the steps of the staircase leading from first floor to second floor also dots of blood were also noticed by her.She also saw broken bangles and they were on the floor near the grill gate in the first floor and the screen.Before the marriage of Archana, a demand for 101 sovereigns of jewels was made, which accordingly was given by Archana's family, but, however, she did not know the value.11. P.W.5 in her evidence would state that she knows the accused and the deceased and that she attended the marriage between A-1 and the deceased.She would state that prior to marriage, Archana was happy, but she was not to be after marriage and she was found to be lazy.But, however, she did not know the reason for such change.She was examined to prove the finalisation of A-5's marriage proposal and the possible sum that may be required for performing such marriage, but she turned hostile.But, however, before she came to be treated as hostile, she would state that A-5 is yet to be married; her marriage proposal was negotiated at Delhi, but, however, she does not know who arranged for that marriage proposal discussion in Delhi.He would state that as Archana was in the family way, P.W.1 deputed him to Archana's house to attend to the household work where he noticed that Archana alone was found doing all the household works to the exclusion of others.He would then state that A-5 told him that there are enough people to attend to the household work and he can go and A-5 had only Archana in her mind when she stated so.This witness left the house of Archana within four days after he reported for duty there.He would state that his nature of work includes going to bank for remitting money; depositing cheques for encashment; getting money from the bank and giving salary to the employees.He would also state that he is personally looking after the personal accounts of P.W.1 and he knows the accused.According to him, when Archana told P.W.1 that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband are asking for money, P.W.1 gave a sum of Rs.6 lakhs, which was not paid in one instalment, but paid in several instalments.Out of the four policies, two policies have been surrendered and honoured.The surrender was on 31.3.00 and the payment was made as evidenced by the letter, Ex.P-9. P.W.10 during the relevant time was working as Senior Manager of Indian Bank at T.Nagar.Ex.P-10 is the account opening form of Archana, since deceased and Ex.P-11 is the statement of account.P-12 and P-13 are the account opening application forms and the statement of accounts of A-1, while Exs.On 15.4.00 a sum of Rs.28,574/= was credited into the account of Archana by clearing a cheque and on 19.4.00 a sum of Rs.28,500/= was withdrawn.P.W.11 is a laundry man and he is employed in the shop belonging to his brother in Baroda Street where the crime scene is situate.In his Bank, Dalmia Private Ltd., had an account and Ex.P-16 is the application given to open an account and Ex.P.W.13 is the Chief Manager of State Bank of India at T.Nagar and he speaks about the account of A-2 in that Bank.P.W.14 is the Station Officer of the fire service station at Ashok Nagar.Over wireless, at 10.55 a.m. on 30.1.01, he received information about the fire and, accordingly, reached the crime scene.In the first floor of the said building the incident is shown to have taken place.When he lifted the bed spread, he found nothing on the human body.Police arrived by that time.P.W.15 is an employee of Airtel during the relevant time.He was enquired by the police to give details of the calls to and from mobile phone having No.98400-17159 and he accordingly provided the details.From that mobile phone there was a call on 30.1.01 to another telephone bearing No.6256198 and the duration of the call was 41 seconds.From the same phone there was another outgoing call at 9.55 a.m. on the same day to another phone having No.4800219 and the duration of that call was 37 seconds.At 10.48 a.m. on the same day from the same mobile phone there was an outgoing call to telephone bearing No.4839371 and the duration of the call is 2 mins.41 seconds.She knows the accused and the deceased and her father and P.W.1 are close friends.She would state that she had attended the betrothal and the marriage of Archana, since deceased and she would state that after marriage, Archana was living as a member of joint family in West Mambalam.She would then state that she had not seen Archana often thereafter, but during functions she used to meet her.But, however, she used to tale to her over phone often.She would then depose that her brother's marriage was attended to by Archana and at that time Archana cried to her by stating that her in-laws are torturing her and A-1 was demanding money.According to her, Archana also stated that besides the above, A-5 was also torturing her and that A-1 used to beat her by compelling her to get money from her parents.P.W.17 is the Manager of a hire purchase company, who speaks about financing a sum of Rs.1.20 lakhs on 26.12.00 to A-2 to purchase a vehicle and Ex.P-21 is the document evidencing the same.On that financial assistance, A-2 purchased a vehicle bearing No. TN-07-H-7533 and the payment schedule is fixed at Rs.8,300/= per month for the first seventeen months and Rs.7,100/= for the eighteenth month.Upto 28.4.01 four instalments have been paid and Ex.P-22 is the statement of accounts.P.W.19 is a retired doctor from Tamil Nadu Medical Service and he was a consultant at SRM Hospital.On 30.1.01 when he was on duty, A-5 was brought before him for burn injuries and he issued Ex.P-25, the wound certificate.The injuries are simple in nature.A-5 had suffered a abrasion on her right hand.He did not notice any fresh bleeding in injury No.7 and he also did not notice any bleeding at all in the other burn injuries.P-28 is the intimation sent by him to the police and Ex.He noticed a partly healed abrasion on A-5's right hand wrist.On 7.2.01 a eleven months old child named Piyush Dalmia was brought before him at 7.30 a.m. and he found only superficial burn injuries and the burn injuries is to the extent of 1%.P-30 is the certificate given by him for the child.P.W.22 is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at Royapettah Government Hospital.On receipt of Ex.P-31 given by P.W.23, he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Archana.During post0mortem he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P-32, the post-mortem report.The symptoms noted are as hereunder :-1) Extensive mixed burns seen all over the body from head to feet both in the front and back.The charred skin has peeled off in most of the area including the palms and feet exposing the underlying inflamed and hyperaemic subcutaneous tissue.The burnt skin along with the nails were not found in the left thumb and index finger and the underlying hyperaemic subcutaneous tissue was seen.Heat lacerations seen over the right cubital fossa and front and inner aspect of right arm .Hair all over the body is singed.Scalp hair is almost completely singed except few strands of intact hair in the occipital region.2) Dried up streaks of blood stains seen over the outer aspect of left forearm and left palm.Small lacerations seen on the lateral aspect of left thenar eminence 1 x 0.2 cms x fascia deep.Small punctuate lacerations seen on the medial border of left palm.3) Superficial split laceration seen on the dorsum of left hand in the 2nd metacarpal region (index finger) 4.5 x 1 cms x fascia deep.Internal Injuries :-Bruising of the scalp seen over the vault of the skull and also on the left temporal region.Subscalpular extra cranial haematoma seen over the vault of the skull 8 x 7 x 0.2 cms.On dissection of Head : Thin film of subdural haemorrhage seen all over the brain.Heart : Chambers contained clotted blood.Lungs : Oedematous c/s congested exudes copious frothy fluid.Copper 'T' found inside.Brain : Thin film of subdural haemorrhage seen.Hyperaemic surface vessels full.C/S shows numerous petichiae."The doctor opined that death is as a result of shock due to burns.On 16.4.01 P.W.3 had moved the Principal City Civil Judge, Chennai, to cancel the bail granted to the accused.On 27.4.01 bail granted to the accused was cancelled with a direction to the accused to surrender themselves in prison.As A-1 and A-2 did not surrender, P.W.28 filed an application on 30.4.01 before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate to cancel their bail bond.On 3.5.01, A-1 to A-4 surrendered before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate.P.W.28 examined A-5 on 9.5.01 and to fix her blood group, he took her to Royapettah Government Hospital and blood grouping test was done there and her blood was found to be of 'O' negative group.On 22.5.01 P.W.28 examined A-3 in the Women's Sub Jail at Saidapet and she refused to disclose anything about the crime.When she was questioned with reference to the jewelleries provided to the deceased at the time of marriage, she refused to answer.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials made available against each one of them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.As noted earlier, a witness was examined on their side as D.W.1 and Ex.D-1 had come to be marked.D.W.1 in her evidence would state that she knows the Dalmia family (accused family) for over twenty-five years and she used to participate in all the functions held in the house of the accused and she knows A-1, A-4 and A-5 from their age of ten onwards.She would then depose that she attended the marriage of Archana with A-1 and, thereafter, she had been visiting the house often.She would also state that she had talked to Archana Dalmia over telephone often.According to her, from her personal visits to the house of Dalmias' and her personal talk over telephone with Archana, she would say that Archana was living happily and she was living with them as a joint family member.Prior to Archana's death, her mother died and, thereafter, she found Archana in a depressed mood whenever she had gone to her house.She had also noticed Archana weeping and she had consulted her.According to her, Archana used to call A-3 as her mother.D.W.1 had consoled Archana that though her mother had died, yet she has another mother in her in-laws house and, therefore, if she goes on weeping, then there would be nobody to look after her child.Ex.D-1 is the case history submitted by P.W.23, the inquest Tahsildar.It records that on the occurrence day at 10.30 a.m. in the crime scene, Archana self-immolated her in her house by pouring kerosene.The dead body has been sent to the Royapettah Government Hospital for post-mortem; Archana left behind a eleven months old male child; Archana appears to have died within two years after marriage; the investigating officer had filed a report and the post-mortem is going on.As already stated, he had been examined at the instance of the court.His evidence shows that on 5.2.01 he inspected the crime scene on the request given by P.W.23 and at the time of his inspection P.W.s 23, 24 and police officers were present.P-39, and since Ex.P-39 forms part of the records, we are not stating here in detail his evidence.Suffice to say that his report shows that Archana, before she came to die, was moving from one place to another in the open terrace.His oral evidence and the report also shows the areas where he saw dots of blood and carbon particle impressions in various portions in the house.C-1 to C-3 came to be marked through him.Ex.C-1 is black and white photographs (34 in number); Ex.C-2 the negatives of the same and Ex.In Ex.C-3 P.W.23 had addressed the Director of Forensic Sciences Department to depute a senior forensic scientist to inspect the crime scene and give his report.The next document that had come on record is Ex.P-37, the statement of Rakesh Kumar Goel, recorded by P.W.23, the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest.This statement was on 31.1.01 itself, namely, one day after the occurrence.L.J. 2944 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) ;L.J. 625 (Uttranchal High Court) ;The prosecution of the accused is for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and father-in-law of A-1. A-2 is the father and A-3 is the mother, while A-4 and A-5 are brother and sister of A-1. P.W.4 is the lady, who is known to the family of the accused.Her evidence shows that on account of her close acquaintanceship with the family of the accused, she was asked to look out for a good alliance for A-1 and such a move was mooted by C.M.Goel, who is none other than the brother of A-3. P.W.1 had also admitted that it is only P.W.4, who initiated the move for the marriage of A-1 with his daughter Archana and ultimately it was finalised due to her efforts only.She deposed that though she belongs to Delhi, she had settled down at Chennai after her marriage and when she attended one of the religious courses at Geetha Ramayana Sabha, she came to be introduced to C.M.Goel.According to her, sometime thereafter, C.M.Goel requested her to look for an alliance for his nephew, namely, A-3's son.As far as the crux of the prosecution case is concerned, she had very clearly stated that during the negotiation stage, a demand for dowry in the form of gold jewellery; silver articles; a cash of Rupees One lakh and electronic articles were demanded.She would then state that Archana informed her over telephone that her sister-in-law's conduct (the sister-in-law is A-5) is not conducive.When Archana saw her personally, she told her that her father-in-law (A-2) and mother-in-law (A-3) are often pestering her for money and in that context A-1, A-4 and A-5 are also irritating her considerably.She had further told at that time that A-1, under intoxication of liquor, used to assault her.As is expected of a married woman and as a person, who had finalised the marriage proposal, P.W.4 appears to have advised Archana that in joint family living, such problems may be there and as time progresses, everything will be alright.Her evidence further shows that she attended the naming ceremony of Archana's child held in Geetha Bhavan and she also attended the wedding anniversary of Archana at Hotel Sindhoori.On that day itself the betrothal function of A-5 took place.This witness is shown to have participated in that function along with her family members.She would then state that at that time, she noticed Archana looking sad and when asked, Archana told her that A-3 and A-5 had taken all her jewels and that they were wearing her jewels at that time.Archana also told her that the accused wanted Archana to give all her jewels to A-5 for her marriage and P.W.4 noticed Archana at that time to be very sad.She also noticed Archana wearing only imitation jewellery at that time.This witness had been subjected to a lengthy cross examination.She had affirmed in her evidence in cross that she had participated in the negotiation prior to the marriage between Archana and A-1, which took place in the house of C.M.Goel.On going through her evidence in cross, we do not find that she had not caved in at all in favour of the accused.On going through the entire evidence of P.W.4, we find that it is natural and convincing and the defence has not made out any case at all while cross examining her to disbelieve her evidence.Therefore, without any hesitation we conclude that the evidence of P.W.4 establishes beyond doubt the following aspects, namely, prior to marriage a demand for dowry was made by the accused which was complied with; after marriage Archana told her about the cruelty to which she was subjected to in the context of demand for money; Archana losing her confidence in the house and feeling depressed on account of the behaviour of A-5 and the accused taking her jewels and wearing it by themselves on the wedding anniversary of Archana on which date A-5's betrothal also took place and Archana was found to be not happy at all.It is not as though the prosecution has the evidence of P.W.4 alone to speak about the demand for dowry made before marriage; the demands made thereafter and the mental torture to which Archana was pushed to.We have already referred elaborately, in the earlier portion of the judgment, as to what P.W.s 1 to 3 spoke in court.In addition to the above, he was also cross-examined on his competency to meet any such demands.Ofcourse, he had admitted that prior to moving to his new house in Anna Nagar, he was living only in a rented house and from the business, which he carries on (he states that he is doing business in transports having seven lorries, meaning thereby he is a fleet operator), he would be earning a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as profit per year.He had also admitted that he had not shown the expenses incurred by him in celebrating his daughter's marriage and meeting other expenses in his income-tax return and that he has the income tax return details in his office.We have to only state that there appears to be a very light-hearted cross-examination of this witness as far as his solvency to meet the claims of the accused.Normally, a parent prepares himself to meet the possible expenses of his daughter's marriage, why even for his son's marriage, long prior to the expected function.No family normally buys jewellery and other ornaments just before the marriage day and, therefore, it is definitely a long process during which the family of a bride builds up its assets to meet the exigencies of the marriage at a future date.Under these circumstances, as already noted, we are not in a position to doubt the capacity of P.W.1 to meet the demands shown to have been made by the accused.Therefore, we get an answer from the evidence of P.W.2 as to why P.W.1 had not chosen to even give a complaint to the police on any day earlier to the fateful day on which Archana died.P.W.2 had also stated in her evidence in cross that Archana was very confident that after the marriage of A-5, all her problems would vanish.P.W.2 very firmly stated in her evidence in cross that after the betrothal function and prior to the marriage of Archana, there were several demands from the family of the accused.We have gone through each and every piece of answer that came from the mouth of P.W.s 2 and 3 when they were cross-examined by the defence and we find, without any doubt in our mind, that both the witnesses strongly supported the evidence of P.W.1 about the demands made by the family of the accused.In other words, the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3 is in total corroboration to the oral evidence of P.W.1 already referred to.P.W.1 would state that when his daughter was in the family way, to be of assistance to her, he asked P.W.7 to go and work in Archana's matrimonial house.Ofcourse, P.W.7 did not in his evidence speak about any ill-treatment to which Archana was subjected to in the context of any unlawful demands.His stay in Archana's house was hardly for a period of four days.He would state that A-5 asked him to leave the house stating that there are enough household servants in their house to undertake all the work.There is evidence to show that there was a demand from the accused side to change the nomination in the policies in favour of A-1 and, hence, such a move was made.Ofcourse, his evidence shows that it was on a request given by the policy holder, namely, Archana.But we can still see the reasons behind such change in nomination, which had come to occur within a short span after the marriage, namely, within six months.But they have not explained.Assuming there is no clear cut documentary evidence showing the payment for the policies; credit entry and withdrawal entry, we have no reason to disbelieve P.W.9, who is an independent witness from L.I.C. of India.However, P.W.9 had proved Ex.A reading of Ex.P.9 shows that it is addressed to the deceased (Archana) and as an enclosure to that letter, a cheque the details of which is given there, in respect of the surrender value of the policy mentioned therein, had been enclosed.The policy number mentioned therein is one of the policies taken by P.W.1 in favour of his daughter.Therefore, going by the overall evidence available in this case, namely, the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4, we have no hesitation at all to conclude that the prosecution had definitely established their case that the accused had made demands for dowry and Archana was subjected to ill-treatment in the context of their unlawful demands.D.W.1, examined to prove that Archana was living happily with her husband, would state that after Archana's marriage, her mother died and when she visited Archana after her mother's demise, she found her to be depressed.She consoled her when she was weeping.She claims that she knows the family of the accused for quite a long time.She admits that her husband and the accused belong to the same community.She had categorically admitted that she did not attend Archana's marriage.She had not given any reasons for not attending.This belies her evidence that she is closely acquainted with A1, A4 and A5 from their age of 10 and therefore she knows the their inside story.Her failure to attend Archana's wedding raises a serious doubt in our mind as to whether we should believe her evidence at all.Her evidence shows that Archana was found depressed and she was weeping (though this witness would state that it is as a result of her mother's demise).Going by her overall evidence, we are of the view that her evidence is very very unnatural and probably pressed into service only to defeat the prosecution case.We will now take up the question as to how far the contents of Exs.We must note that Mr.Sanjay Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, heavily relied upon the contents of the above referred to two exhibits to contend that the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 in all is diametrically opposed to those contents; those two documents are the earliest documents to come into existence and, therefore, they must be given their due weight and if the contents of Exs.His evidence is that when he was on routine patrolling duty in the vicinity of the crime scene, he received information from the control room and then he proceeded to the crime scene.It is not the case of the defence that at all stages P.W.1 was also living in their house itself along with them.P.W.1's evidence is that, around 12.00 noon on the occurrence day, a telephone call came from A-1, which was attended to by P.W.1's eldest son and at that time information was passed on that Archana died.His evidence further shows that he then proceeded to the crime scene.P.W.2 also would state that she, along with her father-in-law (P.W.1) and her husband (P.W.3), reached the crime scene at 12.00 noon.P.W.3's evidence is also to the same effect.By the time they reached the house, Archana was already dead.In fact, she was charred to death.Why we are highlighting the above aspects is for the following reasons.When A-1 and A-2 were bodily and physically present in their house, where the occurrence had taken place, then it is normally expected from them that they must alone disclose to the police as to what happened.From the evidence of P.W.20 referred to earlier, it is clear to our mind that A-1 and A-2 were trying to keep themselves away from the limelight and that is the reason probably they asked P.W.20 to enquire P.W.1, who, as we have already noted, had reached the crime scene only after the occurrence was over.In other words, we find absolutely no justification for A-1 and A-2 to tell P.W.20 to ask P.W.1 for the details.P.W.2 in her evidence had stated that on reaching the crime scene, she along with her husband (P.W.3) and her brother-in-law, Rakesh Kumar Goel, went to the second floor and she found, at that time, the body of Archana totally charred and she also noticed blood stains in the second floor as well as in the steps leading to the second floor.P.W.1 had stated that when he wanted to go up and see the dead body of his daughter, some unknown persons prevented him from going up and he became emotional at the crime scene and though he wanted to go up and see, yet he could not go because he could not muster the courage; conviction and strength to go up and see. P.W.3 had also stated that he, along with his younger brother and P.W.2 went to the open terrace where he found the charred dead body of his sister.Having regard to the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 as to how they have conducted themselves after entering the crime scene, we find it extremely difficult to digest the suggestion made by A-1 and A-2 to P.W.20 that he must enquire P.W.1 and get the details.P.W.20 would then state that when he asked P.W.1 to give a complaint, he said that he did not know Tamil.P.W.20 also admitted that he also did not know Hindi as also the constables, who were by his side at that time.His evidence shows that A-1 and A-2, along with Goel who is the uncle of A-1, were there.Then he would depose that A-1 and A-3 conversed in Hindi and then as they narrated in Tamil, he reduced the same into writing.His evidence further shows that A-1 and A-2 got the signature of P.W.1 in that complaint and gave it to him, which is marked as Ex.We perused Ex.Though P.W.20 had been cross-examined to show that P.W.1 alone had given the complaint personally, he denied the said suggestion.It must be noticed that either at that stage of recording the complaint or even at a later stage when P.W.20 gave evidence in court, he had no axe to grind against the accused or any added interest in favour of P.W.1 or any special interest to protect him.He is a neutral witness and we see no reason at all as to why he must depose in court that P.W.1 is not the author of the contents of Ex.P-26, but it is only to the narration of A-1 and A-3 he reduced the same into a complaint.Ofcourse, the contents of Ex.P-26 discloses that Archana, in a depressed mood, had self-immolated her and died.P-26 contains information as hereunder :-"At about 9.00 a.m. on 30.1.01 (the occurrence day), A-2, A-1 and A-4 have left their house to their company situated at No.1, Janakiram Street, West Mambalam; at 10.15 a.m., A-2 came back to his house and taking his wife, A-3, went to a clinic called Ramana Clinic at West Mambalam to visit one of their relatives."It is not the case of the defence that P.W.1 knew before hand, namely, before entering the crime scene or even after entering the crime scene, that A-1, A-2 and A-4 moved out of the house and A-2 coming back again went out in the company of A-3, which are all part of the contents of Ex.If we test the disclosures found in Ex.P-26 as extracted above, and in the light of the other materials, which we have noted earlier, we have no doubt at all that even by the time P.W.20 had arrived at the crime scene, the accused have started scheming among themselves as to how to wriggle out of the tight corner in which they are placed.When P.W.1 is not shown to be knowing the movements of the accused as referred to above from the house, we fail to understand as to how he could have given those details to P.W.20 as found reflected in Ex.Again we find in Ex.P-26 a disclosure, namely, A-5 on hearing her sister-in-law's distress call, ran upstairs and when she attempted to put out the flames, she suffered injuries on both her hands and, therefore, she was taken to SRM Hospital at West Mambalam.Once again we find that it is not the case of the defence that P.W.1 had this information also by the time he went to the house of the accused or even by the time the police arrived at the scene.In these circumstances, we have to state that from the contents of Ex.P-26 and having the evidence of P.W.20 in our mind, we have no doubt at all that Ex.P-26 is the brain child of A-1 and A-3, if not A-2, and they have very cleverly managed to put these materials in the complaint and get the signature of P.W.1 as its subscriber.The extent of shock to which P.W.1 would have been subjected to in coming to know that his dear daughter is charred to death cannot be evaluated at all, and in fact the evidence of P.W.1 is that, though he wanted to go up and see his daughter lying dead, yet he cannot gather the courage and strength to go up.Next we have Ex.Ofcourse, in this statement given by Rakesh Kumar, he did not give any specific details of any demand for dowry or the ill-treatment to which his sister, Archana, was subjected to.However, in this statement, he had disclosed that in all cash, jewels, furniture and utensils worth about Rs.10 lakhs had been given at the time of marriage.P.W.s 1 to 4 have spoken about this demand.Ofcourse, in this statement the expression used by the author of the said document is "the bride's party offered".The above expression has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to contend that when the bride's party themselves are shown to have offered at the time of marriage as indicated earlier, then the oral evidence before the court, namely, that of P.W.s 1 to 4 that there was a demand for dowry and the same was complied with has to be necessarily doubted.4) The accused demanded re-imbursement of Rs.1,00,000/= spent by them on A-5's betrothal at Faridabad ; and5) A-1 demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for the marriage of his sister (A-5)."The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, these demands, assuming they stand proved, would part-take the character of "dowry demand".According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the demand for dowry must be in connection with the marriage of the parties, namely, A-1 and Archana.The marriage had already taken place prior to the above referred to demands.There is nothing to indicate from these demands that they were made in connection with the marriage.Though this argument, ex-facie, appears to be impressive, yet on a deeper consideration of the entire materials on record and having the avowed object of the Dowry Prohibition Act in mind, if we consider the argument from that angle, then we have no hesitation at all to say that this argument has to fall to the ground.The prosecution case is that the deceased had complained to her father, P.W.1, that her husband consumes liquor and often assaults her and, therefore, P.W.1 must change the nomination under the policies.P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that because of Archana's request, as stated earlier, to change the nominee's name, he took steps to change the nomination in the policies and he also gave his piece of mind to her to adjust herself in the new environment.P.W.1 had also stated that since the marriage had taken place only recently, lapse of time would bring peace to her.The reasons are not far off to be seen and according to us, the only reason would be the manner in which the accused have conducted themselves by exposing Archana to mental pressure and agony by making demands in one form or the other periodically from her parents' side thereby giving a definite impression to her that her married status could no-longer be continued, unless the demands made by them were met by her parents.This should be her only perception.Relying upon Ex.P.36, the report of the scientific expert and his oral evidence, it is contended that Archana must be moving from one place to another in the open terrace and therefore the prosecution case that she was beaten to death and then set fire to, cannot be believed.It must be noticed that the prosecution of the accused is not under section 302 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants is right in stating that the scientific expert's report and the plan show that Archana was moving atleast from one place to another before she ultimately died due to burn injuries.Medical evidence shows that she had suffered internal injuries on her head.The doctor, who did post-mortem, had categorically ruled out the possibility of Archana suffering internal head injuries by coming into contact on her own with any other object.The doctor also opined that any blunt weapon would have caused the internal injuries found on the head of Archana.Column No.1 of Ex.P.15 shows who the panchayatdars are.From the status of the panchayatadars as disclosed in Column No.1 of Ex.We are at a loss to understand as to how a man in cine-field; a coolie; a construction worker and a coolie again, would be in a position to know the in and out of the family of the accused.We went through the judgment under challenge and the learned trial Judge, relying upon the phone calls stated to have been made at or about the time from the crime scene to an outside number and appreciating the entire evidence on record, had come to the conclusion that the involvement of A-4 and A-5 in the prosecution case, as projected now, is not established.It must be noticed that A-5 is a young girl aged about 21 or 22 years at the time when the crime was committed.We are fully aware of the legal constraints of the Court while dealing with a revision against acquittal.On going through the reasons given by the learned trial Judge in acquitting A-5, we find that the acquittal is based on appreciation of evidence.In these circumstances, finding no legal infirmity in the judgment under challenge acquitting A-5, we find no ground to interfere with the said order of acquittal.Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.3) The Director General of Police, Chennai.4) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore.5) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.[PRV/7822] | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,137 | So far as the offences against Petitioner No.1 Dinesh Vitthal Patil are concerned, the offence at Sr.No.1 mentioned above, is old matter of the year 1996 and in fact it ended in acquittal.So also, the matters at Sr.Nos.4 & 5 are also ended in acquittal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::2 WP.3541.10.doc ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI, J.) :1. Heard rival submissions on earlier dates.Perused the documents annexed to the Writ Petition.Earlier, after issue of Rule on 18th January, 2011 by this Bench, the further proceedings pending before the Special Executive Magistrate, Nashik (Rural), were stayed and Writ Petition was posted for final hearing.The Petitioners are challenging the notices issued to them under Sections 110(e)(g) & 111 of Criminal Procedure Code.Rather under peculiar circumstances recourse to the writ jurisdiction was taken shelter of by the Petitioners for challenging the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 3 WP.3541.10.doc show-cause notices issued under the chapter proceedings, by contending that the Petitioners are social workers and carrying out lawful agitations to sub-serve the public cause in the area of their residence at Malegaon, District - Nashik, being the members of some political party; and out of political vengeance and in order to harass the Petitioners recourse to the action of chapter proceedings was taken by the police machinery and for this purpose the shelter of stale proceedings and even the proceedings in which the petitioners were acquitted, was taken.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::The grounds for issuance of notices under Section 110(e)(g) read with Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code can be narrated as under :- Somewhere on 6th September, 2010 an application from Killa Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nashik was received by the Special Executive Magistrate, Nashik (Rural), stationed at Nashik, for initiating chapter proceedings against the present Petitioners.Involvement of the Petitioners in various proceedings / offences was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 4 WP.3541.10.doc specifically mentioned in the respective show-cause notices.Details of such offences are as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::OFFENCES REGISTERED AGAINST - BHARAT VITTHAL PATIL (PETITIONER NO.2) Sr.C.R. NO. ACT UNDER SECTION REMARKS No .::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::OFFENCES REGISTERED AGAINST - DINESH VITTHAL PATIL (PETITIONER NO.1) Sr.C.R. NO. ACT UNDER SECTION REMARKS No .The matters at ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 6 WP.3541.10.doc Sr.Nos.2 & 3 are of the year 2005 & 2006 and the offences at Sr.No.2 are only under the Mumbai Police Act, and the offences at Sr.No.3 are of unlawful assembly, attempting to commit the offences, under the Mumbai Police Act, and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of the Property Act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::So far as the offences against Petitioner No.2 Bharat Vitthal Patil are concerned, offences at Sr.Nos.2, 3 & 4 are already ended in acquittal.So far as offence at Sr.No.5 is concerned, it mentions the role of the said Petitioner No.2 as to lighting fire crackers at the time of Shiv Jayanti procession in the locality thereby allegedly causing the breach of peace and distress between two communities.So far as both the Petitioners are concerned, the offence mentioned against Bharat at Sr.No.1 i.e. CR No.26/2006 is a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 7 WP.3541.10.doc common case in which both the Petitioners are shown as involved.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::At the cost of repetition, it must be mentioned that said offences are for unlawful assembly and offence punishable under Section 37(1) (3) and Section 135 of Mumbai Police Act and the allegations in that matter against both the Petitioners are that on 3rd May, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. in front of Hanuman Temple, Malegaon, the Petitioners along with mob gathered together and started demonstration without taking prior permission from the concerned authorities and collected garbage on the hand-carts and proceeded towards the Municipal Corporation Office by giving slogans alleging incompetency of the Municipal Corporation concerning sanitation in the area.Bearing in mind the above factual position and admitted position as to acquittal of the Petitioners in the matters, as detailed above and as accepted by the respondents vide the affidavit dated 6th January, 2011, it is to be ascertained whether under the Writ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 8 WP.3541.10.doc Jurisdiction, the relief as claimed in the present Petition can be granted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::No ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 9 WP.3541.10.doc allegation has been made against any particular officer nor the concerned officer has been named as party-respondent to take forward such a plea.Indeed, it is open to the petitioners to make good the argument that the proposed action is malafide in law.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::In the Petition, it is asserted that the proposed action has been resorted to by the Authority having his Office at Nashik.Whereas, the petitioners are residents of Malegaon which is almost 105 kilo meters away, that too, in respect of incidents taken place at Malegaon.This, by itself, in our opinion, cannot be the basis to interfere with the proposed action and more so because of the explanation offered by the respondents on affidavit that the Authority empowered to initiate action under the said provisions is having his Office at Nashik.The said power has been invested in the Special Executive Magistrate posted at Nashik in terms of Government Resolution.In that sense, it is not possible to countenance the grievance of the petitioners that the proposed action has been resorted to by the Authority at Nashik only with a view to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 10 WP.3541.10.doc harass the petitioners.Thus, the argument regarding inconvenience being caused to the petitioners because of the distance, is rejected.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::Reverting to the challenge to the show-cause notice on merits, at the cost of repetition, it is noted that the proposed action against the petitioners is on the basis that the petitioners are habitual offenders of specified offences referred to in Clauses (d) and (e) of Section 110 and are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security is hazardous to the community.The offences for which the petitioners were booked by the local police from time to time have been adverted to in the show-cause notice served on the respective petitioners.We have already culled out the details thereof in the preceding paragraph.Even if the offences referred to in the show-cause notice against each of the petitioners were to be held as sufficient for initiating proposed action under Section 111 of the Code against the petitioners, what is significant to notice is that both the petitioners have been acquitted in at least three cases out of five cases.Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the pending cases against him are arising out of C.R.No.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::3004/2005 punishable under Section 37(1)(3)/135 of Mumbai Police Act and C.R.No.26/2006 for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 511 of the Code, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995 and Section 37(1) (3)/135 of Mumbai Police Act. On the other hand, the two cases pending against petitioner No.2 are arising out of C.R.No.26/2006 punishable under Section 143, 147, 511 of the Code, Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995 and Section 37(1)(3)/135 of Mumbai Police Act and C.R.No.12/10 for offences punishable under Section 153(1)(B) of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::proceeded on the basis that the other three criminal cases in which each of the petitioner has been acquitted are also pending trial and subjudice, which position is, on the face of it, false and incorrect.Even the petitioner No.2 has been acquitted in the three criminal cases.Each of the three criminal cases arising out of C.R.No.Nevertheless, as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: 13 WP.3541.10.doc aforesaid, the Authority misdirected itself in stating in the show-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::cause notice that each of these cases were subjudice and pending trial.Obviously, the petitioner No.1 was participating in a political movement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 :::Accordingly, the Petition ought to succeed.We, therefore, proceed to pass the following order:Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:04 ::: | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,416,866 | This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as A15 in PRC.No.26/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mayiladuthurai, to quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner/A15 is concerned.2.The proceedings in PRC.No.26/2003 arises out of the FIR dated 7.8.2002 lodged by one S.Mahadevan, who is none else than the son of the petitioner herein through his first wife, against the petitioner and few others regarding the occurrence allegedly taken place at 7.30pm on 7.8.2002, in the presence of the defacto complainant and his brother in Timber Depot in Srinivasa Perusal Thottam.The complaint proceeds as if one Tata Sumo bearing Regn.TN63 Y 3675 came and stopped in front of Timber depot and the accused 1 to 4 armed with deadly weapons, got down from the same and they threatened the defacto complainant and his brother to leave the shop and go away and thereafter, they started attacking the defacto complainant and his brother and also damaged the articles, such as telephone, mirror and other articles lying on the table to the value of Rs.2000/- and they removed Rs.1,500/- from the cash box and thereafter, they forcibly abducted the defacto complainant and his brother in the same Tata Sumo towards Needoor and they were got down from the vehicle on the way and what is further stated in the complaint is that the occurrence took place only at the instigation of his father, who is inimical towards them.The complaint was registered and investigated into and the final report was filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 342, 307, 392,352 r/w 397, 506(ii), 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act insofar as A1 is concerned and under Sections 148, 452, 342, 307, 506(ii), 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act insofar as A2 is concerned, under sections 147, 452, 342 and 365 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act insofar as A3 to A14 are concerned and under Sections 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act r/w 109 IPC insofar as A15/father is concerned, who is the petitioner herein.3.The petitioner/A15/father has filed this petition to quash the proceedings, by saying that the materials available do not prima facie sustain the charges under Sections 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss) Act r/w 109 IPC against him and the present complaint is counter blast to the earlier complaint filed by the father against his son in the year 2000 onwards and the allegations raised against the petitioner do not attract the ingredients for the offences as referred to above.4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the State.5.Before going into the merits of the case, it is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner has already filed Crl.O.P.No.8003/2004 before this Court for the same relief to quash the proceedings and the same was dismissed by order dated 23.11.2007, but on merits, inspite of non-representation on behalf of the petitioner through his learned counsel on record.Though the petitioner filed an application to set aside the order, within few days from 23.11.2007, the same was returned by the Registry questioning the maintainability.Thereafter, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.P.C and the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, except stating that A1 to A14 committed the offence only at the instigation of A15/father, would not attribute any specific overt act against the father and the nature of the role played by the father and the manner of act of instigation by the father.It is not the case of the prosecution that A15/father was present along with other accused in the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence.The allegation that the father instigated other accused to commit the acts alleged, is bald and vague and does not inspire this court to say that the ingredients for the charges framed against the father, are prima facie attracted.In that event, if the proceedings initiated against A15/father being allowed to continue, the same amounts to abuse of process of law and it is the fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings made against the petitioner/A15 is liable to be quashed.10.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in PRC.No.26/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai stands quashed insofar as the petitioner/A15 alone is concerned.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai is directed to dispose of the case in PRC No.26/2003 in respect of other accused in accordance with law and without being influenced any of the observations made in this order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.06-08-2013rkIndex:YesInternet:1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai.2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Thiruvarur District.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai.K.B.K.VASUKI, J.O.P.No.4515 of 200806-08-2013 | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,417,907 | 3. Facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Appeal, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case, briefly narrated, are as follows:It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Poochi @ Vellaiyan is the younger brother of P.W.1 and the husband of accused No.1 viz., Pappa @ Danalakshmi.The first accused and the second accused/present appellant said to have had illicit intimacy and due to which, the first accused asked the appellant herein through phone to make a plan to murder her husband.Whileso, 05.01.2016 at about 11.20 p.m, when the deceased was sleeping, by holding the legs of the deceased, the first accused throttled the neck of the deceased and thereafter, both of them jointly hit the deceased on the wall.In an effort to make the death as natural death, accused Nos.1 & 2 had brought the body of the deceased to the tiled house and set up a scene as if he was hanging himself and committed suicide.Immediately thereafter, the first accused also made a phone call to her neighbour Meena/P.W.2 informing her that her husband/deceased committed suicide by hanging.Thereafter, on 06.01.2016, on coming to know the information of death of his younger brother viz., deceased, P.W.1-brother of the deceased made a complaint/Ex.P.1, at 09.30 a.m, before the Sub Inspector of Police, Karaiyur/P.W.14 and the same has also been registered as F.I.R in Cr.P.W.10 - Thiru.Rengaraj, was the Village Administrative Officer.He knew the accused.When the second accused/present appellant was arrested on 11.01.2016, he was present there.When the confession statement was recorded by the Police and material objects 7 and 8 were recovered, he was also present and in the observation mahazar/Ex.P.2, he has put his signature.3.3. P.W.11 – Dr.Arunagiri, conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and he also issued post mortem certificate Ex.In his final opinion report, he opined that hyoid bone would have been broken, before the death and because of that, death would have occurred, due to asphyxia.3.4. P.W.12 – Thiru.Annathurai was the Head Constable of Kottaipattinam Police Station.As per the orders of the Inspector of Police, he handed over the copies of F.I.R to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, the Office of the District Superintendent of Police and also higher officials.3.5. P.W.13- Thiru.Adaikkan, who is the elder brother of the 4/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. (MD)No.209 of 2018 deceased has spoken about the last seen theory of A-1 along with A-2/appellant herein.Muthukannu was the Inspector of Police of Karaiyur Police Station.He registered the F.IR in Cr.No.2/2016 under Section 302 I.P.C. Then, he sent the copies of F.I.R to the higher officials.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.) The appellant is the second accused in S.C.No.127 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai and he stood charged and tried for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B r/w 302, 302 and 201 I.P.C.2.The trial Court vide judgment dated 27.03.2018, has found the appellant/ accused guilty along with the first accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 302, 302 and 201 I.P.C and imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment for the commission of offence under Section 120-B r/w 302, I.P.C., and Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment for the commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 201 I.P.C and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The appellant/second accused, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, has come forward with this Criminal Appeal.2/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.209 of 2018Tharani was the Scientific Officer in Forensic Science Laboratory in Chennai.Karthigaisamy, who was the Inspector of Police attached to Ponnamaravathi Police Station took up the case for further investigation.He visited the place of occurrence on 06.01.2016 at 10.00 a.m and prepared an observation mahazar/Ex.P.2 and a rough sketch/Ex.P.16 and recovered material objects 1 to 5 (M.O.1-small amount of bloodstained tiles, M.O.2-small amount of tiles without bloodstains, M.O.3- a mat, M.O.4- a bed sheet and M.O.5- a T shirt) from the place of occurrence.Thereafter, at 11.00 a.m, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars.Then, he arrested the first accused on 06.01.2016 at about 4.30 p.m and recorded her confession statement.Based on her confession, he 5/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.209 of 2018 recovered M.O.6- a Poonam saree.After medical check up, he sent the first accused to judicial custody.Then, he arrested the second accused on 11.01.2016 and recorded his confession statement.Thereafter, he enquired P.Ws.10, 11, 12 and 14 and recorded their statements.Then, he sent the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Based on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, he altered the sections of F.I.R into 120-B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C and then, he sent the alteration report/Ex.P.8 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.Thereafter, after completing the investigation, on 02.05.2016, he filed a charge-sheet against both the accused under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C.4.The trial court framed appropriate charges against the appellants/accused as stated in the second paragraph of the judgment.They denied the charges.Therefore, they were put on trial.5.When the above incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same as false.However, they have not chosen to examine any witness or to mark any document on their side.6/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.209 of 20186.The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had found the accused guilty of the offences and sentenced them as stated above, vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2018 and challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the second accused.The first accused has not preferred any appeal.7.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records carefully.Further, there is no circumstantial evidence to implicate this appellant with the crime.9.Continuing further, learned counsel appearing for the appellant 7/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.209 of 2018 would submit that the prosecution has placed their case on two premises.a)When P.W.13- elder brother of the deceased was returning from Neyveli, after completing his work, he said to have spotted both A-1 and A-2 standing under an electrical post.Knowing pretty well that they are usually meeting and discussing, he has not even made any attempt to complain the said meeting of A-1 with A-2 to the deceased or any one of his family members.Therefore, the last seen theory made by the prosecution on the basis of the deposition of P.W.13 is liable to be thrown out in limini.b)The prosecution has implicated A-2 along with A-1 on the basis of arrest and recovery of bloodstained clothes of A-2 for the reasons best known to them.But, the prosecution has miserably failed to obtain any positive serology report in this regard.Therefore, both the 'last seen theory' and 'recovery made on the basis of the confession made by A-2' propounded before the trial court by the prosecution also have not clearly substantiated the involvement of A-2/appellant herein.10.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily pleaded before us that mere arrest and so-called recovery of bloodstained cloths of A-2 also has not proved the presence of A-2 or participation of A-2 along with A-1 in causing the death of the deceased.This aspect against 8/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. (MD)No.209 of 2018 A-2, who is an innocent person, has been unexplained or unjustified on the part of the trial court.Further, P.W.16 has also deposed that P.W.1 did not mention the alleged intimacy between A-1 and A-2 in his complaint as well as in the F.I.R. Therefore, he pleaded that merely on the allegation of illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2, 9/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.209 of 2018 without any solid evidence, A-2 an innocent person cannot be implicated.This vital aspect has been completely overlooked by the trial court.iv)Yet another fact also has to be mentioned herein.It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that both A-1 and A-2 were taken for investigation on 06.01.2016 i.e on the date of occurrence itself.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.14/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. A. (MD)No.209 of 2018 T.RAJA, J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,200 | ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J.read with Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').The petitioners and 15 others-were prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Sections 120B' 148 of the Indian Penal Code.After holding an enquiry into the matter, the Magistrate committed the petitioners to the Court of Session for trial alone with two-others namely.Dayaram and Bodhan on charges under Sections 302, 148 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions against the order of commitment; but it was dismissed.They have therefore, filed this petition.At the hearing of this petition learned Counsel for the petitioners pressed the case of only three petitioners namely.Kanhaiya and Bhawar Singh.on the ground that their commitment on the aforesaid charges was illegal as they were not founded on any evidence against them. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,244 | There will be no order as to costs. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,842,606 | Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.Delay condoned.Leave granted.2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inC.R.R. No. 2027 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the revisionpetition filed by the appellant herein.3) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.They, however, needmention in brief infra.4) The appellant and his brother Sukhdev were prosecuted and tried forcommission of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 readwith Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred toas “IPC”) pursuant to FIR No. 74 dated 04.10.1994 filed at Police StationBanga, District Nawanshahr, Punjab in Criminal Case no. 166/2002 in theCourt of Judicial Magistrate First Class Nawanshahr.5) In short, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant alongwith his brother Sukhdev and father- Saran Das manipulated the revenuerecords of a land measuring 49 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 434Khatuni No. 653 and 28 Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khewat No. 131/176 situatedin the revenue estate of Jagatpur owned by the Gram Panchayat of the area.It was the case of prosecution that father and his two sons did thismanipulation only with a view to grab the land for their personal benefits.6) On coming to know of the manipulation done by these persons inrevenue records and using the manipulated documents in the civilproceedings in a suit filed by them in relation to the land for theirpersonal benefits to obtain the decree, the State Authorities (RevenueDepartment) made inquiries and filed FIR against the appellant and hisbrother which gave rise to the filing of charge sheet in the Court ofJudicial Magistrate against them for commission of the offences asmentioned above.So far as father-Saran Das was concerned, he died prior tofiling of the case.7) By judgment dated 05.12.2002, the Magistrate, Nawanshahar convictedthe appellant and his brother under Sections 465, 468, 471 read withSection 120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorousimprisonment for 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections465 and 471 and rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine ofRs.2000/- each under Section 468 and rigorous imprisonment for six monthsunder Section 120-B and in default of payment of fine to further undergorigorous imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were to runconcurrently.It was held that the prosecution was able to prove the caseagainst the appellant under all the sections under which they were tried.8) The appellant and his brother, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being RBTNo.23 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar.Videorder dated 26.09.2003 the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal butmaintained the conviction by holding them guilty under Section 120-B readwith Sections 465 and 468 IPC and altered their sentence from three yearsto two years with a fine of Rs.4000/-.9) The appellant and his brother pursued the matter further in revisionbearing CRR No. 2027 of 2003 before the High Court.By impugned orderdated 06.05.2015, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld theorder of the appellate Court.10) Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal by way of specialleave petition before this Court.On 22.01.2016, when the SLP came up forhearing on the question of admission, learned counsel for the appellantsubmitted that he confines his submissions to challenge only the quantum ofsentence awarded to the appellant.On such submission being made, thisCourt issued notice to the respondent to examine the issue of quantum ofsentence and, if so, whether any case is made out to reduce the quantum ofsentence awarded by the Courts below and, if so, to what extent.In other words, we consider it just and proper and in theinterest of justice to reduce the sentence of the appellant to "one year"instead of “two years”.18) In view of foregoing discussion, theappeal succeeds and is allowed in part.The impugned order is modifiedinsofar as it relates to awarding of the sentence to the appellant.In default of payment of fine, theappellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,426,380 | As per prosecution, injured complainant Anil 2 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005 Shrivastava lodged a report at Police Station Naryawali at 12.15 P.M. that on 24.10.2008 at 11.15 A.M., the three appellants with common intention, attacked and assaulted with knife on account of previous money/ loan transaction.According to the complainant, Raju stabbed him in the chest and Kallu @ Prahlad dealt a blow in the back side of left thigh, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.It is stated that the incident was witnessed by Jaisingh Dhosi and Sher Singh.(02.05.2019) This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2009, passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sagar in S.T. No.149/2009, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.2 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR was registered and criminal investigation started.Injured was sent for medical examination, where he was examined by Dr. A.K. Jain (P.W.-3) and Dr. A.K. Sahay (P.W.-7).The accused persons were arrested and on the basis of their disclosure statement, knifes were recovered from Kallu, Raju and Pradeep vide Ex. P-13, P-15 and P-17 respectively.The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to substantiate their case.The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.However, they did not produce any evidence in their defence.3 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005The trial Court relying on the testimony of Anil Shrivastava (P.W.-1), Sher Singh (P.W.-2), Dr. A.K. Jain (P.W.-3) and Dr. K.R. Sahay (PW.-7) and the medical report found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 3 Pradeep died, therefore his name was deleted from the array of appellants.The appeal stands abated against him.Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Amicus Curiae has fairly stated that he is only arguing on the point of sentence and not on merits.The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the injured received only simple injuries.Hence, the case at the most would fall under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and not under Section 307 of the I.P.C., as only single blow was dealt 4 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005 by the appellants.It is argued that from the act described by the prosecution, it cannot be inferred that the appellants had any intention to cause the death of the injured.4 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.It is evident from the statements and medical reports of P.W.-3 Dr. A.K. Jain and P.W.-7 A.K. Sahay, who has examined the injured that he received only two stab wounds, one 3 x 1 cm on the right side, below clavicle and second on the back of thigh, muscle deep.According Dr. K.R. Sahay (P.W.-7), Surgical Expert, both the injuries were simple in nature.Injured, Anil Shrivastava (P.W.-1) has stated that on his way from home, he met the appellants, who were sitting at the shop of Munna Patel.He has stated that altercation started when Kallu asked for return of the loan amount and he said that he would give it later.Hearing which, Raju took out a knife from 5 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005 his pocket and stabbed him in the chest, when he ran, Kallu also assaulted with knife, which caused the injury on the back side of his leg.Thereafter all the appellants ran away.Similar is the statement of eye witness P.W.-2 Sher Singh.5 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005The scope of Section 307 of I.P.C. and its applicability came up for consideration in Om Prakash Vs.6 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005In the present case, from the evidence of Anil Shrivastava ( P.W.-1), it is evident that the altercation ensued all of a sudden due to non-returning of loan amount by the injured and after only two blows, the appellants ran away.It is also clear from the medical report that only two stab wounds were inflicted, one on the right side of chest and other on the back side of thigh.Both these injuries were simple in nature and not dangerous to life.In the result, the conviction of the appellants is altered from 307 I.P.C. to 324 of the I.P.C. 7 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005 and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.7 Cr.A. No. 1030/2005 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,942,099 | no.2-State in Cr.A. No.1673/12, as well as, for applicant-State in M.Cr.Heard on admission.Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal.Cr.A. No.1673/12 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), whereas M.Cr.C. No.10438/12 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 28/6/2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Panna, in Sessions Trial No.171/2011, whereby accused Deependra Kumar alias Dippu Sharma has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 450 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6/8/11 at about 3 a.m., when the prosecutrix was asleep in her house and both her son were sleeping upstairs, respondent knocked the door and upon opening, while informing her to talk with her husband on telephone, entered into the house and subjected her to rape.Respondent was caught by prosecutrix's sister-in-law, Jagat, Bhailal and other people of the locality.The Villagers then took him to Police Station Amanganj, where written report (Ex.P/4) was lodged by the prosecutrix and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.Learned Government Advocate in support of arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant also submitted that without proper appreciation of evidence, the impugned judgment was passed which deserves to be interfered with and prayed for grant of leave to file appeal.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.After considering the entire evidence and material available on record, trial Court found that as per the evidence of Dr. Meena Namdeo (PW11) who had prepared medical report (Ex.P/10), no external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix.From the evidence of prosecutrix (PW4), a married woman having two children, it is clear that she had screamed after having been subjected to sexual assault and had not tried to raise alarm before.Prosecutrix in para 7 of her evidence, admitted that at the time of incident she was wearing bangles but the same were not broken.Therefore, the trial Court held that it was quite improbable that bangles would not get broken in commission of the offence.The trial Court also found it quite unnatural that a woman would open the door so easily at 3 a.m. for an unknown person without awakening the other family members, more particularly in view of admission of her husband Jagdish (PW5) that he had never telephoned the respondent before for talking with the prosecutrix.In para 12 of the cross-examination, prosecutrix (PW4) admitted that at the time of incident, both her hands were free and the trial Court, accordingly in view of medical evidence, held that despite that, she had not offered any resistance.Trial Court also found that the report was lodged only because family members of the prosecutrix and other people of the locality had seen the respondent leaving her room.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,944,446 | Heard on I.A. No.8302/2019, which is repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant no.3 Radhey Shyam Kirar.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30/1/2018 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No.310/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.7000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 2 years; under section 148 of the IPC to undergo R.I for 2 years; under section 323/149 of the IPC to undergo S.I. for 1 year and under section 506 Part II of the IPC to undergo R.I. for 2 years, with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently.Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 12/7/2011, complainant Samandar and his brothers Hansraj and Hardayal were returning from Guna in a Marshal Vehicle.As they reached Munhgarha Railway crossing, appellant along with other co-convicts namely Santosh Kirar, Dashrath alias Potar Kirar, Raghuvir Kirar, Girraj Kirar, Shrikishan Kirrar and co-accused Morari Kirar was waiting there armed with Lathi, Pharsa and Iron Rod.With a common intention to kill him, Santosh kirar THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.Appeal No.1500/2018 (Girraj Dhakad and others Vs.State of M.P.) (2) and Dashrath gave Pharsa blows on the head of complainant, Raghuvir assaulted him with an Iron Rod on his right leg.The appellant is aged about 74 years.He is in custody for last two and a half years.The appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty so granted.Prayer for suspension is made relying on the decision in the case of Anil Ari Vs. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,945,010 | Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,learned Additional Government Advocate through Video Conferencing and perused the material available on record.Present criminal appeal has been filed under section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), against the impugned order dated 14.02.2020, passed by the Special Judge,SC/ST Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur, thereby rejecting the appellant's bail application no.12 of 2020, Shree Niwas Kashyap alias Ram Niwas and another Vs.State of U.P., arising out of Special Session Trial No.155 of 2019, Case Crime No.180 of 2019, under Sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. & 3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat District Balrampur.Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the bail application of the accused-appellant on following grounds:-(a) Appellant, respondent nos. 2 /Smt.Parvati and respondent no.3 Putte Lal are the residing on the same village and due to village party-bandi , respondent no.3 lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant and other persons under Section 323,504,506 IP.C. and Section 3(1) (dha) SC/ST Act at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat District Balrampur.(b) The appellant not abused either the informant/ respondent no.3- Putte Lal or her wife respondent no.2/ Smt Parvati rather respondent nos. 2 and 3 started quarreling with the appellant as a result of which incident in question took place.(c) No prima facie offence under Sections 323, 504,506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (dha) SC/ST Act are made out against the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in the present case a cross F.I.R. has also been lodged from the side of the appellant i.e. F.I.R. No.0184 dated 02.07.2019 under Sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that from the perusal of medical report of respondents no.2 and 3 it transpires that no major injuries have been caused to them on any vital part of their body.It is also stated by learned counsel for the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the appellant has also received injuries in the incident in question a copy of which annexed as annexure no.4 to the affidavit.Accordingly, he requests that the appellant may be granted bail.By order dated 04.03.2020, time was granted to learned Additional Government Advocate to file objection but till date no objection has been filed.Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that she could not file objection due to lockdown.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.Thus, keeping in view of the said fact on the ground of parity accused-appellant is entitled to be released on bail.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court of Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Appeal is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order order dated 14.02.2020, passed by the Special Judge,SC/ST Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur, thereby rejecting the appellant's bail application no.12 of 2020, Shree Niwas Kashyap alias Ram Niwas and another Vs.State of U.P., arising out of Special Session Trial No.155 of 2019, Case Crime No.180 of 2019, under Sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. & 3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat District Balrampur is set aside.Order Date :- 8.5.2020 dk/ | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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. |
161,948,579 | (i) The appellant was with his wife in the flat/room at A-to the contrary or those absolving the appellant, if any, were within the CRL.A. No. 98/2011 Page 14 of 25 special and specific knowledge of the appellant.The appellant had not pleaded, stated or explained the said special facts.Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable and it was the responsibility of the appellant to at least explain the special exculpatory facts exonerating him or showing his innocence i.e. there was involvement of any third person or the deceased had committed suicide.CRL.A. No. 98/2011 Page 14 of 25The question of burden of proof where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused was examined in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omar [(2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516] .In this case the assailants forcibly dragged the deceased, Mahesh from the house where he was taking shelter on account of the fear of the accused and took him away at about 2.30 in the night.Next day in the morning his mangled body was found lying in the hospital.The trial court convicted the accused under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years' RI.The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court and the State also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for murder charge.The accused had not given any explanation as to what happened to Mahesh after he was abducted by them.The learned Sessions Judge after referring to the law on circumstantial evidence had observed that CRL.A. No. 98/2011 Page 15 of 25 there was a missing link in the chain of evidence after the deceased was last seen together with the accused persons and the discovery of the dead body in the hospital and had concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of murder against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.(iii) There was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.The deceased also had four ante mortem injuries on her body, which disclose physical violence.(iv) The appellant did not inform or tell anyone about her homicidal death till the next morning when for the first time he spoke to PW-1, Shabnam.(v) The appellant did not inform the police about the death and murder of Rozina.The appellant did not take his wife Rozina to the hospital or to a doctor for treatment/medical aid.CRL.A. No. 98/2011 Page 23 of 25(vi) A third person had made a telephone call to the Police Control Room and DD entry No. 42A Exhibit PW-15/X was recorded at 5.30 a.m.(vii) When the police team, including the Investigating Officer PW-16, PW-15, PW-14, PW-12 and the SDM PW-4 visited the spot the appellant accused was present at the said spot.The crime team had visited the spot at 6.45 a.m.(viii) The relationship between the appellant accused and the wife Rozina was strained and antagonistic. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.