id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
16,194,858 | W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 1 of 101Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that seven advertisements dated 05.10.2009, 12.06.2009, 07.10.2009 and 25.10.2009 were published in different Newspapers during the Assembly Election of the State of Maharashtra.The allegations are that the petitioner did not disclose the expenditure incurred on the aforementioned advertisements within time and manner prescribed in the Act. The total pro-rata expenditure on the alleged advertisements which can be attributed to the share of the petitioner was Rs.16,924/-.The permissible limit set-out as per Rule 90 of the 1961 Rules is Rs.10,00,000/-.Whereas, as per expenditure return filed by the petitioner, he had spent total amount of Rs.6,85,192/- on his Assembly Election.Learned senior counsel submitted that for the sake of arguments, though not admitted, if the aforesaid pro-rata expenditure of Rs.16,924/- spent on all the advertisements mentioned above is added in his election expenditure incurred, i.e., Rs.6,85,192/-, then also his expenses are within the permissible limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.Sibal further submitted that the petitioner was the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra during relevant period.He contested Assembly Election from 85 Bhokar Legislative Assembly Constituency from Indian National Congress and declared elected.Whether the news, analysis, articles and items marked advertisements', advertorial' and appearing in various news papers, news paper supplements, pamphlets, magazines, etc., produced by (i) Shri Madhavrao Kinhalkar with his written submissions dated 09.07.2010 and aditonal written submissions dated 20.10.2010, 2.10.2010, 29.10.2010, 04.01.2011, (i) Shri Mukhtar Abas Naqvi and others with their letter dated 30.1.2009, and (i) Shri Kirt Somaiya and others with his/their letter dated 02.12.2009 and 07.12.2009, were published as paid news for consideration in kind or cash for promoting or procuring the election of the respondent?Whether the publication of the abovementioned news, analysis, articles, supplements, etc., was authorized, and expenditure on their publication was incurred or authorized, by the respondent or by his18 election agent or by any other person with the consent or knowledge of the respondent or of his election agent?Vide letter dated 17.04.2010, Managing Director and Editor of Deshonnati replied as under:-I have to clarify that the said publications were neither sponsored articles nor paid articles.It was reflection of my individual perception.It was not inserted through the instrumentality of any political party or any advertising agency.No bills are issued.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 14 of 101Vide letter dated 04.05.2010, Authorised Signatory for Benet, Coleman and Company Limited (Times of India Group) replied as under:-In response, the counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 pointed out (i) one publication in which a reference was made to development works in the area falling in Bhokar Assembly Constituency, (ii) one more publication in which a similar reference was made for certain development works in Nanded District in which the Bhokar Assembly Constituency falls, and(iii) three news items eulogizing the petitioner and the work done by him in Bhokar Assembly Constituency.The first such publication is a news item published in Lokmat dated 12.09.2009, and republished in Nav Bharat dated 12.10.2009, which speaks about the funding assistance to a Buddhist Pilgrims Spot, Mahavihar, Bavrinagar in Ardhapur, which forms part of Bhokar Assembly Constituency.The second publication was in Maharashtra Times dated 10.10.2009 relating to some development plans for Nanded District as part of the development programme for Marathwada region.The remaining three publications were some news items in Dainik Satyaprabha dated 13.10.2009, in which the development work done in Bhokar Assembly Constituency have been highlighted and stated that the petitioner has fair chance of success in that constituency.These have to be seen as general party propaganda for the Indian National Congress and highlighting the achievements and the development works undertaken by the State Government headed by the petitioner as Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra.While considering the matter relating to the publication of certain advertisements in the Newspapers in the context of the visits of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, President of the Indian National Congress, and Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia, Union Minister (both star campaigners of Indian National Congress within the meaning of Explanations (1) and (2) to Section 77(1) of the Act), and Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist, and the public meetings held by them in Nanded City and certain other W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 19 of 101 places in that District.Similarly, a public meeting was held by Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia on 07.10.2009 at Cidco, Nanded City and Mudkhed (which falls in Bhokar Assembly Constituency).Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist also held a road show and a public meeting on 10.10.2009 at Nanded.According to the complainant/respondent No.1, with a view to giving publicity and inviting general public to attend those public meetings, following advertisements were issued in various Newspapers, expenditure whereon was not shown by the petitioner in his account of election expenses:W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 19 of 101(A) Advertisements with regard to the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi initially scheduled to be held on 5 th October, 209 and re- scheduled and held on 6th October, 2009:Lokmat dated 03.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Lokmat dated 04.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Lokmat dated 05.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Lokmat dated 06.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Prajawani dated 03.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Prajawani dated 04.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Prajawani dated 05.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 20 of 101Prajawani dated 06.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Satyaprabha dated 03.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Satyaprabha dated 04.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Satyaprabha dated 05.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Satyaprabha dated 06.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Gaonkari dated 04.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Gaonkari dated 05.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Dainik Gaonkari dated 06.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Udyacha Marathwada dated 04.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Udyacha Marathwada dated 05.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Udyacha Marathwada dated 06.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.Deshonati dated 06.10.2009 published by Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 21 of 101(B) Advertisements with regard to the public meeting scheduled to be adresed Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia on 7th October, 2009 at Cidco, Nanded City and Mudkhed:Lokmat dated 07.10.2009 published by Shri Ajay Bisen, President, Nanded District Congress Committee & Shri Munna Abbas for Nanded City Youth Congress Committee.Prajawani dated 07.10.2009 published by Shri Ajay Bisen, President, Nanded District Congress Committee & Shri Munna Abbas for Nanded City Youth Congress Committee.(C) Advertisements with regard to the road show and public meeting of Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist scheduled to be held on 10 th October, 2009 at Nanded:Prajawani dated 10.10.2009 published by Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded.Udyacha Marathwada dated 10.10.2009 published by Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded.Gaonkari dated 10.10.2009 published by Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded.Godatir Samachar dated 10.10.2009 published by Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 22 of 101Likewise, it is also alleged that the petitioner has shown an apportioned expenditure of only Rs.60/- in respect of an advertisement published by Shri Shyam Darak in Satyaprabha on 10.10.2009, but did not show any expenditure in respect of similar advertisements published by Shri Shyam Darak on the same day in four different Newspapers, namely, Prajawani, Udyacha Marathwada, Gaonkari and Godatir Samachar.Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Commission submitted to refute the above allegations of the complainant/respondent No.1, petitioner had accounted for the expenditure on all those advertisements of which he had knowledge or about which he was informed by the publishers of those advertisements.In support of his above stand, petitioner has relied upon the affidavits of the publishers of those advertisements, namely, Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, who allegedly published the abovementioned 19 advertisements relating to the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Shri Munna Abbas, President, Nanded City Youth District Congress Committee, who allegedly published the abovementioned two advertisements relating to public meeting addressed by Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia at Cidco, Nanded City and Mudkhed and Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded, who allegedly published the abovementioned four advertisements relating to road show and public meeting of Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist.Mr. Sibal submitted that Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, in his affidavit dated 09.06.2014, deposed that he had published advertisements relating to the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi on 3rd, 4th, and 5th October, 2009, only in local dailies, namely, "Prajawani", W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 23 of 101 "Lokmat", "Gaonkari" and "Udyacha Marathwada" and on 06.10.2009 only in "Deshonati".In those advertisements, names of all the nine candidates contesting in the District of Nanded as candidates of the Indian National Congress - Nationalist Congress Party - RPI (Gavai) Alliance were given, as the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi was jointly held.Likewise, Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded, in his affidavit dated 04.06.2010 accepted the responsibility for the publication of an advertisement in "Satyaprabha" on 10.10.2009, on the road show W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 24 of 101 and public meeting of Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist.He denied the responsibility or knowledge regarding publication of any other advertisement relating to the above road show and public meeting of Shri Salman Khan in any other Newspapers.He deposed that he never delivered any declaration signed by him and attested by two persons personally known to him to the other Newspapers, who printed those advertisements (as required under Section 127A of the Act).According to him, he spent an amount of Rs.1,980/- on the publication of the above advertisement in "Satyaprabha" on 10.10.2009, and that he gave an intimation to the accountant of the petitioner to charge the apportioned amount of Rs.60/- in the election expenditure account of the petitioner, which was subsequently ratified by the petitioner.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 24 of 101Advertisements were relating to the election meetings of which the petitioner was not the organizer.As per the text, different individuals were named in the publications.It is W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 34 of 101 admitted that election agent; namely, Smt. Ameeta Chavan was also a Star Campaigner.Obviously, her campaign was also not confined to Bhokar Assembly Constituency.The amount was paid in cash.The evidence demonstrated that the No evidence to demonstrate any nexus same was advertisement in the between the petitioner and the newspaper for which a bill of publication of alleged advertisements.It is further argued that a particular public meeting announcement stating the meeting particulars could be made by various modes such as:-(i) The telecast on cable T.V.(ii) The broadcast on radio.(iii) The loudspeaker in rickshaw etc. or by beat of drums in town.Accordingly vide letter dated 15.04.2010, publisher of Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Limited replied as under:-The objective of publishing these supplements was to acquaint the people of Maharashtra about the achievements and the developments brought about by the Congress led government in Maharashtra during its tenure under the leadership of the sitting Chief Minister.Educating and updating people about the development and the socio- political events are some of the prime responsibilities and objectives of media.......... The other fact that motivated us to publish the supplements highlighting the accomplishments of the Congress led government in Maharashtra is the alignment of our groups' ideology with that of the Congress party.Our founder late Jawaharlalji Darda was one of the leaders of the Congress party who were at the forefront during the freedom struggle....... Our Group strongly believe that Congress is the only party which offers a secular option to the electorate.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 85 of 101I note, first publication is a news item published in Lokmat dated 12.09.2009 and 12.09.2009, and republished in Nav Bharat dated 12.10.2009, which speaks about the funding assistance to a Buddhist Pilgrims Spot, Mahavihar, Bavrinagar in Ardhapur, which forms part of Bhokar Assembly Constituency.The second publication was in Maharashtra Times dated 10.10.2009 relating to some development plans for Nanded District as part of the development programme for Marathwada region.The remaining three publications were some news items in Dainik Satyaprabha dated 13.10.2009, in which the development work done in Bhokar Assembly Constituency has been highlighted whereby stated that the petitioner has fair chance of success in that constituency.However, it is noted that in those advertisements, names of all the nine candidates contesting in District Nanded as candidates of the Indian National Congress - Nationalist Congress Party - RPI (Gavai) Alliance were given, as the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi was jointly held.Further, Sh.Amar Rajurkar deposed, that he borne the entire expenditure on the above publications on his own individually, without the knowledge, consent, authorization and concurrence of any of the candidates, named in the said advertisements.It is further deposed that though the publication of the above advertisement in "Satyaprabha" was his voluntary act, he nevertheless communicated to the accountant of the petitioner that he had incurred expenditure of Rs.792/- on the above advertisement.Accordingly, an amount of Rs.264/- was to be apportioned to the share of the petitioner as the said advertisement carried the names of three candidates.Accordingly, Rs.264/- accounted for in the account of election expenses of the petitioner.Vide present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.07.2014 passed by the Election Commission of India (hereinafter called as The Commission) and seeks direction to set aside the impugned order to the extent of holding that the petitioner has failed to lodge his account of election expenses within time and in the manner required as per The Representation of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules).2. Also seeks direction to quash and set aside the consequential order to issue show cause notice under Rule 89(5) of the Rules.Thereafter, the opponent losing candidate, i.e., Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar, the respondent No.1 herein, filed a complaint before the Election Commission of India.He submitted that the petitioner, thereafter, resigned from the said Constituency and contested the Parliamentary Election from Nanded and elected as a Member of Parliament.Sibal has referred to an advertisement at page 587, annexure P-14 (colly.), showing photographs of seven other leaders of United Progressive W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 2 of 101 Alliance (UPA) including deceased father of the petitioner.The said advertisement depicts UPA Chairman Smt.Sonia Gandhi, the then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, the President of National Congress Party, Mr. Sharad Pawar and the other prominent leaders of United Progressive Alliance.The said meeting was attended by the petitioner and his proportionate share of expenditure incurred on the said meeting was disclosed by petitioner in his account in the Statutory Register provided by the Commission.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 2 of 101Mr. Sibal further referred to an advertisement at page 591, wherein all leaders have been shown as were shown in the advertisement mentioned at page 587 except depicting Central Minister Mr. Jyotiraditya Sindhia in place of Smt. Sonia Gandhi.The advertisement at page 593 shows photograph of Salman Khan, a Bolywood Star in place of the aforesaid Central Minister alongwith all other leaders as mentioned above.Learned senior counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the advertisements shown at pages 587 and 589, and submitted that these advertisements were published by Mr. Amar Rajurkar, Secretary, Maharashtra State Congress Committee and the advertisement at page 591, was published by Mr. Ajay Bhisen, President, Nanded City District Congress Committee and Mr. Munna Abbas, President, Nanded City District Youth Congress Committee.Mr. Sibbal submitted that these two meetings were attended by the petitioner and, accordingly, he disclosed the expenditure incurred on these meetings in his accounts as election expenses.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 3 of 101He further submitted that above named all three publishers have filed their affidavits before the Commission and claimed that the advertisements in question were neither published with consent of the petitioner nor was brought to his knowledge.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 4 of 101Sibal submitted, polling date of the Assembly Election of the Constituency in question was on 13th October, 2009 and the result was declared on 22.10.2009, in which the petitioner declared elected, whereas the deposit of the W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 5 of 101 respondent No. 1 was forfeited.Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a complaint on 13.11.2009 on paid news, wherein the petitioner succeeded.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 5 of 101Further submitted, pleadings regarding accounts of the election expenses of the alleged advertisements showing particulars of the election meetings were made by the complaints/respondents for the first time vide submissions dated 21.09.2010, i.e., almost after one year of the first complaint.Thereafter, on 05.05.2014, the Apex Court passed a detailed order and judgment by dismissing the aforementioned SLP (Civil) No. 29882/2011 filed by the petitioner and specifically held as under:-As discussed above, petitioner resigned from the Assembly seat and elected as a Member of Parliament from Nanded Parliamentary Constituency.Since the Commission was of the opinion that the present proceedings do not abate on account of resignation of the petitioner from membership of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and that petitioner cannot file a revised account of his election expenses at this stage, hence, proceeded to deal with the issues involved in the proceedings pending before it.The Commission recorded in Para 72 of the impugned order that the real issues which need to be considered by the Commission were issue Nos. 1 and 2 and a closure look on these issues would show that it has to examine and analyse the following ingredients of those issues:-"(i) Whether the publications referred to in issue No.1 were published as general news in normal course or as paid news;(ii) Whether any price was paid in kind or cash as consideration for these publications;(iii) Whether these publications were made with the object of promoting or procuring the election of the respondent from 85- Bhokar Assembly Constituency;(iv) Whether the publication of these news items, and advertisements was authorized (a) by the respondent or by his election agent, or (b) by any other person with the consent or knowledge of the respondent or his election agent;(v) Whether the expenditure, if any, on their publication was incurred or authorized (a) by the respondent or his election agent, or (b) by W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 9 of 101 any other person with the consent or knowledge of the respondent or his election agent.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 9 of 101However, while examining the first ingredient of issue No.1, the Commission recorded that at the time of 2009-General Elections to which the present case pertains, though phenomenon of paid news may have been working as news for consideration in cash or kind, the terminology of paid news was formally recognized by the Commission vide its circular dated 08.06.2010, which also laid down, among others, the following guidelines for guidance of the Media Monitoring Committees set up at District and State levels in the context of the General Elections which were held in 2010 and subsequent thereto were issued:-"The cases of Paid News' generally manifest in the forms of news articles/reports published about a particular candidate or a party eulogizing them, or similar news articles/reports denigrating the opponents, both intended at unduly influencing the voters.The same or similar type of news articles/reportings (with cosmetic modifications) appearing in more than one newspaper periodical would amount to further corroboration as circumstantial evidence that such news64 publication could result from collusion of the candidate/party with the editors, publishers, financers of the newspaper etc. Such collusion would, however, have generally no transactional evidence of payment of consideration in cash or kind.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 10 of 101Learned senior counsel submitted that the respondents contended before the Commission that these publications were verbatim reproductions appearing in several Newspapers, particularly, Lokmat, Pudhari, Deshonnati and Maharashtra Times, more or less on the same days.Reference here may be usefully invited to the statement of such publications furnished by the complainant/respondent No.1 and as reproduced in paragraph 36 of the impugned order.The respondents contended that publications of these news, articles, etc., were not a coincidence as four different Newspapers could not write and publish the same matter verbatim unless there was a common source for providing a written material for publication thereof.The Commission recorded in the impugned order that contention of the petitioner; on the other hand, to counter the above contentions of the complainants was that all these publications speak about the achievements of Indian National Congress and the State Government and are based on three sources of information which were already in public domain and accessible to all Newspapers and others interested.According to the petitioner, the said three sources of information were those which are mentioned in paragraph 56 of the impugned order, namely: (a) Lokrajya, a Government publication, published by the Director of Information, State of Maharashtra, which gives general information about the achievements, growth, developments or vision of the government; (b) Mahabharari (Big Leap), a party publication published by the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 11 of 101 which periodically publishes the achievements, development and growth made by the Congress Party; and (c) Party Manifesto published jointly by Indian National Congress, Nationalist Congress Party and RPI (G), alliance partners in the context of 2009-General Elections.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 11 of 101Therefore, an important question for consideration is the second ingredient of issue No.1, mentioned above.It is settled law that onus of proof of an allegation or contention lies initially on the party which makes that allegation or contention.Hence, the complainants /respondents who have made allegations that impugned publications were paid news, onus lies initially on them to prove that there was a price paid for these publications in cash or kind as consideration.Sibal further submitted that however, the complainants/ respondents have not been able to show any documentary evidence for payment and contended that any business house running newspaper industry would not incur huge expenditure on printing of supplements, etc., without consideration and suffer loss W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 12 of 101 on that account.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 12 of 101In order to find out the version of the Newspapers, the Commission, by its letter dated 06.04.2010, sent through the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra, forwarded the clippings of the articles, etc., under reference, to the publishers of Lokmat, Pudhari, Deshonnati and Maharashtra Times, and asked them:(1) whether it was a sponsored article or paid article, (2) whether it was inserted through the instrumentalities of any political party or advertising agency, (3) if so, the amount paid, and (4) if so, the agency which paid for it.Accordingly, vide letter dated 15.04.2010, publisher of Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Limited replied as under:-The objective of publishing these supplements was to acquaint the people of Maharashtra about the achievements and the developments brought about by the Congress led government in Maharashtra during its tenure under the leadership of the sitting Chief Minister.Educating and updating people about the development and the socio- political events are some of the prime responsibilities and objectives of media.......... The other fact that motivated us to publish the supplements highlighting the accomplishments of the Congress led government in Maharashtra is the alignment of our groups' ideology with that of the Congress party.Our founder late Jawaharlalji Darda was one of the leaders of the Congress party who were at the forefront during the freedom struggle....... Our Group strongly believe that Congress is the only party which offers a secular option to the electorate.This would give you a glimpse of the reason that drives us to reach out o the people of Maharashtra to present before them such content which highlights and promotes the Congress party and its leaders.........Vide letter dated 10.04.2010, Chairman and Managing Director of Pudhari W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 13 of 101 Publications Pvt. Limited replied as under:-W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 13 of 101.......every newspaper has its inclination towards a political party and Pudhari is no exception to that.The Founder Editor of Daily Pudhari (Late) Padamshri Dr. G. Jadhav was a staunch congressman and had close relation with Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.It was not against any payment.No agency has made any payment for the same.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 14 of 101We firmly believe in the Constitution of India and do everything within our means to strengthen our rich and diverse society through responsible media coverage.As a responsible corporate, we assure that correct and balance information reaches a right set of people at correct time...... As a complete newspaper during elections we cover newsworthy items, personalities, information and analysis of political parties/personalities so as to keep our readers informed and fulfill our duties as the fourth pillar of democracy......... In relation to election of said Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri Ashok Chavan, we categorically confirm that the three impugned articles are neither advertisement nor have been sponsored or paid for by him or on his behalf by any other person including any political party.........We are therefore, in compliance of your letter responding in seriatim to your queries as mentioned below:(1) the said articles are neither sponsored nor paid articles, (2) the said articles were not published at the instance of any political party or any70 advertising agency, (3) in view of our response in Para 1 and 2 hereinabove, we reiterate that the said articles are not advertisements and hence no monitory consideration was paid to us for the said articles.(4) we confirm that no agency was involved in the publication of the said articles.Sibal submitted that counsel for the petitioner argued before the Commission that all these publications narrate only about the development of the State of Maharashtra and several welfare measures taken by the State Government under the leadership of the petitioner and that these publications nowhere make any appeal or solicitation for votes for the petitioner as a candidate from Bhokar Assembly Constituency.These publications were in the nature of general party propaganda and could not be considered as having been made with the objective of W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 15 of 101 promoting or procuring the election of the petitioner from the said Constituency.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 15 of 101During the hearing, the Commission had made a specific query to the learned counsel for the complainants to point out those publications in particular which made any reference to the petitioner as a candidate from the said Bhokar Assembly Constituency or to any special development works or welfare measures undertaken in relation to that Constituency which might give an impression that an appeal, direct or indirect, was being made to woe the voters of that Constituency in favour of the petitioner.The clear admission by the Chairman and Managing Director, Pudhari Publications, that The NCP, Congress parties were sending the news items / articles from the party office of their respective parties and we had published these articles of various parties, so that the question of paid news does not arise and such type of articles are also published in all other newspapers in Maharashtra i.e. Lokmat / Punyanagari / Maharashtra Times etc.. This clearly demonstrates that he articles published by Pudhari have been provided by the political parties concerned.Thus it can be reasonably inferred that among the news articles mentioned in Para 57 (at least to the extent of news items in serial numbers 1,2,7, 10, 15, 17 and 18), those which were published by Pudhari have been provided by the political parties.Thus, the other newspaper articles / materials which had identical publication (to the extent of the above serial numbers) also should have received the material from the same source.In view of the above, and with respect to ingredient (i) of issue No. 1, the Commission is of the considered view that the said news articles cannot be treated as general news in normal course as these are quite W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 18 of 101 clearly received from political parties and reproduced by al such newspapers so as to pas as general news.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 18 of 101Further deposed, that he borne the entire expenditure on the above publications on his own individually, without the knowledge, consent, authorization and concurrence of any of the candidates, named in the said advertisements.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 23 of 101Mr. Sibal further submitted Shri Munna Abbas, President, Nanded Youth District Congress Committee also filed his affidavit and deposed that he had personally volunteered to make the publication about the meeting of Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia, at Cidco, Nanded City and Mudkhed and accordingly published the advertisement only in the local daily "Satyaprabha" on 07.10.2009 and not in any other Newspaper and that neither the candidates nor their election agents have given their written or implied consent or authorization to publish those alleged advertisements.He deposed that though the publication of the above advertisement in "Satyaprabha" was his voluntary act, he nevertheless communicated to the Accountant of the petitioner that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.792/- on the above advertisement.Accordingly, an amount of Rs.264/- was to be apportioned to the share of the petitioner as the said advertisement carried the names of three candidates.Counsel submitted the said expenditure of Rs.264/- was accordingly accounted for in the account of election expenses of the petitioner.There was no common factor amongst the advertisers, but there are three different individuals, whose names have been recorded above.Moreover, in compliance of Rule 87, a notice was displayed on the Notice Board by District Election Officer.As per Rule 88, statement of account was thrown open for public inspection.For the first time, the petitioner learnt about it during the course of proceedings before the Commission.Moreover, Election Petition No.11/2009 filed on 04.12.2009 was silent about these advertisements in question.Hence, if the pro rata sharing of Rs.16,924/- was added to the account of the petitioner, the same did not reach to the afore-noted ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.Learned senior counsel submitted that present proceedings are arising out of Section 10-A of the Act. Two-fold issues entertained by the Commission against the petitioner are as under:-(i) The allegation of indulging in causing publication of Paid News.That, there was unprecedented media coverage given to the petitioner during the election campaign.Although, the publications appeared to be news, news analysis, article, etc. but in fact the publications were advertisements got published under consideration.(ii) Some of the advertisements related to publications in the local newspapers making announcement of election public meetings and particulars of such meetings were not duly accounted for in the statement of election expenses.However, in the instant case, the Commission has carefully examined the material on record and the persons who have claimed sponsorship of such advertisements.The Commission feels fully justified in invoking application of implied authorization in the instant case, as - The persons sponsoring advertisements are responsible office bearers holding important positions in the party - one, being the Secretary of the 97Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, the second being the Secretary of the Nanded District Congress Committee and the third being the President of the Nanded City Youth Congress Committee, and not ordinary supporters or workers in the field.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 32 of 101W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 33 of 101Meeting of Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia was on 07.10.2009, whereas advertisement was also published on the same day.Significantly, it was the day immediately following the date on which there was meeting of Smt.Sonia Gandhi.Similarly, advertisement and road show of Shri Salman Khan was also on one and the same day, i.e., 10.10.2009 and there was no prior publication of advertisements to this effect.A Star Campaigner was not expected to scan each and every Newspaper of each and every day, including on the dates prior to his return to his Constituency.The chart below (annexure P-3) depicts the difference of both the cases:-and documentary evidence and were cross examined by the other party.(b) has no good reason or justification for the failure, the Election Commission shall, by order published in the Official Gazette, declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from the date of the order.Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the petitioner failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by under this Act. Sub-clause B of Section 10 A is yet to be decided.Thus every W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 54 of 101 candidate has to file return of election expenses within 30 days in a manner prescribed in the Act and Rules.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 54 of 101W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 81 of 101However, it is not disputed that polling date of the Assembly Election of the Constituency was on 13.10.2009 and the result was declared on 22.10.2009, in which the petitioner declared elected, whereas the deposit of the respondent No. 1 was forfeited.Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a complaint on 13.11.2009 on paid news, wherein the petitioner succeeded.Thus, the pleadings regarding accountability of the election expenses of the alleged advertisements showing particulars of the election meetings were made by the respondents for the first time vide submissions dated 21.09.2010, i.e., almost after one year of the first complaint.As alleged, the petitioner got several advertisements published in various Newspapers, in particular, Lokmat, Pudhari, Maharashtra Times and Deshonnati during election campaign, which appeared in the said Newspapers in W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 82 of 101 the garb of news eulogizing the petitioner and his achievements as Chief Minister of Maharashtra.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 82 of 101On 04.12.2009, respondent No. 1 filed an election petition being E.P. No.11/2009, under Section 80 of the Act, alleging inter alia to declare the election of the petitioner as void and hold the respondent No. 1 as elected candidate.Vide order dated 30.05.2014, the Commission framed five issues as mentioned above in Para 23 of this judgment.Undisputedly, the first two issues decided in favour of the petitioner by the Commission rejecting the complaint W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 83 of 101 made by respondent no. 1 on paid news.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 83 of 101According to the petitioner, three sources of information were those which are mentioned in Para 56 of the impugned order, namely: (a) Lokrajya, a Government publication, published by the Director of Information, State of Maharashtra, which gives general information about the achievements, growth, developments or vision of the government; (b) Mahabharari (Big Leap), a party publication published by the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, which periodically publishes the achievements, development and growth made by the Congress Party; and (c) Party Manifesto published jointly by Indian National Congress, Nationalist Congress Party and RPI (G) and allied partners in the context of 2009-General Elections.In Para 75 of the impugned order, the Commission observed that there was considerable force in the contention of the complainants/respondents that the impugned publications which in most of the cases were identical or verbatim reproduction could not have been coincidence or written independently by the news reporters or journalists of four different Newspapers working separately and more or less on the same dates particularly when publications do not state that the contents are from the same source.On the issue of paid news the respondents / complainants was unable to show any documentary evidence for payment, however contended that any business house running newspaper industry would not W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 84 of 101 incur huge expenditure on printing of supplements, etc., without consideration.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 84 of 101However, in order to find out the version of the Newspapers, the Commission, by its letter dated 06.04.2010, sent communication to the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra, by forwarding the clippings of the articles, etc., under reference, to the publishers of Lokmat, Pudhari, Deshonnati and Maharashtra Times, and asked them; (i) whether it was a sponsored article or paid article, (ii) whether it was inserted through the instrumentalities of any political party or advertising agency, (iii) if so, the amount paid, and (iv) if so, the agency which paid for it.This would give you a glimpse of the reason that drives us to reach out o the people of Maharashtra to present before them such content which highlights and promotes the Congress party and its leaders.........Moreover, vide letter dated 10.04.2010, Chairman and Managing Director of Pudhari Publications Pvt. Limited, vide letter dated 17.04.2010, Managing Director W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 85 of 101 and Editor of Deshonnati and vide letter dated 04.05.2010, Authorised Signatory for Benet, Coleman and Company Limited (Times of India Group) replied and confirmed that no agency specially the petitioner and his agent was involved in the publication of said articles.Moreover, by any of the publications, nowhere any appeal or solicitation for votes for the petitioner as a candidate from Bhokar Assembly Constituency has been made.In view of the settled position of law by the Apex Court in the cases of Ravinder Singh (Supra), the Commission cannot look into these three publications not adverted to at all the pleadings of the complainant No.1 or by any other complainant.It is clear admission by the Chairman and Managing Director, Pudhari W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 86 of 101 Publications, that, "the NCP, Congress parties were sending the news items / articles from the party office of their respective parties, accordingly, they had published these articles of various parties, therefore, the question of paid news does not arise and, such type of articles were also published in all other newspapers in Maharashtra i.e. Lokmat / Punyanagari / Maharashtra Times etc. However, the Commission is of the view that the said news articles cannot be treated as general news in normal course as these are quite clearly received from political parties and reproduced by all such newspapers so as to pass a general news.As far as the publication of certain advertisements in the Newspapers in the context of the visits of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Indian National Congress and Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia, Union Minister, both star campaigners of Indian National Congress within the meaning of Explanations (1) and (2) to Section 77(1) of the Act), and Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist, and the public meetings held by them in Nanded City and certain other places in that District.Similarly, a W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 87 of 101 public meeting was held by Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia on 07.10.2009 at Cidco, Nanded City and Mudkhed.Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist also held a road show and a public meeting on 10.10.2009 at Nanded.Even according to complainant/respondent No.1, the said advertisement was with a view to giving publicity and inviting general public to attend those public meetings.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 87 of 101Likewise, it is also alleged that petitioner has shown an apportioned expenditure of Rs.60/- in respect of an advertisement published by Shri Shyam Darak in Satyaprabha on 10.10.2009, but did not show any expenditure in respect of similar advertisements published by Shri Shyam Darak on the same day in four different Newspapers, namely, Prajawani, Udyacha Marathwada, Gaonkari and Godatir Samachar.It is not in dispute that the expenditure on all those advertisements of which the petitioner had knowledge or about which he was informed by the publishers of those advertisements has to be borne by the candidate concerned.However, Shri Amar Rajurkar, Secretary of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, in his affidavit dated 09.06.2014, deposed that he had published advertisements relating W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 88 of 101 to the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi on 3 rd, 4th, and 5th October, 2009, only in local dailies, namely, "Prajawani", "Lokmat", "Gaonkari" and "Udyacha Marathwada" and on 06.10.2009 only in "Deshonati".W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 88 of 101Shri Shyam Darak, Secretary, District Congress Committee Nanded, in his affidavit dated 04.06.2010 accepted the responsibility for the publication of an advertisement in "Satyaprabha" on 10.10.2009, on the road show and public meeting of Shri Salman Khan, Cine Artist.He denied the responsibility or W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 89 of 101 knowledge regarding publication of any other advertisement relating to the above road show and public meeting of Shri Salman Khan in any other Newspapers.According to him, he spent an amount of Rs.1,980/- on the publication of the above advertisement in "Satyaprabha" on 10.10.2009, and that he gave an intimation to the accountant of the petitioner to charge the apportioned amount of Rs.60/- in the election expenditure account of the petitioner, which was subsequently ratified by the petitioner.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 89 of 101Therefore, if two views are reasonably possible, one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him, Courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of winning candidate should uphold his election by giving him the benefit of doubt.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 90 of 101The petitioner was a star campaigner of the party in terms of Explanations (1) and (2) of the Act and also Chief Minister of the State carrying out the responsibility of the election campaign for the party in the entire State and moving from place to place throughout the State.It is not in dispute that the public meeting of Smt. Sonia Gandhi was held outside Bhokar Assembly Constituency from where the petitioner was contesting the election.Undisputedly, even if the entire amount against all the disputed advertisements is included in the election expenses of the petitioner, it does not exceed the ceiling limit of Rs.10,00,000/-.Advertisements were relating to the election meetings of which the petitioner was not the organizer.As per the text, different individuals were named in the publications.The petitioner was outside his constituency when the advertisements were made and hence had had no knowledge about the same.No stone is to be left unturned before W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 99 of 101 reaching a satisfaction as to correctness or the proper manner of lodgment of election expenses.The enquiry has to be extensive and not be a farced but a true and complete one.W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 99 of 101Moreover, no evidence brought on record before writing its opinion against the petitioner.Therefore, I set aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2014 and consequential order to issue show cause notice under Rule -89(5) of the Rules.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.CM 9137/2014 Dismissed as infructuous.SURESH KAIT.J SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 sb/jg/RS W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 101 of 101W.P.(C) No. 4590/2014 Page 101 of 101 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,971,360 | DD was assigned to HC Shri Pal.On 23.3.2014, accused Tinku Singh was called to PS as suspect to interrogate in missing of deceased.He was produced before Inspector and during interrogation, he confessed that on 17.3.2014, he committed the murder of deceased Inder Pal in his room and thereafter, dead body wrapped in plastic and jute bags was thrown in the area of 3 pusta, Usmanpur near bushes, Yamuna Khadar.He further disclosed that he could get recovered dead body.On the basis of this information, Inspector constituted a police team comprising of police officials and relatives of deceased namely Dinesh and Sanjay CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 2 of 20 Kumar.Accused led police team to the spot between 3 - 3 pusta, near IGL Board and pointed out a plastic bag near bushes and disclosed that the same was containing the dead body of deceased.Foul smell was emitting of that bag.Crime team was called to the spot.On arrival of crime team bag was opened and was found containing five plastic bags and two jute bags besides one red and yellow colour printed cloth in which dead body was wrapped and then was put in that bags.Head of body was missing one chocolate colour underwear was on the body and body was tied by a rope.After recovery of torso, accused Tinku Singh was interrogated again and further disclosed and pointed out the spot where a big plastic bag was lying in water log which was recovered from some distance ahead of the recovery of torso.Accused Tinku Singh disclosed that it was the head of deceased Inder Pal.Meanwhile, Inspector called a private photographer Amal Chand Tiwari for videography of recovery proceedings.Body was identified by Dinesh and Sanjay Kumar to be of deceased.Body was sent to mortuary of GTB Hospital through Ct.Thereafter, police team went to the spot of incident i.e. at ground floor room at K-296, Street No. 5, Gautam Vihar thereby leaving HC Shri Pal at the spot of recovery of body.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 2 of 20It is further alleged that during investigation, accused disclosed that he had illicit relations with the wife of deceased Inder Pal namely Shashi Bala and they also developed physical intimacy between them, but deceased was suspicion about this relation and used to quarrel with Shashi Bala under the influence of liquor.It is further disclosed that on 17.3.2014, on the occasion of Holi, Inder Pal quarreled with Shashi Bala under the influence of liquor and scuffled with her.In the meanwhile, Tinku Singh who was also there intervened and during that scuffle, at the instance of Shashi Bala he CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 3 of 20 strangulated the deceased, and Shashi Bala asked him to remove the dead body and she was going to house of her sister.Tinku Singh called his friend Sandeep and both of them beheaded the body of Inder Pal and packed inside plastic bags and jute bags and threw at two spots wherefrom it was recovered.Accused Sandeep and Shashi Bala were also arrested.During investigation, accused Tinku Singh led police to the house of Sandeep wherefrom blood stain clothes of Tinku Singh and Sandeep worn at the time of incident were recovered besides a briefcase containing two photographs of Tinku Singh with Shashi Bala were also recovered.Accused Tinku Singh vacated the tenanted premises and put his briefcase at the house of Sandeep as he leave Delhi.One weapon of offence i.e. dav / choppar was also recovered from the area of Titiksha Model Public School in pursuance of his disclosures statement.Postmortem was conducted on the dead body and viscera was preserved.Subsequent opinion about use of weapon was also sought.Mobile phone of deceased was recovered from Sandeep and, all the accused were in contact with each other by mobile phone.CDRs of those mobiles were also collected.All the accused were chargesheeted u/s 302/201/182/34 IPC.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 3 of 20Thereafter, statement of the accused persons/appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 4 of 20So far as the appellant Tinku Singh is concerned, the learned counsel confined his arguments only to the quantum of sentence contending that as per the confessional statement of the appellant Tinku Singh, the death of the deceased was caused due to a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the appellant Tinku Singh wherein the appellant Tinku Singh throttled the deceased which led to the death of the deceased, hence, the case of the appellant Tinku Singh falls within the exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, consequently, the appellant Tinku Singh should be convicted for a lesser offence under Section 304 of the IPC.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 5 of 20On the other hand, learned APP for the State Ms. Neelam Sharma contended that the case of the prosecution has been established beyond reasonable doubt; that the body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant Tinku Singh from 3 Pusta, near IGL Board; that the appellant Tinku Singh has confessed that he was having an illicit relationship with the appellant Shashi Bala; that the deceased Inderpal quarreled with the appellant Shashi Bala on the day of Holi i.e. 17.03.2014 and on her instance, the appellant Tinku Singh throttled the deceased; that the appellant Tinku Singh at the instance of the appellant Shashi Bala beheaded the deceased in order to get rid of his body; that two photographs of the appellant Tinku Singh with the appellant Shashi Bala were recovered at the instance of the appellant Tinku Singh from a brief case which was at the house of the appellant Tinku Singh; that the appellant Tinku Singh further led to the recovery of the weapon of offence from the area of Titiksha Model Public School, Sadatpur, Delhi.Shashi Bala met us at the house of her sister namely Sushma.I asked about the presence of my brother Inder Pal Singh.She replied that Inder Pal is missing and he had left the house under influence of liquor on 18.03.2014 also made inquiries here and there in Delhi but no clue come forward about my brother Inder Pal Singh.I had let out two rooms at the ground floor of aforesaid CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 8 of 20 house.He was residing alongwith his wife and two children.Wife of Inder Pal is present in court and standing in dock (correctly identified by face).Inder Pal used to pay rent Rs.2.500/- per month excluding electricity charges.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 8 of 20xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Tinku was earlier known to me as he was residing in my house along with Inder Pal and Shashi Bala.Once, I had gone to my house to take rent from Inder Pal Singh where Tinku and Shashi Bala had met me and accused Shashi Pal got introduced me to Tinku saying that he is known to her.In those days, Tinku was residing in one room out of two which had been let out the Inder Pal Singh.On 23.03.2014, police took me to my aforesaid house and at that time accused Tinku was with police officials.At that time, the room of Inder Pal and room of Tinku both were locked.It also came into my notice on reaching at aforesaid house that accused Shashi Bala used to visit her rented accommodation for a short period for last 2/3 days.It also came into my notice that accused Shashi Bala had lodged missing report of her husband Inder Pal at P.S. Usmanpur.Inder Pal was lastly seen by me on the day of Holi and thereafter, he found disappeared.Police had recovered dead body of Inder Pal in parts as it was told to me."In his cross-examination PW-10 (Pawan Sharma) deposed that:The said house belongs to one Pawan Sharma.I used to pay rent Rs. 2000 per month to landlord Pawan Sharma.In those days, accused Tinku present in court (correctly identified) was residing in a one room of ground floor of aforesaid house which belongs to Pawan Sharma.Another room of ground floor was being used as tenant by Inder Pal Singh and his family comprising of his wife Smt. Shashi bala (accused) present in court (correctly identified) and his two daughters aged about 5 years and 2 years.Prior to my joining the tenancy, Inder Pal and his family and accused Tinku were residing in two rooms of ground floor of the house.On the day of Holi i.e. 17.03.2014, I had seen Inder Pal in noon hours in his room alongwith family.Inder Pal used to take liquor occasionally and he was rickshaw puller.On the day of Holi, a quarrel had taken place between Inder Pal and his wife accused Shashi Bala on the issue of consuming liquor by Inder Pal.At that time, accused Tinku was at the first floor of house and both the daughters of Inder Pal were also with him.I left my room at about 3 PM and went to the house of my relative.As far as I Remember, accused Tinku had vacated his room on the next day of Holi.After 3 or 4 days from Holi of year 2014, two police officials had visited the premises where I was residing.At that time, neither accused Shashi Bala nor accused Tinku were present and their rooms were locked.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 10 of 20Police officials made inquiries from house owner Pawan Kumar about the presence of Shashi Bala and Tinku.During aforesaid 3/4 days, in day hours, accused Shashi Bala used to visit her tenanted room for a short while.As far as I remember, in aforesaid 3/4 days, accused Shashi Bala was residing at the house of her sister who was residing in the same locality.In his cross-examination PW-11 (Shubham Singh) deposed that:Police had recorded my statement after 3-4 days from the day of Holi.I do not remember the exact date of recording of my statement.I heard the altercation (kaha suni) between accused Shashi Bala and her husband Inder Pal on the day of Holi when I was going to take bath, I had not gone to pacify the matter between both.I had not gone in the room where altercation was going on between accused Shashi Bala and Inder Pal.Jitender Singh and produced Tinku before him.He also verified the aforesaid facts from Tinku.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 11 of 20In his cross-examination PW-15 (Shripal Sharma) deposed that:The dead body was lying at a place in bushes at a distance of 15-20 feet ahead from IGL Board in between Pushta No. 3 and 3, New Usmanpur.Firstly torso was recovered then head of the deceased was recovered.The distance between the place where torso was lying and place where head was lying was about 100 meter.We were seven police officials besides driver.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JPresent appeals are directed against judgment dated 23.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions case No. 44453/2015 arising out of FIR No. 282/2014, under CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 1 of 20 Sections 302/201/182/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellants- accused persons namely Tinku Singh and Shashi Bala guilty and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (each) for offence under Section 302 IPC, and to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months (each) in default to pay the fine.Convict Shashi Bala was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 182 of the IPC.However, the learned Trial Court acquitted Sandeep (the third accused before the trial court) for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and the state has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal.Crime team also inspected the room.A case u/s 302/201 IPC was lodged.Accused was arrested.Accused persons/appellants Tinku Singh and Shashi Bala were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and an additional charge u/s 182 IPC was also framed against the accused/appellant Shashi Bala.All accused persons/appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons/appellants, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses in all.Mr. Joginder Tuli appeared for both the appellants in the present case.For the appellant Shashi Bala, the learned counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the appellant Shashi Bala in the present crime; that the appellant Shashi Bala was living with her sister during the relevant period and she was occasionally visiting the house where the deceased and the appellant Tinku Singh were residing; that no incriminating article has been recovered at the instance of the appellant Shashi Bala in order to connect her with the murder of the deceased; that the only allegation against her is the illicit relationship with the appellant Tinku Singh which the prosecution has alleged on the basis of two photographs (Mark PW-7/2) and (Mark PW-7/3) of the appellant Shashi with the appellant Tinku Singh; that the prosecution has failed to prove the photographs (Mark PW-7/2) and (Mark PW-7/3) on record, hence, the appellant Shashi should be acquitted for the said offence.So far as the appellant Shashi Bala is concerned, the learned APP for the state contended that the conduct of the appellant Shashi Bala is unnatural as she lodged a missing report of her husband on 20.03.2014 even though she was aware that he was missing since 17.03.2014 i.e. the day of Holi; that the prosecution witnesses prove that there was close proximity between the two appellants as the appellant Shashi Bala herself got inducted the appellant Tinku Singh as a tenant, the latter shared no blood relation with the former; that the perusal of the record reflects that the deceased was murdered in CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 6 of 20 furtherance of the common intention of both the appellants and pleaded that the judgment of the Trial Court be upheld.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 6 of 20We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material on record.Further, in pursuance of the missing report, the investigating agency arrested the appellant Tinku Singh vide arrest memo Ex. PW-16/B and pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex. PW-23/A, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from 3 Pusta which was identified by the brother of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW-8/A. Further, the appellant Tinku Singh led to recovery of weapon of offence from the road in front of the Titiksha Model Public School, Sadatpur, Delhi and was seized vide pointing out and seizure memo of weapon Ex. PW-16/E. So far as the appellant Tinku Singh is concerned, the counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not dispute the said incriminating evidence against him and also the findings of the learned Trial Court in these aspects.However, the main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no incriminating evidence on record against the appellant Shashi Bala.On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has argued that the appellant Shashi Bala was having CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 7 of 20 illicit relations with the appellant Tinku Singh and this relationship of the two appellants paved the way for commission of the said offence.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 7 of 20In order to ascertain the role of the appellant Shashi Bala, we deem it appropriate to refer to the evidence on record.The elder brother of the deceased Sh.Mahipal Singh was examined in the court as PW-7 who deposed that:"On 18.03.2014, at about 9 PM, I received phone call of Shashi Bala at my phone.It was told to us by Shashi Bala that her husband Inder Pal Singh is missing and he had left the house under influence of liquor and he is not traceable.On 19.03.2014, I along with my nephew Amardeep came to Delhi at house of my brother Inder Pal at K-296, Gali No 5, Gautam Vihar, Usmanpur, Delhi.Room of Inder Pal and his wife Shashi Bala was situated at second floor of the aforesaid premises which was found lock.I made inquiries about the presence of Shashi Bala.One boy took me and my nephew at the house of sister of Shashi Bala which was at a distance of 200 meter away from the rented accommodation of my brother Inder Pal Singh.We reached there.I and my nephew returned to my native village.The landlord of the deceased, Sh.Pawan Sharma was examined as PW-10 who deposed that:"I am registered owner of H.No.K-296, Gali No.4, Gautam Vihar, Delhi About 2 years prior to present date, one Inder Pal had joint tenancy in aforesaid house.There was one room at first floor of my aforesaid house.Student Shivam was residing as tenant at the first floor in those days."... I had not taken any ID Proof of tenant either Inder Pal Singh and accused Tinku.Inder Pal was rickshaw puller and earlier known to me and my family and accused Tinku got introduced by wife of Inder Pal.I am not aware whether there was dispute / quarrel between Inder Pal and his wife Shashi Bala on petty CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 9 of 20 Issues.I have no personal knowledge about the murder of Inder Pal."CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 9 of 20Shubham Singh who was a tenant at the first floor of the house at which the deceased was residing was examined as PW-11 who deposed that:I heard the altercation for about 15minutes."HC Shripal Sharma was examined as PW-15 who deposed that:I was posted at P.S. N.U.Pur.On that day, at about 3 or 4 P.M., copy of DD no.26A already Ex PW-3/1 was assigned to me to take action in matter which was missing report lodged by Smt Shashi Bala.I took steps regarding missing person with the help of other authorities.Carbon copy of missing person form is Ex.PW-15/A which bears signatures of SHO Insp.Mahavir Singh at point A.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx On 23.03.2014 1 was at P.S. and at about 7 or 8 A.M., relatives of Inderpal namely Dinesh Kumar (chacha of Inderpal), Sanjay Kumar (cousin brother of Inderpal) along with other persons came at P.S. They met me and disclosed that they have suspicion against Tinku CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 11 of 20 for missing/disappearance of Inderpal who was residing as a tenant in adjacent room of Inderpal.I called Tinku from his tenanted room through Ct.He came at P.S. I interrogated him.It was told to me by Tinku that on17.03.2014, he and Shashi Bala committed murder of Inderpal in their room and he had thrown the dead body in the area of Khajuri Pushta at Yamuna Khadar.I narrated the aforesaid facts of incident to Insp.Accused Tinku was also with us.Dinesh Kumar, chacha of deceased and Sanjay, cousin of deceased were also with us at the time of recovery of torso and head."From the aforesaid testimonies, the following facts are culled out:That the appellant Shashi Bala got the appellant Tinku Singh inducted as a tenant in the same house where she was residing with her husband as well as two daughters even though the appellant Tinku Singh was not related to her through consanguinity or any other relation made out of law; That a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant Shashi Bala on 17.03.2014 which is evident from the testimony of PW-11 (Shubham Singh) who has deposed that On the day of Holi, a quarrel had taken place between Inder CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 12 of 20 Pal and his wife accused Shashi Bala on the issue of consuming liquor by Inder Pal.However, she did not disclose the said fact in the missing complaint (Ex. PW-3/1) made to the investigation agency;CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 12 of 20That it was the case of the appellant Shashi Bala in the Trial Court that she was residing in her matrimonial home with the deceased during the relevant period and it was the deceased who had gone missing from the said house.Consequently, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Shashi Bala that she was not residing with the deceased at the relevant time is contrary to the record;That a lackadaisical attitude was adopted by the appellant Shashi Bala in filing the missing complaint as she was aware of the absence of the deceased since the day of Holi which is evident from the missing complaint (Ex. PW-3/1) and filed it only on 20.03.2014 stating that her husband was missing since 18.03.2014;That she kept visiting the tenanted house even after the quarrel which took place on the day of Holi and was aware of the absence of her husband i.e. the deceased which is evident from the testimony of PW-10 (Pawan Sharma) who deposed that It also came into my notice on reaching at aforesaid house that accused Shashi Bala used to visit her rented accommodation for a short period for last 2/3 days and PW-11 (Shubham Singh) who deposed that During aforesaid 3/4 days, in day hours, accused Shashi Bala used to visit her tenanted room for CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 13 of 20 a short while.As far as I remember, in aforesaid 3/4 days, accused Shashi Bala was residing at the house of her sister who was residing in the same locality, however, she made no efforts to trace her husband and remained calm.That the appellant Shashi Bala in the missing complaint (Ex. PW-3/1) filed by her clearly mentioned that she had no doubt on any person even though she was aware of the fact that the deceased was last seen along with the appellant Tinku Singh on the 17.03.2014 (as the festival of Holi was on 17th March in the year 2014 and not 18.03.2014) which emerges from the testimony of PW-11 (Shubham Singh) who deposed that On the day of Holi, a quarrel had taken place between Inder Pal and his wife accused Shashi Bala on the issue of consuming liquor by Inder Pal.At that time, accused Tinku was at the first floor of house and both the daughters of Inder Pal were also with him, still she did not mention the said fact in her missing report (Ex. PW-3/1).The said conduct of the appellant Shashi Bala gives reason to draw adverse inference against her that she was trying to protect the appellant Tinku Singh being aware of the fate of her husband.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 13 of 20Hence from the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the overall conduct of the appellant Shashi Bala is unnatural.The acts of the appellant reflect that she was aware about the happening of the unfortunate incident with her husband, which led to the concocting of a story in order to protect the other appellant Tinku Singh.CRL.A. 1084/2018 & 4/2018 Page 14 of 20The photographs were recovered at the instance of the appellant Tinku Singh from House No. C-136, Chandan Vihar, Nangloi and seized vide memo (Ex. PW-16/K) wherein the appellant Shashi Bala and the appellant Tinku Singh have been portrayed as a newly wedded couple.The recovery of the said photographs has not been disputed by the counsel for the appellants in the present proceedings.The only contention is that the prosecution has failed to prove them on record for want of negatives.It is an established fact that the photographs were recovered at the instance of the appellant Tinku Singh and only he could have elaborated upon the fact as to the place where the negatives could have been procured.The facts of the case are clear that the appellant Tinku Singh at the instance of the appellant Shashi Bala caused death of the deceased and the causing of harm to the deceased did not stop there, who went on to brutally behead the body of the deceased. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,971,774 | (2) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 03/07/1997, at about 11:20 am complainant- Gulab Singh lodged the FIR Ex.P/10 at Police Station Kotwali, Vidisha that at about 10:00 am he went to his field and he found that tractor of Karan Singh was ploughing in the field.Since that year, the field was 2 CRA 448/1999 kept on mortgage by deceased Nathu Singh, father of complainant- Gulab Singh, therefore, he was entitled to plough that land and hence he tried to stop the tractor.In the meantime, accused Bhikam Singh, Malam Singh and Narbardi Bai went to the spot and they gave a threat that if he would try to stop the tractor, then tractor would be passed over upon him.In the meantime, complainant- Gulab Singh, his brother Madan Singh (PW-8) and Khechan Singh etc. also reached the spot.Then Bhikam Singh gave a blow of sword on the head of deceased Nathu Singh.Malam Singh gave a blow of sword to Madan Singh.Thereafter, various witnesses saved the various victims.The injured Nathu Singh was taken to police station Kotwali, Vidisha by tractor but on the way he succumbed to the injuries..(3) After registration of the case, SHO Suresh Singh Sikarwar (PW-12) sent the body of deceased Nathu Singh for post mortem and injured- Gulab Singh and Madan Singh for their medico-legal examination.Dr. MK Ostwal (PW-10) performed the post mortem on the body of deceased Nathu Singh and gave a report Ex.He found one lengthy injury on the head of deceased Nathu Singh on his occipital region.Brain matter was visible from opening of the injury and according to Dr. Ostwal, the deceased died due to head injury.Dr. AK Jain (PW- 6) examined the victim Madan Singh and gave a report Ex.He found one incised wound on his left parietal region and one contusion on left ankle joint.He found one incised wound on occipital portion of his head.The victim Gulab Singh and Madan Singh were also referred for x-ray examination.However, Dr. Ostwal (PW-10) examined them radiologically and no grievous injury was found to them.During investigation, the Investigating Officer picked up the plain soil and blood- stained soil from the spot.One sword each was recovered from appellant Malam Singh and co-accused Bhikam Singh.Clothes of victims Gulab Singh and Madan Singh were taken.One stick was recovered from accused Karan Singh.Clothes of deceased were obtained from the hospital.Delivered on 13/02/2017 Per N. K. Gupta, J:-Appellant No.2- Malam Singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 08/09/1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.172/1997, whereby the appellant No.2 has been convicted of offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.All such articles were sent for Forensic Science analysis.The Forenscic Science Labotory in its report Ex.P/33, found all the articles to be blood-stained whereas the report of serologist was not produced before the trial Court.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha who committed the case to the Court of Session.(4) The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a plea and took a defence that actually they were the victims and they were beaten by the complainant party.In defence, Jagnnath Singh (DW-1) and Santosh (DW-2) were examined.(5) During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1- Bhikam Singh had expired and, therefore, appeal filed by him, has turned abated.(6) After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the 4 CRA 448/1999 appellant No.2 Malam Singh, as mentioned above.(7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.(8) First of all, it was to be considered as to whether death of deceased- Nathu Singh was homicidal in nature or not? In this connection, Dr.M.K. Ostwal (PW10) has stated that he performed the post mortem on the body of deceased- Nathu Singh and gave a report Ex.One incised wound size of 14 cm long was found on occipital area out of which brain matter was visible.Bone was also found broken and injury was sufficient to cause death of the deceased.Hence, deceased- Nathu Singh died due to that injury.Consequently, his death was homicial in nature.There is no reason to disbelieve the opinion given by Dr.Ostwal and hence, it is proved that the deceased died due to head injury and it was sufficient to cause his death and death of deceased- Nathu Singh was homicial in nature.(9) Learned counsel for appellant No.2 has submitted that deceased- Nathu Singh sustained a single injury which was caused by co-accused Bhikam Singh.The injured eyewitness Gulab Singh (PW-7) and Madan Singh (PW-8) have stated that Bhikam Singh gave a blow of sword on the head of decased- Nathu Singh.There is no allegation against appellant No.2- Malam Singh that he assaulted deceased- Nathu Singh or exhorted co-accused Bhikam Singh to do so and hence, by mere presence, appellant Malam Singh could not be held liable for offence under Section 302 5 CRA 448/1999 with the help of Section 34 of IPC.The submissions made by learned counsel are acceptable and, therefore, it is clear that no common intention of appellant No.2 Malam Singh alongwith co-accused Bhikam Singh could be established by the prosecution so that he could be convicted of offence under Section 302 with help of provision of Section 34 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting appellant No.2 Malam Singh for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.(10) The appellant No.2 has also been convicted of offence under Section 324 of IPC relating to victims Gulab Singh and Madan Singh.In this connection, Gulab Singh (PW-7) and Madan Singh (PW8) have stated that when their father tried to stop the tractor and Bhikam Singh assaulted their father Nathu Singh with a sword, these witnesses had tried to intervene.According to Madan Singh, accused Karan Singh gave a blow of sword upon his head whereas Karan Singh was acquitted by the trial Court.Appellant Malam Singh neither assaulted the victim Madan Singh nor he had any common intention with Karan Singh because Karan Singh has already been acquitted from the aforesaid charge of Section 324 of IPC and, therefore, appellant Malam Singh could not be convicted of offence under Section 324 with help of Section 34 of IPC for victim Madan Singh.Gulab Singh and Madan Singh have stated that Malam Singh assaulted the victim Gulab Singh with a sword and he sustained an injury on his head.In this connection, a timely lodged 6 CRA 448/1999 FIR Ex.P/10 is proved by Gulab Singh and consequently, Dr. AK Jain (PW-6) has proved the MLC report of victim Gulab Singh.He found one incised wound on occiptal region of victim Gulab Singh having size 9cmx2cm which was bone deep.Such injury could be caused within six hours of the examination.Dr. AK Jain (PW-6) has given MLC report Ex.P/9 on that count.Looking to the evidence of witnesses and corroboration of FIR Ex.P.10 and evidence of Dr. AK Jain (PW-6), it is proved beyond doubt that appellant Malam Singh assaulted the complainant Gulab Singh by sharp cutting weapon like sword, causing a simple injury.(11) When a person has sharp cutting weapon like sword then he should be aware of result of such assault and, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 39 of IPC, it shall be presumed that he had voluntarily caused such injury.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant Malam Singh had sustained injuries and his injuries were proved by Dr.Ostwal (PW-10).MLC report of appellant Malam Singh was Ex.He sustained mainly three injuries; one incised wound on his right thumb and one lacerated wound on his right parietal region.He was complaining of pain in right forearm.However, Dr.Time range as given by Dr. Ostwal is a bigger range and it was for the 7 CRA 448/1999 appellant to prove that he sustained the injuries in the incident.However, no FIR is proved by appellant Malam Singh in this context.The defence witnesses Jagnnath Singh (DW-1) and Santosh (DW-2) were examined in support of the appellants, however, they have stated that Madan Singh gave a blow of sword causing injury to deceased Nathu Singh.There was no crowd at the spot and it was not possible that Madan Singh would have caused the death of his father i.e. the deceased Nathu Singh.Hence, it would be apparent that the defence witnesses are telling a falsehood and they cannot be believed.Since no FIR was filed or proved by the appellant that there was a cross-case or free-fight done by the complainant party at the spot and it is not established that appellant MalamSingh had sustained injuries in the incident itself, claim of right of private defence cannnot be accepted.(12) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, when it is proved that appellant Malam Singh had voluntarily caused hurt to the victim Gulab Singh with a sharp cutting weapon without any sudden or grave provocation and without any right of private defence then the trial Court has rightly convicted him of offence under Section 324 of IPC.(13) So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that appellant Malam Singh was the first offender.Since he was above 21 years of age, therefore, there is no need to give him advantage of Probation of Offenders Act, but, he gave only one blow to the victim Gulab Singh and, therefore, the sentence as recorded 8 CRA 448/1999 by the trial Court appears to be harsh.Appellant Malam Singh remained in custody for six months during the trial and appeal.Hence, it would be appropriate that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in custody.(14) On the basis of aforesaid, the appeal filed by appellant No.2 Malam Singh is hereby partly allowed. | ['Section 324 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. |
161,971,984 | Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.Applicants have filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, the 'CrPC') against the order dated 19.7.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No.197/2010 by the Additional Judge to the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby set aside the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 675/2006 and remanded the matter to the JMFC to try the case according to law.The JMFC vide order dated 5.8.2010 dropped the proceedings and discharged the applicants and other accused persons by observing that the complainant has died and the complainant's evidence is also not present.Brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Vimla Devi (since dead) filed a private complaint against the applicants and other co-accused namely Lal Singh and Kailash Narayan, stating therein that the complainant is in possession of certain lands in village Bilrai, Tahsil Gyaraspur, District Vidisha.The complainant was given the lands on oral lease in 1965 by one Ramjeevan S/o Mohanlal and other persons of his family.On 13.6.1986, eight different sale deeds were executed in respect of the land in question by the power of attorney holder Ramjeevan and signature of Ramjeevan on this power of attorney was forged.On these allegations, it was stated that the applicants, who are the purchasers and sellers, have committed offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).Learned trial Court after taking evidence of complainant Smt.Vimla Devi under Section 200 CrPC, directed registration of the case against the applicants and other co-accused persons under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 IPC, and issued warrants for procuring the presence of the applicants and other co-accused persons.After appearance of the accused persons, trial Court fixed the case for evidence before charge.On 17.7.2008, at the stage of evidence before charge, learned counsel for the applicants made a statement that complainant Smt. Vimla Devi has died, then the trial Court directed issuance of notice to the complainant with a view to ascertain the fact of her death.On 5.8.2010 the trial court dropped the proceedings and discharged the applicants and other accused persons by observing that the complainant has died and the complainant's evidence is also not present.On coming to know of the said order, Hargovind Laddha (husband of complainant Smt. Vimla Devi) and Ajay Laddha/non-applicant No.1 herein (son of complainant Smt. Vimla Devi) assailed the order dated 5.8.2010 before the revisional Court by filing Criminal Revision No.197/2010 on the ground that without issuing any notice to the heirs of deceased complainant, the trial Court committed mistake in dropping the proceedings and discharging the applicants and other accused persons.Against which, the applicants have filed this revision.On 5.8.2010 none appeared on behalf of the complainant and then the trial court discharged the applicants for want of evidence.hence the Magistrate did not commit any error in discharging the applicants and the order passed by the Magistrate is perfectly legal.On the contrary, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.1 submitted that the trial court took cognizance against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 467 and 471 IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.It appears from the record that the accused were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 120 (B), 420, 467 and 471 IPC. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,975,232 | Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are asfollows: Mr. N.K. Marwaha, Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, ExtensionCounter, situated at Utility Complex, INS Virbahu filed a complaint on04.06.1998 at Malkapuram Police Station alleging that at about 7.20 p.m.while settling the accounts for the day along with Nallamuthu Dass, thecashier, noticed two persons entered the bank stating that they wanted toopen a bank account and the third person entered after them.Of threepersons, two were armed with two countrymade pistols, a khukri and an ironrod and they together threatened the manager and cashier to open iron safe.Manager-Marwaha and cashier opened the iron chest and the culprits removedRs.2,54,376/- from the cash tray of the iron safe and kept the same in theblue colour rexin bag which they were carrying.They removed the money,the three persons locked the manager and the cashier inside the strong roomof the bank before escaping in a metallic blue Bajaj Chetak scooteralongwith the blue colour cash bag.During the commission of the offence,the culprits were concealing their identity by wearing helmets with visorsand masks.After forcing open strong room where they had been locked, themanager filed a complaint on 04.06.1998 before Malkapuram Police Stationbased on which first information report was registered in Crime No.34 of1998 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with Section 25 (1-A) of the ArmsAct.Theinvestigation was then handed over to the civil police.On30.07.1998 all three persons were remanded to custody in central jail,Visakhapatnam.Based on the statement of the accused persons, certainrecoveries were made.R. BANUMATHI, J.Appellant-Ajay Kumar Singh (AK Singh), Ex-Seaman, First Class(appellant in Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2012) and Umesh Kumar Singh (UKSingh), Ex-Radio Operator (Special), First Class (appellant in CriminalAppeals No.471-472 of 2013) have assailed the judgments of Armed ForcesTribunal, Chennai in T.A. No.139 of 2010 dated 11.11.2010 and T.A. No.11 of2011 dated 05.01.2012 and order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Review PetitionNo.2 of 2012 in and by which the tribunal affirmed the conviction of theappellants under Sections 342 and 392 IPC read with Section 77(2) of theNavy Act, 1957 and modified the sentence of imprisonment to that of theperiod already undergone by them.Appellant Dhirendra Kumar Singh (DKSingh), Ex-Leading Seaman, Physical Trainer, Second Class who was acquittedby the tribunal with pensionary benefits, has preferred separate appealsseeking direction for reinstatement and other monetary benefits.On 17.08.1998, identification parade was conductedand PWs 14 and 18 identified the appellants.The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated28.10.1998 advised the Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern NavalCommand, Visakhapatnam to try the accused persons by Court Martial.Therefore, the appellants were transferred to naval custody under theprovisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. read with Criminal Courts and CourtMartial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 and the matter wasinvestigated afresh by the Commanding Officer, INS Circars.Aftercompletion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellantson 26.06.1999 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with Section 77 (2) ofthe Naval Act and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act read with Section 77(2)of the Navy Act:-(i) for committing a robbery of Rs.2,54,371/- at theAndhra Bank Extension Counter at INS Virbahu; (ii) for wrongful confinement of the bank manager and cashier; (iii) for possession of country madepistol and three rounds of ammunition whilst committing the offence; and(iv) that accused had remained absent without leave.The CourtMartial was convened on 16.07.1999 and the appellants were tried before theCourt Martial.Before the Court Martial, twenty nine prosecution witnesseswere examined.Upon consideration of evidence, the Court Martial found theappellants guilty of various charges and sentenced them to undergo variousimprisonments.Additionally, all three appellants were imposed punishmentof dismissal with disgrace and to suffer such other consequential penaltiesinvolved.The Chiefof Naval Staff confirmed the conviction of the appellants and reduced theimprisonment and maintained dismissal of the appellants with disgrace fromthe naval service.Under Section |days mullets of pay |and allowances || |51 Navy Act. |and allowance and |for fourteen days|| | |suffer consequential|and to suffer the|| | |penalties involved.|consequential || | | |penalties.Under Section 25|service with |and reduced || |(1-A) Arms Act read|disgrace and |sentence from 120|| |with Section 77 (2)|consequential |months to 96 || |Navy Act. |penalties involved.Under Section 49| |the rank to Sea || |(2) (b) of Navy |Charge No. 4 – Not |I. || |Act.| || |Alternatively, | | || |under Section 51 | | || |Navy Act. | | |Challenging the conviction and the punishment of dismissal withdisgrace, the appellants have filed writ petitions before the AndhraPradesh High Court which upon constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunalwere transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai and the tribunaldisposed of the appeals confirming the conviction of the appellants AKSingh and UK Singh.The tribunal disbelieved the versions of PW-14(Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) and held that PWs 14 and 18 could not haveseen the faces of the culprits at the time of committing the crime sinceeven according to the prosecution the accused covered their faces withmasks and helmets and were conversing only by lifting the visors of thehelmets.PW-15 fingerprint expert opined “that fingerprints marked as ‘A’and ‘B’ tallied with the specimen fingerprints of appellants AK Singh andUK Singh” (Exs.P46 and P47).Based on the evidence of PW-15 V. HanumanthaRao, Fingerprint Expert, the tribunal confirmed the conviction of theappellants-AK Singh and UK Singh and reduced the sentence of imprisonmentimposed on the appellants AK Singh and UK Singh to the period alreadyundergone by them and maintained their dismissal.In so far as DK Singh is concerned, the tribunal held thatthere is no satisfactory evidence to establish his guilt and acquitted himgiving him benefit of doubt.The tribunal directed that DK Singh’s periodof arrest till the date of sentence by the Court Martial shall be countedfor the qualifying service to enable DK Singh to get his pension.Thetribunal however held that DK Singh shall not be entitled to any monetarybenefit like backwages etc. for the interregnum period except that the sameis counted for qualifying service for getting pension.It was submitted that the photographs of the appellants weretaken and were shown to the PW-14 (manager) and PW-18 (cashier) to enablethem to identify the appellants-accused without which, it would not havebeen possible for PW-14 and PW-18 to identify them since even according tothe prosecution version when they entered the bank in order to concealtheir identity, they were wearing helmets and visors.It was submittedthat the Court Martial and the Tribunal committed serious error inappreciating the evidence and material on record.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted thatthe case of the appellants have been extensively dealt with by the tribunaland all the questions of law and fact have been considered at length andthe tribunal has passed a reasoned order wherein all the issues raised bythe parties have been considered and the impugned order warrants nointerference.In so far as appellant–DK Singh it was submitted thatacquittal in the criminal case does not entitle him for reinstatement as hewas not honourably acquitted but was given benefit of doubt and cannotclaim reinstatement as of right.We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perusedthe impugned judgments and material on record.PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) have clearly spoken aboutthe occurrence that on the date of incident on 04.06.1998, three personsentered into the bank and threatened PW-14 and PW-18 by showing gun andcommitted robbery in the bank.Before the Court Martial, PW-14 and PW-18have identified the three appellants as the culprits who committed robberyin the bank.PW-14 and PW-18 have also spoken about the identificationparade held in the prison and that they have identified the appellants inthe test identification parade.The tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 andtheir identification of the appellants on the ground that they could nothave seen the faces of the culprits at the time of commission of offence,since even according to the prosecution, the appellants were covering theirfaces with masks and helmets with visors and they lifted the visors onlywhile conversing with the bank personnel and tribunal held that there wasno possibility of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) seeing the faces ofthe accused.The tribunal further relied upon the representation made bythe appellants to the Metropolitan Magistrate that they had beenphotographed by the police to enable the eye-witnesses (PWs 14 and 18) toidentify them in the test identification parade and on those findings, thetribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 insofar as theidentification of the appellants.The tribunal, in our view, was not right in disbelieving theevidence of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) as to the identification ofthe appellants as the culprits who committed robbery in the bank.At the time of occurrence, thebank personnel including PW-14 and PW-18 were working and settling theaccounts and were about to close the bank.Since the bank personnel werestill at work in the bank, it is reasonable to assume that there was enoughlight to do so inside the bank.The appellants who entered the bankinitially asked PW-14 to open the bank account.Before however PW-14 couldrefuse, the appellants took out a revolver and other weapons.From theevidence of PW-14 and PW-18, it is clear that the incident lasted for abrief period during which the appellants were talking to each other.Asper the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18, while the culprits were so conversinglifting their visors, they were able to see the culprits.It is obviousthat the extraordinary situation, in which the incidence occurred must haveleft an indelible impression in the mind of the witnesses about theidentity of the culprits.In that view, the tribunalwas not right in disbelieving the evidence of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18(Cashier).It is also pertinent to note that PW-14 and PW-18 had no reasonto falsely implicate the appellants which aspect was not kept in view bythe tribunal.To that extent, we differ from the findings of the tribunaland accepting the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 and maintain the convictionof appellants-AK Singh and UK Singh.Yet another piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution isthe recovery of weapons from AK Singh.As per the prosecution, appellant-AK Singh was arrested on 30.07.1998 and based on his confession, theweapons used in the commission of offence were recovered under Section 27of the Evidence Act. Photographs of the weapons/material objects recoveredwere produced before the court martial and the tribunal has noted that thephotograph of the weapon was taken on 29.07.1998 itself, as seen from therequisition for taking photo of the weapons.The tribunal thereforedisbelieved the prosecution case in so far as the recovery of the weaponused at the time of committing the offence.Since we did not have thebenefit of perusing the photographs, so produced, we are not expressing anyview about the findings of the tribunal on this aspect.To sustain the conviction of AK Singh and UK Singh, courtmartial as well as the tribunal relied upon the evidence of FingerprintExpert-V. Hanumantha Rao (PW-15) who had stated that upon information tothe control room on 04.06.1998, he reached the scene of occurrence at NavalBase, Andhra Bank Extension Counter, INS Virbahu at 9.00 p.m. Whileexamining the scene of occurrence, PW-15 observed two chance fingerprintson the glass entrance door of the bank.PW-15 developed the same with hisuniversal or white powder and marked them as “A” and “B” for the purpose oflifting them by taking photos.As the photographer was not available, PW-15 left the scene of occurrence and on the next day morning i.e. 05.06.1998at about 0800 hrs., PW-15 took the police constable Trimul Kumar-photographer of MFSL Unit, Visakhapatnam and photographed the preservedchance fingerprints.The chance fingerprints so lifted were kept in theoffice of PW-15 for comparison.The police supplied the specimenfingerprints of bank officials for comparison and as per the evidence of PW-15, fingerprints of the bank employees did not tally with the chancefingerprints lifted from the entrance door of the bank.Two months laterafter the arrest of the appellants, specimen fingerprints of AK Singh, UKSingh and also DK Singh were sent to PW-15 for comparison.On comparison,PW-15 noted that the chance fingerprint marked “A” was identical to thespecimen right middle finger impression marked as “S1” which is thespecimen fingerprint of appellant-AK Singh and the said report was markedas Ex.In Ex.P-47-report, PW-15 opined that chance fingerprint marked“B” was identical to the specimen right index finger impression as “S(a)”which is the specimen finger impression of appellant-UK Singh.Contention of respondents is that evidence of PW-15-FingerprintExpert incriminates the appellants AK Singh and UK Singh.However, inproving this incriminating evidence, there seems to be lapses on the partof the prosecution.As noticed earlier, police constable Tirumal Kumar-photographer of MFSL Unit had taken the photographs of the preserved chancefingerprints.To prove the chance fingerprints lifted from the entranceglass doors of the bank, the prosecution should have proved the photographsby examining constable-Trimul Kumar and should have produced the negativesof the photographs of the chance fingerprints.Criminal trials shouldnot be made casualty for such lapses in the investigation or prosecution.Evidence of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) identifying the appellantsand their evidence as to identity of the appellants in the testidentification parade ought not to have been disbelieved by the tribunal.In our view, thetribunal was not right in disbelieving the evidence of PW-14 (Manager) andPW-18 (Cashier) in identifying the appellants AK Singh, UK Singh and DKSingh as culprits and their identity in test identification parade andtheir conviction is to be affirmed on the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18, ifnot on the evidence of fingerprint expert and the appeals are liable to bedismissed.In so far as appellant-UK Singh, prosecution has adducedevidence to show that after the incident, he has deposited huge amount inhis bank account.Ex. P76 is the certificate issued by the Central Bank,Azamgarh dated 07.10.1998 as per which the last balance in the account ofUK Singh is Rs.1,32,670/- including an interest of Rs.570/-.PW-29 deposedthat as per Ex.C-11, pay in slip, the denomination of the cash ofRs.81,600/- deposited by the accused was, one bundle of Rs.500/-(Rs.500x100=50,000/-), 316 notes of Rs.100/- (Rs.100x316= 31,600/-) totalRs.81,600/-.Appellant-UK Singh has not explained the source of such hugeamount deposited in the bank on 11.06.1998 which is a strong incriminatingcircumstance against the appellant.Facts leading to DK Singh’s arrest are slightly different fromthose of AK Singh and UK Singh.He collected hisGenform No.358/S dated 03.07.1998 from ship INS Anjadip at Visakhapatnamand proceeded to his next duty station for POPTI ‘Q’ course at INS,Venduruthy, Cochin.DK Singh alongwith his wife, children and brother-in-law proceeded towards his native place by Corromandal express.In Court Martialinquiry, DK Singh was found guilty and sentenced to undergo ten yearsrigorous imprisonment and dismissal with disgrace from navy withconsequential penalties.Upon appeal, his conviction was confirmed andsentence was reduced to eight years.The tribunal acquitted appellant-DKSingh by giving him benefit of doubt.While acquitting DK Singh, tribunaldirected that the appellant-DK Singh is deemed to have been retired fromservice with effect from 03.05.2004 on completion of qualifying servicerequired for pension.Assailing the same, appellant-DK Singh has filed theappeal seeking for reinstatement and other consequential benefits.As discussed earlier, we have differed from the approach andfinding of the tribunal in appreciation of evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 inidentifying the appellants.Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporarygovernment servant before he was kept under suspension.The terminationorder indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension.It isonly a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order cameto be passed but that does not constitute any stigma.Toexamine this plea of alibi, the tribunal called for the Duty Ashore Bookmaintained at INS Anjadip (Original of Ex. P.32).DK Singh claimed thatthe document entry at Sl.No.53 was tampered with and consequently,tribunal noted that there indeed was some overwriting in Sl.No.53 besidesthe column for the name of the individual.The tribunal concluded thatprosecution had not placed any material on record to show that afterfinishing his duty at 1300 hours, appellant-DK Singh was allowed to availoff and thus the tribunal concluded that in the absence of evidence that DKSingh was allowed to go off after 1300 hours on 04.06.1998, the benefit ofdoubt must be afforded to him.The tribunal came to the collective conclusion that nosatisfactory evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to sustain theconviction of DK Singh and therefore the tribunal set aside the convictiongiving him the benefit of doubt.Evidence of PW-14and PW-18 identifying DK Singh as one of the culprits is a factor to bereckoned with while considering the plea of the appellant-DK Singh forreinstatement.Additionally, it is to be pointed out that as seen from theevidence of K. Rama Krishna Rao-Inspector of Police (PW-17) on 10.06.1998,DK Singh deposited Rs.90,000/- in his bank account No.3395 of SBI BRTownship Branch and the explanation of the appellant for this deposit isnot convincing.Having regard to our findings on the evidence of PWs 14and 18, the acquittal of appellant-DK Singh itself becomes a debatablepoint.However, we do not propose to go into this aspect since the Unionof India has not filed any appeal challenging acquittal of DK Singh.Appellant–DK Singh who was only granted benefit of doubt cannot seek forreinstatement and the consequential benefits and his appeal is also liableto be dismissed.July 13, 2016 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,978,599 | Respondent no.2/Smt.Anita Ahirwar is also present in person.She is identified by Shri Jaiswal.Her presence is also marked.Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' has been filed by the applicant for quashing of order dated 06.02.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.229/13, by the learned 3 rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Jabalpur , whereby the application under Section 320 (5), Cr.P.C. filed by the parties has been dismissed.The short facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner and other co- accused on the basis of which offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered vide Crime No. 130/06 by PS-Kotwali, District-Jabalpur.Thereafter the challan was filed before JMFC, Jabalpur who vide judgment dated 01.08.13 convicted the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For one year and fine of Rs.500/-.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 229/13 which is pending for adjudication.Meanwhile a joint application for compromise under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the parties but the same was dismissed by learned appellate Court observing that the alleged offence is non-compoundable, hence, this petition.Mutual divorce has also been granted vide order dated 1.4.2015 by learned Ist Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,599 | JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J.The instant revisional application under Section 401, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 17.4.89 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magisrate at Katwa in G.R. Case No. 84 of 1988, arising out the Mangolcot P.S. Case No. 10 dated 28.2.88, on the grounds and for the reasons set forth therein.On F.I.R. being lodged by the petitioner-complainant before Mangolcot Police Station on 28.2,88 against the accused No. 1, Abdur Rahman, and 28 others for alleged offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/307/379, I.P.C. and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act on the allegations made therein, Mangolcot P.S. Case No. 10 dated 28.2.88 was registered.After completion of investigation in the case the Investigating Officer had forwarded a report to the learned Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, being charge-sheet No. 29 dated 1.4.89, in which four of the twenty-nine accused persons, namely, Hebjur Rahman, Munshi Mohammad, Jiaur Rahman and Fakir Mohammad, had only been, sent up for trial for alleged offence punishable under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., and a prayer had been made for discharging the remaining twenty-five accused persons named in the F.I.R., in the circumstances stated therein.In the result, the instant revisional application succeeds. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,991,002 | THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-3834-2017 (KAMLESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 23-02-2018 Ms. Savita Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Govt. Adv.for the State.sh This is repeat/fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on e ad 20.12.2014 in connection of Crime No.266/2014 registered at Police Station Saikheda, district Narsinghpur for commission of offences Pr punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of IPC, (148, 302 a (two counts), alternative under Section 302/149 (two counts) of IPC.ad As per status report, received from the trial court, the statements of ten prosecution witnesses have been recorded and still M the statements of fifteen prosecution witnesses are yet to be of recorded.The eye witnesses did not mention the name of the present rt applicant.They deposed that Manmodh and Taraju were beating ou the deceased person.Witnesses of oral dying declaration Shankar, C (PW-3), Chhoteveer, (PW-4) and Naresh Gujar, (PW-6) did not mention the name of the present applicant.They did not mention h ig that the deceased had told them that the present applicant had H beaten them.As per evidence available on record as yet, there is no allegation against the present applicant.The allegation is against Taraju and Manmodh.The prayer for bail is opposed by learned Govt. Adv. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,599,118 | JUDGMENT J.D. Jain, J.(1) This petition under Section 482" Code of Criminal Proceedure (hereinafter referred to as .the Code), raises some important questions of law.However, the facts giving rise to it lie in a narrow compass.(2) On 4th July 1983, the petitioner, his wife Smt. Malti Devi, the tenant of the petitioner Ramesh Chand and his wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi Were arrested by Si Bachan Singh of Police Station Sultan Pari under Section 93 read with Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act (for short 'the Act').It was alleged that the petitioner and his wife on the one hand and Ramesh Chand and his wife on the other were indulging in abusive language and were fighting with each other in a public street and they would not desist C from doing so despite intervention by the people residing in the Mohalla and even the police.They were produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on that very day and were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 500.00 each.A report termed by the police as kalendra under Section 93/97 was also filed by the police on the same date.Thereupon the petitioner challenged the institution of the criminal proceedings against him in revision but the same was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3rd May 1984 on the short ground that he had not filed the certified copies of the various orders which had been called in question, within time. | ['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
159,925,018 | S.Kaithamalaikumaran in Crl.A.80/2014 and respondent in Crl.R.Karthikeyan in Crl.A.84/2014 For Respondent : Mr.2.1) Thiru.Duraisamy an agriculturist of Panaimarathootham Village in Erode District applied for agricultural electricity service connection on 05.03.2007 to draw water from his bore well.Later he dig a open well and made a fresh application on 13.09.2001 under self finance scheme.He received a notice dated 17.11.2013 from the Tamil Nadu Electicity Board, North Kundam, Erode District to produce certain documents relating to his application.He met Mr. Arun Prasad, the Junior Engineer at TNEB office North Kundadam on 27.11.2013 along with the documents mentioned in the notice.Arun Prasad after verifying the documents informed Duraisamy that his earlier application is for bore well and now he wants service connection to open well, so for the said change the paper has to go to Executive Engineer office for which he has to pay Rs.2,600/- as bribe in addition to the Rs.6000/- for preparing the estimation.Thereupon, the complaint was taken on for investigation.Next day, after demonstrating the trap proceedings to the witnesses, at about 11.05 A.M, the defacto complainant Duraisamy along with the accompanying witness Mariappan and the trap team reached the office of TNEB, Kundadam.Arun Prasad was not in his seat.So they waited till his arrival.At about 12.45 P.M, Arun Prasad came to the office.Duraisamy and Mariappan went to the room of Arun Prasad and wished him.Arun Prasad enquired Duraisamy whether he has brought the money he asked, Duraisamy took out the money smeared with phenolphphalein and gave it to Arun Prasad.On receipt of the money, Arun Prasad gave it the person next to him ( K. M. Raju A- 2) and told him to keep the money, he will get it back afterwards.3.4) Charge 4: Against A-2 under section 109 IPC r/w section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act.The prosecution to prove the above charges had examined 15 witnesses, 31 exhibits and 8 material objects.A.No.84 of 2014: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and sentence and conviction imposed upon the appellant herein by the Learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Coimbatore, in Spl.C.C.No.81 of 2011 dated 30.01.2014 and acquit the appellant herein.PRAYER in Crl.A.No.447 of 2016: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow this appeal and set aside the Judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused A1 and A2 passed by the Court of the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore in Spl.For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy Sr.C., for Mr.P.Govindarajan in all appeals Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) in Crl.A.80, 84/2014 and Appellant in Crl.On receipt of the pre arranged signal from Duraisamy, the trap team entered the room of Arun Prasad, introgated him and recovered the tainted money from Raju, after conducting the sodium corbonate phenolphphalien test on the hands of Arun Prasad A-1 and Raju A-2 and confirming they both have handled the tainted money.The trial court on receipt of the final report, framed the following charges against the accused persons.3.1) Charge 1: Against A-1 under section 7 of PC Act. for demand and acceptance of illlegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from Duraisamy on 29.11.2013 3.2) Charge 2: Against A-2 under section 11 r/w 7 of PC Act for abetting A-1 to commit offence under section 7 of PC Act.3.3) Charge 3: Against A-1 under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (10(d) of the PC Act for abusing his position as Public servant, misconducted himself by obtaining pecuniary advantage of Rs.4,000/-On the side of the defence one witness and 3 exhibits were marked.Convicted the the first accused being a public servant for offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentenced him under section 13(2) of the Act to under go one year RI and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI.The second Accused was convicted for offence under section 109 IPC r/w section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and sentenced him to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs 3,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI.The period of sentence already undergone to be set off and the period of imprisonment shall run concurrently.Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred appeal against the order of acquittal and the accused have preferred appeals against the judgment of sentence and conviction.7. Point for consideration:7.1) Whether the trial court correct in holding the accused guilty of offence of misconduct and abettement to commit misconduct and acquitting them from the charges for demand and acceptance of bribe and abetment to commit that offence ?Thereafter when self finance scheme for out of turn service connection was introduced, PW-2 had paid Rs.500/- on 13.09.2001 and sought for considering his application under self finance scheme.Ex P-2 is the reciept dated 13.09.2001 issued by TNEB for Rs.500/- paid by Duraisamy.When, the Board decided to consider the applications under Self-finance scheme, PW-2 was informed through Ex P-3 notice dated 17/11/2003 to submitted documents such as VAO certificate to show ownership, Field Map and sketch, kist receipts, chitta, Adangal and patta or title deed.While fact being so, the defacto complainant had deposed that in response to the notice Ex P-3 he went to the EB office on 27.11.2003 and met Arun Prasad J.E and gave the documents.He initialled on it and told him to give the papers to C.I ( Commericial Inspector ) who compared the earlier application of PW-2 and the present application and gave both the applications to J.E. On seeing the earlier application, JE told him that the earlier application is for service connection to borewell whereas the present application is for open well, therefore permission from EE office is required.For which he has to spend Rs.2,600/- and for estimation he has to give Rs.6,000/- totally he has to spend Rs.8,600/-.The perusal of Ex P-9 application dated 17.11.2003 indicates it is a new application given by PW-2 for electrical service connection to install 5 HP motor in his land bearing S.No 185/2A5 ( old survey No. 381/B ) without any reference about his earlier application.In this application the first accused has endorsement to Revenue section to collect Rs 50/- and affixed his initial with date as 27/11/2003, but scored off.The allegation against the first appellant regarding the demand of bribe has to be looked from the application of the defacto complainant, which is marked as Ex P-9, because the bone of contention centers around the change of request to get Electrical Service Connection for the open well instead of borewell.Since, 1997 when the defacto complainant has paid Rs.50/- and registered for service connection vide Ex P-11 and Ex P-17 the requet is for borewell.While, the witness has depose that he gave his application Ex P-9 for fresh service connection to open well on 27.11.2003 at about 02.00 P.M, but in his complaint dated 28.11.2003, he has conveniently suppressed the said fact and had alleged that as if for change in the nature of well from borewell to open well, the Junior Engineer (A1) had demanded bribe.So far as the recovery of Ex P-9 is concerned the Trap Laying Officer, C.Raja PW-14, in his cross examination admits that he recovered Ex P-9 along with the other connected documents on 29.11.2003, but he has not made sufficient investigation in respect of why the defacto complainant has given a new application Ex P-9 on 27.11.2003 without mentioning his earlier application and the notice Ex P-3 dated 17.11.2003 sent to him for production of document pursuant to his earlier application.In this respect, the suggestion put to PW-14, that in connivance with Shahjagan PW-9, A2 had tried to replace the earlier application dated 05.03.1997 with the application dated 17.11.2003, but the endorsement of A1 had prevented them to do so, hence aggrieved by that, the false complainant has given by PW-2, gains significance.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant wanted to get service connection under self finance scheme and made an application on 13.09.2001 and paid Rs.500/-, though the prosecution has marked the receipt for Rs.500/-, application dated 13.09.2001 is not before the Court.On a cumulative assessment of these documents, it could be seen that the defacto complainant having applied for service connection to his borewell in the year 1997 had attempted to get service connection for the open well by substituting his earlier application with a new application dated 17.11.2003 to retain the seniority.Since, this could not be fractified due to the objection raised by the Junior Engineer (A1) complaint had been made with acquisition of demanding bribe.The case of the prosecution that A1 demanded a total sum of Rs.8600/- on 27.11.2003, thereafter, reduce to Rs.7000/- and as first installment, he demanded Rs.4000/- and to pay the balance after 15 days.PW-2 in his deposition has stated that he went to Junior Engineer Office at 11.00 A.M, Junior Engineer was not in his seat, hence, waited for him till 12.45 P.M. When, Junior Engineer came in his seat, he along with Mariappan PW-2 went to the room of A1 after exchanging wishes Junior Engineer asked him whether he has brought the money, immediately PW-2 said yes and gave the tainted money to A1, which A1 receive with his right hand and gave it to A2 Raju to count and keep it with him.Raju counted the money and kept it with him.PW-3 corrobarates the said version.A2 counted the money with both his hands and kept it in his pocket.However, the phenolphthalein test undertaken reveal presence of phenolphthalein in both the hands of the first accused.When, there is no positive evidence before it, for such inference.The doubt in the prosecution case gets enhanced in the light of the fact that the defence has projected an alternate theory by way of suggestion to the witnesses that when PW-2 attempted to give money to A1, A1 pushed it away with his right hand.The currency fell on the floor, A2 who was in the room of A1 at that time picked it, at that juncture the trap team enter and asked him to keep the money in his pocket and thereafter recovered.While discussing the presence of A2 in the room of A1, the trial Court has observed that A2 is a license electrical contractor.From EX.P15 and EX.P16 petti cash book, it is evident that A2 has received labour charge from A1 for doing electrical work, the said inference is purely on surmises.EX.P15 and P16 petti cash book of A1 cannot be a document to infer anything against A2 as held by the trial Court.It will only provide reason for his presence in the room of A1 and nothing more.Mere presence during the trap operation and recovery of tainted money from a private person without strong evidence to prove that he was holding the money with knowledge that it is bribe money, the presumption under Section 20 cannot be drawn.Further more the explanation by way of suggestion in the cross examination putforth to the witnesses by A1 and A2 also to be taken note.The omission of the vital fact with complaint that he gave a fresh application on 27.11.2003, makes the trust worthiness of the defacto complainant doubtfully.The endorsement of EX.D1 and D2 found on the application, EX.P9 enhance the doubt that the complaint does not carry the true facts, but bristles with supression of truth and suggestion of falsehood.Therefore, when the fundamental fact of demand and acceptance has not been proved by the prosecution through reliable witnesses, holding A1 for offence under 13(1)(d) of P.C Act and holding A2 for offence under 109 IPC r/w.13(1)(d) does not arise.Equally, on failure of proving the factum of demand Section 7 of the PC Act also does not get attracted.In the result, the appeal filed by the accused persons is allowed and the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.The fine amount if any paid shall be refunded.No order as to costs.20.12.2017speaking/non speakingIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No rnaTo1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode.2.The Learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Coimbatore.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J,rna Pre-delivery Judgment made inCriminal Appeal Nos.: 80 & 84 of 2014and Criminal M.P.No.3030 of 2016and 447 of 201620.12.2017 | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
159,926,416 | Item No. 54And In the matter of: Tentul Das & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Mr. Manoranjan Mahato For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 479 of 2013 dated 07.08.2013 under sections 341/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and the injury report.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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. |
132,174,215 | He further submits that the charge-sheet in the present case had already been filed on 12.02.2020, although it was not in the knowledge of the applicant.It is further submitted that even otherwise, in a separate police enquiry, it has been found that false allegations have been levelled against the present accused persons in the same incident.A typed copy of this order be forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and to Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Ld. Panel Lawyer, on their respective email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned.The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Learned Court below.With the aforesaid, the present application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby disposed of. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,321,757 | This revision is filed to set aside the order, dated 19.09.2007, passed in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2007 in S.C.No.249 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Chidambaram, wherein the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the P.T.Warrant was rejected.Petitioner is the accused.A case in Crime No.23 of 2003 came to be registered against him on the file of respondent police for the offences under Sections 294,392,397 and 506-II IPC.On 05.02.2007, another case in Crime No.42 of 2007 was registered by Annamalai Nagar Police Station against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294,324 and 307 IPC and he was remanded to judicial custody by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).If the bail granted to him was cancelled by the means known to law, then alone, he could be remanded. | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
132,176 | Relying upon the three grounds mentioned and detailed in paragraph 4 from pages 2 to 9 of the grounds of detention which pertains to the three incidents of occurrence and were taken together as the grounds of detention which, in brief, are stated herein under :--On 21-7-1997 at about 17.30 hours, Miss Anindita Murli Ramswami had been to Agripada Police Station and had complained to the police that as she being the reporter working in Asian Age Newspaper since 15-4-1996, at about 3.45 hours on 21-7-1997 had gone to Dagadi Chawl on Bapurao Jagtap Marg, Byculla, Mumbai for the purpose of collecting a report on Akhil Bharatiya Sena and that evening while she was within the compound of the said place, a person aged about 35 to 40 years asked her about where she had come from and she replied that she is a reporter from Asian Age Newspaper.He told her that people had read that morning a report which was published in that day's edition of Asian Age Newspaper.He then said in threatening tone: "Jisane Aaj ke paper me likha hai uase Khatma Karenge, tab malum padega, uase bheja Dao".Upon this, she came out of the Dagadi Chawl compound and contacted her office from nearby public phone and on instruction she again went inside Dagadi Chawl compound in front of a small temple for information about the office of Akhil Bharatiya Sena at Dadar and found that the person mentioned earlier was still there and when she asked him about the information, he had replied that the office of Akhil Bharatiya Sena was at Lalbaug and that thereafter while she was about to take a turn, a stone suddenly hit on her face and on her turning further towards the direction from where the stone came, she found four other persons standing near the water tap also stoning upon her and continuing the stoning upon her.She also found persons standing nearby the temple pelting stones on her with the result she sustained bleeding injuries on her left side face.Thereafter she got scared and ran out of the compound and then went in a car to Prabhadevi and apprised her superiors about the assault made upon her.She was then taken to Hinduja Hospital where she was treated and allowed to go.Then she had been to Agripada Police Station and lodged the complaint stating details of persons who assaulted her in conspiracy with the others in the above incident and in which she suspected that it was all done only at the instance of the detenu.The news of the above incident was found published in Asian Age Newspaper on 21-7-1997 and related to the difficulties being faced by the detenu in the matter of making payments to his gang members in the headline and in big bold letters.On 19-8-1997 at about 16.10 hours, one Shri Ramesh Chhaganlal Shah, resident of 4-A, Takshashila Apartment, Sagar Road, Santacruz, Mumbai complained to Cuffe Parade Police Station.In his complaint, he has stated that he is a partner in Shanti Star Builders, situated at 8, Tulsiyani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai and in which one Mr. Natwarlal Mohanlal Desai was also a partner and that since their company is carrying out construction work at Mira Road, Shanti Nagar (East), District-Thane and the construction project is about 500 to 600 buildings being carried out by 100 to 150 workers at the site, Mr. Natwarlal M. Desai was mainly looking after money transactions of the company.The company has its office situated at 8, Tulsiyani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai, and in which the said Natwarlal Desai and Ramesh Shah were in the habit of coming together in the office in one car, as Mr. Natwarlal Desai had been staying at 25, Chetan Village, J.V.P.D. Scheme, Ville Parle, Mumbai and that there were about 30-35 employees working in the office.While so, at about 14.00 hours the said Mr. Natwarlal Desai came to his residence in his Maruti Esteem car No. GJ-15-K-6464 and then he along with one Mr. Ramesh Shah arrived at their office at Nariman Point at 14.40 hours.His car was driven by one Mr. Rabha Bhaiji Kadam, the driver.While Mr. Ramesh Shah was sitting on the right side of the rear seat of the said car, on reaching near the office, it was stopped and while Mr. Natwarlal Desai alighted from the car first and proceeded towards the office, two unknown persons (who subsequently transpired were associates of the detenu, namely Ganesh Bhosle alias Vakil and Namdeo Patil) suddenly appeared in front of Mr. Natwarlal Desai and fired rounds at him from the pistols in their possession with the result Mr. Natwarlal Desai sustained bullet injuries on his face, head and neck and collapsed on the way.On seeing this, Mr. Ramesh Shah was terribly shocked and remained at his seat in the car.The killers then ran away from the western side of the building.ORDER N. Arumugham, J.During the course of investigation the arrested persons including the detenu were produced before 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai for remand.The detenu was remanded to police custody till 24-7-1997 and then subsequently the detenu was released by the Court on conditional bail.On hearing the sound of the firing of shots, those in office in the vicinity, due to fear closed the windows and doors of their offices and raised hue and cry and the people present in the vicinity of the building ran helter and skelter.Blood was found oozing from Mr. Natwarlal Desai's mouth, head and neck.Then he was taken to the Bombay Hospital in his Maruti Esteem car but, however, on the way it is stated that he succumed to the injuries, as confirmed by the doctor of the Bombay Hospital.In the place where Mr. Natwarlal Desai had collapsed, a handkerchief, a Gujrati News paper, a spectacle, a piece of broken teeth and empty cartridges, were found lying.This incident had taken place on account of payment of Khandani (extortion money) because 5 or 6 months ago, three persons had visited Shri Natwarlal Desai's residence at Ville Parle and told him that they were from "Arun Gawali Gang" and they had demanded something from Mr. Natwarlal Desai.This was narrated to Mr. Ramesh Shah by deceased Mr. Natwarlal Desai.He also told Mr. Ramesh Shah that Mr. Natwarlal Desai had received threatening telephone calls from the detenu's gang members and due to fear of his life, neither he, nor Mr. Ramesh Shah had informed the police about the threatening incident, nor asked for any police protection.For the above occurrence and complaint by Mr. Ramesh Chaganlal Shah, a case for the offences under sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, was registered at Cuffe Parade Police Station vide C.R. No. 382/97 and thus, the law was set in motion for the purpose of investigation and during the course of investigation, as the materials and evidence were collected, offences under sections 23 and 27 of the Arms Act were added to the crime number registered already.The statements were recorded of Mr. Rabha Baija Kadam, driver of the deceased Mr. Natwarlal Desai, Mr. Mohan Janu Nandgaonker, Security Guard at Tulsiyani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai and Mr. Ulhas Devji Shivgan, Peon in Shanti Star Builders office on 19-8-1997 itself.The statements recorded by the Investigating Officer so far disclosed the fact that his Master Mr. Natwarlal Desai had visited Dagadi Chawl about 5 to 6 months back and that one day in the afternoon when he was driving the car and he had parked the car near the mandir in the vicinity of Dagadi Chawl, and thereafter his master Mr. Natwarlal Desai came back to the car after about half an hour when he was seen by the driver that his master was looking worried and in a state of fear.While making the inquest panchanama of the dead body of Mr. Natwarlal Desai on 19-8-1997, itself, amongst other things from the left side saffari pocket of the deceased Mr. Natwarlal Desai, a pocket diary, with black rexin cover of 'Eagle company of 1997' was found and recovered.The said diary and the papers in his pocket were blood stained and thorough inspection of the same would reveal that there were some entries made in it upto 21-8-1997 and that on 14-2-1997 an entry was found to have been made by deceased Mr. Natwarlal Desai as "4.00 Kiran, Meet on 19th phone on 11-02-97".Then on 19-2-1997 he had written "3738561 phone to Kiran, A.G. phone from Chetan A.G. discussed".This would indicate that the deceased was in contact with the A.G., i.e. designated as Arun Gawali- detenu herein.The said diary was shown to the witnesses and they identify and handwritings of deceased Mr. Natwarlal Desai have been confirmed by all.Thus, the investigation has clearly disclosed the complicity of the detenu in the above crime.It also revealed that from the above facts and recovery of the diary from the deceased Mr. Natwarlal Desai, it is evident that the builder deceased was summoned by the detenu at Dagadi Chawl, Byculla, in February 1997 and that killing of the said builder had been mastermined by the detenu and due to the above day light brutal murder of a builder in posh locality, there has been fear amongst the general public and especially the business community all over Brihan Mumbai.At about 14.40 hours on 20-8-1997, the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Addl.While passing the order of remand, the learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, observed in his order as stated hereunder:-"Dagadi Chawl is an empire created by the accused having his armed personalities inside the bastion who have created an aura of a fear all around the locality and also in the city of Mumbai.If this city requires tranquility and peace, the only way it can be obtained is to see that people like accused are kept away from the society.If we require a serene life then this is possible if people like this accused and his associates are not given their liberty."When the detenu was produced for further remand on 4-9-1997 before the learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade Mumbai, the detenu was remanded to police custody till 18-9-1997 with No Bail Order.Accordingly the detenu was interrogated and that it was claimed that he had disclosed the involvement of his associates by name Ganesh Bhosle alias Vakil, Namdeo Patil and Sharad Badamde and his statement to this effect was recorded accordingly.On 22-8-1997 Shri Rabha Baija Kadam, Shri Mohan Janu Nandgaonkar, Shri Ulhas Devji Shivgan along with S.E.O. Shri Laxman Mahadeo Posha Patil were taken to J.J. Hospital Morgue where the above persons before the S.E.O. Shri Posha identified the dead body of Ganesh Shankar Bhosle alias Vakil as that of a person who killed Mr. Natwarlal Desai by firing shots on the day in question and in this respect a panchnama was also drawn.All this would show that Ganesh Shankar Bhosle alias Vakil was co-accused in one earlier case of Byculla Police Station registered vide C.R. No. 609/88 under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (The murder case of Shri Satish Raje) and the above facts collected would clearly indicate that deceased Ganesh Shankar Bhosle alias Vakil was the close associate of the detenu.The murder of Mr. Natwarlal Desai disturbed the normal life of the Mumbai city to a great extent and feeling of fear was writ large all over the city.The public order in the city was disturbed due to this incident as it was widely published in the press and the T.V. media, reflecting the general mode of fear and disturbance of public order in the society.On 23.8.1997, a case was registered in the Vartak Nagar Police Station of Thane in C.R. No. 1-244/97 for the offences under sections 143, 386, 364, 342, 506, 506(11) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act through a complaint given by one Mr. Nitin Ramesh Katekar of Thane, as he was threatened of his life and was wrongfully confined in order to extort ransom from him on account of Khandani and for which the associates of the detenu on the instigation of Shankar Thakurlal Hiraramnai were responsible.During the course of this incident which happened between 17-6-1997 to 23-8-1997, the complainant was frequently taken to Juhu, Sion and Dagadi Chawl by the detenu and his associates.The detaining authority has further arrived at the subjective satisfaction to claim that the detenu has become perpetual and potential danger to the society at large by creating terror in the minds of people of whole of Brihan Mumbai and the people, especially the business community in Brihan Mumbai are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying out their daily routine under the constant shadow of fear whereby the even tempo of life of society is disturbed and thus the very activities of the detenu are found purely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Brihan Mumbai.It is this detention order which is being challenged for quashing the same by filing this writ petition by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The 1st respondent, being the State of Maharashtra and the 3rd respondent being the Home Department, Department of Home Affairs, Preventive Detention, Mumbai, have filed their separate reply affidavits in this writ petition the details of which, inter alia, seem to be that the Government of Maharashtra, on perusing all the relevant documents, materials and the grounds placed before it pertaining to the proposal and detention order, has completely satisfied and that therefore they have also approved and that in which they had denied any of the averments made by and on behalf of the petitioner in order to challenge and quash the impugned order.His further response was that three incidents quoted in the grounds of detention reveal that the detenu had masterminded the said heinous offences through his dreaded criminal associates and that as such the detention order cannot be termed as mala fide and that all the copies of the documents and statements are legible and in all these cases the material collected during the investigation shows the involvement of the detenu.In Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane District, C.R. No. 1-244/97, a case vide C.R. No. 23 of 1995 for the offences under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the General Branch, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Mumbai in 1995 against Nitin Kotkar.According to the Commissioner of Police, all the three cases referred to above are still under investigation and with regard to third one, it was for the recovery of Rs. 60 lacs from one Shri Shankar Hiraramani who approached the detenu at whose instance Mr. Nitin Kotkar was taken to Dagadi Chawl on 17-6-1997 and was made to pay cash of Rs. 40,000/-, a cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- with one pager under the threats of death by the detenu and his associates.He denied the allegation that illegible copies are furnished to him.However, a restraint order was passed restraining the authorities from paying compensation as directed by the High Court.In this background on 18-9-1997, the order passed by the 2nd respondent detaining the detenu under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention or Dangerous Activities of Slumlords.What is the matter which amounts to extraneous consideration in this matter? It was the endeavour of Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who took pains in taking us through the grounds of detention particularly with reference to para 2 of the grounds of detention which is an extraneous matter to be considered.Paras 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal reads like this :-Petition dismissed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,321,773 | 2.By Amending Act No. 2 of 1989, styled as the NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988,far-reaching changes came to be made in the Act. ThisAmending Act came into force with effect from 29-5-1989,vide S.O. 379(E) of even date.By this Amending Act thepunishment prescribed under the newly added Section 31-A forcertain offences extended to death penalty also.Section 36came to be replaced by a1 (1990) 2 SCC 409: 1990 SCC (Cri) 330736new provision and Sections 36-A to 36-D were inserted forthe first time.1 2 3 4 5 6The Act is divided into six chapters comprising 83sections.Only a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge iseligible to be appointed a Special Judge.TheSessions Judge, Bombay, distributed such cases amongst hiscolleagues who were Additional Sessions Judges. | ['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
132,184,871 | The defacto complainant/P.W.1 had also preferred Criminal Appeals (MD) No.429 and 430 of 2018 as against the said judgment acquitting the accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 120-B(1) and 449 I.P.C. and acquitting the accused Nos.2 and 3 from all the charges.2.Since the judgment challenged in these Criminal Appeals are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3.Before the trial Court, the appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.59 of 2018/the first accused and the respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 20184.1.The deceased Vetriselvi is the mother of P.W.The deceased after divorce from her husband Thangapandian was living in her native place Ayalpatti Village and the P.W.1 was living with his father at Vellore.P.W.1 used to talk to his mother daily over phone and on 18.05.2015, when he called his mother over phone, there was no response and therefore, he called his maternal uncle P.W.2, who was residing in the same village, through phone and enquired about his mother.P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased, verified and informed P.W.1 that his mother's house was locked from outside.5/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 4.3.P.W.31 – Sangareswaran, the Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station, who was also in charge of Panavadali Chathiram Police Station took up the investigation in Crime No.102 of 2015 on 08.06.2015 and he went to the house of the deceased and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Sketch (Ex.P.33) in the presence of P.W.4 – Shanthi and one Dhanalakshmi.He broke open the house of the deceased through the Village Administrative Officer and found that all the things are intact and nothing was missing.4.4.The further investigation was carried out by P.W.30, Inspector of Police and he proceeded with the investigation from 26.05.2015 and he examined the neighbours and others and also collected the call details of the deceased.The cellphone No.9486702433 used by the deceased was switched off.The deceased also used another cellphone and by collecting the I.M.I. Number of the Cellphone, he proceeded with the investigation.4.5.While so, at about 6.00 a.m. near Ayalpatti junction in Sankarankoil – Tirunelveli Main Road, the accused No.1 attempted to escape on seeing the police and the police party secured him in the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 and recorded the confession statement voluntarily 6/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 given by him.P.W.27, Tahsildar along with doctor P.W.22 went to the place of occurrence on 12.08.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. and with the help of JCB machine, the septic tank was broke open and they found the dead body in a decomposed stage.The body was taken in the presence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 and the Tahsildar, P.W.27 conducted inquest in the place of occurrence from 4.40 p.m. to 5.20 p.m. and the inquest report is marked as Ex.Thereafter, P.W.27 handed over the dead body to P.W.21, Grade I Police Constable for conducting postmortem.4.8.The P.W.22 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem and according to him the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition.Both hands and feet were 8/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 tied with a pink colour saree.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 Bladder: Contains 20ml of urine.His Final Opinion is marked as Ex.4.9.Thereafter, the investigation Officer P.W.30 from the place of occurrence recovered burnt coconut leaves (M.O.4), half litre white colour plastic bottle with blue colour cover and its bottom portion was half melted (M.0.5), broken mortals from the septic tank (M.O.6), cement pieces from the lit of the septic tank series (M.O.7), the smoke particles inside the septic tank lit (M.O.8), 100 ml water from the septic tank (M.O.9) under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.27 and after postmortem he recovered half burnt pink colour saree (M.O.10), Violet colour saree (M.O.11), Red colour in skirt (M.O.12), Blue 10/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The admissible portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex.Pursuant to his confession, P.W.30 recovered yellow saffron colour towel (M.O.18) and a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-76- X-0079 (M.O.17) parked in the house of the accused No.2 under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.31 and his Mahindra Jeep (M.O.19) TN-09-G-1256 under a cover of mahazar Ex.He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.11/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.12.The deceased was living alone at Ayalpatti Village and she is a divorcee.P.W.1 is her son living with his father at Vellore.They are living separately for more than 30 years.On 18.05.2015, the P.W.1 called his mother over phone.Nails and hair are still intact.Lungs emphysematous and covers the heartAbdomen distended, skin of Six to eight weeks hands and feet comes off with nails like a gloveThe emptying of stomach depends on the • consistency of food • motility of the stomach • osmotic pressure of the stomach contents • quantity of food in duodenum • surroundings in which food is taken • emotional factors and • residual variations.26/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018It varies in man 2.5 – 6 hours.A meal containing carbohydrates generally leaves the stomach early and the cone containing protein, later.The fatty food delays the emptying time, while liquids leave the stomach immediately after ingestion.Undigested food has been seen in the stomach of persons, who received severe head injuries, soon after their meal and died within twelve to twenty-four hours afterwards.In one case, the food consisting chiefly of rice and dal (pulse) remained in the stomach for about forty hour, without undergoing digestion.It must also be remembered that the process of digestion in normal, healthy persons may continue for a long time after death.The body was recovered on 12.08.2015, nearly after three months.The possibility of undigested rice particles and that too when the body was found floating in a septic tank is highly doubtful.27/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018As the submerged cadavers float face down with the head lower than the trunk, gaseous distension and post-mortem discolouration are first seen on the face and then spread to the neck, upper extremities, chest, abdomen and lower extremities in that order.A.(MD) No.430 of 2018/accused Nos.2 and 3 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 3/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 120-B(1), 449, 302 and 201 IPC.In conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 19.01.2018, acquitted the accused No.1 for the commission of the offences under Sections 120-B(1) and 449 I.P.C. and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B(1), 449, 302 and 201 I.P.C. for the reason that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and found them not guilty of the above charges framed against them.Aggrieved over the same, PW1 / de facto complainant has filed Crl.However, the trial Court found the accused No.1 guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for the commission of offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Aggrieved over the same, the accused No.1 has filed Crl.4/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.In the said confession statement, the accused No,1 admitted before P.W.30 that he along with accused Nos.2 and 3 had taken away the deceased Vetriselvi and killed her and concealed her dead body in a septic tank and he also identified the place of occurrence.Based on the admissible portion of the confession leading to recovery Ex.P.20, P.W.30 recovered M.O.3 Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-76-W-8494 under a cover of mahazar Ex.Thereafter, accused No.1 took them to Thirumalpuram Village and identified a septic tank behind the farm house of one Raman Nair of Kerala, wherein at about 9.30 a.m., the investigation officer prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P.3] and rough sketch [Ex.P.22] in the presence of Jeyasingh [P.W.5] and Ayyadurai.Thereafter, P.W.30 altered the offences into 120(b), 302 and 201 I.P.C. and forwarded the alteration report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.The admissible portion of the confession statement is 7/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 Ex.The accused No.3 in his confession statement has stated that the body of the deceased was concealed in the septic tank and he has also hided the cellphone used by the deceased in the almyrah of his house.Pursuant to the same, P.W.30 recovered M.O1 – M.80 bike TN-72-W 5676 under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.24 and M.O.2, the cellphone of the deceased under a cover of mahazar Ex.4.7.Thereafter, P.W.30 made a request to the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil – P.W.27 to exhume the body of the deceased from the Septic Tank.Scalp hair comes off without any effort.A complete broad pressure abrasion of size 29 x 5cms to 8cms noted in middle of neck.It completely encircles the neck with 5cms breadth in front of neck and 8cms breath in back of neck.On dissection of neck, soft tissues beneath the pressure abrasion appears dark in colour.Hyoid bone shows postmortem disarticulation and thyroid cartilage intact.Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.” The postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P.15 and the doctor P.W.22 gave his final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation and death would have occurred 3 weeks to 3 months prior to examination.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 4.11.The further investigation was carried out by P.W.32, Inspector of Police and he proceeded with the investigation from 27.01.2016 and collected the reports of Super Imposition Test and DNA Test from the Forensic Science Laboratory and the postmortem certificate.He also collected the cellphone details of the deceased Vetriselvi and its I.M.I. number details.He also examined the witnesses and filed his final report as against the accused on 07.07.2016 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 449, 302, 342, 302 r/w 34, 342 r/w 34, 201 r/w 201 I.P.C.5.During the trial 32 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution and 33 documents were marked and 21 material objects were produced in support of the prosecution case.Among the witnesses, Accused Nos.6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23 and 24 have turned hostile.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the same.They have not examined any witness or marked any document in support of their case.12/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 20186.In conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge, by judgment dated 19.01.2018 found the accused No. 1 guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.3, while acquitting him for the commission of the offences under Sections 120-B(1) and 449 I.P.C. The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 from all the charges.Aggrieved over the same, the accused No.1 has filed Crl.A.(MD) No.59 of 2018 and PW1 / de facto complainant has filed Crl.The trial Court, which had extended the benefit of doubt in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 ought to have extended the same in favour of the first accused also.13/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018A.(MD) Nos.429 and 430 of 2018 submits that the dead body of the deceased was concealed in a septic tank and also exhumed only at the instance of the first accused and apart from the same the cellphone of the deceased was also recovered from the accused No.3 and the Jeep used for the occurrence was recovered from the accused No.2 and therefore, the prosecution has established its case through the recoveries made pursuant to the confession statements and the doctor P.W.22 has categorically stated that the deceased was strangulated and killed and the dead body was found in a half burnt stage and the fact that the deceased was killed and concealed in a septic tank establishes the guilt against the accused.However, 14/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 the trial Court has concluded that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are not guilty in an erroneous manner.10.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the available records.Pursuant to the complaint, the accused No.1 was arrested on 11.08.2015, when he attempted to escape on seeing the police party.Pursuant to his confession statement, the body was exhumed from the farm house of Raman Nair, The doctor, who conducted the postmortem found ligature mark on the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation three 15/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 months prior to the examination.Based on these available evidences, the trial Court found the first accused guilty but acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that there is no evidence against them.On 11.08.2015, after 3 months from the date of complaint, accused No.1 was arrested by chance, when he attempted to escape from the place on seeing the police party.13.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, P.W.27 has specifically stated that the investigation officer made a 16/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 request to him on 12.08.2015 and pursuant to the same, he along with P.W.22 – doctor went to the place of occurrence at Thirumalapuram Village on 12.08.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. and in the farm house of Raman Nair, the septic tank was identified as the place in which the dead body was concealed and in his presence, the Inspector of Police broke open the septic tank with the help of JCB machine and they found the dead body floating in the septic tank.The dead body was taken out and postmortem was conducted.The presence of the accused No.1 as well as the presence of P.W.1 Sureshkumar at the time of exhumation of the body on 12.08.2015 was not spoken by P.W.27 – Thasildar.14.The doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body from the place of occurrence has noted down in his postmortem certificate that it is a moderately built body of a male.However, in the cross-examination, the doctor has denied the same and due to typographical error it is mentioned in the postmortem certificate Ex.P.15 as male body instead of female body.The doctor has noted down an abrasion 29 x 5 to 8cms in middle of neck, encircles the neck with 5cms breadth in front of neck and 17/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 8cms breadth in back of neck and gave his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation.The doctor, who conducted the postmortem admitted that the dead body was exhumed in an advanced stage of decomposition.The doctor in his postmortem certificate Ex.P.15 has mentioned that the body was identified to him by incharge Grade I Police constable.The request for exhumation was made on 11.08.2015 at 4.00 p.m. and the time for exhumation of the dead body was fixed on 12.08.2015 at 3.00 p.m. and the team went to the place of occurrence at 4.00 p.m. and the spot was identified by the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, which lies in Survey No.151.3C Thirumalapuram Village belongs to one Raman Nayar, inside the Septic Tank, which lies behind a constructed house and the septic tank was opened using a JCB at 4.05 p.m. and the septic tank was with sewage water upto 25cms from ground level and the body was floating with face downwards.He also noted down the stomach contains 50 grams of partially digested cooked rice particles during the postmortem.15.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was found missing from her house from 18/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Neither the Tahsildar nor the doctor in whose presence the body was taken, have not stated that P.W.1 was also present at the time of exhumation.There is no evidence that who identified the body as that it is the body of Vetriselvi.The body was taken out from the septic tank by opening the septic tank using JCB machine and at that relevant point of time neither the accused nor P.W.1 was present in the place of occurrence.16.The accused No.1 was arrested on 11.08.2015 at 6.00 a.m. The body was exhumed on 12.08.2015 at about 4.05 p.m. even before that the accused No.1 was remanded to judicial custody.P.W.30 in his evidence has stated that the place was identified by the accused No.1 in the presence of P.W.5 – Jeyasingh and one 19/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 Ayyadurai.The presence of accused No.1 at the time of preparing observation mahazar in the place of occurrence is not spoken by the P.W.5 – Jeyasingh.The accused No.1 was said to have been arrested in the presence of P.W.6 – Veluchamy and P.W.7 – Sounderraj and both these witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.Both these motive aspects have not been established by the prosecution.The deceased was found missing on 18.05.2015 and the body was exhumed after three months and that too from a septic tank in a decomposed condition.There is no evidence available on the side of prosecution as to when this commission of offence has taken place.The doctor, who conducted the postmortem gave a random opinion that the death might have taken place in between 3 weeks to 3 months.19.The Doctor, who conducted postmortem noted down the presence of 50gms of partially cooked rice particles from the stomach of the deceased.The presence of the food particles raises a doubt with regard to the time of death as projected by the prosecution, as light meal 22/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 usually leaves the stomach within 2 hours after being eaten, medium size meal requires 3-4 hours and heavy meal requires 4-6 hours.20.The Modi's Medical Jurisprudence reads as follows:1.The stomach, as a rule, putrefies much sooner after death.It putrefies usually from twenty-four to thirty six hours in summer and from three to six days in winter, but it may sometimes begins to putrefy much earlier.As a consequence of putrefaction, dark-red, irregular patches are first seen on the posterior wall and then appear on the anterior wall.2.Putrefaction in water: The rate of putrefaction of a body in water more reliable than that of body exposed to air.The reason behind this is that the temperature of the water is more uniform and the body is protected from air, as long as it remains submerged in water.Ordinarily , a body takes twice as much time in water as in air to undergo the same degree of putrefaction.Similarly, the Doctor has also noted down ligature mark on the neck.The medical jurisprudence in this regard reads as follows:“Ïn cases of strangulation and hanging, the ligature mark would be apparent, even if the epidermis had peeled off, as the skin on and round about the mark persists for some time.In a case of hanging, Modi found a ligature mark in the neck on the sixth day after death, when the body had been putrefied to a large extent.At the postmortem examination held on the fifth day after death when the body was advanced in putrefaction, the presence of mud in the right bronchus led Modi to form a diagnosis of death due to drowning”.If the ligature mark can be identified by the Doctor, then the time of occurrence as projected by the prosecution cannot be true.The Doctor's opinion is not a gospel truth, on which the finding can be given.In this case, the opinion of the Doctor is also vague and therefore, it cannot be relied upon.29.The circumstances as projected by the prosecution is not in a form of chain to link with the accused to prove the guilt as against the accused.The available evidence is not sufficient to find the accused guilty for the offence and therefore, the conviction and sentence as against the appellant cannot be sustained.30.In the result, Criminal Appeals (MD) Nos.429 and 430 of 2018 are dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19.01.2018, made in S.C.No.751 of 2016 by the IV 30/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli acquitting A2 and A3 and Crl.A.(MD) No.59 of 2018 is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 and acquitting him from all the charges framed against him.The bail bonds executed by the accused No.1 shall stand cancelled.Fine amount, if any, paid by A1 shall be refunded to him.1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.3.The Inspector of Police, Panavadali Chatram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.31/32http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A (MD)Nos.59, 429 and 430 of 2018 T.RAJA, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
132,190,514 | Looking to the past criminal antecedents of the applicant, his first application for grant of bail was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2017 passed in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at present, the applicant has completed around 6 months and as per police statement of Ragvendra Singh, no allegation of causing injury has been made against the present applicant.The main allegation of causing injury is against co-accused - Shankar.With the aforesaid, he prays that this application for grant of bail be allowed and applicant be released on bail.Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer for grant of bail and prays for it's rejection.On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also the fact that all other criminal cases registered against the present applicant is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, the present applicant was present at the place of occurrence and allegation of causing injury to Constable is against the co-accused - Shankar, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for grant of bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicant - Appi @ Akash son of Mahesh Choukse, be released on bail upon his depositing Rs.50,000/- in cash as security in the trial court and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his appearance before him or trial Court, as the case may be on each and every date of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.This order will remain operative subject to the compliance of the following conditions :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will co-operate in the trial/investigation, as the case may be;The applicants will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat to the prosecution witnesses or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will mark their presence at police station - Pardeshipura, Dist.Indore (M.P.), twice in a month till the trial is completed.It is made clear that during bail, if the applicant commit any offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the present bail granted to him shall be automatically cancelled and he will be arrested by the non-applicant, in accordance with law.A copy of the said order be sent to the concerned trial court for its compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(P.K. JAISWAL ) JUDGE ss/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Shailesh DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Sukhdev 2.5.4.20=b99d782efca3d28a06cad df3fa57b98c35054f3dd8638f2f98d f0172d29e61c2, cn=Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2018.01.04 15:09:24 +05'30' | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,457,808 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as "Special Act"), Sheopur in Bail Application No. 15/2017 which was related to crime No. 2/2017 registered at Police Station - AZAK District Sheopur for the offence punishable under Sections 153-A, 395-A of IPC and Section 3(1)(t) of the Special Act.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide order dated 10.01.2017, the co-accused of the appellant Rukmal were released on bail but his application was dismissed because one case under Section 307 of IPC was registered against him, however, it would be apparent that the appellant was not convicted in that case and, therefore, he was entitled to get the order in parity with the co-accused Ramavtar and Satyanarayan.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal.If he would have convicted in that offence then his matter may be considered separately.Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court appears to be beyond its jurisdiction and advantage of parity was to be given to the appellant.2 Cr.A. No. 165/2017It is directed that if he furnishes a bail bond in the tune of his co-accused Ramavtar and Satyarayan according to the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Sheopur then he shall also be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,458,737 | Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No.0064/2020 dated 03.6.2020, under Sections - 307, 504 IPC, related to P.S. - Auras, District - Unnao.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the informant- complainant himself in the said first information report. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,461,079 | DATED :12TH APRIL, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]Being aggrieved thereby the Petitioner preferred an appeal.Hence, this Petition.The application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 ::: 2 Cr.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 :::It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 392 and 395 of I.P.C. Hence Rule 4(2) would be attracted even if the Petitioner has undergone the imprisonment for the same.Only if the Petitioner is acquitted of the said offences, his application can be considered for ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 ::: 3 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)grant of furlough.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 :::The second ground on which the application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be rejected is that earlier when the Petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2006 he did not report back to the prison in time.Ultimately the petitioner had to be traced and arrested by the Police and brought back to prison.The overstay on the part of the Petitioner was of 144 days.During the period of overstay the Petitioner was involved in four other cases which were either of robbery or dacoity.Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 :::4 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)Office to communicate this order to the Petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:52:59 ::: | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,464,709 | Bindu, then about 24 years old, her parents having passed away, she being the fifth amongst five siblings, was under the care of her elder brother Madan Mohan Khanna (PW-2).She was married to Kirti Abrol (the appellant) on 12.08.1986, the marriage having been solemnized in Hotel Claridges, New Delhi.Kirti Abrol was living with his parents and other members of the family in property described as B-2/200, Safdarjung Enclave, a 2 storeyed structure wherein there is evidence to show that a tenant was occupying the second floor, the rest of the portion being in use of the family that included his elder brother Atul Abrol, his wife and children.The Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 1 of 15 appellant and other members of the family were earning their livelihood from a shop run in the name and style of Sarojini Wool Shop in Sarojini Nagar market area, a locality some distance away from Safdarjung Enclave.On 23.12.1987, Bindu gave birth to a son who was named Karan.On 23.12.1988, the first birth day of the aid child Karan was celebrated by the family in Hotel Claridges, New Delhi.On 01.01.1989 at about 4:30 p.m. Bindu was found having committed suicide, hanging by neck in the matrimonial home.There is unimpeachable evidence to show that at that point of time the other family members, including her husband Kirti Abrol, were not present at the scene.It is stated that the appellant, upon learning about the suicide of his wife, rushed home and brought her down to take her to Safdarjung hospital, where she was brought at 6:00 p.m., only to be examined and declared "brought dead".The medico-legal certificate (Ex.A. No.734/2002 Page 1 of 15Though in the first information report (FIR) No.5/1989 registered on 05.01.1989 at Police Station Vinay Nagar, some suspicion was expressed by Madan Mohan Khanna (PW-2), the elder brother of deceased Bindu, that she may have been intentionally done to death, it is fairly conceded now on both sides that there is no evidence of the cause of death being anything but suicide.This is confirmed even by the autopsy report (Ex.PW-4/A), proved by autopsy doctor A.K. Sharma (PW-4), it indicating asphyxia due to hanging to be the reason leading to her unnatural death.A. No.734/2002 Page 2 of 15In the FIR (Ex.PW-2/A), registered on the complaint of Madan Mohan Khanna (PW-2), allegations were made about the deceased having been subjected to cruelty on account of illicit demands for dowry and precious gifts by the matrimonial family and, thus, the case was investigated from the prespective of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).On conclusion of the investigation, report ("charge sheet") under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted for trial for the said offences against Kirti Abrol (A1), his elder brother Atul Abrol (A2), his mother Pushpa (A3), his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), Manju, wife of Atul Abrol (A4) and his father Chander Prakash Abrol (A5).All the said five persons were summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognizance and eventually brought them to trial in the court of sessions (in Sessions Case No.129/1995).During the trial, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses, they including, Insp.Davinder Singh (PW-1), the draftsman who prepared the side plan Ex.PW-1/A; Madan Mohan Khanna (PW-2), elder brother of the deceased; ASI Augustin Tirkey (PW-3), duty officer who recorded the FIR; Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW-4), Chief Medical Officer of Safdarjung Hospital who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; Paras Ram (PW-5), who had made a call at phone number 100 about the incident; Constable Bijendra Singh (PW-6); ASI Ramzan Ali (PW-7); SI Chhabil Dass (PW-8), who recorded DD No.129; J.P. Bhardwaj (PW-9) who proved MLC of the deceased Bindu (Ex.PW-9/A); Iqbal Singh Cheena (PW-10), retired SDM who had conducted inquest Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 3 of 15 proceedings (Ex.PW-10/A) at Safdarjung Hospital; Head Constable Raj Kumar (PW-11), duty constable at Safdarjung Hospital; Reema (PW-12), sister of deceased Bindu; Kamlesh Sehgal (PW-13), cousin of deceased Bindu who had arranged the marriage of the deceased Bindu with appellant; Asha Kapoor (PW-14), another sister of the deceased; Ashok Kapoor (PW-15), husband of Asha Kapoor (sister of deceased); Inspector Sube Singh (PW-16), who had handed over investigation to SI Shiv Prasad; Sub-Inspector Shiv Prasad (PW-17), the initial investigation officer of the case; and Inspector Veermati (PW-18), also investigating officer who recorded supplementary statement of witnesses.A. No.734/2002 Page 3 of 15Same appears to be the position of Usha Chopra, whose husband Ramesh Chopra works for gain in Jalgaon (Maharashtra), both wife and husband having kept away from the controversy.The third sister Asha Kapoor, evidence showing she to be a few year's elder to the deceased, has been married to Ashok Kapoor (PW-15), the said couple with their children living in Punjabi Bagh, a locality of Delhi.As per the evidence, the deceased was in constant touch with Asha Kapoor, they visiting each other, at least once in two-three months, and being consistently on telephonic contact.Before taking up the evidence of PW-2 Madan Mohan Khanna (elder brother), his wife (PW-12) and of the sister (PW-14) for consideration, it is essential to take note of certain other relevant facts.It has come to be admitted during the course of evidence by all material witnesses, particularly PW-2, that the deceased had visited her brother in Surat on more than one occasion during the short period of about of 28 months or so of her life after marriage on 12.08.1986 and during such visits to Surat she had carried her toddler son Karan along.It has also come out as undisputed that at least on one occasion the appellant had gone to bring her back from Surat.Clearly, the deceased was not working for gain and the amount which would have been credited over the period into her saving bank account would have been sourced from she would have received from her near relatives, the claim of the appellant that he was making such deposits not being refuted.It is also shown by the evidence, in fact unchallenged testimony of DW1, that a locker was also operated in the name of the deceased wherein her jewellery would be kept for safety.The evidence further shows, and the material witnesses admitted that some letters which were posted and some yet unposted Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 7 of 15 had been found, after the suicide, in the matrimonial home, they having been penned by the deceased with the intention of putting them in postal transit, they including letters addressed to Ramesh Chopra in Jalgaon, the father-in-law in Delhi, some letters having been sent from Surat and, besides this some letters sent by the deceased during her stay in Surat away from the matrimonial home, addressed to the husband, i.e., the appellant.This documentary proof was adduced upon admission as to the authorship being that of the deceased, during the testimony of PW-2, they being referred to as Ex.PW-2/C to PW- 2/G.A. No.734/2002 Page 7 of 15All the aforesaid letters have been carefully perused and they bring out nothing lurking in the mind of the deceased as to be indicative of her grievance vis--vis the husband or any members of his family.On the contrary, the letters show she to be deep in love with and full of affection for the husband, she craving to return home from Surat at the earliest so as to be in his company, So much so, she would express at some places her desire that she hoped to bask in the warmth of his love for long time in future.For the record, it must also be added that in one of the letters addressed from Surat the deceased had reported to the husband that she had received cash in gift from the father-in-law (A5) protesting as to why there was a need for him to send such amount of money.Some of these letters, noticeably, were sent after the celebration of the first birth day of her son Karan, though there being no date borne on such communications, the contents making this clear, and her brother (PW-2) admitting as much, such letters only communicating to her brother (PW-2) and to Ramesh Crl.Aside from the above material, one document (Ex.PW-2D/A) which cannot be wished away is a statement made by PW-2 on 02.01.1989 after his arrival from Surat in the wake of information about the suicidal death of his sister in New Delhi.The same are set aside.The appellant is acquitted.PW-9/A) duly proved confirmed these facts.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded wherein they denied the allegations of complicity on their part in subjecting Bindu to cruelty much less in connection with demands for dowry or precious gifts.The defence led evidence wherein the appellant herein, having taken prior approval of the trial court, examined himself as his own witness in defence (DW-1), reliance also being placed on the evidence of a neighbor J.M. Thukral (DW-2), the evidence of the latter being essentially with the objective of bringing on record some material to show that the deceased was leading a happy life in the matrimonial home.Noticeably, she found the case Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 4 of 15 against the accused persons, other than Kirti Abrol, to be not believable and, thus, gave them benefit of doubt acquitting them.She, however, found evidence incriminating the appellant thereby holding him guilty for the offences, as charged.By subsequent order dated 18.09.2002, the trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment of ten years for offence under Section 304-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 498-A IPC.A. No.734/2002 Page 4 of 15By the said order, the appeal was admitted and put in the category of regulars.Unfortunately, as is seen in a number of other such matters, the appeal could not come up for hearing over the last more than a decade and a half.So much for the expectations of the litigants for expeditious conclusion of criminal cases of such grave nature.The evidence has brought out some facts which are beyond reproach or dispute.The same may be taken note of at this stage.The fact that the marriage was organized and arranged by the elder brother (PW-2) in a five star hotel in Delhi on 12.08.1986 is admitted.It is also conceded that the said brother (PW-2) and his family, which included his wife Reema (PW-12), live in Surat (Gujarat).The deceased Bindu, as said before, was fifth amongst the five siblings (the junior most), the other three being Mridula Verma, Usha Chopra Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 5 of 15 and Asha Kapoor (PW-14).The elder sister Mridula Verma is a resident of USA and assumably would have no knowledge of any of relevant facts and, thus, was not examined either during investigation or at trial.The evidence also includes the word of Kamlesh Sehgal (PW-13), a cousin of the deceased, she being described as the person whose initiative had led to the marriage of Bindu being solemnized with the appellant.A. No.734/2002 Page 5 of 15Reliance was placed by the prosecution on the evidence of Kamlesh Sehgal (PW-13) and Ashok Kapoor (PW-15).The testimony of both the said witnesses, however, is of no consequence, the latter though repeating allegations about ill-treatment making it clear that he has no personal knowledge, his information being sourced from what he had heard from his wife Asha Kapoor (PW-14).The evidence of PW-15 has to be kept aside as hearsay.While PW-13 was categorical that she had not heard of any such ill-treatment, she having been declared hostile to the prosecution case, her cross-examination by the public prosecutor did not bring out any material on which conclusions against the appellant could be drawn.A. No.734/2002 Page 6 of 15A. No.734/2002 Page 8 of 15 Chopra (husband of the other sister in Jalgaon) that the function was well attended by over one hundred guests, it having been enjoyed by all members of the family, her only lament being that her brother and his wife had been unable to join.As for the reason why the elder brother (PW-2) and his family could not join the celebrations of the first birth day of the child on 23.12.1988 at New Delhi, PW-2 and his wife are on record, by their respective testimonies, to explain that they could not do so owing to their other pre-occupations.A. No.734/2002 Page 8 of 15It is also admitted that the last rites (cremation) of Bindu were performed by the husband (the appellant), it being followed by certain religious rites leading upto 04.01.1989, the parental side relatives including the said brother also joining the same in the household of the appellant, he having undertaken to make all the necessary arrangements.It is also clear that during this period PW-2 was in constant touch with his sister (junior one) Asha Kapoor (PW-14) who had been all along living in Delhi and was in regular contact with the deceased.PW-2 made a statement (Ex.PW-2D/A) informing the police that the deceased was living happily in the matrimonial home and had never made any complaint of any kind Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 9 of 15 against her in-laws.He was rather completely at a loss at that point of time to understand as to why she had taken such an extreme step, his suspicion being that she had been killed for some reason or the other, there being nothing in the said statement raising any suspicion against the husband or any other specific individual.A. No.734/2002 Page 9 of 15Having made such a statement on 02.01.1989, PW-2 took an about turn on 05.01.1989 when he made another statement (Ex.PW- 2/A) wherein allegations were made that the deceased was being subjected to harassment for dowry in the matrimonial home.In the said statement, he sought to clarify his previous version given on 02.01.1989 by claiming that he had been able to gather facts over the period.It is against the above backdrop that PW-2 testified at the trial affirming that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment on account of dissatisfaction of the in-laws with the dowry given, his word being reiterated by his wife (PW-12) and his sister (PW-14).The learned additional sessions judge found the evidence of above mentioned witnesses unworthy of reliance in so far as the case was directed against the parents or the brother or brother's wife.A. No.734/2002 Page 10 of 15It is apposite to quote verbatim the conclusions reached by the trial court as to complicity of the persons prosecuted and the gist of the reasons leading to the same, it reading thus:-"Though, there is reference of demand by the in laws but no specific demand has been given, no specific dates have been given as to what was the demand and when it was made.It has come in the statement that she was being harassed but what harassment was done by the in laws, has not been specified.There is reference of taunts and talking of dowry by the in laws but what words were used by them has not come on record.Hence, I find the prosecution has not been able to prove their case under Section 304 B/498A IPC against accused persons, namely, Atul Abrol, Pushpa Abrol, Manju Abrol and Chander Parkash Abrol, hence, they all are acquitted of the offence and they are on bail, their bail bonds cancelled, surety discharged.But so far as, accused Kirti Abrol is concerned, it has come on record that death has taken place within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances.There is evidence of dowry demand, harassment, taunts regarding dowry articles.Admittedly, Bindu was residing with her husband Kirti Abrol, hence keeping in view the provisions of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act and the evidence on record as discussed above, I find the prosecution has been able to prove their case against the accused.Simply because of the intial statement given by the brother Madan Mohan, it cannot be said that later in just to falsely implicate the accused, the brother of the deceased improved his initial statement for which there is no reason or motive.Moreover, the witness Madan Mohan has given reasons in the Court for not telling the entire facts on the same day as he was under state of shock."PW-2 testified that the deceased had come to Surat after six months of her marriage and had complained about harassment at the Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 11 of 15 hand of accused persons.He added that the complaint was against the mother-in-law, father-in-law and Jethani (sister-in-law) (A-4), the grouse being that the said persons would talk about dowry given being incompatible with the status.He also added that he was told that on the occasion of the birth of the child the gifts given were deficient.His wife (PW-12), on the other hand, stated that the deceased had disclosed, after about a year of the marriage, that she was not happy, the ground explained to be that the mother-in-law would not find her "beautiful", she (the deceased) not being given "proper food", she being "afraid" of the husband (the appellant).She added that the deceased had told her that the husband (the appellant) wanted Rs.5 lakhs to start a business and besides this there were some petty issues which the witness would not recall.A. No.734/2002 Page 11 of 15The sister (PW-14), on the other hand, deposed that the husband, father-in-law and other members of the family "used to harass" the deceased "on small matters" and that "there was demand for money".She spoke about what had happened on 31.12.1988 when, according to her, the deceased had "wept bitterly" because the elder brother had not come and this was a cause of grouse for the appellant and other members of the matrimonial family, it being added that the "the brother" should have "spent sufficient amount" on such occasion.To say the least, all the above assertions of PW-2, PW-12 and PW-14 are incredible.It is inconceivable that if the deceased had conveyed to PW-12 as to how she was being ill-treated in the Crl.As noted earlier, he was in Delhi from 02.01.1989 onwards and was in close communication with the rest of the family that included PW-14, the other sister, who would have been more clear about the facts, if there had been any such ill- treatment.The narration by the three witnesses of the ill-treatment does not match with each other.The evidence of PW-14 as to the grouse of the deceased against the matrimonial family on 31.12.1988 does not come out in the un-posted letters which the deceased had written, during the interregnum, before her death.On the contrary, she was quite understanding of the reasons and was only communicating as to how the function had gone well and that everyone including junior members of the family had enjoyed.A. No.734/2002 Page 12 of 15It was unfair on the part of the trial court to act upon the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses against the appellant even while the same had been rejected qua the other accused.The statement (Ex. PW-2/DA) made on 02.01.1989 was apparently the purest input that had come in the first instance.It revealed all.The parental family had Crl.A. No.734/2002 Page 13 of 15 no reason to accuse the matrimonial family of having subjected the deceased to cruelty.The evidence about the jewellery in the locker and the money in her personal account, coupled with her letters full of endearments and indicative of her satisfaction and happiness in the matrimonial home run contrary to the case built up by the prosecution on a version which had come four days after the unfortunate suicide, quite apparently a product of an afterthought.A. No.734/2002 Page 13 of 15In the above facts and circumstances, while other ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC are made out (the marriage being less than seven years old and the death of the married woman being for unnatural causes), credible evidence providing link as to she being subjected to ill-treatment, leave alone connection with demand or expectation of dowry, are missing.It is indeed a mystery as to why Bindu in such happy state in the matrimonial home, which had all the luxuries of life with a decent income, a house in a good locality of Delhi, a child having come in her life, she having celebrated the first birth day of the son only a few days before, would commit suicide.But then, there is a long journey from suspicion to conclusion in a criminal trial.The prosecution has failed to cover the said distance.For the foregoing reasons, this court finds it difficult to uphold the impugned judgment and order on sentence.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.A. No.734/2002 Page 14 of 15 | ['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. |
3,846,529 | The instant application has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 23.5.2019, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 8083 of 2019 (Vikram Singh Vs.Ram Vilash and others), under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.As per allegations made in the alleged complaint the applicants dishonestly took an amount of Rs. 1 lakh under the pretext of getting a deal of plot of 200 sq. meter from the owner of the said plot and as the deal was not finalized, they refused to repay the said amount.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated; they are labourers and as they demanded their labour charge, O.P. No.2, who is an advocate, falsely implicated them.The whole proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law.Hence the entire proceeding as well as the summoning order deserve to be quashed. | ['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,467,168 | This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Thanga Pandian, aged 41 years, son of Ayyauh Nadar, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.466/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 10.04.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.T.Muruganantham, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.Per contra, Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications were not supplied to the detenu.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the impugned detention order that in a similar case registered at B2, Esplanade Police Station Cr.No.981/2013 under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of IPC, bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai to the accused Velu @ Chinnavelu, in Cr.MP.No.4371/2013 and that in another similar case registered at H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.651/2013 under Sections 341 384 and 506(ii) of IPC, bail was granted by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Cr.MP.nos.749/2013 and 750/2013 to the co-accused. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,471,727 | Record of both the courts below has been received.Heard on the question of admission.Also, heard on I.A. No.8920/2019 filed by the applicants / accused under section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence awarded by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in criminal appeal no.415/2015 vide its judgment dated 19.9.2015 convicting the applicant under section 325/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for six months each and fine of Rs.400/- and Section 323/ 34 (two counts) of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for 3 months each with fine of Rs.200/- each, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petition has substance and final disposal of this revision will take time.List for final hearing in due course as per the listing policy.(J. P. GUPTA) Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 17/06/2019 17:40:33 2 CRR-2447-2019 JUDGE vj Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 17/06/2019 17:40:33 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,473,110 | There was some dispute between deceased - Rajalingam and deceased accused - Jeyakumar.On account of the dispute, on 30.06.2009, at about 03.00 p.m., deceased accused - Jeyakumar and the present appellant assaulted Rajalingam.Deceased accused Jeyakumar assaulted Rajalingam with a sickle on various parts of his body.The appellant, during the time of incident, bit Rajalingam on his left hand and instigated deceased accused - Jeyakumar to hackhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Rajalingam.Rajalingam died due to the injuries.The incident of assault was witnessed by PW-2 - Selvakani, who is the mother of Rajalingam, PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi, who are the neighbours of Rajalingam.According to the prosecution case, PW-2 - Selvakani, who witnessed the incident, went and told her son - PW-1 - Suyambulingam, who is the brother of Rajalingam about the assault.Thereafter, the investigation commenced.The dead body of Rajalingam was sent for postmortem.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.Totally, there were two accused in this case.Accused No.1 - Jeyakumar died pending trial.By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the appellant herein under Section 324 IPC, convicted the appellant under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years.In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session.Charges came to be framed against the appellant [original accused No.2] under Section 324 for biting the left hand of Rajalingam and under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC for instigating deceased accused Jeyakukmar to hack Rajalingam.The appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the said charges and claimed to be tried.His defence is of total denial and false implication.To support its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-17 and marked EX-P1 to EX-P22http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and thirteen material objects.After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in Paragraph No.1, above, hence, this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.After giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the evidence on record and the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.In order to support its case, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2 - Selvakani, PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi, who, according to the prosecution, are eyewitnesses to the incident.PW-2 - Selvakani is the mother of Rajalingam.PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi are neighbours of Rajalingam.We would first like to advert to the evidence of PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 -http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Rajathi.PW-3 - Parvathi has stated that at about 03.00 p.m., on 30.06.2009, the appellant and another person came in an auto.The deceased accused Jeyakumar hacked Rajalingam with sickle.Rajalingam caught hold of sickle.Then, the appellant bit Rajalingam on his hand.Rajalingam started running away.At that time, the appellant was saying "Hack him, Hack him".Thereafter, deceased accused - Jeyakumar hacked Rajalingam.Rajalingam fell down.After the incident, both the accused left the place.The evidence of PW-4 - Rajathi is on similar line as that of PW-3 - Parvathi.We have already adverted to the evidence of two eyewitnesses, namely, PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi.However, there is one more eyewitness, who has been examined by the prosecution, viz., PW-2 - Selvakani.PW-2 - Selvakani is the mother of Rajalingam.We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-2 - Selvakani.She has stated that at 03.00 p.m., her son - Rajalingam was sitting on a culvert at Poochivilagam Junction.At that time, an auto came from the south, in which the appellant herein and one Udhayakumar were present.According to her, Udhayakumar has died.She has further stated that the appellant and another person, who came in the auto, told her son - Rajalingam that no one willhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 question them, if they assault him.She has also stated that the appellant hacked her son with sickle.Her son tried to escape.However, the appellant hacked her son on his back with sickle and her son fell down on the ground.Again, the appellant hacked her son on his head.After hacking her son, the accused persons told that they will hack anyone, who comes forward and thereafter, the accused persons left the place.It is pertinent to note that PW-2 - Selvakani, PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi, according to the prosecution, were all present, when the incident occurred.However, PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi stated that it was deceased accused - Jeyakumar, who assaulted Rajalingam with the sickle, whereas, PW-2 - Selvakani, who is the mother of Rajalingam, stated that it was the present appellant, who hacked her son with sickle.This is a serious and material discrepancy in the evidence of the eyewitnesses regarding the role of the appellant during the incident.This discrepancy goes to the root of the prosecution case and affects its credibility.At this juncture, we would like to advert to the evidence of PW-1 - Suyambulingam, who is the brother of Rajalingam and the sonhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 of PW-2 - Selvakani.PW-1 - Suyambulingam has stated that at about 03.00 p.m., on 30.06.2009, he received a phone call saying that his brother was hacked to death, hence, he gave a complaint in the police station.The complaint was against Jeyakumar [deceased accused] and Sardar.It is pertinent to note that the name of the present appellant is not mentioned in the complaint.Though according to PW-1 - Suyambulingam, he and his parents knew the appellant - Jeyaraj from his childhood and his mother - PW-2 - Selvakani witnessed the occurrence, the name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the complaint.What is even more important to note is that PW-1 - Suyambulingam, in cross-examination, has stated that his parents and the other witnesses stated that unknown persons have hacked his brother - Rajalingam to death.In such a case, if PW-2 - Selvakani had actually witnessed the appellant assaulting her son, she would have given the name of the present appellant, who was known to her since many years.Thus, it shows that PW-2 - Selvakani, who is the mother of Rajalingam, had, in fact, stated that unknown persons had hacked her son to death and based on the said information, PW-1 - Suyambulingam, who is the brother of Rajalingam, has lodged his complaint against deceased accused - Jeyakumar and Sardar.Thus, the fact that the name of the appellant does not find place in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 complaint, which was lodged immediately after the incident, makes it clear that the appellant was not one of the perpetrators of the crime.Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of PW-2- Selvakani and instead, reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi, who are all eyewitnesses to the incident and who, according to him, are independent witnesses.As far as this submission is concerned, the evidence of PW-3 - Parvathi shows that the police made enquiry with her on the next day at 10.00 a.m. Thus, it is seen that there is delay in recording the statement of witnesses by the police, which gives rise to the suspicion that on account of delay, some concoction has occurred and an attempt has been made to falsely rope in the appellant as an accused.As far as the evidence of PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi, who, according to the prosecution, are eyewitnesses, is concerned, one important fact is that PW-2 - Selvakani is also an eyewitness to the incident.However, the roles attributed by PW-2 - Selvakani on one hand and PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi on the other hand, are entirely discrepant.According to PW-2 - Selvakani, the appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 hacked her son with sickle, whereas, PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi stated that deceased accused - Jeyakumar hacked Rajalingam with the sickle and the role attributed to the appellant by PW-3 - Parvathi and PW-4 - Rajathi is that he bit Rajalingam and instigated deceased accused - Jeyakumar to assault Rajalingam.This is a serious discrepancy in the evidence of the eyewitnesses.As stated earlier, on account of the above serious discrepancy, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of these three eyewitnesses.Moreover, as stated earlier, in the complaint, which was lodged immediately after the incident, there is no mention at all of the name of the appellant and there is mention of the names of only two accused persons, viz., deceased accused Jeyakumar and Sardar.It is to be noted that the complaint does not make any mention of any other accused person by stating that one more person had participated in the incident, but, it makes only mention of two accused persons, viz., deceased accused Jeyakumar and Sardar.It is no one's case that the appellant is also known by the name of Sardar.All these facts give rise to serious suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case that the appellant either assaulted Rajalingam or abetted deceased accused Jeyakumar to assault Rajalingam.Thus, looking to the evidence on record, we find much merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.On going through the evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.In the result, ● this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.4 of 2011, dated 23.04.2016 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.2.The Sessions Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE.AND G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,403,712 | CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 3The informant Deepak s/o Rameshsingh Baghel (PW-5) is a fruit vendor, resident of Adivasi Colony, Amravati.He was selling fruits by the side of Chotu Pathan on hand cart at Rukhamini Nagar area of::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 4 Amravati.The informant was knowing the accused persons as they were from the same vicinity.On the day of incident i.e. 10.05.2001 at about 8.30 pm, one Bablu s/o Chotu Pathan approached to informant Deepak and informed him that the accused persons had quarrelled with his mother Suraiyya i.e. the wife of Chotekhan Pathan.Thereafter, the accused armed with deadly weapons approached to Chotekhan Pathan and assaulted him by means of sword and knife.Due to which he sustained multiple injuries and he fell down.Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot.The injured was shifted to Irwin Hospital.The first informant Deepak then proceeded to the City Kotwali Police Station and lodged his oral report.Police rushed to the place of incident and recorded the spot panchanama.The statement of PW-3 Chotekhan Pathan was recorded by the police.The accused were arrested.At their instance, the weapons were recovered from their respective houses.Unfortunately the first informant Deepak Baghel (PW-5) also did not support the case of the prosecution.He was declared hostile.However, no fruitful purpose was served though he was cross examined by the prosecution.7] So far as the testimony of victim PW-3 Chotekhan Pathan is concerned, it indicates that on 10.5.2001 at about 7.30 to 8.00 pm, while he was selling fruits, his son Babalu informed him that the accused were quarreling in his house.PW-3 sent back his son.Accused no.4 Santosh (since dead) gave a blow of sword.Similarly accused no.5 Bhola assaulted him by means of knife on his rib.Accused no.1 Sudhir was armed with pipe, whereas accused no.3 Dilip was armed with knife.It appears that since there was a curfew in Amravati, due to the murder of harden criminal Jabbar, in these circumstances, it is not clear as to why PW-3 was selling the fruits on his cart at Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati.10] So far as the testimony of PW-4 Surayya Pathan is concerned, her testimony shows that on the day of the incident at about 8 to 8.30::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 11 pm, accused no.1 Sudhir and accused no.4 Santosh (deceased) had intercepted her and there were altercations between them.Accused asked her to give an understanding to her husband over the dispute of pipe line.ORAL JUDGMENT 1] This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.189/2001, whereby the learned::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 3 Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months each for the offence punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code.They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2] The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as under :::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::The blood stained clothes of the victim were also taken charge by the police.Similarly the clothes of the accused were also seized under the panchanama.The statements of the witnesses were also recorded by the police.The seized articles were sent to the office of the CA for its analysis.After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 5 The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence and after hearing both the sides, convicted the accused as aforesaid.3] Heard Shri Rahul D. Hajare, the learned advocate (appointed) for the appellants-accused in Criminal Appeal No.223/2007 and Shri J.B. Kasat, learned Advocate for the appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No.300/2007 as well as Shri Amit Chutke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State in both the appeals.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 4::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 54] The learned advocates for the accused persons contended that the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of victim Chotekhan Pathan (PW-3), whose statement was recorded by the police two to three months after the incident.Thus there is an unreasonable and unexplained delay in recording the statement of the victim, so also it is full with material discrepancies.Hence, the testimony of the said witness is not found to be reliable one.It is further submitted that apart from other witnesses, on the point of recovery of the weapons and clothes of the accused, have not supported the prosecution case and thus the learned trial Judge has not assessed the evidence led by the::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 6 prosecution witnesses in its right perspective and has erroneously convicted the accused.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 6After sometime,::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 7 all the accused came near his cart.Accused no.2 Bandu, who was armed with sword, assaulted PW-3 on his head.Due to which, he fell down on the ground and was admitted in Irwin Hospital for 17 to 18 days.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 78] The cross-examination of PW-3 Chotekhan Pathan demonstrates that he was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for seven years.He was also convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, while in contact with group of Kishor Yadav.He also denied that number of crimes under sections 324, 325, 326, 395, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against him with Rajapath Police Station.All these suggestions were put up to PW-3 to assail his character and in order to show that he was notorious criminal of Amravati.PW-3 was suggested that two days prior to incident there was murder of Jabbar, therefore, there was a curfew in Amravati city and he was not in a position to take his cart at Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati.It was also suggested that he was attacked by the persons belonging to Jabbarkhan group.PW-3 admitted that his::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 8 statement was recorded by the police one month after the incident.He however failed to explain the reason for the said delay.Some improvements were pointed out in the testimony of PW-3 to the effect that accused Bandu was armed with sword and assaulted him by means of said sword on his head.Another improvement was with regard to the fact that accused Santosh gave a blow on his leg.One more improvement was pointed out to the effect that accused Bhola assaulted him by means of knife on his rib.All these improvements go to the root of the prosecution case and therefore serious doubt about the accused persons assaulting PW-3, as described by him.It was suggested to PW-3 that he sustained injuries in an assault that took place at Daryapur.PW-3 admitted that offence under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code is registered at Daryapur Police Station against him.The said version of PW-3 makes clear that PW-3 was having criminal antecedents.He denied that due to old enmity with the accused persons, he has implicated them in this case.It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was hospitalized for indefinite period and he was not able to speak or to give statement with regard to the injuries sustained by him during the incident.No doubt, PW-3 explained that::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 9 as he was in the hospital, his statement was recorded belatedly.However, the fact remains that PW-3 himself has stated that for 17 to 18 days he was hospitalized.If that was the case, it is not clear as to why for two to three months, the statement of PW-3 was not recorded by the police.There is no material evidence on record to show that PW-3 was not in a condition to make his statement or he was not available to the police.No doubt the medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution.9] The testimony of PW-8 Dr. Kiran Wathodkar, Medical Officer, shows the following injuries on the person of PW-3 Chotekhan Pathan.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 8::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 9::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 10PW-8 Dr. Kiran opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.However, it is not proved by the prosecution reasonable doubt that the accused persons were the authors of the said injuries.Needless to mention that the witnesses, on the point of recovery of the weapons, at the instance of the accused persons, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.Thus, there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the accused persons assaulted the victim due to which he sustained injuries.The accused had broken pipe line and while her husband was the President of Amravati colony where she was residing.According to her, accused had beaten her.She proceeded to the Police Station and lodged the report.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 1111] The cross-examination of PW-4 Surayya Pathan shows that she had improved her version by saying that she proceeded to the Police Station and lodged the report against the accused.The said improvement goes to the root of the prosecution case.According to PW-4 she reported the incident of assault to the police.However, there is no such report on record which makes her testimony doubtful.12] As discussed above, PW-5 Deepak Baghel, who has reported the incident to the police, however, he turned hostile to the prosecution and flatly denied that he has lodged complaint with respect of the incident which had taken place on 10.5.2001 at about 8.30 pm.He::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 12 denied that at 8.30 pm, Babalu son of Chotekhan (PW-3) had informed him that accused had quarreled with his mother.He also denied that the accused persons were armed with sword, knife and pipes and assaulted PW-3 Chotekhan Pathan.The portion was marked as 'A' for identification, however, later-on it was not proved through the investigating officer.Thus the entire case of the prosecution is under the shadow of doubt.The first information report is also not proved by the prosecution.So also the testimony of the injured witness is recorded after two to three months from the incident.However, the prosecution has not established that the accused were the author of those injuries.The learned trial Judge should have assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective.13] In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the learned trial Judge should have assessed the evidence led by the prosecution in its right perspective.The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge needs interference and the same needs to be quashed and set aside.Hence, the following order is passed :::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 12ORDER 1] Both the criminal appeals are allowed.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::CRI.APPEAL 223+300.07.odt 132] The judgment and order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.189/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused are acquitted of the offences charged with.3] The professional fees of Shri Rahul D. Hajare, Advocate (Appointed) for the appellant be paid as per the rules.[MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.] Gulande::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:14:11 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,406,147 | (Pronounced on this 21st day of January, 2020) This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) by the appellants against impugned judg- ment dated 21.05.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC ST Act), Ujjain, District Ujjain (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.98/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,000/-.The prosecution story, in short, is that on 22.03.2013 complainant Deepak s/o Ranchhod lodged a complaint at Police Station Barnagar, District Ujjain (MP) alleging that at 06.00 PM when he was near pond in Gendawadi and measuring land of his friend Manoj Kali, at that time, accused persons came there, interrupted the complainant by abusing him.Later, 2 accused Anil gave a knife blow to Deepak due to which he received injury on his right hand.When Manoj Kali came to save him, accused Ashok Sharma inflicted in- jury to him by Sabbal, due to which he sustained in- juries on foot and knee of his right leg.They also threatened the complaint to kill.Co-accused Arvind and Saroj were present on the spot and they scuffled with the complainant.After completion of the investi- gation, charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain (MP), who com- mitted it to the Court of Special Judge [under SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Ujjain.Co-accused persons Arvind and Saroj were also acquit- ted of all the charges; however, the present appellants 3 have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sen- tenced them, as mentioned above.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he is not challenging the order of conviction of the appellants passed by the trial Court, however, he submits that ap- pellant No.2 Ashok s/o Krishna Vallabh Sharma is an old man aged about 60 years whereas appellant No.1 Anil s/o Krishna Vallabh Sharma is 38 years of age.They are not having any criminal record.The incident has taken place all of a sudden and there was no pre- meditation.They have been convicted for offence un- der Section 323 of IPC.The allegation against the ap- pellants is that they inflicted simple injury to injured persons Deepak s/o Ranchchod and Manoj Jain.Dur- ing the pendency of the case, both the parties have also settled their dispute, which is reflected in cross exami- nation of injured Deepak (PW-1).The said conviction will adversely affect their future career.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecu- tor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh op- poses the prayer; and prays for dismissal of the appeal.After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that commission of alleged offence by the appellants is es- tablished on the basis of the statement of complainant injured Deepak (PW-1), Ramesh Mali (PW-2), Manoj (PW-4) and Dr. Jitendra Sharma (PW-3) corroborated with the FIR Ex.P/1 and MLC Ex.Hence, on the basis of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not com- mitted any error in convicting the appellant for com- mission of offence under Section 323 of IPC.As regards sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellants are the first offenders and no previous conviction has been proved against them.They have faced the trial for about six years and they have caused simple injury to injured persons and the sentence awarded to the appellants will adversely affect their future.In these circumstances, it is expedient that the appellants should be released on probation of good behavior.conviction passed by the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC against the appellants is affirmed.They are also directed to appear before the trial Court on 17th February, 2020 for furnishing bail bond, as directed above.Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Ramesh Chandra Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=dbcd6478673ed1cb472bfe4ff530b412bf737875 Pithawe 74d3713fa86db0de124035d6, cn=Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2020.01.23 14:22:37 +05'30' | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,414,791 | In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.12.2019 in connection with Chandrakona P.S case no. 464 of 2019 dated 7.12.2019 under section 448/323/354B/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Menuka Bibi @ Manuka Gayen & Ors....... petitioners Mr. N De Mr. R Chakraborty ...... for the petitioners Ms. Ratna Ghos ...... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the instant case has been registered as a counter-blast to a criminal case lodged by petitioner no. 1 against her husband and in laws.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the petitioners shall appear 2 before the court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.The application being CRM 12267 of 2019 is disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,224,163 | For the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 149, I. P. C. they all have been sentenced to life imprisonment and for other offences they have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment by the judgment dated 29-12-1987 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.The appellants have assailed their convictions in this appeal.The prosecution case as per the version in the First Information Report, Ex. PW. 1, and the oral testimony of the witnesses, P. W. 1 to P. W. 4, it is as under:-Cattle of accused Thakurdas had strayed into the field of Roshansingh, P. W. 1 and damaged the standing wheat crop.Roshansingh, therefore, went to the house of accused Thakurdas on 13-1-1986 at 6.00 in the evening to raise the protest and to warn him that in future if cattle damages the crop he would send them to cattle-pound.At the house of Thakurd-as there were hot exchanges between the complainant and the accused parties.It is alleged that in the course of quarrel accused Managalsingh came out from the house and caught hold of Roshan Singh.Thereupon, Bhagwan Singh, P.W. 2, Sobatsingh P.W. 3, Pitaram (the deceased) and Sirkunwar P.W. 4, all relations of Roshansingh, came for his help.JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.Thereafter, the accused Thakurdas, Parashram and Bhagwat came with Luhangis Mangalsingh with Pharsa and accused Jagdish and Kalyansingh with lathis to intervene in the quarrel and assaulted the members of the complainant party causing them several injuries.According to the prosecution version Mangalsingh gave a Pharsa blow to Pitaram as also to Bhagwansingh.The incident was reported to police-station Karera on the same day on 13-1-1986, 9.30 in the night.It is admitted that a counter report was also lodged by the accused party and a criminal case was registered against the complainant party, whereupon a criminal case is also pending trial against them.Deceased Pitaram was medically examined on 13-1-1986, when he was alive and following injuries were found on his person :-(1) A lacerated wound over frontal region of scalp in centre 2" above forehead horizontal 3/4" x 1/ 3" skin deep.(2) A lacerated wound 1" above injury No. 1 horizontal 3/4" x 1/5" x skin deep.(3) Lacerated wound 3/4" above injury No. 2 and parallelly situated 1" x 1/5" x skin deep.(4) Contusion over right forearm below elbow 2" x 1".(5) Contusion over left forearm below elbow 3" x 1".He was medically examined in the hospital at Karera and the doctor who treated him then referred him to District Hospital Shivpuri.The postmortem report is Ex. P-36 and the cause of death is stated to be - "After conducting P. M. on the above body, (paper torn) opinion he died due to injury to vital part (Brain) causing fracture of frontal bone and 7th cervical vertebrae, extra dural haemorrhage and death."A letter was sent by the Investigating Officer to Dr. R.S. Dixit, P. W. 12, who had medically examined Pitaram to specifically state whether the injuries mentioned above found on the person of Pitaram could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon.By letter, Ex. P-31, the doctor informed that injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 found on the person of Pitaram would have been caused by Luhangi, or any hard and blunt object and not by any sharp edged weapon.The same was the report with regard to injuries caused to Smt. Sirkunwar and Bhagwansingh.It is not necessary to give full details of the injuries caused to other members of the complainant party and it is enough to state that as per Injury Report, Ex. P-26 about Smt. Sirkunwar, Ex. P-27 about Roshansingh.Ex. P-28 about Bhagwansingh and Ex. P-29, about Sohbatsingh they all received injuries which were lacerated, contusions and abrasions.Accused persons abjured their guilt and examined D. W. 1 Phoolsingh as defence witness.The defence version is that complainant Roshansingh came with an axe in his hand to raise the protest on straying of cattle into his field.He abused accused Thakurdas and assaulted him with an axe.The other members of the complainant party, namely Sohbatsingh, Pitaram and Bhagwansingh had lathis in their hands and they also assaulted Thakurdas.According to the defence version the complainant was the aggressor and had come along with other his companions to wreck up the quarrel.Learned counsel, Shri B. Raj Sharma, assails the conviction on several grounds.On behalf of the State it is stated that the incident as narrated is in two parts.Complainant Roshansingh had first gone to the house of Thakurdas only to lodge his protest for damage caused to his crop.Thereafter, the inmates of the house i. e., other accused persons came upon the scene with a common intention to assault the members of the complainant party, who had by that time reached on the spot, to save assault on Roshansingh.We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties at the Bar and have also looked into the record of the case.After considering and weighing the evidence of P.W. 1 Roshansingh, P.W. 2, Bhagwansingh, P.W. 3, Sohbatsingh and P.W. 4, Sirkunwar, in our opinion, no implicit faith can be placed on their version in entirety.The defence version as narrated by D. W. 1., Phoolsingh is highly probabilised that on the issue of straying of cattle Roshansingh had gone armed to wreck up a quarrel and his other companions i.e. the injured witnesses named above also went with him for his help.First, a wordy dual took place and thereafter the parties clashed with the arms in their hands.As mentioned above, Dr. R. S. Dixit, P.W. 12, in his testimony and in his letter, Ex. P-31, has very clearly stated that Injury No. 1 on the head was not caused by any sharp edged weapon.The Pharsa, therefore, appears to have been inflicted from the blunt side which resulted in the fracture of scalp and damage to the brain.Dr. G. D. Agarwal, P.W. 15, who performed the post mortem has also in his deposition stated that the' injury caused on the head might have been caused by hard and blunt object.We, therefore, set aside his conviction under Section 302, IPC and instead convict him Under/Section 304, Part I, IPC, Section 325 and Section 148, IPC and sentence him for the period already undergone.So far as the other accused-appellants Nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, they have all caused injuries by Luhangis and lathis.The injuries as per the injury reports, Ex. P-26 to Ex. P-29 are all contusions, abrasions and lacerated wounds.As held above, there was no formation of unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 149, IPC and there was no common intention.They are all, therefore, liable to be convicted only under Section 325 and Section 148, IPC.They are all on bail.Appellant No. 21, Thakurdas, Appellant No. 6 Jagdish and appellant No. 7 Bhagwatsingh have suffered about two months sentence and appellant No. 3 Kalyansingh, appellant No. 4 Parashram and appellant No. 5 Premnarayan have all suffered three months sentence each before they were enlarged on bail.In this case, both parties clashed and had caused injuries to members of other party.In the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met by sentencing appellants Nos. 2 to 7 to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them and fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each payable as compensation to the injured within three months.In default of payment of fine they shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.Consequently, the appeal only partly succeeds. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,423,783 | This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2014 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly at Chinsurah in connection with Sessions Case No. 278 of 2013 arising out of Balagarh Police Station Case No. 67 of 2012 dated 24.03.2012 on the ground that there is no material to satisfy the ingredients of Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.On hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the revisional application including the 2 impugned order, I find that the present petitioners/accused filed a petition before the leaned Court below under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge from the alleged offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there is no material for such offence. | ['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,424,130 | In Crl.A.No.214 of 2010:-A.No. 229 of 2010:-For Appellant : Mr.S.Karthikeyan, for N.S.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT The appellants in Crl.A.No.214 of 2010 are A5 & A7; and the appellants in Crl.A.No.229 of 2010 are A1 to A4 and A6 & A9 in S.C.No.81 of 2009 on the file of the Special Court, (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram.Totally there are 9 accused.A1 to A9 stood charged for an offence under Section 147 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act , A1, A4 and A5 stood charged for an offence under Sections 323(2 counts) IPC and A2, A3, A6 and A9 stood charged for an offence under Section 323 IPC and A7 stood charged for an offence under Section 325 IPC.Pending trial, A8 died.After trial, by judgment dated 24.03.2010, the trial Court found guilty of all the accused, as detailed below:-Accused Section of lawSentenceA.1, A7 & A9147 I.P.C.,Simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.On 14.09.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., while P.W.3 went to answer his natures call, all the accused were sitting near a bridge, A1 questioned him and scolded him by calling his caste name and A1 to A4 attacked him with wooden log.Immediately, P.W.3 went back to his house and informed the same to his brother P.W.2, where P.W.1, who is a friend of P.W.2, was also present.Immediately, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the scene of occurrence, found all the accused were sitting there.While P.W.2 questioned them, A6 attacked him with a wooden log on his head, A1 attacked him with a wooden log on the backside of his neck.A5 also attacked him on his head.A7 attacked him with a wooden log on his mouth and broken his teeth.A4 and A8 also joined with them and attacked him indiscriminately with wooden log.When P.W.1 was trying to interfere, A1 scolded him by calling his caste name and A2 attacked him with a wooden log on his head.A3 also attacked him on his lips.A9 scolded him with filthy language and abused him by calling his caste name also attacked him with a wooden log on his forehead.All the 3 injured witnesses were immediately taken to JIPMER Medical College Hospital, Pondicherry.P.W.8, Doctor, examined them and issued wound certificates (Ex.P.4 to 6).Thereafter, on the next day, i.e., 15.09.2008, P.W.1 went to the respondent police and lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) at about 9.30 a.m.3. P.W.9, Sub-Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in crime No.172 of 2008, for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and prepared the First Information Report (Ex.P.7).Then, he handed over the First Information Report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, for investigation.On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W.10, Deputy Superintendent of Police, commenced the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.3) and drew a rough sketch(Ex.For Appellant : Mr. S.Shanmugavelayutham, Senior Counsel for T.Vijayaraghavan For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.2, A3, A6 & A9 323 I.P.C.,Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.A.1, A4 & A5323(2 counts) Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.A7325 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.A1, A7 & A93(1)(x) SC/ST Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 monts.The trial Court ordered the above sentences to run concurrently.P.8) in the presence of the witnesses and he also recorded the statement of the witnesses.Then, he examined the Doctor, who was working in the JIPMER Medical College Hospital, Pondicherry, and on 18.09.2008, he arrested the accused near Rawuthan Kuppam bus stop and remanded them to Judicial custody.After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were exhibited.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the injured witness.On the date of occurrence, when he was sitting in the house of P.W.2, P.W.3, brother of P.W.1 came there and complained that some known persons have attacked him.Then, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of occurrence, where P.W.2 questioned the accused, the accused attacked them with wooden logs indiscriminately and they abused them by calling his caste name as all the 3 eye-witnesses belong to Schedule Caste community, A2, A3 and A9 attacked him and also abused him calling by caste name.P.W.2 is also yet another injured witness.According to him, when he questioned the accused for attacking his brother/ P.W3, A1, A5, A6 attacked him with a wooden log on his head and A7 attacked him on his mouth and broken his teeth and A4 and A8 attacked him with a wooden log indiscriminately and thereafter, they were taken to the hospital.According to him, on the date of occurrence, at about 7.00 p.m., while be went to answer his natures call, all the accused were sitting there and consuming liquor.8. P.W.4 is the Tahsildar, Vanoor.He issued community certificates to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 as they belong to schedule caste community and the accused belong to the Vanniyar backward community.P.Ws.5 and 6, turned hostile.P.W.7 is a witness for the observation mahazar.P.W.8 is the Doctor, who examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and has given wound certificates (Ex.P.4,5,6) and given opinion that all the injuries are simple in nature.P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the complaint.P.W.10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid final report.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 or mark any documents, on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted both the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.I have heard Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, senior counsel, appearing for appellant in Crl.A.No.214 of 2010, Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.220 of 2010 and Mr.V.Arul, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the appeals.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.214 of 2010 would contend that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.Immediately after the occurrence, all the 3 injured witnesses were taken to JIPMER Medical College Hospital and P.W.8,Doctor, examined the 3 injured witnesses, and they informed him that they were attacked by 10 unknown persons and he also issued wound certificate Ex.P.4, 5 and 6 to that effect.Subsequently, on the next day morning, at about 09.30 a.m., with a delay of 14 hours, they have given a complaint, wherein also he has mentioned 6 named accused and some known persons.Even though the complaint was registered on 15.09.2008, at about 9.30 a.m., the First Information Report was sent to the Court only on 16.09.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., after a delay of more than 26 hours, which creates a doubt in the prosecution case.In the first ever statement given before the Doctor, they have informed that 10 unknown persons have attacked them.Subsequently, they have changed it and named 6 accused in the First Information Report, along with some known persons.Apart from that, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that there was a previous enmity between two community people in the village.Even though P.Ws.1 & 3 says that some of the accused were abusing them by calling his caste name, P.W.2 did not say anything about the accused had abused him by calling his caste name.It is a clear case of the prosecution that all the accused had attacked him with a wooden log and caused injuries.But none of the material objects were seized during investigation, which also creates doubt.He further submits that P.W.10, the investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has conducted investigation, is not an experienced person and not a senior in that cadre and thereby Rule 7 of the SC/ST Act has been violated.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 are the injured witnesses.It is the consistent evidence that all the accused have attacked the witnesses with wooden log and caused serious injuries and they have also abused the witnesses by calling their caste name.The evidence of the injured witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence, absolutely, there is no contradiction in their evidence, and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses.So far as the delay in filing complaint is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the occurrence took place in the night hours and all the 3 injured witnesses were taken to the hospital and on the next day morning they lodged a complaint, wherein, they have clearly mentioned about the name of the 3 accused and their specific overt act has also been mentioned in the First Information Report.P.Ws.1 to 3 also clearly says that all the accused have abused them by calling their caste name.The trial court, after considering all the evidence, has rightly convicted all the appellants and there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial court.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully .The first occurrence took place on 14.09.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., in which, A1 to A4 attacked P.W.3 and also abused him by calling his caste name.At that time, all the accused attacked both P.Ws.1 and 2 and caused injuries and A7 attacked P.W.2 on his mouth and broken his teeth and all of them abused in filthy language called by their caste name.Immediately, they were taken to the JIPMER Medical College Hospital, Pondicherry.P.W.8, Doctor, working in the JIPMER Medical College Hospital, Pondicherry, treated all the 3 injured witnesses and also issued a wound certificate Ex.From the perusal of the evidence of P.W.8 and the wound certificates, it is seen that at the time of medical examination, all the 3 witnesses had stated that 10 unknown persons have attacked them with wooden log.In the wound certificate also it has been clearly stated that 10 unknown persons attacked them.P.W.8 also stated in his evidence that all the 3 accused have stated that 10 unknown persons have attacked them.Even though the occurrence took place on 14.09.2008, at about 7.00 p,m., only on the next day morning at about 9.30 a.m., P.W.1 lodged a complaint, wherein he has named 3 accused and also stated that 6 known persons also attacked them.Even though the First Information Report was registered at 9.30 a.m., on 15.09.2008, it reached the Court only on the next day (i.e.) on 16.09.2008 at 11.20 a.m. But, absolutely, there is no explanation on the side of the prosecution for the delay in filing the complaint, registration of the First Information Report as well as the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 that the injured witnesses and accused belong to neighbouring village and they are all known to them and there was a previous enmity between two villagers and all the accused were known to them.Even though the statement given before the Doctor is only a previous statement of witness and it is not a substantive evidence, considering the fact that there are multiple accused and there were a delay of 14 hours in filing the First Information Report, and also the delay of 26 hours in sending the First Information Report to the Court.All creates doubt in the prosecution case, especially when at the first instance, all the witnesses had clearly stated that 10 unknown persons have attacked him.Apart from that even though all the accused have said to have attacked the accused with wooden log, no weapon was recovered by the prosecution.Considering all those facts, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.In the above circumstances, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.The Court below without considering the evidence with proper perspective erroneously convicted the appellants and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are liable to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Court in S.C.No.81 of 2009 dated 24.03.2010 is hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted of the charges.The bail bonds, if any executed by them, shall stand cancelled.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, are directed to be refunded.03.10.2017 Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking order/ non-speaking ordermrpTo1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court, Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.A.Nos.214 of 2010 & 229 of 201003.10.2017 | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,428,091 | It is alleged that the deceased had borrowed money from theaccused and he did not repay the same.From then onwards, the accused had a strong enmity towards the deceased and this is stated to be the motive forthe occurrence.(ii) On 04.09.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. it is alleged that P.Ws.1, 4 andone Radhakrishnan had gone to an electrical shop of one Jayasekaran atAmmandivilai village.They found the shop closed, therefore, they startedproceeding to the house of Mr.Jayasekaran.When they were nearing his house, the accused suddenly emerged there, scolded the deceased and cut him with an aruval on his right side of the forehead, left side of the fore head and onthe left eyebrow.Then the accused fled away from the scene of occurrencewith the weapon.The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 4 and Mr.Then, all of them immediately made arrangement to take him to Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital.(iii) P.W.2, Dr.Usha the Assistant Surgeon at Asaripallam GovernmentMedical College Hospital examined the deceased and found him dead.She declared him dead and transferred the body to the mortuary.She gave deathintimation to the police.P.W.10, the then Sub Inspector of Police,Vellichandai Police Station on receiving the said intimation from thehospital went to the hospital at 10.45 p.m. on 04.09.2004, recorded thestatement of P.W.1, returned to the police station and at 11.45 p.m.registered a case in Crime No.179/2004 under Section 302 of I.P.C. Ex.P9 isthe F.I.R. and Ex.P1 is the complaint.He forwarded both the documents tothe Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police forinvestigation.Then, he recovered bloodstained tarred stones and sample earth fromthe place of occurrence.He gave a opinion that the deceasedappeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to heavy cut injuries inthe head.(v) On 07.09.2004, at Edayanvillai village, at 05.30 a.m, he arrestedthe accused in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness.Ex.P.14 is the chemical examination Report and Ex.P.15 is the Serologyreport.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the appellant is anyoung man having a big family to take care of.He has no history of badantecedents.The occurrence itself was out of provocation and not out ofpremeditation.There are lot of chances for his reformation.[JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.104 of 2006, on the file ofthe learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.He stoodcharged for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the IndianPenal Code.By Judgment dated 05.10.2010, the Trial Court has convicted theaccused, as detailed below:-Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 341 IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for one month.302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for lifeRs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the saidconviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.This resulted in a quarrel betweenthem one year before the occurrence.It is alleged that the deceased stabbedthe accused with a knife and in this regard, a case had been registered onthe file of the Manavalankurichi Police Station in Crime No.105/2003 underSection 307 of I.P.C against the deceased.On reaching the hospital, he conducted inquest onthe body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for post mortem.P.W.3 Dr.Vasuhinathan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.09.2004 at 10.00 a.m. and he found the following injuries:?External Injuries:(1) Cut injury 3cm x 2 cm x bone depth partially oblique in directionjust above left eyebrow.(2) Cut injury 10cm x 2cm x bone depth, partially oblique in the rightside of forehead just above right eyebrow.(3) Cut injury 3cm x 2cm x bone depth on right eyebrow.(4) Cut injury 2cm x 2cm x bone depth on left side of forehead 2cmabove left eyebrow.Jaws clenched, eyes closed, tongue inside, finger and toenails are pale.Heart Chambers empty, C/s Pale.Hyoid bone intact, stomach contains 500ml of straw coloured fluid, No odour, Skull Transverse fracture of 6 cmpresent in the frontal bone.Blood clots seen in Extra & Infra dural spaceDiffuse infracerebral clots seen.Brain 1400 gms.C/S pale.On such arrest,the accused gave a voluntary concession, in which, he disclosed the placewhere he has hidden the aruval.In pursuance of the same, the accused tookP.W.12 and P.W.8 and another witness to the said place and produced the aruval (M.O.1) from the hide out.P.W.12 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the police station, P.W.12 forwarded the accused to the Courtfor judicial remand.He handed over the material objects to the Court andmade a request to the Court to forward the material objects for examination.According to this report, human blood was found on all the materialobjects including the aruval but the grouping test was inconclusive so far asaruval is concerned and others revelled that the blood group was that of 'B'.P.W.12 collected the medical reports and examined the Doctors.On completing the investigation, he laid charge-sheet against the accused.(vi) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges underSections 341 and 302 of I.P.C. The accused denied the same.In order toprove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses wereexamined, 15 documents and 6 material objects were marked.(vii) Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 4 are the eye witnesses tothe occurrence and they have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to the police.P.W.2 is the doctor who examined the deceased at the Government Medical College Hospital at Asaripallam and declared him dead. P.W.3 has spoken about the autopsy conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause ofdeath.P.W.5 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared and recovery of the bloodstained tarred stones and sample earth fromthe place of occurrence.P.W.6 is the police photographer who tookphotographs of the dead body in the place of occurrence and he has spokenabout the same.MO-4 series are the said photographs.P.W.7, an officialfrom T.N.E.B, has stated that there was no electricity failure at therelevant point of time.P.W.9 is the Head Constable, who took the dead bodyfor postmortem and he has also spoken about the recovery of bloodstaineddress materials found on the dead body.P.W.10 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.11 the Inspector of Police has spoken aboutthe registration of the earlier case against the deceased in respect of themotive occurrence, in which the deceased had stabbed the accused.P.W.12 has spoken about the investigation done by him.(viii) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did notchoose to examine any witness on his side nor marked any documents.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Courtconvicted him under both charges and accordingly punished him.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused therecords carefully.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit thatP.Ws.1 and 4 are chance witnesses and their presence at the place ofoccurrence is highly doubtful.He would further submit that the non-examination of Mr.Hewould further submit that the First Information Report, in this case, is adoubtful document.He would further add that the prosecution has notexamined any independent witness from the locality.Thus, according to thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant, the prosecution has failed toprove the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant isentitled for acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however vehementlyoppose this appeal.According to him, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 4 cannot bedoubted at all as their presence at the place of occurrence has been dulyexplained by them.Radhakrishnan, had taken the accused to the hospital to save him, whichwould go to prove that they were very much present at the place ofoccurrence.He would further submit that after the deceased was declareddead, P.W.1 had promptly lodged the complaint, upon which, the present case was registered.Absolutely, there is no reason to doubt the First InformationReport, he contended.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submitthat the medical evidence corroborates the eye witnesses account.We have considered the above submissions.Here, in thiscase, P.Ws.1 and 4 have stated that they accompanied the deceased to the shop of Jeyasekaran for the purpose of purchasing certain electrical goods andsince the shop was closed, they were all returning to the house ofJeyasekaran and when they were on their way, the occurrence had taken place.This explanation offered by P.Ws.1 and 4 in respect of their presence at thetime of occurrence cannot be doubted.Thus, we believe that P.Ws.1 and 4were present at the time of occurrence.According to their evidence, the accused suddenly appeared there andstarted attacking the deceased.(iv) Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall standcancelled.The Trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused and commithim in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.1.The Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
122,435,599 | If the case is committed in the meantime it will be jurisdictional Sessions Judge before whom the petitioner will 3 surrender.The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court within a fortnight from this date.In the meantime the warrant of arrest be stayed for the aforesaid period.The parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order available in the official website.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,895,931 | ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.The petitioner by name Anjalai, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.08.2005, detaining her son Rajkumar @ Raj, as " Goonda" under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short " Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982").2. Heard both sides.Accordingly, we reject the said contention.Except the above said contention, no other contention was raised; hence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,902,103 | ______________________________________________________ Shri Anurag Prajapati, Advocate for the applicant.Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.______________________________________________________ (O R D E R ) (Passed on 21.11.2016) This revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/accused person against the judgment of conviction dated 16.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Session Judge to Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Betul in Criminal Appeal No.67/2008 convicting the applicant/accused for the offence under Sections 457 & 354 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.400/- and R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.400/- respectively, with default stipulation, however, acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of IPC.Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Betul had convicted and sentenced the applicant vide judgment dated 09.05.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.88/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 354 & 2 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009 506(II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.400/-, R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.400/- and R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.200/-respectively, with default stipulation.2 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009Brief facts of the case are that when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house, in the mid night at about 12.00 hours, applicant Suban entered into the house, used criminal force on her, pressed her breast and tried to outrage her modesty.On hue and cry, father of the prosecutrix came over there and seen the applicant fleeing away from the spot.A report to the incident was lodged on the next date i.e. on 08.10.2007 at about 12.15 PM at Police Station Betul Bazar and after due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before learned JMFC, Betul for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 354 & 506(II) of IPC, who tried the case.Applicant denied the charge leveled against him, hence he was put to trial.To prove its case, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW/1, Melaram as PW/2, Nandu as PW/3, Munna as PW/4, Jaya as PW/5, Rahmat Ali as PW/6 and Arun Yogi as PW/7 and got exhibited the documents as Ex.P/1 to Ex.Babita and Urmila Bai have been examined as defence witness DW/1 & DW/2 and nothing has been exhibited by the defence.Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 354 & 506(II) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.400/-, R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.400/- and R.I. for six 3 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009 months with fine of Rs.200/-respectively, with default stipulation.An appeal has been preferred before learned Sessions Judge, Betul and learned appellate Court has convicted the applicant/accused for the offence under Sections 457 & 354 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.400/- and R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.400/- respectively, with default stipulation, however, acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of IPC .Hence, this revision.3 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the findings of learned Court below are perverse and contrary both on facts and law, hence impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.There was no source of light at the place of incident and therefore, it is not possible for the prosecution witnesses to identify the applicant.There are lot of contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to set aside the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence by acquitting the applicant for the aforesaid charges.Per contra, learned PL appearing for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the accused which requires no interference.Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, gone through the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below and statements of prosecution witnesses, I am of the view that no error 4 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009 has been committed by learned Courts below in recording the guilt of the applicant as mentioned hereinafter in convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 457 & 354 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.400/- and R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.400/- respectively, with default stipulation.4 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009It is nowhere defined meaning of outrage modesty of female.The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex.Use of criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman and knowledge, is sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 354 of IPC.10. 12 years old prosecutrix (PW/1) stated that while she was sleeping in her house, at that point of time, at about 12.00 O'clock in the mid night, applicant Suban entered in the house, used criminal force on her, squeezed her breast and tried to outrage her modesty.During her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated all the facts regarding assault, using criminal force by the applicant with an intention to outrage her modesty as well as during her elaborate cross-examination, she clarified each and every doubt, etc. raised by the defence.Not only Munna (PW/4) father of the prosecutrix supported her statement, but other independent witnesses; Melaram (PW/2), Nandu (PW/3) and Jaya (PW/5) friend of the prosecutrix also supported her statement.During elaborate cross-examination, nothing is brought on record by the defence on the basis of which testimony of these witnesses can be brush aside.5 Cri.6 Cri.Revision No.404 of 2009In the result, upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Courts below, the applicant is awarded the jail sentence for the period already undergone by him.The revision, to that extent, is allowed.In this case, the applicant is on bail. | ['Section 457 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. |
119,903,092 | The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the case are as hereunder:-It is the case of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein that the petitioner, stating that he is one of the partner in Chennai Promoters, had approached the 2nd respondent towards sale of about 400 acres of land near SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur and in pursuance of the same the petitioner had undertaken to secure the lands from the various land owners and have the lands executed in favour of the 2nd respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.120 Crores, which includes development charges as well.Inspite of the categorical clause in the agreement, the petitioner not only signed it, but has, thereafter, failed to perform his part of the agreement, necessitating the 2nd respondent to revoke the agreement and call upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.5 Crores received from the 2nd respondent.O.P.No.2706 of 2010 is a middle man between the 2nd respondent and the actual owners of the land.The petitioner has received the money and, for the lands conveyed, he has also deducted his charges towards brokerage and all other incidental charges.The criminal original petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the registration of the First Information Report No. 69/2009 dated 07.12.2009 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.Towards the same, an agreement was entered into.The 2nd respondent had agreed to part with a sum of Rs.5 Crores, which is an amount payable towards payment of sale consideration to the intending sellers, to be paid by the petitioner and that said sum of Rs.5 Crores has also been paid by way of demand draft.2/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2706 of 2010It further transpires that though the petitioner had got an extent of about 86 acres of lands registered in favour of the 2 nd respondent, for which the 2ndrespondent had paid from and out of its pocket, though the petitioner had not shelled out any amount from the Rs.5 Crores received from the 2nd respondent, however, after a period of time, the petitioner had not hounoured his part of the contractual obligation in getting around 400 acres registered in favour of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the 2nd respondent, in terms of the agreement entered into, called upon the petitioner to return back the amount of Rs.5 Crores received from the 2nd respondent.Inspite of several reminders, the petitioner had parted only with an amount of Rs.1.05 Crores from out of the Rs.5 Crores received from the 2nd respondent.Though various sums towards development charges and brokerage charges have been claimed by the petitioner, even thereafter a sum of about Rs.80 Lakhs is due and payable to the 2 nd respondent.Inspite of several reminders from the 2ndrespondent, the petitioner has not taken any effort to repay the amount and, therefore, it clearly shows that the fraudulent intention of the petitioner to usurp the amount of the 2 nd respondent and, therefore, the complaint was lodged with the 1st respondent, which culminated into the impugned first information report.3/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2706 of 2010Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a contract entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and in case the 2nd respondent has a grievance with regard to non- performance of the contract, it is only open to the 2nd respondent to proceed against the petitioner only in terms of the dispute resolution mechanism provided under the said agreement and it is not open to the 2nd respondent to give a criminal colour to a civil transaction.The transaction entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is purely civil in nature, and mere involvement of monetary aspects in the transaction would not make the transaction border on the criminal lines.It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that only in order to expedite the whole litigative process, the 2nd respondent has resorted to criminalising the entire transaction, which is wholly impermissible.Further, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel that there is no element of cheating, as even according to the 2nd respondent, certain sums have been paid back to the 2nd respondent.Therefore, entertaining a civil dispute under the criminal realm is unknown to criminal jurisprudence and, accordingly, prays for quashing the first information report.4/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2706 of 2010The aforementioned observations of the High Court were not only unnecessary for the adjudication of this matter, but the same could have been understood as casting some kind of aspersions on the Accused.It is the case of the 2nd respondent that inspite of requests to the petitioner to pay the balance amount of around Rs.80 Lakhs, the petitioner is not making any payment, but literally dragging the matter.Though according to the learned senior counsel this is a dispute of civil nature, which has to be thrashed out in the civil court, however, the same cannot be accepted at the present stage for the simple reason that the petitioner 11/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The complaint has been initiated when the petitioner failed to pay the balance of the amount to the 2nd respondent in compliance of the terms of the agreement.For the reasons aforesaid, this criminal original petition is dismissed with a direction to the 1st respondent to expedite and complete the investigation, if not already completed, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.12.12.2019 kkn/GLN Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking 14/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2706 of 20101.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.15/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.2706 of 2010 M.DHANDAPANI, J. | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,903,646 | No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal as they are elaborately mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment.Suffice it to say that the prosecutrix who had not seen the fifth spring of her life was tried to be molested by the appellant by inserting his penis in her vagina.On being committing such a vile act, the prosecutrix screamed, as a result of which, her mother who was in another room arrived there and caught the appellant red-handed.FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the mother of prosecutrix namely Sushma George Markam, upon which a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 376, 511, 294, 506 later part of IPC.But, the prosecutrix was not referred to any lady doctor.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material available in the charge sheet, framed the charges punishable under Section 376/511 IPC against the appellant, which he denied and requested for the trial.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and placed Ex.P/1 to P/4, the documents 3 Cr.A. No.294/1997 on record.3 Cr.A. No.294/1997The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the charge under 376/511 of IPC is proved against the appellant and hence convicted him and passed the sentence, which I have already mentioned hereinabove.10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.On bare perusal of the testimony of prosecutrix this 4 Cr.A. No.294/1997 Court finds that specifically she has stated that appellant used to visit her house frequently and by taking the advantage, he carried the prosecutrix in his lap in another room where after taking off her panty he tried to insert his penis in her vagina.For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal stands dismissed.Earlier the appellant was on bail, however, when he did not appear before the Court, he has been arrested and now he is undergoing the sentence. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,903,771 | This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants Jagannath Singh, Khaij Lodhi, Dharmendra Lodhi, Anil Lodhi and Mohan Bhargava.It is alleged that on 17.07.2015 at about 09:00 PM when complainant Rajaram, a member of Schedule Caste was standing in-front of his house, accused/ applicant No. 4 Anil Lodhi quarreled with him because of the cattle.He abused him by obscene words and also by his caste name.After some time, 2 M.Cr.C. No. 7561/2015 Jagannath and others Vs.accused/applicant No. 3 Dharmendra Lodhi came there and he also pelted bricks, thereafter, Dharmendra and Anil inflicted injuries to Narveer by "Lathi".At that time, accused/applicants No. 1 and 5 ; Jagannath Singh and Mohan Bhargava respectively came there carrying with them tin.Then Jagannath Singh told Mohan Bhargava that let the Dahlan of the complainant be burnt.They poured oil of the lamp and set fire on his Dahlan, because of which his pesticide spray pump and other useful items were burnt.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the application with regard to applicants No. 1 and 5; Jagannath Singh and Mohan Bhargava respectively.Permission is granted.Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to applicants No. 1 and 5; Jagannath Singh and Mohan Bhargava respectively.Now this application is being considered with regard to applicants No. 2, 3 and 4 ; Khaij, Dharmendra Lodhi and Anil Lodhi only.On behalf of the applicants No. 2, 3 and 4, it is 3 M.Cr.C. No. 7561/2015 Jagannath and others Vs.State of M.P.submitted that there is a counter case lodged on the report of the applicant bearing Crime No. 316/2015 for offence under Sections, 452, 323, 294 and 506-B of IPC, in which the present complainant Rajaram has been arrayed as an accused.On the above ground, applicants pray for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for bail.Keeping in view that the applicants have not indulged in burning the Dahlan of the complainant, application regarding applicants No. 2, 3 and 4 ; Khaij, Dharmendra Lodhi and Anil Lodhi is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing their presence before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:-C. No. 7561/2015 Jagannath and others Vs.The applicants will make themselves available or represent through their counsel on early date of proceedingsThe applicants will not indulge in any similar offences during the pendency of the trial.If the applicants are found breach of any of the conditions above, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,904,846 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.202/2019 registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind for the offences punishable under sections 354, 354A and 323 read with 34 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on 03/12/2019 when complainant alongwith her father was coming to the house from her agricultural field, co-accused Ashish came there and kissed her.When the complainant objected to the same, the applicant and co-accused Ashish came at the house of the complainant and started using filthy language as well as assaulted the complainant by means of an Axe which hit on the head of the complainant, due to which, blood oozing out from there.When the complainant's mother came to save her, the applicant and co-accused also assaulted the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,908 | The petitioner herein was prosecuted before the trial court (court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge), Villupuram for alleged offences punishable under Sections 366, 417 and 376 IPC.After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram acquitted the petitioner herein/accused in respect of the third charge, namely the charge for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.However, the trial judge held him guilty of the other two offences (offences punishable under Section 366 IPC and 417 IPC) and sentenced him as follows:The petitioner and the P.W.1 - defacto complainant (both belonging to the same village by name Poovalur) developed a love affair between them and they used to have meeting with each other very often.On 20.09.1998, at about 1.00 p.m. the petitioner took P.W.1 to a nearby forest called T.Athipakkam forest in the guise of having a discussion with her regarding their marriage.When she was crying after the said incident, the petitioner consoled her promising that he would definitely marry her.Thereafter, for about three years, P.W.1 was residing in a ladies' hostel at Chennai and was pursuing her studies in the correspondence course for acquiring B.Com.degree and was attending regular classes in Accountancy leading to C.A. degree.While she was thus residing at Chennai, the petitioner used to come over to Chennai and meet her and on several occasions they had booked room in the lodges and had sexual intercourse.i) for the offence under Section 366 IPC, the trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine;ii) for the offence under Section 417, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, without any fine, was imposed.As against the said judgment of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Section 366 IPC and 417 IPC, the Revision Petitioner (accused) preferred an appeal on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram under Section 374(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.The learned Principal Sessions Judge (Lower Appellate Judge), after hearing, came to the conclusion that the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC could not be sustained and accordingly reversed the judgment of the trial court for the said offence, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the revision petitioner herein/accused in respect of the said offence also.However, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram concurred with the trial court regarding the charge for the offence under Section 417 and confirmed the conviction and sentence thereof.Aggrieved by and challenging the same, the revision petitioner herein/accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case on various grounds set out in the grounds of Criminal Revision Case.This court heard the submissions made by Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner in the Revision Case and R.Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the respondent herein.The materials available on record were also perused.The accused in S.C.No.64/2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram who was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the trial court for an offence under Section 417 IPC, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court (Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram) is the petitioner in the criminal revision case.He was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.64/2003 for an offence under Section 366, an offence under Section 417 IPC and an offence punishable under Section 376 IPCThe prosecution theory proceeds as follows:-Even after she completed her studies and went back to her native place, the petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her giving out a promise that he would marry her.While so, on 25.09.2001 and 26.09.2001, P.W.1 approached the petitioner along with Pechiammal (the president of Vazhutharetty Women's Association), Panneer Selvam (P.M.K.Trade Union Leader), Ramamurhty and Karunakaran at the Head office of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Villupuram, in which the petitioner was employed as Conductor.But, thereafter he went underground and he was not heard of pursuant to which, P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 12.12.2001 on the file of Thirunavalur Police Station, based on which a case was registered in Crime No.539/2001 on the file of the said Police station for the above said offences.Before the trial court, totally 12 witnesses were examined to prove the charges framed against the petitioner herein.Ayyappan, Balakrishnan, Seetharaman and Vadamalai who were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5, did not support the prosecution case.Hence they were treated hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution.But no answer favourable to the prosecution was elicited from them.P.W.6 - Devaki is the person who is alleged to have given asylum to P.W.1 for about 10 days, who also made arrangements for the meeting of P.W.1 with Pechiammal, Vazhutharetty Women's Association.P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the Medical Officers.P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation and submitted the final report.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the signatures found in the Observation Mahazar.P4 to Ex.P7 are the medical records.P8 is the First Information Report.P9 is the Observation Mahazar.P10 is the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer.P11 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are the letters written by P.W.1 to the petitioner/accused.The trial court also held that the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 without her consent had not been substantiated and that P.W.1 was a consenting party for such a sexual intercourse.However, for the other two offences, the trial court convicted and sentenced him as indicated supra.D1 to Ex.The reasons are given in the foregoing discussions.Apart from the same, it is to be noticed that in the said judgment, the Calcutta High Court, on facts found that there was no element of cheating.That is why the revision petitioner/accused was prosecuted for an offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC also.The prosecutrix (P.W.1) also went to the extent of stating that she was abducted to the T.Atthipakkam forest before such commission of rape.Both the courts below have concurrently found that the charge of commission of rape was not substantiated.Though the trial court might have chosen to convict the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 366 IPC, on a thorough re-appreciation of evidence, the lower appellate court chose to set aside the conviction for the said offence and acquit the petitioner herein/accused in respect of the said offence also.In the said background, we have to approach the question of proof of the other charge, namely the charge for an offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 IPC.Apart from the fact that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, there are more materials to show that it was the prosecutrix, who not only volunteered to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner/accused, but also invited him on several occasions for the said purpose even though she knew pretty well that both of them belonged to different communities and her parents would not welcome their marriage.In Ex.From Ex.D1 to D3 - letters written by prosecutrix, it is very much clear that it was she, who was making frequent invitation the petitioner/accused to come over to Chennai and meet her while she was staying in a ladies' hostel.The said letters coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that she had the courage to go with him to the lodges to have sexual intercourse with him.But, curiously for none of the letters, the petitioner/accused seems to have replied in writing.In one such letter the prosecutrix had questioned him as to whether he was afraid of such a reply letter being used against him by the prosecutrix.She had also expressed her anguish over her inability to meet the petitioner/accused when she had gone to their native place for Deepavali festival. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,914,113 | Victim Mohan Janwar is present in person.He is duly identified by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim Mohan Janwar is personally known to him.They live in the same locality.The victim has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Bhura @ Sunny Kori in Crime No.129/2017, registered by Police Station Gohalpur, District Jabalpur under Sections 294, 324, 307, 336 and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act.As per the prosecution case, at 10:20 p.m. on 28.2.2017, on the account of previous enmity, petitioner Bhura @ Sunny Kori and Anant Kori started filthily abusing the victim Mohan Janwar.When he asked them not to abuse him, the petitioner and the co-accused assaulted him with knife and a baka, resulting in injuries to victim Mohan Janwar on head, left palm and wrist.The petitioner and the co-accused also assaulted the first informant Sheru and his cousin.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the charge-sheet is yet to be filed.the petitioner has been in custody since 1.3.2017;- in the opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the petitioner Bhura @ Sunny Kori is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- 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 ahd | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,915,482 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 19.01.2016 relating to Crime No.06/16 registered at Police Station Dheerpura, District Datia (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 294, 436, 307, 302, 506 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the reputed citizens of the locality who have no criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged against the accused Hardayal that he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas on his head with a sharp cutting weapon and the deceased Thakurdas died due to head injury.He received only six injuries in all, whereas 13-14 accused persons were implicated by the complainant.There is no allegation against the applicants either they assaulted the deceased Thakurdas or other victim.No common intention of the applicants can be presumed with the co- accused persons for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, hence, no such offence is made out against the applicants either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Similarly, it is Mcrc.5002.2016 Harnam Singh and another Vs.State of M.P.not mentioned against the applicants that they set fire on any house.No offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against them.They are in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,075,114 | Mr.Ariasamy ... 2nd respondent in W.P.No.21604 of 2000A.Laxmanan... 2nd respondent in W.P.No.21605 of 2000Tmt.A.Francina... 2nd respondent in W.P.No.21606 of 2000Tmt.Lakshmi... 2nd respondent in W.P.No.21607 of 2000The Govrenment of Tamil Nadu,Rep.Prayer in W.P.No.21605 of 2000:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to S.H.R.C. Case No.851 of 2000/RSS on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the order dated 08.12.2000 passed therein.Prayer in W.P.No.21606 of 2000:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to S.H.R.C. Case No.852 of 2000/RSS on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the order dated 08.12.2000 passed therein.Prayer in W.P.No.21607 of 2000:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to S.H.R.C. Case No.853 of 2000/RSS on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the order dated 08.12.2000 passed therein.Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Govt. Advocate for R3 COMMON ORDER "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question.The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy.During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy.His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu.On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play.At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women.The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh, who intervened, were manhandled and attacked by Prabhu and Anbarasan.On a complaint preferred in respect of the same, a criminal case was registered against Prabhu and Anbarasan in Cr.No.55 of 2000 at K.K.Nagar Police Station for offences under Section 341, 323 and 509 of IPC.The respondent Ariasamy is the father of Anbarasan and the respondents A.Lakshmanan, Tmt.A.Francina and Tmt.Lakshmi are the father, mother and wife respectively of Prabhu.According to them, the petitioner's wife and other police personnel were actually playing shuttlecock.At that time, Prabhu came to the spot and on seeing Havildar - Mr.Krishnamuthy [the 4th respondent in the complaints], he made fun of him.The wife of the petitioner mistook it and questioned the same.On hearing the call from his wife, the petitioner rushed to the spot along with the other police personnel.It is alleged that Prabhu was attacked by the petitioner and his subordinates.His father, mother and wife came to the place of occurrence and questioned.They were also attacked.Then, Anbarasan came and questioned.He was also attacked.Anbarasan and Prabhu were kicked by the petitioner and forced to make somersaults.For sometime, they were illegally detained by the petitioner.They were latter on arrested by registering a false case against them.They underwent treatment for the injuries sustained in the occurrence for few days.On the complaint of Mrs.Lakshmi, a case was registered against the assailants on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy.In respect of the above occurrence, alleging human rights violations, there were four complaints made by M.Ariasamy, A.Lakshmanan, Tmt.Francina and Tmt.They were allowed to be cross examined by the petitioner herein and the other respondents in the SHRC cases.On side of the petitioner, he was examined besides few more witnesses.[3rd respondent impleaded as per order of this Court dated 22.04.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.16257 to 16260 of 2002 respectively]... 3rd respondent in all the Writ PetitionsPrayer in W.P.No.21604 of 2000:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to S.H.R.C. Case No.850 of 2000/RSS on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the order dated 08.12.2000 passed therein.For petitioner in all the writ petitions:Vijaya Narayanan, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.StalinFor respondent (s) in all the writ petitions:Mr.R.Srinivas for R1:Mr.V.Selvaraj for R2:Lakshmi and the same were entertained by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Nos.850 to 853 of 2000/RSS respectively on the file of the 1st respondent.The petitioner and the other respondents in the SHRC cases denied the allegations made against them.On service of notice, the petitioner herein and three other respondents in SHRC cases appeared before the Commission and filed their counters denying all these allegations.Before the Commission, besides the victims, few other witnesses were examined on the side of the complainants and some documents were exhibited.Some documents were also exhibited on his side.Having considered all the above, the Commission by its proceedings dated 08.12.2000 made the following recommendations:-(1) Prabhu and Anbarasan be paid a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) each by the Government.(2) Lakshmanan and Tmt.(5) The above recommendations are required to be complied within a month.Challenging the above recommendations the petitioner has come up with these writ petitions raising several grounds assailing the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the State Human Rights Commission and its recommendations.At the outset, this court expressed its doubt regarding the maintainability of these writ petitions at this stage since what is under challenge is only a recommendation by the State Human Rights Commission.Therefore, this Court invited the counsel on either side to address on the question of maintainability, first.Accordingly, on the said question, the learned counsel on either side putforth their arguments at length.That was an exceptional circumstance.More particularly, the direction of the State Human Rights Commission to the Government to recover the compensation amount from the petitioner shall be treated only as a recommendation and not as an order.In view of the above conclusions, I hold that these writ petitions, at this stage, are highly premature and they are not maintainable.Since I am inclined to dismiss these writ petitions as premature I do not deal with the other grounds raised in the writ petitions in respect of the merits of the recommendations of the human rights commission. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,513,149 | Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,517,217 | Heard Sri Pawan Kishor holding the brief of Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 15.05.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 102 of 2017 (Ram Brikch Vs.Ram Kishun & others), under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Siddharth Nagar.The facts reveal that the marriage of the applicant no. 3 Chandrawati, daughter of the applicant nos. 1 & 2 was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 25th April, 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs.Subsequently, the relations between the applicant no. 3 and the opposite party no. 2 became strained and ultimately reached at a point of no return.Consequently, the wife (applicant no. 3) left her marital home and came back to her parental home on 18th March, 2015 and started living with her parents.The applicant no. 3 also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 on 05.07.2016, which remained pending.Subsequently, the present complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on 19.01.2017 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 102 of 2017, under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, with the allegation that on 15.01.2017 at about 4:00 pm in the evening, the applicants came from Bolero car and indicated him to stop and when he stopped his vehicle, the applicants abused and beaten him with fists and blows and also threatened him to kill and snatched a golden chain from his neck and also took out Rs. 1200/- from his pocket.Subsequently, the statement of opposite party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.2017 and the statements of Prithvi Pal and Rangi Lal were also recorded under Section 202 as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 on 07.02.2017 & 22.02.2017 respectively.Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 15.05.2017 summoned the applicants to face trial only under Section 392 IPC.The said summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the said complaint are impugned in the present application. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,517,658 | The order of the first respondent dated 14.12.2018 is sought to be quashed in the present Writ Petition and further direction is sought for to direct the respondents to regularize the period of suspension i.e., from 11.08.2011 to 06.12.2011 and out of employment period from 10.04.2015 to 12.04.2018 with all monetary benefits.While he was working as Inspector of Police at Avaniapuram Police Station in the year 2009, a case in Crime No.130 of 2009 for the offence under Section 304(a) IPC was registered on 16.04.2009, based on the complaint received from the Village Administrative Officer, for the death of one Pandya Rajan.Subsequently, on 22.07.2009, he was transferred to Virudhunagar District.In view of the said alteration, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 11.08.2011 and charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Civil Services 2/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.3482 of 2019 (D & NA) Rules, 1955 in PR.155/2012, consisting of two charges, was issued against the petitioner.The first charge is with regard to the perfunctionary investigation and other charge is that he has received illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- in the said case.The enquiry officer held that the second charge was not proved and the first charge was alone proved.Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent, by the proceedings dated 09.04.2015, has imposed punishment of compulsory retirement.The petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.23041 of 2015 to quash the order of the punishment of compulsory retirement from service.This Court, by the order dated 07.02.2018, has set aside the order of the first respondent, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and held that the said punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and remanded the matter to the first respondent for imposing any other lesser punishment.After remand, the first respondent has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three years to take effect from the date of compulsory retirement.The petitioner was reinstated on 13.04.2018 and allowed to retire on 31.05.2018, on attaining the age of superannuation.After retirement, the first respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 03.10.2018, as to why the period 3/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.3482 of 2019 of out of employment spent by the petitioner should not be treated as eligible leave, including the extraordinary leave.The petitioner has submitted his explanation.Against the said order, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order amounts to double jeopardy, as the first respondent has already imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three years, after remand.4/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.3482 of 20194.The respondents have filed counter affidavit and made submissions on merits with regard to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that after remand, the first respondent, considering the materials, has imposed lesser punishment.After following all the procedures and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed and the same is not double jeopardy.6.From the materials on record, it is seen that originally, punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside by this Court on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the proven charges and the matter was remanded to the first respondent.5/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.3482 of 2019 After remand, the first respondent has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with effect from the date of compulsory retirement and reinstated the petitioner into service on 13.04.2018 and allowed him to retire from service on 31.05.2018, on attaining the age of superannuation.Subsequently, by the present impugned order dated 14.12.2018, another punishment was imposed, treating the period of out of employment as leave period.This amounts to imposing second punishment for the very same misconduct.7.This Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement, after considering all the materials on record on merits and remanded the matter.After remand, the first respondent has imposed lesser punishment and reinstated the petitioner into service, without holding any further enquiry.When the said order was passed, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under Fundamental Rules 54(A)(1) and (3).Having imposed punishment, reinstating the petitioner into service and allowing the petitioner to retire, the first respondent has not entitled to pass further orders by invoking Fundamental Rule 54(B).Therefore, the impugned order amounts to double jeopardy and liable to be set aside, accordingly set aside.8.With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands allowed.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.11.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Myr 7/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.3482 of 2019 V.M.VELUMANI,J.1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.W.P.(MD)No.3482 of 2019 11.11.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,517,749 | M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42Since all these thirteen petitions have arisen out of different charge sheets in respect of different first information reports registered pursuant to the complaints of investors, who have invested in the Housing Projects launched by M/s. A.J.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as accused company) and involves identical question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Crl.M.C. 2877/2014 pertains to FIR No. 88/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2932/2014 pertains to FIR No. 25/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2938/2014 pertains to FIR No. 110/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 2977/2014 pertains to FIR No. 87/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2979/2014 pertains to FIR No. 86/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2995/2014 pertains to FIR No. 24/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3002/2014 pertains to FIR No. 89/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3006/2014 pertains to FIR No. 75/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3015/2014 pertains to FIR No. 03/2010 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3023/2014 pertains to FIR No. 50/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3025/2014 pertains to FIR No. 109/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3031/2014 pertains to FIR No. 169/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg and Crl.M.C. 3037/2014 pertains to FIR No. 74/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W.The concise facts of the case as borne out from the charge-sheet are that a number of investors filed their complaints against accused Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42 company which were clubbed under different First Information Reports.All the complainants came up with identical allegations of inducements, misrepresentations etc. by the Directors of the accused company.The accused company gave an advertisement on 18.03.2006 in the newspaper The Hindustan Times to induce the general public for investment in their project at Gannaur, Sonepat.However, the accused company and its Directors were found to be engaged in cheating innocent customers by way of misrepresentation of facts through their various advertisements in print as well as electronic media.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42As per the charge sheets Ms. Madhu Singh (Managing Director of accused company) along with others induced innocent investors for investment in aforementioned residential project of the accused company, in defiance of rules and regulations embedded in their agreement.Further, the company and its Directors neither obtained necessary permissions / land use change/ approved building plans, nor acquired the project land for the proposed project, but collected investments from a large number of investors, running into hundreds of crores.Investigating agency claimed that accused company and its Directors amassed funds running in several crores of rupees by cheating innocent customers with misrepresentation of facts while advertising the project of Gannuar, District Sonepat, Haryana as a township of 300 acres with 60% of the land dedicated to greenery, whereas, till the charge sheet was filed, the accused company had executed sale deeds in respect of 83 acres of land only and that too without making full payments to the land Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42 owners.Further, the accused company started collecting funds from the innocent investors for its aforesaid township, even when the accused company had only 2 acres of land in their possession.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42During investigation, it was observed that the accused company and its Directors misused the funds between the years 2005-2008, ranging to hundreds of crores of rupees which have been collected from a large number of investors for various residential projects of the company and utilization of which could not be proved, thus investigating agency concluded that the same have been used for the lavish living of the Directors of the accused company.Investigation revealed that the accused company has a Board of Directors, comprising of three Directors namely Ms. Madhu Singh (CMD), Ms. Kailash Rani (mother of accused Madhu Singh) & Ms. Geeta Singh (Sister-in-Law of Madhu Singh).Initially Economic Offences Wing registered a case F.I.R. No. 56/09, under sections 406,420 read with section 120-B IPC, against the accused company and its Directors.Further, during the pendency of investigation various investors filed complaints against the accused company and its Directors.It was further revealed during investigation that the Corporate office of the accused company situated at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, First Floor, Gole Market, New Delhi was purchased by the accused company through its Director Smt. Madhu Singh from one Smt. Suman Lata Singla W/o Sh.S.K. Singla vide Sale Deed dated 21.07.2006, for a total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42 five lakhs only).Since the booking of projects started w.e.f. 2005 onwards, investigating agency suspected that the payments which were made to the vendor were done out of the cheated funds which were collected from investors.Investigation further revealed that the original title documents of the said property were mortgaged with Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi for seeking loan by the accused company, wherein overdraft limit of Rs.200 lakhs (Rupees Two hundred lakhs) and bank guarantee limit of Rs.3.91 crores (Rupees Three crores and ninety one lakhs) was sanctioned.As per the investigation, following properties were mortgaged against the loan A/c of the accused company:M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42I. Office of the accused company i.e. Property no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi.Two Fixed Deposit Nos.124225 for Rs.18,60,375/- (Rupees Eighteen lakh sixty thousand three hundred and seventy five) dated 29.02.2008 and 124226 for Rs.79,07,250/- (Rupees Seventy nine lakh seven thousand two hundred and fifty) dated 29.02.2008 were also kept as security against Bank Guarantee.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 42By way of these thirteen petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 03.06.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, as well as quashing of charge sheets for the offences punishable under sections 406/ 409/ 420/ 201 read with section 120-B Crl.During investigation, it was also revealed that the said Corporate office of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi was sold to the petitioner by accused company through its Director/Authorised Representative, Ms. Madhu Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009 against a total sale consideration of Rs.2.25 crore (Rupees Two crore and twenty five lakhs).Investigation further revealed that on 12.09.2010, petitioner, individually as well as through his Company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. purchased 50 % equity of the accused company by paying a sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crores thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred).Based upon its investigation, investigating agency concluded as under:-"From the investigation conducted so far, evidence collected (oral as well as documentary), it is crystal clear and proved that accused Madhu Singh, Director of M/s AJS Builders Pvt. Ltd. in collusion and connivance with other associates i.e. Smt. Geeta Singh (sister in law) and Smt. Kailash Rani (mother), hatched a criminal conspiracy, with the common intention and sole object to cheat the innocent public right from the very beginning.Accused Harvinder Singh had also joined the accused Ms. Madhu Singh & others during the alleged period for the commission of the offences."Investigating agency arrived at a conclusion that the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, in respect of the property of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, is a sham transaction, purportedly executed by accused Ms. Madhu Singh to avoid its attachment.In order to sustain its conclusion, investigating agency has primarily relied upon following circumstances:-M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 42(a) The property has been purchased by the petitioner without due diligence and no bona fide purchaser would buy a property without originals of the previous chain, whereas stipulations 5 and 6 of the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, make it clear that original chain of the title documents was not furnished by the Vendor, which makes the Sale a sham transaction.(b) The property has been sold at a much cheaper price than its actual market price.To arrive at this conclusion, investigating agency is making reference of valuation of the said property at the time of seeking loan, when it was assessed as approximately Rs.7.57 Crore (Rupees Seven crore and fifty seven lakhs) in the year 2007 whereas, petitioner purchased the same in the year 2009 at a much less value of Rs.2.25 Crore (Rupees Two crore twenty five lakhs) only.(c) The payments which have been made to the Vendor by the Vendee have been reflected and corresponding debit / credit entries have been checked.After examination, Chartered Accountant (CA) stated that these transactions are sham transactions.(d) Statement of co-accused Ms. Madhu Singh, who subsequently claimed that the property in question was sold by her to the petitioner.The investigating agency is Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42 of the opinion that the property in question has been transferred with the apprehension that the said property could be attached by the investigating agency in order to recover the cheated funds collected from the investors.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42Further Investigating agency imputed the petitioner for witnessing the Agreement dated 05.02.2011, executed between M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and accused company, in respect of development of the project of accused company at Gurgaon, Haryana, which as per the investigating agency was detrimental to the interest of the investors.In order to sustain its claim that the petitioner was incharge for day to day functioning of the accused company, investigating agency has relied upon statement of one Mr. Harjit Singh, Director of M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. in addition to the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.During the course of proceedings before this Court, the complainants Mr. Keshav Sethi (in Crl.M.C.2977/2014), Ms. Kusum Jain (in Crl. M.C.2995/2014), Mr. Dev Raj (in Crl.M.C.3037/2014) and Mr. Vipul Kochar (in Crl.M.C.3023/2014) were impleaded as respondent No.2 on their respective applications.On 17.09.2014 learned counsel for the complainants Mr. Mohit Mathur, on instructions from Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted before this Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42 Court that he will move an appropriate application on behalf of the complainants for impleadement in all the respective petitions.However, on 23.09.2014 Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted that all the remaining complainants were not interested in moving impleadement applications.Thereafter, respondent No.2/ complainant filed reply.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42While impugning the conclusion of the investigating agency regarding culpability of the petitioner, Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the influence of Ms. Madhu Singh and a few well connected investors, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating agency.It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to sustain conjectural hypothesis about culpability of the petitioner, investigating officer has deliberately concealed vital facts and infact, has arbitrarily given deaf ears to the representations/ complaints of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has unfolded various illegal acts of Ms. Madhu Singh, Mr. Tejwant Singh, Mr. Harjit Singh, etc. and his victimization by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and others.It was argued that induced with the various projections of the accused company and its functionaries, petitioner and his family members also invested in Gurgaon Project of the accused company during the period 2007 to 2009, but despite specific complaints by the petitioner, none of his complaints have been considered by the investigating agency, whereas similarly circumstanced other investors have been arrayed as complainants / witnesses in the cases registered against the accused company.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 42It is case of the petitioner that like other investors, petitioner had visited the corporate office of the accused company for refund of his and his family members investments in the beginning of the year 2009, where he was trapped by accused Ms. Madhu Singh, Tejwant Singh and others to purchase property bearing no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, under the pretext that the accused company had invested its substantial liquidity towards purchase of major landholdings and thus is finding shortage of liquidity and the rumours about the bankruptcy of the accused company has caused damage to the extent that despite sound position, owing to the slump in realty sector, the Company was unable to fetch finances to meet out unprecedented demand of refund by investors.Per contra to the finding of the investigating agency that the petitioner did not conduct any due diligence before purchase of the property, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that before execution of the Sale Deed, petitioner had duly conducted due diligence of the property (both physical and title search) and had also obtained duly certified copies of the complete chain of title documents of the property which clearly reflected a clean title in favour of the accused company and since there was no encumbrance on the property, petitioner purchased the said property.To fortify his contentions, Mr. Daman Kohli has shown certified copies of the previous chain of title documents, copies of which have already placed on record.It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the Sale Deed, petitioner took possession of the First Floor of the property whereas built up structure on the 2nd floor of the property was retained by the sister concern of the Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42 accused company, from where even the accused company started operation of its business activities.It was also submitted that the delay in furnishing original title documents by the seller is clearly stipulated in the Sale Deed and it is with full caution that the petitioner got the complete chain of previous title documents duly stamped and signed by the seller on each and every page.Mr. Kohli also submitted that the nephew of Ms. Madhu Singh who is also a shareholder of the seller/ accused company is also a witness to the duly registered sale deed.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42It was also submitted by Mr. Kohli that victimization of petitioner subsisted when petitioner was further lured to part with substantial sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crore thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred), towards 50% equity of the accused company in favour of the petitioner and his company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.It was further submitted that on 05.02.2011, being the 50% equity holder of the accused company, petitioner also became witness to the execution of the Agreement executed inter se accused company and M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd.. Mr. Kohli has drawn my attention towards relevant clauses of the said Agreement, whereby M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. undertook to bear all costs and expenses for developing Housing Project of the accused company in Gurgaon, on the same terms on which the accused company has invited investments from different investors, besides undertaking to refund, if any of the investor in the said project of the accused company so desired.However, when the perpetuating dishonest and fraudulent intent of accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her associates became apparent to the petitioner, he made various representations disclosing their illegal acts and also his victimization.Attention has been drawn to various complaints/representations, addressed at all levels ranging from S.H.O. Mandir Marg, New Delhi to Commissioner of Delhi Police, but despite complaints/ representations disclosing commission of cognizable offence, no action has been taken by the investigating agency.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 42It was further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that endeavour of the investigating agency to array the petitioner as a conspirator with accused Ms. Madhu Singh, against whom the petitioner is fighting in different courts and forums, is liable to be deprecated.On mention by the counsel for the petitioner this fact is also not disputed that there are multiple complaints filed by the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42 against the threat to life extended to the petitioner by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her men.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42M.C. 3037/2014 The above applications are dismissed as infructuous.(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 3rd, 2015 hs Crl. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,518,374 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant, who is father in law of the deceased, who is involved in case crime no. 205 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Nauhjhil, District-Mathura is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 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. |
107,533,622 | The learned Government Advocate (Crl.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 M.DHANDAPANI,J.Side) appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1444 of 2004 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2005 submitted that the respondent in Crl.A.No.1444 of 2004/ first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2005 / A1 died during the pendancy of the appeal and revision.2.In view of the above submission, the criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision as against A1 is dismissed as abated.02.01.2019 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No1.The III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.2.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.pri Crl.A.No.1444 of 2004 And Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2005 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,540 | (i) One Perumal is the deceased.PWs.1 and 2 are the son and son-in-law of the deceased.The deceased is said to be a money lenderand it is claimed by the prosecution that he has advanced loan to the accused.It is stated by PW.3, wife of the deceased that on 11.06.2001, the deceasedcalled her for getting the repayment of loan from Bose (A-5).Both the deceasedand PW.3 went to one Sugar Cane Factory.The deceased and PW.3 frightenedand returned home.(ii) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e. on 12.06.2001 at 7.00a.m.while PW.3 was chatting in the opposite house, A-1 came to the house of thedeceased and took the deceased in his cycle.PW.3 enquired PW.1, her son, as towhat purpose A-1 is taking the deceased.PW.1 informed that the deceasedinformed him that he has to receive the dues from the persons working in theSewage Water Pumping Station (for short "pumping station") at KeelasanthaiPettaiand therefore he is going along with A-1 as a pillion rider while A-1 waspeddling the cycle.PW.3 stated to PW.1 and PW.2 that even on the previous daythere was a quarrel and therefore requested both PWs.1 and 2 to go and bringback the deceased.(iii) PWs.1 and 2 left the house in a motor cycle toKeelasanthaiPettai Pumping Station and reached the Pumping Station at 7.15 a.m.While PWs.1 and 2 went inside the pumping station they found A-1 stabbing thedeceased with a knife on his stomach.A-2 cut the deceased with a knife on hishead.A-3 attacked the deceased with a knife on his right fore arm and hip andalso on other parts. A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 cut the deceased with kniferepeatedly.PWs.1 and 2 raised hue and cry.The people who were working in thePumping Station rushed to the scene and the accused ran away with weapons bythreatening PWs.1 and 2 and others with dire consequences.Therefore, PWs.1 and2 went inside and found the deceased lying dead with pool of blood.PW.2, son-in-law of the deceased requested PW.1 to go to the police station to give areport and PW.2 was waiting at the scene.(iv) PW.1 went to Theppakulam Police Station and gave a writtenreport at 7.45 a.m. to PW.24, Inspector of Police.PW.24 on receipt of the sameregistered a case in Crime No.512 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302I.P.C. Ex.P.17 is the Express First Information Report.(v) PW.24 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared theobservation mahazar, Ex.P.18 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.19 in the presence of PW.6and another.He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased.P.5 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.The Doctor, PW.11, is of the opinionthat the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due toexternal injuries 1 to 4 and its corresponding internal injuries and cumulativeeffects of all the other injuries, 6 to 8 hours prior to post-mortem.He remanded A-1 to judicial custody.He remanded A-5 forjudicial custody.On 13.06.2001, he examined the constable who has taken theFirst Information Report and the body for post-mortem and also examined theDoctor who has conducted post-mortem and recorded their statements.Herecovered M.O.9, yellow colour towel, Shirt, M.O.10, Trouser, MO.11 and M.O.12,from the body of the deceased.On 14.06.2001, A-2 and A-4 surrendered beforethe Magistrate Court.On 18.06.2001, A-3 surrendered before the MagistrateCourt.On 18.06.2001 remanded A-2 and A-4 for police custody and on 23.08.2001he has taken them under police custody and in pursuance of the admissibleportion of the confessional statement, he recovered the knives, MOs.3 to 5 andthereafter he remanded them for judicial custody.(viii) On 05.09.2001, he arrested A-6 and in pursuance of hisadmissible portion of the confessional statement recovered two knives, MOs.6 and7 and thereafter remanded him for judicial custody.On 11.09.2001 he has given arequisition, Ex.P.15, for conducting Identification parade.On 14.09.2001, TheJudicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, P.W.21, conducted identification parade atthe Central Prison.He also examined theJudicial Magistrate.After examining some more witnesses he sent the materialobjects to the Judicial Magistrate with a requisition to send the same forchemical examination under Ex.P.22 and Ex.He received the ChemicalExamination Report, ExP.24 and Serologist Report, Ex.P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination thathe has found pamphlets at the scene.PW.23, Head Constable, categoricallystated in his cross-examination that there was a picketing from 7.00 a.m. to2.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence in respect of this case.It is alsoadmitted by him that photographers came and took the photographs of the body ofthe deceased and bloodstained pamphlets.PW.24, the Investigating Officer, alsoadmitted in his cross-examination that the police might have received thetelephonic message at 7.15 a.m. itself and there was a picketing in respect ofthis case.The appellants who havesuffered conviction and sentence have come forward with these appealschallenging their conviction and sentence convicting each of them under Section302 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and convictingeach of them under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo 6 monthsrigorous imprisonment and convicting each of them under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C.and sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment and all the sentencesordered to run concurrently.He has sent the body for post-mortem through a Constable.Herecovered from the scene blood stained earth, M.O.13 and sample earth, M.O.14under Ex.He also examined PWs.1 to 6 and others.Hefound the following injuries :(1)Oblique cut injury on the right side of neck 4 cm below the angle of mandible7 cm X 4 m X cervical bone deep.(2)Two antero posterior cut injuries on the left parietal area 1 cm and 3 cmlateral to midline each measuring 9 cm X 1 cm X bone deep and 8 cm X 1 cm X bonedeep respectively, separated by 2 cm(3)Two stab injury on the right lateral abdomen, 5 cm below the costal margin,one below the other, separated by 1.5 cm each measuring 5 cm X 1.5 cm X enteringinto abdominal cavity through which loops of intestine protruding out.(4)Oblique stab wound on front of right side of abdomen, 3 cm medial to woundNos.3, 4.5 cm X 1.5 cm X entering into abdominal vacity through which loops ofintestine protruding out.(5)Oblique stab wound right abdomen in 3.5 cm X 1 cm X 5 cm along with muscleplane.Direction downwards and backwards ends as a point.(6)Oblique stab wound on the left right lateral abdomen, 5 cm above iliac crest3.5 cm X 1 cm X 4 cm along the muscle plane.Direction downwards and backwards.(7)Oblique stab injury on the left side of neck, 4 cm below the angle ofmandible, measuring 3.5 cm X 1 cm X 5 cm along the muscle plane.Directiondownwards and backwards.(8)Three oblique stab wound on the left side of front of abdomen, 3 cm X 1cm Xentering into abdominal cavity each and separated by 3 cm in the front and 6 cmat the outer aspect.(9)Oblique stab injury below right ear 3.5 cm X 1 cm X 4 cm along the muscleplane.Direction - downwards and laterally, one end is curved, other endpointed, margins regular.(10)Antero posterior cut injury on the right fronto-tempero-parietal area 13 cmX 1.5 cm X bone deep.(11)Oblique cut injury mid-occipital area and behind the right ear lobe 6 cm X1.5 cm X bone deep.(12)Oblique cut injury right occipital area and behind the right ear lobe 6 cm X1.5 cm X bone deep.(13)Oblique cut injury 4 m x 1 cm X bone deep, 1 cm below and behind right earlobe.(14)Oblique cut injury on the right side of chin including the lower lip 5 cm X1 cm X bone deep.(15)Oblique cut injury on the left cheek, 3 cm in front of left ear, 6 cm X 2 cmx muscle-deep.(16)Vertically oblique cut injury on the left side of neck and the lower part ofleft ear lobule 8 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep and cutting the left ear lobule(17)Oblique cut injury extending from left side of supra-sternal notch to theleft anterior axillary line, measuring 19 cm X 3 cm X bone deep.(18)Oblique cut injury o the inner aspect of right hand 6 cm X 2.5 cm X bonedeep.(19)Oblique cut injury on the outer aspect of right wrist 5 cm X 3 cm X bonedeep above downwards.(20)Cut wound on the back of the base of right index finger 2 cm X .5 cm X bonedeep.(21)Three incised wounds on the front of left chest 1 cm below the middle ofleft clavicle each measuring 1.5 cm x .25 cm X skin deep, 1.5 cm X .25 cm X skindeep and 2 cm X .25 cm X skin deep separated by 1 cm and 1.5 cm.(22)Incised wound on the back of right wrist 2.5 cm X .25 cm X muscle deep withtailing upwards.(23)Incised wound on the back of right thumb 5 cm X .25 cm X skin deep withtailing upwards.(24)Oblique incised wound on the outer aspect of right upper arm 3.5 cm X .25 cmX skin deep with tailing downwards.(25)Oblique incised wound on the back of right side of abdomen 5 cm X .25 cm Xskin deep tailing outwards.(26)Oblique incised wound at the back of left hand and wrist 5 cm X .25 cm Xskin deep.(27)Oblique incised wound on the front of left side of neck close to midline 2cm X .25 cm X skin deep with tailing outwards.P.25 and also the Post-Mortem Certificate, Ex.After completing the investigation in this caseagainst all the accused, PW.24 filed charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 324,341 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against theaccused examined PWs.1 to 24, filed Exs.The accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearingagainst them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution.All the accuseddenied each and every incriminating circumstances and they said that they havebeen falsely implicated in this case.They have also marked Exs.D.1 to D.4 tosubstantiate their case to the effect that some of the accused were working atthe time of the occurrence in their office.Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A-4 andA-7, the appellants in Crl.A.No.940 of 2004, contended that the prosecution caseis suffering from infirmities and inconsistencies and the prosecution miserablyfailed to prove its case against the accused.The learned Senior counsel takenus meticulously through the materials available on record and made the followingsubmissions :PW.3, wife of thedeceased, stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and A-5 a dayprior to the occurrence in respect of the demand of the dues to the deceased.It is also the prosecution case that only while the deceased went to pumpingstation to getting the repayment of loans, the occurrence is said to have takenplace.But PW.24, Investigating Officer, categorically stated that A-5 has notreceived any loan from the deceased and further his investigation revealed thatthe deceased was not a money-lender.The case of PW.1 is that he along with P.W.2 left the house bymotor bike and they witnessed the occurrence at the pumping station at 7.15 a.m.and there he was requested by PW.2 to give a report to the police.The report,Ex.P.1 was given to PW.24 at 7.45 a.m. PW.1 has given a written report.PW.1further stated that he has narrated about the occurrence to the Inspector ofPolice (P.W.24) and he has not aware whether the Inspector reduced the same intowriting.He further stated that he has written the report in the policestation, whereas PW.24 stated that PW.1 handed over a written report.PW.22admitted that it would take only half an hour to reach the Magistrate Court.Therefore, it is very clear that PW.22 could not have received the FirstInformation Report at 8.00 a.m. and the First Information Report must have beenprepared belatedly after due concoction.There is also corrections andInterpolations in the First Information Report.(3)Pws.1 and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence.The claim of PW.1 thathe was witnessing the attack on the deceased for 10 minutes is highlyartificial.In Ex.P.1, the report, given by him has not stated that he alongwith PW.2 went and saw the deceased lying dead.PW.1 also not statedat what time PW.3 asked him to go and see his father, the deceased.PW.2admitted that he has informed about the occurrence first time only to thepolice.He has not asked PW.1 to take the motor bike to give the report.PW.2also stated that all the accused attacked the deceased at the same time andtherefore, it is impossible to state the overt act against each and everyaccused.(4)The evidence of PW.3 also unacceptable and unbelievable.PW.3 further statedthat PW.2 informed her that A-1 to A-3 and two unidentified persons cut thedeceased and ran away.(5)P.W.24 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned in theinquest report that Pws.1 and 2 are eye-witnesses.(6)The identification parade was conducted on 16.09.2001 by P.W.21, i.e. threemonths after the occurrence.PW.1 categorically admitted that he has seen allthe accused earlier and he has seen A-6 earlier to the occurrence while he wasdoing scavenger work in his Ward.Further, PW.1 admitted that he has also seenA-6 talking with his father, the deceased.PW.1 also admitted that he has seenA-7 for three four times while he was working at the pumping station.It isalso specifically admitted by PW.1 that he has not stated anything about A-7till the identification parade.Therefore, no value could be attached to theidentification parade.(8)PW.23, Head Constable, admitted that at 7.00 a.m. there was picketing and hewas present along with the Inspector and other police officials.The picketingwas going on from 7.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. It is also admitted by PW.23 thatPhotographer also taken photographs of blood stained pamphlets near the body ofthe deceased.PW.24, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he went to thescene of occurrence at 7.15 a.m. and there was a picketing in respect of thiscase.He also found the pamphlets at the scene.The Hand-writing experts alsocame there and taken the pamphlets and gave the same to him but he has not sentthose pamphlets to the Court.Therefore, it is clear that the assailants werenot known to the police for a long time and the present accused persons havebeen implicated falsely.This aspect also assumes importance in view of thedelay in First Information Report reaching the Court and that the occurrencecould not have been taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.Therefore, the entire case surrounded by suspicious circumstances.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, learned counsel appearing for A-5/appellant in Crl.A.No.572 of 2004, Mr.S.Kanagarajan, learned counsel appearingfor A-6/ Appellant in Crl.A.No.578 of 2004, Mr.P.Eshilnilavan, learned counselappearing for A-1 and A-3/Appellants in Crl.A.No.940 of 2004 and Mr.T.LajapathiRoy, learned counsel appearing for A-2/Appellant in Crl.A.111 of 2004, whileadopting the arguments of Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior counsel, submittedsome more points.It is contended by them that on the date of occurrence theaccused were working in their respective office.It is pointed out by them thatPW.19, Sanitary Inspector, stated that A-6 was working from 11.06.2001 to04.09.2001 and the Attendance Register is marked as Ex.D.1 PW.20, the HealthInspector, stated that on 12.06.2001 at 6.30 a.m., A-5 came for his work.It isfurther pointed out by the learned counsel that PW.24, the InvestigatingOfficer, has not produced the attendance Register and Muster Roll as the same isagainst the prosecution case.a.m. itself.Therefore, the prosecution has suppressed theearliest report.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contendedthat the prosecution has come forward with a clear and cogent version.It isalso submitted that the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, eye-witnesses, are quitenatural and there are no infirmities in their evidence.It is further submittedthat the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, eye-witnesses, is also corroborated by themedical evidence.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contendedthat though there are some lapses on the part of the investigation, on thatscore the entire prosecution case cannot be rejected.It is also pointed out bythe learned Additional Public Prosecutor that inconsistencies found in theevidence of Pws.1 to 3 not affected the main case of the prosecution.Thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that there is no delay ingiving the report to the police as the occurrence said to have taken place at7.15 a.m. and the report was given at 7.45 a.m. The learned Additional PublicProsecutor lastly contended that the involvement of the accused also proved bythe recovery of weapons in pursuance of their admissible portion of theconfession.We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to therival contentions made by both sides.The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of Pws.1and 2, eye-witnesses, in this case.PW.3, wife of the deceased, has spokenabout the motive for the occurrence.The fact remains all these witnesses,Pws.1 to 3 are closely related to the deceased as they are the son, son-in-lawand wife of the deceased and therefore they are interested witnesses.The motive part of the prosecution was mainly spoken by PW.3,who is the wife of the deceased.The deceased and PW.3 frightened and returned to theirhouse.It is further claimed by PW.3 that on the date of occurrencei.e. on 12.06.2001 at 7.00 a.m., she was chatting in the opposite house and atthat time A-1 came to her house and took the deceased and she asked her son,PW.1, the reason for A-1 taking the deceased in his cycle, PW.1 said to havereplied that the deceased was going along with A-1 for getting the repayment ofloan at pumping station and thereafter PW.3 stated that even on the previous daythere was a quarrel and therefore, she was having fear and requested Pws.1 and 2to go and bring back the deceased immediately.It is the case of theprosecution that only thereafter Pws.1 and 2 left for pumping station in a motorbike.This version of PW.3 is falsified by the evidence of PW.24, InvestigatingOfficer, in this case.PW.24 categorically admitted in his cross-examinationthat his investigation not disclosed that A-5 received any loan from thedeceased.It is further admitted by PW.24 that his investigation also notrevealed that the deceased was doing money lending business and no records wereseized on that aspect.Added to these versions, it is also pertinent to benoted that PW.3 during her examination by the police has not stated that on thedate of occurrence she saw the first accused taking the deceased in his cycleand enquired about the reason from PW.1 and after PW.1 informing that thedeceased was going to receive the repayment at pumping station and further shehas stated to PW.1 that she was having fear and directed Pws.1 and 2 to bringback the deceased immediately.This vital infirmity in the evidence of PW.3coupled with the evidence of PW.24 not only falsified the motive put forward bythe prosecution but also the reason for Pws.1 and 2, to leave the house in themotor bike and to go to the pumping station to bring back the deceased andthereafter alleged to have witnessed the occurrence.The above contradictions elicited from PW.3 and PW.24, theInvestigating Officer, make it crystal clear that PW.3 has come forward with aversion of informing Pws.1 and 2 that she is having fear and thereafterrequesting them to go and fetch the deceased immediately only for the first timebefore the Court.These infirmities raise serious doubt about Pws.1 and 2 goingto the pumping station and thereafter witnessing the alleged occurrence.The version of PW.2 thatafter the occurrence he asked PW.1 to go to the police station and to give areport is itself raises serious doubt.PW.1 claimed that he gave a written report to PW.24 underEx.It is highly unbelievable that PW.1 who is not a matured person to givea written report to the police as he was only a school student at that time andfurther if he has witnessed the occurrence he would be in shock and tensionafter seeing the attack on his father.PW.24 also stated in his chiefexamination that PW.1 has given a written report, Ex.He further admittedin his cross-examination that the report, Ex.P.1, was brought by P.W.1 to thepolice station.On the other hand, PW.1 claimed in his cross-examination thathe has written the report only at the police station.There is furthercontradiction in the evidence of PW.1 that PW.1 also stated in the cross that hehas narrated the occurrence to PW.24 and he was not remembering whether PW.24,Inspector of Police recorded the same or not.It is claimed by PW.1 in hiscross that PW.24, Inspector of Police, only gave a paper for writing the report.Apart from these suspicious circumstances regarding the report, Ex.P.1, thereare also corrections and interpolations found in Ex.PW.1 further admitted that Hand-writing between Ex.PW.24, Investigating Officer also admitted about the correctionsmade in the report, Ex.In Ex.P.1, it is also not stated by PW.1 that hewas asked by PW.2 to give a report to the police.Added to these infirmities,it is found in Ex.P.1 that place of residence of A-3 and A-4 also mentioned butP.W.1 has admitted in his cross that he was not aware about the father's name ofA-3 and A-4 and their place of residence.PW.1 claimed that he knows all theaccused even prior to the date of occurrence, but he has not mentioned the namesof A-6 and A-7 and their overt acts.It is further relevant to note that PW.1has seen A-6 while he was working in his Ward and also seen A-6 talking with hisfather, the deceased.PW.1 also admitted in cross that he has seen A-7 three orfour times and he has also aware A-7 was working in the pumping station and hehas also aware about their identification.But the fact remains as alreadystated, PW.1 not only written the names of A-6 and A-7 but also not given thedescription of identification of A-6 and A-7 in Ex.Therefore, there isserious doubt about the genuineness of the report, Ex.PW.1 or PW.2 not lifted the deceased after the occurrence.PW.1strangely not requested PW.2 to accompany with him to give the report.If theversion of Pws.1 and 2 is true that both of them have been threatened by theaccused, it is inherently impossible for PW.1 to go to the police station alone.The conduct of PW.1 also unnatural and unbelievable that soon after theoccurrence he has not thought it fit to go and inform about the occurrence tohis mother.Though PW.1 claimed in his evidence that one of the accused cut thedeceased with aruval, he has not mentioned in the report, Ex.P.1 about theaccused using the aruval at the time of occurrence.Added to all theseinfirmities, it is admitted by PW.1 in his cross-examination that he used to goto school at 6.30 a.m. itself but PW.1 claimed that on the date of occurrence hehas not attended the school as it happened to be a holiday.PW.24 admitted inhis cross-examination that he has not enquired whether PW.1 was studying in theschool and whether the school was functioning on the date of occurrence.Therefore there is serious doubt about the presence of PW.1 at the time ofoccurrence.The evidence of P.W.2, yet another eye-witness also surroundedby suspicious circumstances, as already stated.PW.2, being a responsibleperson, as he has admitted that he was sent by his mother-in-law, PW.3, alongwith PW.1 only to fetch the deceased as P.W.3 expressed fear.But curiouslyafter the occurrence neither he went to the police to give a report nor went tothe house to inform about the occurrence to PW.3, his mother-in-law.Hisconduct of not going to the police station immediately after the occurrenceraises serious doubt about his presence in the scene of occurrence.It isfurther relevant to note that he was also threatened by the accused with direconsequences.But strangely it is stated by him that he was remaining at thescene after the occurrence.PW.2 has not stated during his examination by thepolice that he was threatened by the accused.The conduct of PW.2 by notinforming anyone about the occurrence till he was examined by the police alsothrows considerable doubt about the veracity of his version.PW.2 furtheradmitted in his cross that he has parked the motor cycle outside the pumpingstation gate and the place of occurrence was not visible from that place.It isalso claimed by PW.2 that they went inside only for 5 feet and they have notproceeded further as all the accused were armed with weapons.It is furtheradmitted by PW.2 that even at that time he has not called the people outsidethough the occurrence took place 6 to 7 minutes and as they raised hue and crynearly 10 persons gathered at the scene and he has not able to state whathappened to that 10 persons after the occurrence.Added to these admissions, it is categorically admitted byPW.2 that all the accused attacked the deceased at the same time.If such beingthe position, it is impossible and improbable for PW.2 to state the specificovert act against each of the accused.The materials available on records disclosed thatthere are 5 wells in the pumping station.PW.1 stated that the occurrence tookplace near the back side well of the pumping station whereas PW.2 admitted inhis cross-examination that the occurrence took place on the left side of thefirst well of the pumping station.But the fact remains even PW.2 stated to thepolice during his examination that the occurrence said to have taken place onthe back side well of the pumping station.If the version of PWs.1 and 2 istaken, as per their earlier statement, that the occurrence is taken place on theback side of the pumping station, the undisputed fact remains that both PWs.1and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence as it is categorically admitted byPW.2 that he has parked the motor bike outside the gate and they went insideonly for 5 feet.A perusal of observation mahazar, Ex.P.18, also shows that thebody of the deceased was found 60 feet away from the main gate on the left handside of the well.A perusal of the rough sketch, Ex.P.19, shows that theInvestigating Officer, PW.24, has not noted about the blood stains found on thefloor.Therefore, there are contradictory versions in the evidence of P.Ws1.and 2 even regarding the exact place of occurrence rendering their evidenceunbelievable and unacceptable.PW.2 also not stated to the police that he went to the scene ofoccurrence in a motor cycle and soon after reaching the scene he has witnessedthe occurrence.PW.2 further admitted that he is aware that A-7 was working inthe pumping station but he has not stated so before the police during hisexamination.Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that PWs.1 and 2 areunreliable and untrustworthy witnesses as their evidence not at all inspires theconfidence of this Court.The Identification Parade conducted in this case also nothelpful to advance the case of the prosecution.The occurrence is said to havetaken place on 12.06.2001 and the identification parade was conducted only on16.09.2001 nearly three months after the occurrence.Added to this, the purposeof conducting identification parade is to identify A-6 and A-7 and in view ofthe admitted version both PWs.1 and 2 that they knew A-6 and A-7 even before theoccurrence and as such no value could be attached to the identification paradeand the same is a futile exercise.The yet another infirmity in the case of the prosecution is thatmost of the accused were admittedly working at their work spot on the fatefulday of occurrence.It is stated by PW.19, Sanitary Inspector, that A-6 wasworking from 11.06.2001 to 04.09.2001 and the Attendance register and musterroll is marked as Ex.D.1, to show that A-6 was working at the time of theoccurrence.PW.24 also admitted that he hasfound that A-5 was working on the date of occurrence from 6.00 a.m. as per theattendance register.But he has not recovered the attendance register and assuch this Court has to draw adverse inference against the case of theprosecution for withholding the material documents under Section 114 (g) of theIndian EvidenceThe yet another distributing feature in this case is thatadmittedly there was a picketing soon after the occurrence with a demand to findout the assailants.PW.24, also admitted that while he went to the scene of occurrencehe found the pamphlets and the Hand-writing experts were also present at thescene.PW.24 also went to the extent of admitting that he has even furnishedwith the pamphlets and other materials in respect of the occurrence.But he hasnot send the same to the Court.Coupled with these admitted facts, the delay inthe First Information Report reaching the Magistrate Court raises a very seriousdoubt about the genesis and origin of the occurrence.Therefore, it is crystalclear that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version.Therefore, in view of the above said infirmities,inconsistencies and improbabilities found in the prosecution case and on thereasons stated above, the appeals are allowed.The conviction and sentenceimposed on the appellants by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai, are set aside.Fine amount paid, if any, isdirected to be refunded.1)The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.2) - Do - thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.3)The Superintendent, Central Prison,4)The District Collector, Madurai.6)The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station,Madurai.7)The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
107,540,134 | The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.02.2011 on receipt of DD No.76B, SI Umesh Rana along with Ct.Manjeet reached at WZ 621, Gali No.2, Sri Nagar where the complainant Amarnath Gupta met him who produced one buttondar knife and informed that a robbery had been committed at his shop and Rs. 30-35 thousand were robbed and robbers left the knife at the spot.SI Umesh Rana prepared the sketch of knife, sealed and seized the same.SI Umesh Rana recorded the statement of Amarnath Gupta, prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct.Manjeet and Crime Team Official were also called at the spot who inspected the site and took photographs.(3) The complainant Amarnath Gupta showed CCTV footages of various cameras installed in the shop to SI Umesh Rana of the time of the incident on which SI Umesh Rana directed Amarnath Gupta to preserve the CCTV footage about the commission of offence and directed him to prepare the CD of CCTV footage and handed over to him.Amarnath Gupta also produced one shawl used by the robbers which was seized by the SI Umesh Rana.The complainant Amarnath Gupta informed the IO / SI Umesh Rana that on 04.02.2011 at about 9.45 PM he was sitting on the counter of his shop with his servants Shyam Bahadur and Vijay Bahadur when one person entered his shop who was having a knife in his hand and had his face covered with a handkerchief who put a knife on his back and asked him to handover whatever he has.The counsel further submits that the appellant Naeem was 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.He has a family comprising of father, mother, two younger sisters and two younger brothers.The crime was committed when he was in the prime of his youth thus, there is a probability that the appellant Naeem can be reformed and rehabilitated and prays for the lesser sentence.At the outset, we deem it proper to analyse the testimony of the complainant Amar Nath who was examined as PW11 who deposed in his examination-in-chief that his son Manoj (PW5) was running a business of tobacco at WZ-621, Gali No.2, Shri Nagar, Rani Bagh and CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 4 of 17 he also used to sit at the same shop.On 04.02.2011 at about 9:45 PM, PW11 alongwith his servants Shyam Bahadur (PW10) and Vijay Bahadur (PW6) were present at the shop.PW11 further deposed that one person whose face was covered with handkerchief and was armed with a knife entered his shop.The person had put the knife on his back and asked him to handover the things in his possession.Subsequently, another person entered the shop whose body was covered with shawl and was also armed with a knife.Thereafter, the second boy attacked Vijay Bahadur (PW6) while the first boy kept the knife on his back.In the meantime, the other servant namely Shyam Bahadur (PW10) caught hold of one of the boys and in this process PW10, the boy and PW11 fell on the ground.It was further deposed by PW11 that at the same time, the third boy entered the shop who was armed with a pistol and took out cash from the cash box.In this process, Vijay Bahadur (PW6) lifted a chair and threw the same on the back of those persons as a result of which some money fell on the ground.All the boys fled away from the spot but the knife which was put on the back of PW11 and the shawl which was worn by the other person was left at the spot.Police came to the spot and recorded his statement which was proved by him as Ex.PW11/A. The knife and the shawl was handed over to the Police which was seized vide memos Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW7/B. PW11 correctly identified the two accused persons in the Trial Court but failed to name them.The Trial Court observed the names of the two accused persons as Sarfaraz and Naeem (the appellant herein).PW11 identified the appellant Naeem as the boy who kept a knife on him and co-accused Sarfaraz as the boy CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 5 of 17 who was having a shawl wrapped around him.PW11 also correctly identified the knife as the same which was left at the spot by the appellant Naeem and which was handed over by him to the Investigating Officer.The shawl which was handed over by him to the Investigating Officer was also correctly identified by him in the Trial Court.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 4 of 17CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 5 of 17PW11 stated that he did not give any information to the Police regarding theft of rupees one lakh at the time when PCR call was made and had voluntarily explained that the said information was given to the Police after their arrival at the spot.PW11 further stated that the Police had reached the spot after 4-5 minutes after the call.Thereafter, the PCR officials left after about 5-7 minutes but the local police remained till late at night and carried out the necessary investigation.PW11 did not sustain any injuries during the incident.The entire incident lasted for one to one and a half minute.The shawl was left by the assailants near the counter of his shop.The knife and the shawl were handed over by PW11 to the Police.PW11/A, he had only mentioned the fact regarding the robbery of the cash amount from the cash box, but not regarding some amount having fallen down while the boys were running away.PW6 deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was working for the last ten years at the shop of PW11 Amar Nath who was running a business of wholesale of Tobacco products.On 04.02.2011, he alongwith Shyam Bahadur (PW10) and Amar Nath (PW11) were present at the shop.At about 9:45 PM, three boys came to the shop.Initially one boy entered inside the shop, who was carrying a knife.The said boy was followed by another boy who was having a shawl wrapped around him and subsequently the third boy followed them, who was armed with a pistol.The first boy put the knife on PW11 Amar Nath, the second boy who was wearing a shawl pointed the knife to him and PW10 Shyam Bahadur.When the third boy armed with a pistol entered the shop, they started raising an alarm, whereupon the shawl of the second boy slipped and fell down.PW6 recognised him after falling of his shawl and hit him with a chair which was kept in the shop.Thereafter, all the boys fled away from the shop.Learned APP for the State in the Trial Court sought permission to ask leading questions to PW6 whereby it was deposed by him that his statement was recorded by the Police at the shop.PW6 admitted that he had stated to the Police that the person who was carrying a pistol had removed the money from the cash box.PW6 further admitted that he told the Police that four boys had come to the spot and out of these two boys carried knives, one of whom had shown the knife to him and the other had shown the knife to PW10 Shyam Bahadur.The other boy armed with a katta was standing outside and was the one who came inside the shop at last and CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 7 of 17 removed the money from the cash box.PW6 clarified that earlier he had stated that three persons had entered the shop, as he could not see the fourth one who was standing outside the shop.It was further deposed by PW6 that he had informed the Police that out of the four boys, two boys had covered their faces with handkerchief.PW6 identified co- accused Shahjad in the TIP proceedings conducted at Tihar Jail.The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated 16.02.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the appellant Naeem alongwith other four co-accused have been convicted under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').Challenge is also laid to the order on sentence dated 28.02.2013 whereby the appellant Naeem was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC.At the outset, it would be necessary to mention that the appeals preferred by the other co-accused namely Mohd. Azad Alam, Mohd. Arif, Shahjad and Sarfaraz @ Sonu bearing No's Crl. A.629/2013, CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 1 of 17 888/2013, 1132/2013 and 418/2014 respectively were decided vide a separate judgment dated 01.09.2014 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 1 of 17At the same time, another person entered in the shop who was having a shawl around his body and he attacked Vijay Bahadur and while first boy was keeping the knife on his back on which his servant Shyam Bahadur had caught hold that person and in this process Shyam Bahadur, that boy and he (complainant) fell on the ground when at the same time third boy entered the shop who was having a pistol in CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 2 of 17 his left hand and took out the cash from the Galla / cash box and went towards the outside and in this process his servant Vijay Bahadur had lifted a chair and threw the same on the back of those persons as a result of which some money also fell on ground but those boys finally succeeded in running away from the spot.Thereafter a call was made at 100 number."CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 2 of 174. Charge under Sections 395/397/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons namely Mohd. Azad Alam, Shahzad, Naeem @ Naimuddin, Mohd. Arif and Sarfaraz @ Sonu.Additionally, a charge under Section 25 of Arms Act was also framed against the accused Sarfaraz @ Sonu.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.The statement of the appellant Naeem was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.He was lifted by the Police officials from the Rohini Court Complex while he went to attend the Court proceedings in some other matter.The appellant examined 3 witnesses in his defence.Mr. K. Singhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Naeem submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 3 of 17Per contra, Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned APP for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment and the order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.Counsel for the State submits that the case of the prosecution is duly proved by the eye witnesses account of PW6, PW10 and PW11 who have given a vivid description as to how the incident took place.It is contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the visuals of the CCTV footage.Having regard to the evidence on record, the Trial Court has correctly analysed the evidence and convicted the appellant Naeem and the other co-accused.The statement of PW11 was recorded by the Police.It was further admitted by PW11 that his family resides at the first floor of the shop.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 6 of 17The next eye witness relied upon by the prosecution was PW6 Vijay Bahadur who was working as a servant in the shop of PW11 on the fateful night of the incident.PW6 identified the appellant Naeem and other co-accused who were found present in the Trial Court.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 7 of 17In his cross-examination, the following question was put to PW6 with regard to the identification of the accused persons:"Q: How could you identify the accused when their faces were covered?Ans: I could identify the accused because two boys had earlier come on the pretext of making some purchases and when these boys came later they were wearing the same clothes and one of the boys who had covered his face with the shawl, I could identify because during the altercation his shawl had fallen down."It was further stated by PW6 that the two accused had come about half an hour prior to the incident which took place around 9.45 PM.The accused had entered one by one in quick succession and not after any gap of time.PW6 denied the suggestion that there were no chairs in the shop and has voluntarily stated that he had hit one of the accused with a chair.Another eye witness of the incident was PW10 Shyam Bahadur who was also working as a servant in the shop of PW11 Amar Nath.PW10 deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 04.02.2011 at about 9.45 CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 8 of 17 PM, he along with PW11 Amarnath and PW6 Vijay Bahadur were present at the shop.PW10 further deposed that five persons had entered the shop, out of which one person entered with a knife and put it on the back of PW11 Amar Nath and asked him to handover the things in his possession.It was further deposed by PW10 that when he tried to apprehend that person, at the same time, another person came in the shop who was wrapped in a shawl and also armed with a knife caught PW6 Vijay Bahadur.PW10 further deposed that he made the first person lie on the ground and at the same time third person entered the shop who was armed with a katta and took out money from the cash box while the other two persons remained standing near the counter.PW6 Vijay Bahadur had thrown a chair towards those persons as a result of which some money fell on the ground and thereafter all the five persons fled away from the spot.The assailants left a knife and a shawl while they were fleeing away from the spot.PW10 identified all the assailants thrice i.e. firstly; at the shop, secondly; at the Police Station and thirdly; at the Trial Court.PW10 identified all the accused persons by pointing towards them in the Trial Court.The APP for the State sought permission to put leading questions to PW10 whereby it was deposed by him that it was PW6 Vijay Bahadur who was present at the shop and clarified that it was PW6 who lifted the chair and had thrown the same towards the accused persons as a result of which the two boys fell down.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 8 of 17The prosecution has been able to successfully establish that PW11 Amar Nath along with his son PW5 Manoj Kumar were running a business of wholesale of Tobacco products at WZ-621, Gali No.2, Shri CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 9 of 17 Nagar, Rani Bagh and Shyam Bahadur (PW10) and Vijay Bahadur (PW6) were employed in the said shop of PW11 Amar Nath.The four CCTV Cameras were installed at the shop out of which Camera 1 and 2 i.e. CH-1 & CH-2 were installed at the shop on the front portion of the building where the sale/purchase work was done and the camera 3 and 4 i.e. CH-3 & CH-4 were installed on the back portion of the building which was used as a godown.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 9 of 17Reading the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses alongwith the entire evidence available on record shows that there are no material contradictions which go to the root of the matter and their testimonies remain consistent on all material particulars.The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant Naeem who entered the shop armed with a knife and his face was covered with a small handkerchief.The appellant Naeem put a knife on the back of PW11 Amar Nath and committed the charged offence with the other co- accused.The prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the guilt CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 10 of 17 of the appellant Naeem beyond reasonable doubt.CRL.A. 47/2017 Page 13 of 17i) The incident of dacoity was committed after sunset during night hours;ii) The appellant Naeem had criminal antecedents and was declared as Bad Character (BC) of the area;iii) Whenever the appellant Naeem was released on bail, he was invariably found involved in some other criminal case;iv) The attack was made at the shop of PW11 Amar Nath who was a senior citizen of 71 years of age.The State has submitted a status report dated 20.09.2017 which was filed under the signature of the SHO Police Station Subhash Place.The relevant part reads as under:Imposition of sentence without considering its impact on social order may be in reality, a futile exercise.The sentence imposed upon the accused must reflect public abhorrence of the crime.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.Crl.M(B) No. 1328/2017 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,301,435 | With these submissions, bail has been sought.To this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that although case has been registered against the applicant but he has not been convicted so far.The prosecution story in short was that applicant was instrumental in alloting the land to his relatives who were not landless persons who could only be allotted pattas of land.The tehsildar, on scrutiny of the recommendation sent by the applicant exposed malafides of applicant.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.12412 of 2020 is allowed and stands disposed of.Certified copy as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2020.05.27 10:31:37 +05'30' | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,019,562 | Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondents.The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing of FIR dated 29.2.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0095 of 2020 under Section 498A, 323,504,506,307,452,354A, 354B IPC and 3/4 of DP Act, PS Rohaniya, District Varanasi.It will be open to petitioner no. 1 to avail other remedies available to him in law.Order Date :- 16.6.2020 SKS | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,302,133 | (Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 18.2.2016, passed in No.142/BCDFGISSV/2016 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the third respondent herein, against the detenu, by name J.John Lazar, son of P.L.Joseph, and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:(1) Central Crime Crime No.146 of 2015, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal CodeFurther, it is averred in the affidavit that one Sadharam Ammal, wife of Alagarsamy, as defacto complainant, has lodged a complaint against the detenu in Central Crime Branch and the same has been registered in Crime No.147 of 2015 under sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. | ['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,025,494 | (e) Hair begins to appear on the chin and the upper lip between 16 and 18 years.The development of the breasts in girls commences from 13 to 14 years; however, it is liable to be affected by loose habits and social environments.During adolescence, the harmone flux acts and the breasts develop through the following stages:(i) Breast and papila are elevated as a small mound, and there is enlargement of areolar diameter.(ii) More elevation and enlargement of breast and areola, but their contours are not separate.____________________________________________________________________ Judgment ( Passed on this 22nd day of March, 2018 ) The present criminal appeal is arising out of judgment dated 16.11.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.96/2013 by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora linked with Ratlam Sessions Court, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause to undergo 6 months SI.He has also been convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years RI along with fine of Rs.15,000/- with default clause to undergo 6 months SI.As per prosecution case, the FIR was lodged on 01.11.12 by father of the prosecutrix stating that his younger daughter Sona Kunwar, who is a student of class IX had gone to the school and was studying in the school.At about 6:00 pm in the evening on Saturday, when he was inside the house and his daughter Sona Kunwar was standing at the door of the house, the sales man of liquor contractor Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 2 alongwith his friend took away her forcibly and when the father came out, he was given a threat of life.Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 2The accused person was arrested on 21/01/2013 and the charge-sheet was filed, and thereafter, charges were framed for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 344 and 506 of IPC.The prosecution has examined the following witnesses- Nahar Singh (PW-1), Gopal Kunwar Bai (PW-2), Bane Singh(PW-3), Sher Singh (PW-4), Lal Singh (PW-5), Pawan Singh (PW-6), Satish Tiwari (PW-7), Saligram Patidar (PW-8), Amjad (PW-9), Mahendra Dagar (PW-10), H.N. Mehar (PW-11), Dr.L.N. Suryavanshi (PW-12), Jagdish Malviya (PW-13), Kailash Joshi (PW-14), Rameshchandra (PW-15), D.P.L. Dayma (PW-16), Sona Kunwar Bai (PW-17) and Dr.Vidya Lahri (PW-18).The father of the girl has categorically stated before the trial Court that his daughter was forcibly taken by the present appellant and the consequential report was lodged with the police.His statement is corroborated by the statements of the witnesses- Gopal Kunwar Bai (PW-2), Bane Singh (PW-3), Sher singh (PW-4), Lal Singh (PW-5) and Pawan Singh (PW-6).The prosecutrix Sona Kunwar Bai (PW-17) has been examined before the trial Court.She has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief, however, in the cross-examination, she has admitted the fact that she was residing with the appellant in a rented house and she has lived with the appellant for almost three months.Her statements also reveal that after she was taken away by the present appellant, she has visited large number of places and finally, they were living together in Nimbakheda.It is true that she has stated about the sexual relationship in specific terms, but the fact remains that she has lived with the present appellant for almost three months Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 3 and in those circumstances, the trial Court has held that it is clear-cut case of consent.Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 3The prosecutrix and the appellant have lived in the house of one Amzad (PW-9), who has stated before the trial Court that the present appellant and the prosecutrix were living in his house like husband and wife.They were residing happily in his house and were paying the rent as tenant.The only ground on which the appellant has been convicted is the age of the prosecutrix.As per the scholar register, she is aged about 15 years 1 month and 24 days, whereas the medical examination (Exhibit P-9) and the statement of the doctor(PW-18) reveals that the girt was having secondary sex character which began to appear between 16 to 18 years of age.In the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23 rd Edition, Page 296, Secondary Sex Characters have been detailed as under:-"(4) Secondary Sex Characters -The growth of hair appears first on the pubis and then in the axillae (armpits).Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 4(iv) Adult stage- only the papilla projects and the areola merges with the general contour of the breast.Boys develop a deep voice between 16 and 18 years when pomum adami becomes more prominent.Hair on the head ends to become grey usually after 40 years of age and silvery white in advanced old age.Grey hair is sometimes seen among young people.In a few cases, it is a hereditary peculiarity.Cases have occurred in which the hair of the head has suddenly changed to grey from extreme terror, grief, shock or some unaccountable reason.A case has been recorded in which hair turned snow-white a day or two after an automobile accident.Circumscribed patches of grey hair on the head may also be due to tropic changes produced by neuralgia or other diseases affecting the fifth nerve.Wrinkles on the fact begin to appear after this age; but no reliance can be placed on these signs inasmuch as arcus senilis has been seen as early as twenty-eight and wrinkles may not appear until a very late age, as they depend more or less on the nutrition of th body.A horoscope may form a very important piece of Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 5 evidence in deciding the question of age, but everyone knows how easy it is to produce a fictitious one.Birth registers maintained in municipalities may be of much assistance in determining the age of a particular individual, as the names of children are now given in the registers.Entries in school registers and matriculation certificates regarding age can now be generally depended upon."Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 5Meaning thereby, in light of the MLC report and the statement of the doctor that her secondary sexual characters were fully developed and in absence of any connecting evidence like ossification test, report of radiologist and the scholar register cannot be treated as a gospel truth.The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the almost similar matter in the case of State of M.P. Vs.Munna, (2016) 1 SCC 696, para 6 to 13 has held as under:-The High Court while setting aside the Trial Court judgment rightly appraised the evidence on record and held that the sexual intercourse was consensual.In her statement the prosecutrix (PW5) states that she was sleeping between her mother and brother and the accused had reached her after hopping over them and he dragged her into another room on the point of a knife.However, sneaking in with such ease is highly doubtful.Even if the accused made it through to the prosecutrix, it seems unnatural that the prosecutrix was not alarmed by the knife upon being awaken from her sleep.It is also to be noted that the prosecution never recovered any knife.Further examination of the statement of PW5 that the accused and the prosecutrix remained in the room for couple of hours and it was only when her mother and elder sister came searching for her that the prosecutrix was found in the room with the accused, hiding behind the bags.The above narration leads to the inference that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Section 375 (as it stood before the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states -The prosecutrix was examined as PW5 but the prosecution failed to question the prosecutrix on her age, therefore no fact could be gathered from her regarding the issue of age.PW6 Malti Devi mother of the prosecutrix was examined where she stated the age of prosecutrix to be 13 years.However, in her cross-examination, she stated that her marriage was performed about 20 years ago and after two years of her marriage the elder daughter (Sunita) was born, and 2-3 years thereafter the prosecutrix was born.It means that the prosecutrix was aged about 15- 16 years at the time of the incident.But this is not sufficient to come to any conclusion about the exact age of the prosecutrix.It appears that the Ossification Test X-ray report is not sufficient to prove the age of the girl.Further, the mother of the prosecutrix also was not able to give the exact age of the prosecutrix.No question was also asked to the prosecutrix by the prosecution about her age.Taking into account all these facts, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has totally failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident.Therefore, the High Court presumed that the girl was more than 16 years of age and was competent to Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 7 give her consent.Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 7It would be quite unsafe to base conviction on an approximate date."In view of the evidence on record and the rationale in the aforementioned cases, we are of a considered view that the prosecution has totally failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."Criminal Appeal No.1644/2015 8She was certainly a grown up girl. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,027,241 | At 7:30 a.m. they had reached a bump on the road near village Radhamadhabpur within Gangajalghati Police Station.As a result the vehicle slowed down and at that time 3/4 persons came running towards the vehicle.Felu has identified Raju Dubey, (appellant in CRA 437/11) as one of them.Raju identified the vehicle to the other persons and bombs were thrown at the vehicle.Consequentially, Araha Bajpayee as well as Felu suffered injuries.The miscreants ran away towards Bhadragora in two motor cycles.Both Araha and his driver Felu were shifted to Amarkanon hospital.Araha was declared dead and Felu was shifted to Bankura hospital in injured condition.Statement of Felu was reduced into writing in the hospital by Jitendra Nath Mukherjee (P.W. 15), the then inspector-in-charge of Bankura police station and treated as FIR being Gangajalghati PS Case no. 5 of 2007 dated 13.1.2007 against Raju Dubey and four unknown accused persons.In the FIR it was alleged that Raju had been threatening his master Araha with murder for some time in the past.In the course of investigation the appellants and other accused persons were arrested.On the leading statement of Raju Dubey improvised fire arm, maroon coloured attach case, mobile phone and a motor cycle allegedly used during the incident were recovered.They reached a bumper at Manasatala at village Radhamadhabpur.He slowed down the vehicle to navigate the bumper.At that time three persons came running towards the Scorpio.at 7.00 a.m. Araha Bajpayee deceased herein, had left his petrol pump in a Scorpio vehicle bearing No.WB38N/7512 which was driven by Felu Tewari (PW 1).Similarly, on the showing of Raja Basu Roy @ Ujjal Guha (since deceased) and Ashok Roy, improvised fire arms, ash coloured attach case containing documents belonging to petrol pump owned by the deceased and other articles were seized.Arms expert (P.W. 26) opined seized fire arms were in working condition.In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and one Pradyut Mondal and Fajlur Rahaman.Charges were framed under Sections 120B, 302/34 & 307/34 IPC, 25/27 of the Arms Act, 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act and 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act against the appellants and other accused persons.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses to establish its case and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgement and order dated 7.6.2011 & 9.6.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.However, by the self-same judgment and order, co-accused persons Pradyut Mondal and Fajlur Rahaman were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.During the pendency of the appeals, Raja Basu Roy expired.Learned senior counsel appearing for Raju Dubey (appellant no. 2 in CRA 437 /11) argued that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the sole eye-witness PW 1 is not a reliable witness.PW 1 embellished his version in court with regard to the role of Raju Dubey in the incident.While in the FIR, PW 1 had claimed Raju had identified the vehicle to other miscreants who threw bombs, in court he stated Raju and others threw bombs at Araha Bajpayee resulting in his death.It is also submitted PW 1 had not disclosed the identity of the miscreants at the first instance before the medical officers at Amarkanon or Bankura hospital.Subsequent statement made by him to P.W 15 appears to be an afterthought and is not corroborated by PWThreats held by Raju to the deceased on earlier occasion has also not been proved.Letter written by Raju has not been produced in court.Evidence of PWs 8 and 21 with regard to extra judicial confession made by Raju over phone and his demanding a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs are patently absurd and have not been supported by independent witnesses.There is no evidence on record that the deceased suffered gun-shot injuries and recovery of fire arms on the showing of appellants have not been proved beyond doubt.Manner in which the victim and Felu were shifted to hospital is unclear.While Felu (PW 1) claimed both of them went in ambulance, PW 20 deposed that Araha was taken in a different vehicle.Senior Counsel relied on various authorities in support of his contention.Learned counsel appearing for Milon Tiwari (appellant no.1 in CRA 437 OF 2011) argued that his client has not been identified by PW 1 as one of the miscreants who had thrown bombs at the victim.His complicity is based on the uncorroborated evidence of PW 8 that Raju Dubey claimed that mobile connection no. 9932248892 belonged to his client.No report from the service provider establishing such fact has been placed on record.Although a remark is made in the seizure list (Ext 16) alleging motor cycle seized pursuant to the leading statement of Raju Dubey belonged to Milon Tiwari, no registration certificate endorsing such fact has been proved.PW 1 has not given out the registration mark of motor cycle used by the miscreants to flee from the spot.Such incriminating fact has also not been placed before the appellant for his explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, his client is entitled to an order of acquittal.Learned counsel appearing for Ashok Roy (appellant in CRA 391 of 2011) argued that there is no evidence to show that his client was present at the place of occurrence.PW 1 has not identified his client in court as one of the miscreants who threw bombs at the deceased.Recovery of firearm pursuant to the leading statement of his client has not been proved.There is no evidence to show that the victim had died due to gun shot injuries.With regard to the recovery of attache case it is submitted that the independent witness to the seizure had not identified his client in court.There is no evidence that the miscreants had carried away attache cases belonging to the deceased from the vehicle after throwing bombs at him.Hence, his client is entitled to an order of acquittal.All the appellants submitted separate written arguments to supplement the aforesaid oral submissions.In response, learned Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Roy Chowdhury and Mr. Gupta argued that evidence of injured eye-witness PW 1 clearly shows that Raju Dubey and others had thrown bombs at himself and his master, Araha, resulting the latter's death.At the earliest opportunity his statement was recorded and the said witness has disclosed the role of Raju in court also.Soon after the incident, Raju had telephonic conversations with one Sakti Kesh (who could not be examined during trial as he had died earlier) stating that he had murdered the deceased.Thereafter Raju made similar assertion to P.W 8 and P.W 21 and demanded Rs.20 lakh from them.Roles of other appellants had transpired from the extra-judicial confession of Raju.On the leading statement of the appellants firearms as well as personal assets of the deceased were recovered.Evidence of Injured Eye-witness, P.W. 1 Analysis of the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties show that the prosecution case is pivoted on the evidence of the injured witness, Felu Tewari (P.W 1).He was the driver of the deceased Araha Bajpayee and on 13.01.2007 on the morning they proceeded in a Scorpio vehicle towards Durlavpur.Raju was one of the miscreants.Thereafter they hurled bombs at the vehicle.He suffered injuries on his head and body and fell down on the seat.His master, Araha Bajpayee, also suffered injuries.They were taken to Amarkanan Hospital.From there they were referred to Bankura Medical College and Hospital.He met Sakti Kesh and informed him that Raju had hurled bombs at random at him and Araha Bajpayee.At Bankura Hospital he disclosed the entire incident to I.C. Bankura, who reduced his statement into writing.He put his left thumb impression on the document.He further deposed that Araha Bajpayee was carrying two attache cases, one was maroon and another was ash in colour in that vehicle.He made statement before the learned Magistrate.He identified Raju in Court.He deposed that he came to learn from villagers that miscreants were five in number and proceeded towards Bhadra More on two motor-cycles.In cross-examination, he admitted that there was no identification mark in the attache cases.He stated that he saw three persons at a distance of 5 to 6 cubics from the vehicle.He had not stated to I.C., Bankura that one person had identified the vehicle and other two had hurled bombs.Evidence of the aforesaid witness has been severely criticized by the appellants on the following score:-(1) P.W.1 had not disclosed the name of Raju Dubey at the first opportunity to the doctors who treated him at Amarkanan Hospital and Bankura Medical College and Hospital.(2) Statement of PW 1 reduced into writing by PW 15, the then inspector-(3) P.W. 20 also did not corroborate evidence of P.W. 1 that the latter along with the deceased Araha Bajpayee had been taken together to the hospital in an ambulance.On the contrary, P.W. 20 deposed Araha Bajpayee was taken to the hospital in a different vehicle driven by the said witness.(4) His evidence in court with regard to role of Raju Dubey is at variance to that in the F.I.R. While in F.I.R. he stated Raju had identified the vehicle to other miscreants who threw bombs, in Court he stated that Raju along with others threw bombs.In view of the evidence on record particularly that of the medical witnesses Dr. Nirjhar Bhattacharya (P.W 13) and Dr. Abhijit Bhattacharya (P.W 14), I have no doubt in my mind P.W 1 who was driving the vehicle of Araha Bajpayee was attacked with bombs resulting in bomb blast injuries on both of them.P.W 13 was the Assistant Professor attached to the Department of Surgery, Bankura Medical College & Hospital under whom Felu Tewari was admitted in the hospital.He treated the patient and found bomb blast injuries on his hands and scalp.He also noted lacerated injury on the right side of his face.He proved the medical papers marked as "Exbt-6" series.He deposed the injuries on the patient was likely to cause death.From the aforesaid evidence it is established beyond doubt that P.W 1 is an injured eyewitness to the incident.However, referring to the cross- examination of P.W 13 it has been argued that Felu did not disclose the names of the assailants to the medical officer.I am not impressed by such submission.P.W 1 had explained during cross-examination that he had not disclosed the name of the assailants to the medical officer.Hence, failure to record the names of assailants in the medical records, in my considered opinion, does not affect the truthfulness of the case.On the other hand, P.W 15, Jitendra Nath Mukherjee, the then Inspector-in-Charge of Bankura Police Station, had interrogated the injured witness on the self-same day and had reduced his statement into writing.In his statement, P.W. 1 clearly stated that Raju and other miscreants had attacked the vehicle with bombs.Evidence of P.W 15 is corroborated by P.W 25, S.I. Alamgir, who accompanied him to the hospital.Evidence of these witnesses with regard to registration of FIR are not contradicted by PW 20 as contended by the appellants.PW 20 deposed regarding disclosure of names of assailants at Amarkanon hospital by PW 1 which had not been reduced to writing by police.Hence, there is no contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to registration of FIR.Registration of F.I.R. at the earliest disclosing the incident including the role of Raju Dubey therein, therefore, removes any possibility of false implication.Furthermore, evidence has come on record at Amarkanan Hospital PW 1 had disclosed the name of Raju Dubey to Sakti Kesh (employees of the deceased, Araha Bajpayee) as one of the assailants.Unfortunately, Sakti Kesh had died and could not be examined during trial.P.W 8, Shiba Prasad Tewary @ Kanu Tewari, deposed that Sakti Kesh told him that he had heard from Felu that Raju Dubey was one of the miscreants.P.W.20 arrived at the spot first and took the deceased to hospital.Felu regained his senses and told him Raju and his associates hurled bombs at the vehicle of Araha Da.Sakti Kesh had also heard everything from Felu.His evidence is corroborated by P.W.1, Felu who deposed that he narrated the incident to Sakti Kesh.In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, particularly, conversation between Felu, P.W.1 on the one hand and P.W.20, Munsi Ahamad Hossain and Sakti Kesh on the other hand at Amarkanon hospital and the prompt registration of first information report by PW 15 disclosing the role of Raju Dubey in the incident, non-disclosure of his name in the hospital records loses significance.One cannot also lose sight of the fact that Raju Dubey is a powerful man in the locality who had threatened Araha Bajpayee, master of P.W.1 Felu Tewari prior to the incident.While in FIR, Felu argued Raju had identified vehicle to other miscreants who threw bombs at them, in court the witnesses deposed when the vehicle had slowed near a bump three persons came from behind and threw bombs at the vehicle resulting in bomb blast injuries on himself and the deceased.One of those persons was Raju Dubey.In this backdrop minor contradiction with regard to the role of Raju Dubey i.e. whether he pointed out the vehicle to other miscreants who threw bombs or all of them had thrown bombs is of little consequence.Raju Dubey along with others had come in a body armed with bombs and some of them from the group had thrown bombs at the vehicle resulting in the death of Araha.Post mortem doctor, Biswajit Sukul, P.W.22 found multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to the explosion of bombs, ante mortem and homicidal in nature.Hence, pre-concert, presence and participation of Raju Dubey in the murder of the deceased is wholly established.P.W.8 deposed on hearing the news he had gone to hospital and found Araha had been declared dead.Sakti Kesh told him Felu had narrated the incident to him and disclosed the name of Raju Dubey.At 1.30 P.M. Shakti talked to Raju Dubey on his mobile phone bearing no.9932248886 and switched on the loud speaker of the phone during the conversation.Raju admitted that he had killed Araha and threatened he would kill them.Subsequently, on 14.01.2007 while the witness was with P.W.21 Dilip Adhikary, Raju phoned Dilip on his mobile and threatened that he had finished Araha and would also finish them next.In the evening, P.W.8 himself received threatening call from Raju from phone number 9732128513 who demanded Rs.2 lakhs and claimed he along with Dukhia, Nabin, Raja Basu Roy and Ashok Roy had killed Araha.Raju stated he was using the mobile phone of Milan Tewary.He deposed on 14.01.2007 he received a phone call on his mobile number from a person who stated he was Raju Dubey and that person told him that he had killed his partner and asked him to make arrangement for Rs.2 lakhs.He claimed he had sold the mobile phone to Raju Dubey for Rs. 1,000/-.He had come to know Raju at the time when Raju's child was being born at Jibandeep nursing home.He identified the mobile phone produced in court.From the call records it appears on 13.01.2007 two phone calls were made around 9 A.M. from 9932248886(belonging to Sakit Kesh as per PW 8) to 9333917563(belonging to Raju Dubey as per PW 2).On that day around 1 P.M. two phone calls again were made from mobile number between the aforesaid two mobile phone connections.Similarly on the selfsame day at 7 P.M. a phone call was made from mobile number 9732128513 (belonging to Milan Tewary as per PW 8) to 9932248892 (belonging to PW 21).Apart from the improbability of Raju Dubey claiming to the employees of the deceased that he had murdered him, I am of the view that the 'best evidence' with regard to the ownership of the mobile phones has not been produced in court.No report from service provider has been produced to show that the mobile number 9333917563 allegedly sold to Raju Dubey by P.W.2 belonged to the latter.It is difficult for me to accept the mere ipse dixit of P.W.2 that although he sold the said mobile phone with Sim card to Raju the connection had not been transferred in favour of the latter.Similarly, there is no independent evidence that mobile connection no.9732128513 stood in the name of Milan Tewari except the statement of co-accused, Raju.In the absence of link evidence establishing the ownership of the appellants to the aforesaid mobile phones, it is difficult for me to come to a firm conclusion that there was telephonic communication between the appellant Raju Dubey and the employees of the deceased i.e. Sakti Kesh, Shiba Prasad Tewary @ Kanu Tewari, P.W.8 and Dilip Ahikary, P.W.21 as contended on behalf of the prosecution.In the light of scanty evidence on record and the inherent improbability of the accused confiding his culpability to the aforesaid individuals who admittedly belonged to rival camp, I choose not to give credence to the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant, Raju Dubey.MOTIVE OF CRIME Evidence has come on record that there was enmity between the deceased Araha Bajpayee and Raju Dubey.P.W.1 driver of the deceased has alleged such fact in the FIR.Wife of the deceased (PW 3) also deposed 7-8 days ahead her husband received phone call from Raju who threatened him with dire consequences.Hence, I hold that there was enmity between Raju Dubey and the deceased Araha Bajpayee and the former had threatened him with dire consequences couple of days prior to the incident.However, I do not give much credence to the deposition of P.W. 3 with regard to a purported letter shown by her husband wherein it was stated Raju, Milan, Ashok, Nabin, Papu, Raja Basu Roy would murder her husband and had hatched a conspiracy in that regard as the said letter had not been produced in Court.In the absence of the said letter implicating the other appellants seeing the light of the day, I find it difficult to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove their motive in the crime.Recovery of fire arms and other incriminating articles as per leading statements of the appellants P.W. 31, investigating officer, deposed that he arrested Raju Dubey and Fajlur Rahaman from Quality Bar-Restaurant, Park Street and took them to Bankura.Subsequently, he interrogated Raju and the latter stated that he would help to recover motorcycle and mobile phone used in connection with this case.Motorcycle bearing No.Though the aforesaid seizures have been supported by police witness (P.W.25), the independent witness (P.W. 24) has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.Leading statement of Raju was not also reduced in writing and exhibited in trial.One ash coloured attache case containing personal items of the deceased was allegedly seized pursuant to the showing of the appellants Raja Basu Roy and Ashok Roy as per evidence of I.O. (P.W. 31) and the police witness (P.W. 25).Evidence of independent witnesses P.W. 16 and P.W. 17 in this regard are not convincing.P.W. 17, witness to the seizure of the attache case, was not able to identify any of the miscreants including Ashok Roy.P.W. 17 deposed officer-in-charge of G. Ghati Police Station had come in a police vehicle.There were four persons in the vehicle.One of the said four persons had brought out an attache case.On the other hand, P.W. 25, the police witness gives a different narration relating to the recovery of the attache case.With regard to recovery of improvised fire arms on the showing of Raja Basu Roy and Ashok Roy, I find P.W. 16 identified Ashok Roy as the person who brought out some powder and improvised firearm in the presence of police.P.W. 26, arms expert, deposed that the seized firearm was in working condition.However, no evidence is forthcoming that the said firearm had been used in the course of the incident.Post mortem doctor also does not state that the deceased had suffered bullet injury.Hence, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the alleged firearm seized on the showing of the Ashok Roy had been used for the aforesaid offence.Role of the appellants Ashok Roy and Milan Tewary in the incident Presence of the appellants, namely, Ashok Roy and Milan Tewary or Raja Basu Roy at the place of occurrence has not been noted by P.W. 1, injured witness.As discussed earlier, recovery of ash coloured attache case pursuant to the leading statement of Ashok Roy and Raja Basu Roy has not been supported by independent witnesses and has not been proved beyond doubt.There is nothing to show that the firearms recovered on showing of Ashok Roy were used in the alleged incident.There is also no evidence on record that mobile connection No. 9732128513 belonged to Milan Tewary.Evidence has also not forthcoming that the motorcycle seized on the leading statement of Raju Dubey belonged to the said appellant.Hence, there is hardly any legally admissible and convincing evidence that Ashok Roy, Milan Tewary and Raja Basu Roy were the members of the group who chased the vehicle and threw bombs at the deceased Araha Bajpayee and the injured witness, Felu Tewary (P.W. 1).Culpability of appellant Raju Dubey in the crime In view of the lack of evidence implicating other appellants in the crime, senior counsel for Raju Dubey seriously argued Raju could not be convicted either section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code or under section 302 simplicitor.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. | ['Section 34 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 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,029,649 | Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 28/6/2011 at about 2 p.m., Jagdish (since deceased) had gone with the respondent on his Motorcycle for obtaining documents of vehicle.At around 10 p.m, their family members came to know that some mishap had occurred with both of them and, upon search, they found that Motorcycle of deceased was lying on Khunajhir road while his dead body was lying nearby in the valley.Upon investigation, it surfaced that, while riding pillion, respondent had dealt hammer blows on the head of Jagdish, due to which both of them fell and as Jagdish tried to run, respondent chased him and continuously beat him with Hammer until he died.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Though last seen was proved, yet, from the evidence on record, probability that, some unknown Truck had dashed their Motorcycle leading to death of Jagdish, injury to the respondent and damage to the Motorcycle, could not be ruled out.Moreover, motive behind the offence that wife of deceased had won the election and therefore respondent had threatened to kill him, was also not proved.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,032,111 | for hearing regarding framing of charge.On that date, another accused R.L. Nahata filed an application for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code from the case.The learned Court fixed 14.5.2008 for hearing of that petition.The petition was taken up for 5 hearing on 30.5.2008 and by an order no. 94 dated 30.5.2008 the learned Court expressed his reluctancy in giving a fresh look into the matter.The matter was finally heard on 15.7.2008 and by the order no. 96 dated 15.7.2008 learned Special Court found that their existed a strong prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged and accordingly, the learned Judge framed charges under the above mentioned sections against all the accused including the petitioners.Against that order the petitioners have come up with these revisional applications praying for setting aside the order on the grounds mentioned earlier. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
430,392 | JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.He has also been convicted under Section 498A, I. P. C, for treating her with cruelty.He was sentenced to R. I. for 3l/2 years for the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. and R. I. for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. The sentence are to run concurrently.There is no clear evidence on record as to when the appellant and the deceased were married, nor there is any finding about it By the trial Court.However, the trial Court found the appellant guilty on proof of the following facts :i) That she (deceased) had given birth to four children from the accused, out of whom only one is alive.ii) That the deceased had suffered an operation for removal of her womb after the last child, but she continued to be ill.iii) That the husband was not providing her with sufficient maintenance although she had to live in the husband's house in the presence of the 2nd wife of the husband.iv) That she had to sell three Khandis of paddy to P. W. 3 Nanku in order to support herself and her child.v) That the husband accused suspected her of stealing this paddy and then selling to Nanku and obtained the price of paddy from Nanku so that she could not get the money.vi) That the husband was occasionally beating her and she complained about ill-treatment to her brother and mother.The inferences of trial Court may be noticed that the deceased publicly humiliate his wife about the theft on 5th Jan. Q7 or near about or a few days before.The trial Court inference and reasoning may be node from para 13 of its judgment which is as follows :-How could a woman react otherwise than to commit suicide if firstly she had been deprived of her maintenance and subsequently a false accusation of theft: has been hurled against her.1 have already observed that it was not a small amount of paddy but weighed three Khandis and if an elderly woman sells this paddy to the neighbour's house, it could hardly amount to theft as she was also the owner of the Dhan.This accusation of theft was only made to publicly humiliate her and the accused has further beaten her publicly, in front of the house of Nanku (P. W. 3).What could be more a positive step in the direction as is contemplated in abetting under Section 306, I.P.C. There could hardly be any direct evidence in the facts and circumstances of such case.It has been proved in this case that the accused has brought a second woman and even the womb of the deceased had been removed and the deceased did not make any substantial improvement in her health and the circumstances compelled her to sell the paddy to the neighbour.If a woman, placed as she was, in difficult circumstances, reacts violently to the public humiliation, could it be said that the accused has not abetted the suicide? In my opinion, the public humiliation of the deceased amounted to positive step to create circumstances for the commission of suicide.The accused had made the life of the deceased almost unbearable and the step has been public humiliation.The deceased could not bear any more and committed the suicide.I have heard learned counsel on both sides.This happened about 3 or 4 days before her suicide.Apparently, the trial Court was led by the fact that the husband had publicly humiliated her by beating her and the trial Court presumed that the necessity of sale of paddy must have arisen to the wife for need of herself and her child and the husband did not look after her needs and persecuted her.So she was led to commit suicide.By this, the learned trial Court has inferred as abetment of suicide and also cruel treatment.The brother and mother of the deceased have simply stated that she used to complain to them about harassment to her by the husband and also that the husband used to chids, abuse and beat her.So the cruel treatment was found on the part of the husband against the wife.After all, she was living in the house along with second wife of the husband. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
848,292 | JUDGMENT Sathaye, J.C.1. Moolchand (67 years), his son Chainsingh (18 years), his wife Mst.Ram Piyari (aged 62 years), and his two graziers, Sk.All the sentences are to run concurrently.Accordingly Jamna Prasad accompanied by his lessee Mohd. Ali alias Ayya Mian (P.W. 6) was proceeding towards the Octroi Post at about 12 noon and had gone as far as a, garden named 'Gitti Wali Bagia' at a distance of about 150 paces from Jamna Prasad's house when he found all the five accused near the road all armed with 'lohangis' (iron shod lathis) except Mt. Rampiyari who had a bamboo 'danda',Majeed (18 years) and Sk.Jameel (42 years), all of Sehore, are convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal of three offences viz., Section 147 (rioting), Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and Section 307 (attempt to commit murder) the latter two read with Section 149, IPC Each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Under Section 147, two years Under Section 325/149 and 5 years Under Section 307/149, the imprisonment as against the male accused being rigorous and as against Mt. Ram Piyari being simple.For the offence of Section 325/149 each of them is in addition fined Rs. 50/- or two months rigorous imprisonment in default, that as against Rampiyari being simple.According to the prosecution with the common object of causing the death of Jamna Prasad, so as to prevent him from giving his statement to the police, all the accused pounced upon Jamna Prasad and belaboured him with 'lohangis' and 'lathis' and continued to do so even after he fell down unconscious and Ayya Mian threw himself on Jamna Prasad in order to protect him.Some people, however, were seen running down to the place and the accused left.Jamna Prasad was taken to the police station, Sehore where Mohd. Ali alias Ayya Mian lodged a report at about 1 p. m. the same day and when Jamna Prasad was examined at the hospital by Dr. Samad (P.W. 2) the Assistant Medical Officer, as many as 30 injuries including two contusions on the head and a fracture of rib and ankle-bone were found on his body and he had to be detained in the hospital for treatment for about a month.In both the Courts Moolchand and Sk.Jameel put up pleas of 'alibi', the former saying that he had gone to Shujalpur in Madliya Bharat and the latter, to village Moharia at about 10 miles from Sehore on that day and returned only in the evening.The other three accused stated that at the hour of the occurrence on the day, Chainsingh and Sk.Majeed were grazing their cattle near the road when Mt. Ram Piyari brought them their food.They wenF to a nearby 'nala' to eat it when, in their absence, Jamna Prasad and Ayya Mian came there and the former assaulted Ram Piyari and as she began to weep and cry these two accused ran down to her help and there was a scuffle between them on one side and Jamna Prasad and Ayya Mian on the other side.Jamna Prasad shouted to his servants in the garden nearby to fetch his gun and Chain Singh, Sk.Majeed and Ram Piyari left the place pushing away Jamna Prasad who fell down and rolled over stones in a ditch possibly receiving injuries.The direct evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimony of Jamna Prasad (P.W. 1) and Ayya Mian (P.W. 6).Laxman (P.W. 3), Dulli (P.W. 7) and Nanda (P.W. 8) reached the scene just after Jamna Prasad fell down by the beating.Dr. Samad (P.W. 2), Assistant Medical Officer examined the condition of Jamna Prasad as soon as he was taken to the hospital and the injuries found on his person.Dr. R. N. Shrivastava (P.W. 4), the Medical Officer verified the injuries and both were observing the condition of Jamna Prasad and his injuries.One 'lohangi' (Article A) and a bamboo 'lathi' (Article B) were produced as seized from the house of the accused and were said to have been identified in the presence of Shri H. NT.Shrivastava, the Deputy Collector Magistrate First Class (P.W. 5).On the other side evidence was offered to support the pleas of 'alibi' and also in support of the case of the other three accused.The learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of Jamna Prasad and Ayya Mian and the other three witnesses and the medical evidence of the large number of injuries on Jamna Prasad and discarding the evidence in defence convicted all the accused of three offences viz., Section 147, Section 325 and Section 307 both read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced them as above,That there being no evidence of the alleged injuries on Ayya Mian (P.W. 6) the finding that Jamna Prasad was assaulted even after his fall h unwarranted.That on the evidence of Jamna Prssad (P.W. 1) himself that he was beaten with only 'lohangies', Mt. Ram Piyari, who is said to have possessed only a 'danda', could not be convicted of any offence.Laxman (P.W. 3), Duli (P.W. 7) and Nanda (P.W. 8) came on the scene after Jamna Prasad had fallen down unconscious, and saw the later part of the assault only.There is however evidence of Ayya Mian (P.W. 6) himself in this connection that he also received two blows of 'lathi' on his hands when he was lying on the person of Jamna Prasad to save him from further beating.This evidence finds corroboration from the testimony of Laxman (P, W. 3) and Dulli (P.W. 7).It is found that an injury-report dated 1-7-1951 by Dr. Samad, on the injuries of Mohd. Ali alias Ayya Mian is filed on that record but the prosecuting machinery, both in the committing Court and in the Sessions Court, did not care to prove it on record in the evidence oi Dr. Samad (P.W. 2).Without reference to it however there is voluminous evidence that Jamna Prasad was beaten even after he fell down unconscious.Another point which was urged may also be examined at this stage.It was said that the evidence of Mt. Ram Piyari's taking part in the assault or beating is discounted by the statement of Jamna Prasad (P.W. 1) himself that he was beaten by 'lohangis'.The Sessions Judge has not paragraphed the depositions of witnesses despite the directions and rules in that behalf, otherwise it would have been possible to pointedly refer to this part of the evidence.Attention is drawn to Jamna Prasad's statement in the early part of his deposition that "All the accused began to beat me with lohangis; four men were armed with lohangis and Rampiyari was armed with a bamboo danda.Moolchand's case was that he had gone out of Sehore and on the day and hour of the alleged assault he was at Shujalpur in Madhya Bharat.In support of this he examined two witnesses viz. Nanoo Mai alias Sonaji (D. W. 3) and Bhagwati (D. W. 4). | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,830,909 | Heard on the bail application.First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.02.2014 passsed in M.Cr.Applicant has been arrested on 25.08.2013 in connection with Crime No.24/2013 registered at Police Station Sesaipura, District Sheopur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 324 and 302 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that material witnesses were examined and all were turned hostile.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that Navalu @ Naval Singh is in custody since 25.08.2013 and therefore, looking to the period of custody he may be enlarged on bail.Prayer was opposed by learned counsel for the State on the ground that trial is at fag end and therefore, granting bail is not required. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,841,775 | The petitioner herein is the 10th accused in Crime No.273 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police, registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) IPC.Subsequent to that on 28.05.2020, the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 76 of Criminal Rules of Practice, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Satankulam in Crl.M.P.No.2082 and seeking the relief to handover the petitioner for Police custody.On due enquiry and having considered the said request, on 01.06.2020, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Satankulam authorized the detention of the petitioner in Police custody for two days ie., from 01.06.2020 at 4.00 p.m., to 03.06.2020 at 4.00 p.m.,Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD)No.7294 of 2020The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that allowing the application filed by the respondent, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, is against the liberty of the petitioner, as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.When an application for police custody is contemplated within a period of 15 days on the initial remand, such an application for police custody ought to have been made only during the period of initial remand and when the investigation was pending.As we have held on the facts of this case that the investigation was already over and final report also filed and the case was split up and in the absence of any application for further investigation for the purpose of the respondent, the investigation is completed, we are of the considered view that the application if entertained would amount to infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Even going by the averments made in the affidavit in support of the petition for police custody, we could only see para 14 of the affidavit in which, the reasons are stated to be on two fold.Firstly, it is the apprehension of the investigating agency that the respondent might have connection with the other three absconding accused.Secondly, that the respondent might have known the hiding places of three accused and places where arms, ammunitions and explosives were hidden.” 4http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD)No.7294 of 2020Therefore, it is obvious before granting the Police custody, the Court, which passed the order, must be strictly considered the materials, as it involves the Fundamental Rights and Personal Liberty of the individuals.Further, the provisions are to be strictly understood and complied with.In this case, on go through the averments made in the FIR, it is made clear that there was clear overt act against the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that since the petitioner was surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, the respondent Police was not in a position to interrogate the petitioner and find out the truth.Therefore, as already observed, granting of police custody is a matter to be decided depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.In this case, the necessary reasons has to be categorically mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner to authorize the detention of the accused in police custody is well within the law.In the light of the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD)No.7294 of 2020 To1.The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,842,193 | Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKWhether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellant was neighbour of prosecutrix, aged about 8 years.On 17th January, 2006 at about 5:30 PM prosecutrix was playing in her house, while her mother was cooking food at the roof.Appellant came there and forcibly took the prosecutrix with him to a nearby jungle and removed the pyjama and underwear of the prosecutrix.When prosecutrix started weeping appellant gave beatings to her and gagged her mouth.Thereafter he put her on the ground and laid himself upon the prosecutrix and raped her.As a consequence of this act clothes of the prosecutrix became blood stained.Appellant also threatened the prosecutrix that in case she disclosed the incident to any one, he would kill her and her parents.Appellant left the prosecutrix near her house and went away.Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother Shyam Dulari, who in turn informed the police.Information regarding incident was recorded as DD No. 62 in the police station Khajoori Khas and was handed over to Crl.Doctor Namita medically examined the prosecutrix and noticed abrasions on her left thigh, left leg and right thigh; on separating the labia tear fourchette, minimal bleeding plus twigs at perineum were found present.History of rape, as told by the prosecutrix and her mother, was recorded in the MLC by the doctor.Undergarments, Vaginal swab and perineal swab were sealed by the doctor and were handed over to the Investigating Officer.Appellant was apprehended from his house immediately after the incident.He was arrested by the Investigating Officer.He was medically examined in S.D.N. Hospital, Shahdara and doctor opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.Semen, blood sample and Crl.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 3 of 11 underwear of appellant were also taken in possession and sealed by the doctor.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 3 of 11During the investigation, certificate was obtained from Nagar Nigam Prathmik Balika Vidhyalaya, Sonia Vihar, Delhi to verify age of the prosecutrix.Above referred exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi and its report was obtained, according to which, human semen was detected on vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, blood was also found on the underwear, perineal swab of the prosecutrix as well as on the T-shirt and underwear of the appellant.Appellant admitted that he was the neighbour of prosecutrix.He also admitted that the age of prosecutrix was about eight years.However, he denied that he had taken away the prosecutrix with him on 17 th January, 2006 at about 5:30/6:00 PM and committed rape on her.Appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated by the mother and uncle of the prosecutrix in order to avoid repayment of a loan of Rs.5,000/-, which they had taken from him.However, no evidence was led by the appellant to substantiate his this defence.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 4 of 11Learned Additional Sessions Judge found their statements trustworthy and reliable to conclude that appellant had taken away the prosecutrix on 17th January, 2006 from her house to a jungle, and committed rape upon her.Learned Additional Sessions Judge was also of the view that the version of PW2 was corroborated from the medical evidence.As per the MLC, superficial abrasions were found on the left thigh and left leg and right thigh of the prosecutrix.Their statements had remained unshattered on material point in their respective cross- examinations.PW2 has categorically deposed that the appellant had come to her house on the fateful day and took her to a nearby jungle where he removed his as well as her clothes and put her on the ground and thereafter laid over her.She started feeling pain at the place of passing urine and also started bleeding from there.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL)Appellant has been convicted under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short referred to as IPC) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi; sentenced to face rigorous imprisonment for eight years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five months for the offence Crl.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 1 of 11 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for having committed offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 1 of 11A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 2 of 11 ASI Tejwati for enquiry (hereinafter referred to as "Investigating Officer"), who reached the spot and came to know that the prosecutrix had been taken to GTB Hospital by the PCR.Thereafter, Investigating Officer reached GTB Hospital, obtained MLC of the prosecutrix and recorded statement of the prosecutrix wherein she described the incident as mentioned in preceding para hereinabove.Pursuant to this whereof FIR No. 27/2006 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the sessions court for trial as offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the sessions court.Charges under Sections 323/376/506 IPC were framed against the appellant on 3rd April, 2006 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all.Thereafter statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 26th March, 2007 wherein entire incriminating evidence which had come Crl.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 4 of 11 on record, was put to him.On separating the labia tear in fourchette, minimal bleeding was also noticed.The fact that Prosecutrix was aged about eight years at the time of incident was proved from the school Crl.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 5 of 11 certificate Ex. PW7/A. This fact was otherwise admitted by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.I have carefully perused the statements of prosecutrix PW2 as well as her mother PW3 Shyam Dulari and find them trustworthy and reliable.When she tried to raise noise appellant gagged her mouth.Appellant left the prosecutrix near her house and threatened her that in case she disclosed this fact to any one he would cut her and her parents into pieces.After reaching home, prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother, who informed the police on telephone.Her this statement had remained unshattered Crl.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 6 of 11 in her cross-examination.PW3 Shyam Dulari has also corroborated PW2 with regard to the visit of the appellant to her house on the date of incident at about 5:30 PM.She categorically deposed that the appellant had taken her daughter with him.Later on, when her returned home, she was weeping.On her enquiring as to what had happened, she revealed that appellant had taken her to a jungle, removed her clothes as well as his clothes and laid upon her, at which she started feeling pain in her private part and also started bleeding; appellant gagged her mouth when she tried to raise noise.Testimony of PW3 had also remained unshattered in her cross-examination on this point.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 6 of 11I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of prosecutrix PW2 which otherwise also stands corroborated from the medical evidence on record.Perusal of MLC Ex. PW12/A shows that abrasions were found on the left thigh, left leg and right thigh of the prosecutrix.On separating the labia tear in fourchette bleeding was also found.PW13 Dr. Namita had proved this MLC.She was not cross-examined with regard to the injuries found on the person of prosecutrix.Medical evidence in this case support the prosecution case.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 7 of 11A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 7 of 11Besides this, I find that the history of rape had been mentioned in the MLC by the PW13 Dr. Namita.It has been categorically mentioned that the history was given by the prosecutrix and her mother.Name of the appellant has been mentioned as the perpetrator of crime of rape upon the prosecutrix.There is no reason as to why doctor would record a wrong statement.This also shows that the stand taken by the prosecutrix and her mother had remained consistent right from the beginning.In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly concluded that prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 376/506 IPC.No material discrepancy could be pointed out in the statements of PW2 and PW3 by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, in her cross- examination, prosecutrix admitted that the incident was narrated by her on the tutoring of Investigating Officer and her parents.Thus, her testimony cannot be read against the appellant.It appears that a court question was put to the prosecutrix as to whether the Investigating Officer and her parents had told her to narrate the actual happening.In answer to this question prosecutrix first stated "Yes" but thereafter continued to add that the occurrence did actually take place with her.This answer of the prosecutrix clearly shows that the incident indeed took place with her in the manner she described, while deposing in the court.The answer given by her does not indicate in any manner whatsoever that the story of rape was concocted by her parents and that it was narrated by her in the court on their tutoring.As already mentioned in the preceding paras hereinabove, the statement made by the prosecutrix had remained consistent and was also corroborated by the medical evidence and other scientific evidence, inasmuch as, semen was found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.The argument of learned counsel is, thus, rejected.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 8 of 11It is highly improbable that a person will involve his minor daughter only in order to avoid liability of repayment of a loan.No prudent person would like to put at stake the reputation of family and face ignominy and defamation in the society as also jeopardize the marriage prospect of his daughter by attaching the stigma of rape, only in order to avoid repayment of loan.Story propounded by the appellant in his defence had not only remained unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence but otherwise is also improbable and cannot be accepted.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 9 of 11In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that on the basis of evidence led and available on record learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 376/506 IPC.Keeping in mind that appellant, a middle aged person, had committed rape upon a minor girl aged about eight years, in my view, has been appropriately sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.I do not find any material illegality, impropriety or any infirmity in the impugned order of conviction and sentence.A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 10 of 11A. No. 667 of 2007 Page 10 of 11 | ['Section 376 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. |
84,856,209 | PW-1/DA, Ex.PW-1/DB and Ex.We had appointed Ms.Zubeda Begum and Ms.W.P.(C) 8066/2013 Page 1 of 7Evidence surfaced that the prosecutrix was literate.Photograph Ex.PW-1/DD was proved.The decision would reveal that as per the prosecutrix it was a case of consent for sex on the false assurance of marriage.PW-1/DC would reveal that the prosecutrix and the accused had visited a Court in Jammu for a civil marriage to be registered between the two.The decision would reveal that the version of the prosecutrix that when the accused applied vermilion on her forehead in a hotel room and declared that they were a married couple, has been discussed by the learned Judge with reference to the plea that she volunteered to a physical relationship on the belief induced by the accused that by applying vermilion on her forehead a marriage has been solemnized.The petition stands disposed of. | ['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. |
843,404 | A2,A3,A5 & A6 Section 120-B IPCA-4 Sections 147, 302 r/w S.149 & 323 IPCA-1 to A-3 Sections 148, 302 or 302 r/w S.34 IPCA-5 and A-6 Section 302 r/w S.120-B IPCConviction and Sentence:a)P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased Viswanathan, is the native of Kekarai Village.P.Ws.2,3,5 and 6 belonged to the same place.The said Viswanathan had six sons.The fifth accused, Rathinam was manufacturing and selling arrack, which was being objected to by the deceased.On 24.6.1999, he arranged for roko and fasting condemning the act of the police in not preventing the said menace.On 19.6.1999 at about 8.00 p.m. near the Kekarai Railway Gate, P.W.6 saw the conspiracy hatched up between A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 and at that time, A-5 said that the deceased should be finished off.b)On 1.7.1999 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased was coming in his vehicle and P.W.1 was also with him.When they were nearing the railway gate, from the house of A-5, A-1 and A-2 armed with aruval, A-3 armed with velstick, the fourth accused unarmed and the other accused came to the place of occurrence.All the accused surrounded the deceased and it was the first accused, who attacked the deceased first and the other accused have followed him.The deceased was done to death in the place of occurrence.When a crowd gathered, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.c)P.W.1 proceeded to the Tiruvarur Rural Police Station, where P.W.13, the Head Constable was on duty, to whom, P.W.1 gave Ex.On receipt of the copy of the first information report, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.14, the inquest report.Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy to the Government Hospital, Tiruvarur.d)P.W.1 was treated by P.W.15, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruvarur.The fine amounts, if any paid by A-5 and A-6, shall be ordered to be refunded to them.vvkNote to Office:The Registry is directed to sendthe lower court records to theJudicial Magistrate, Thiruvarurforthwith.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur3. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.4.The District Collector, Nagapattinam.7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.8.The Inspector of Police, Vaippar,Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station, Tiruvarur.[sant 8388](The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The appellants, six in number, have challenged the judgment of the learned District Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam made in S.C.No.263 of 2003, whereby they stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:P.1, the report.On the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.270 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 IPC.He has issued Ex.P.10, the accident register.P.W.14, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruvarur has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.9, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.e)Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrested Mohan, the juvenile accused, in the presence of witnesses.On 4.7.1999, the fourth accused was arrested.He volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confessional statement, he produced weapons of crime, which were recovered in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar.A-3, A-6 and the other accused were also arrested.A-5 was taken to the police custody.All the accused were sent for judicial remand.f)All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M.Os recovered from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department.P.18, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.19, the Serologist's report were received.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.Since one of the accused was absconding and one of the accused was juvenile, the case was split up and in respect of the other accused, the case was committed to court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and relied on 20 exhibits and 14 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and one document was marked.On completion of the evidence on both sides, the trial court heard the arguments advanced by both sides and has found the appellants guilty as mentioned above and awarded punishment as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.5.Attacking the evidence of P.W.1, the learned counsel would submit that P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and hence, his evidence should be carefully scrutinised; that in the instant case, the strong circumstance against the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.11; that according to P.W.11, he was the Head Constable of Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station and he went to the place of occurrence along with the Inspector at about 6.00 p.m. and the dead body was found and they could not identify the dead body and later, they came to know that it was that of the deceased; that when the witness was not treated as hostile, the said evidence is binding on the prosecution; that the evidence of P.W.11 would go to show that the deceased person was identified subsequently.Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the information what is available before the Court was not the first information and apart from that, P.W.1 was also medically treated by P.W.15, the Doctor at about 9.30 p.m.; that at that time, P.W.1 has stated that at the time of occurrence two known persons and three unknown persons have attacked him; that his evidence would clearly indicate that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unreliable; that had it been true that P.W.1 has mentioned all the names of the accused in the FIR, there was no need for him to give a statement to the Doctor stating that two known persons and three unknown persons have attacked him; that in the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, when carefully scrutinised, do not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1; that the medical evidence also did not support the case of prosecution; that without considering all the aspects of the matter, the lower court has found that there was conspiracy, pursuant to which all the accused have attacked the deceased and caused his death instantaneously and hence, the judgment of the lower court suffers both factually and legally and the same has got to be set aside.6.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.He has issued Ex.P.9, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellants/accused at any point of time.Hence, without any impediment, it has got to be recorded so.8.In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as eyewitnesses.True it is, P.W.1 was the son of the deceased.Merely on the ground of relationship, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be discarded.9.It is true, the prosecution has projected its case to start with conspiracy.The Court has to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of the conspiracy.It is a matter of surprise to note that P.W.6, who was working under the deceased, came to know about the conspiracy on 19.6.1999, but he did not speak about the same for nearly about 12 or 13 days and after the occurrence has taken place, he came forward to speak about the same.It was the strong circumstance to reject the conspiracy part.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would go to show that A-1 to A-4 and the other two accused, namely one absconding accused and one juvenile accused, were present at the time of occurrence and they have attacked the deceased.It is a case, where all the accused, who were available at the place of occurrence, restrained the deceased and attacked him and unless and until, there was any common object to do so, they could not have been present at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons.10.In the instant case, P.W.1 was not only an eyewitness, but also an injured witness.It is a settled proposition of law, unless and until strong circumstance or reason is noticed by the Court, the evidence of the eyewitness, who is injured, cannot be discarded.The Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case that there was an unlawful assembly by A-1 to A-4 along with one absconding accused and juvenile accused and in furtherance of the common object, they attacked the deceased and caused his death instantaneously and they have also attacked P.W.1 and in respect of the same, medical opinion was also canvassed.5.The Director General of Police, Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,340,919 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed on the petitioners by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.2100 of 2016 dated 23.09.2016, that they shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders.Learned counsel further submitted that as the respondent has already completed the investigation and has filed the charge sheet, there is no requirement on the part of the petitioners to report before him.According to the petitioners/A2 and A3, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2016, in connection with a case in Crime No.555 of 2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 457, 394 IPC r/w 397, 449, 302 and 404 IPC.Subsequently, by order dated 23.09.2016 in CMP.No.2100 of 2016, they were ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to certain conditions, one of which is that they shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders.Aggrieved over the said condition, they have come up with the present petition for modification.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.In the event of the petitioners being appeared before the respondent, there is a possibility of harassment caused on them by the respondent police.Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners undertake to appear before the respondent police, as and when required.4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, who has no serious objection in modifying the said condition.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to modify the condition imposed on the petitioners by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.2100 of 2016 dated 23.09.2016 that they shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders, as follows:The petitioners shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore daily at 10.30 am until further orders.The other conditions remain unaltered.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.16.02.2017Index:Yes/No R.MAHADEVAN, J rkTo1.Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2.Learned Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore.3.The Inspector of Police, E2, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.1398 of 2017 DATED: 16.02.2017http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,350,192 | Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C as they apprehend their arrest in connection with crime no.71/2015, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Rewa, against them and co-accused persons namely Raghvendra Singh, Yadvendra Singh, Alok Singh, Sanjay Singh, Diwakar Singh, Divya Prakash Singh and Nishant Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 452 and 506-B of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 8.2.2015 complainant Smt. Vibha Singh has lodged a police report that she had won the election of Member of Janpad Panchayat, Rewa.Later, when she was sitting in her house, the applicants and co-accused persons barged into her house and they in furtherance of common object abused and committed marpeet with her and her family members Kamlesh and Babulal.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.2 Kashyap Singh and applicant no.3 Abhinay Singh are sons of applicant no.1 Dr. Amarjeet Singh.It is also submitted by him that upon the report of co-accused Ankit Singh the police registered a counter case at crime no.72/2015 under Sections 294, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC against Sukhendra Singh, the husband of complainant, and her other family members.It is also submitted by him that all the injured persons have sustained contusions and abrasions.It is also submitted by him that this is the first ever offence registered against the applicants and they do not have any criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer.The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicants in the case, in that event he will release them on bail immediately upon their furnishing each a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to his satisfaction.Further, they will abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicants fail to appear before the Investigating Officer on the stipulated time, their bail application shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the court.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,362,207 | 25.11.2014Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NogsrTO1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.O.P.(MD)NO.19788 of 201425.11.2014This petition is filed seeking a prayer to direct the first respondentto transfer the investigation in Crime No.340 of 2014 dated 02.09.2014 on thefile of the second respondent police to some other impartial investigatingagency.The petitioner need not apprehend that only four accused havebeen included and the other provisions of IPC have not been added.Theprovisions of Sections 326 and 219 IPC will be invoked by the appropriateCourt as and when required.Now, all the seven accused have been arrayed asaccused and the only grievance of the petitioner is that the provision ofSection 326 IPC has not been included.With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition isclosed.2.The Inspector of Police, Pattukkottai Police Station, Thanjavur District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.S.VAIDYANATHAN,JgsrCrl. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
843,666 | JUDGMENT S.B. Deshmukh, J.Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.M. Daga for the applicant as well as Mr. D.B. Patel, learned A.P.P. for State/respondent.2. Rule, returnable and heard forthwith by consent of the parties.The facts leading to the controversy, may be summarised, in brief, as follows:The charge-sheet in the matter is filed and case was also committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, at Chandrapur.It seems from the record that thereafter, the case is handed over to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur.The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, framed the charge against the applicants and other co-accused.It is stated in the petition that examination-in-chief of said P.W. 19 is being recorded and at that time, the application for grant of permission to file about 14 documents, came to be filed below Exh. 89 on behalf of the prosecution.The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, after hearing the parties allowed the said application Exh. 89 in terms of its prayer, consequent to which, permission to file documents as per the list appended to the said application Exh. 89 amids recording of evidence is granted. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
84,369,187 | This order shall be subject to the condition that the petitioners shall report to the investigating officer twice a week for a period of four months, in addition to compliance with the other conditions specified in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,587,837 | This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment andorder dated 04.06.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.(II) Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 765 of 2008 (Crime No. 203 of 2008): StateVs Sarvesh, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 (2) I.P.C., Police StationTandiayon, District Hardoi whereby learned Additional District Judge heldthe accused guilty under Sections 363, 366, 376 (1) I.P.C. and has convictedand sentenced him to undergo different terms of imprisonment and to pay finewith default stipulation.Objection, if any, may be filed within two weeks.List in the week commencing 26.07.2010 for hearing on the prayer for bail.Order Date :- 25.6.2010Renu | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,587,843 | JUDGMENT N.G. Nandi, J.1. Charges framed on 26.11.1997 for the offences under Section 34 IPC and under Section 498-A/34 IPC are sought to be revised by the petitioners by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").The prosecution case, briefly stated is, that Monika Pasricha wife of Kamal Pasricha was married on 26.10.1990; that this marriage was a love marriage but was later on regularized; that after 2-3 months of marriage, the father-in-law M.L. Pasricha, mother-in-law Veena Pasricha, brother-in-law Vineet and husband Kamal Pasricha started harassing Monika; that these people had been taking of the household work from Monika to such an extent that she was not able to do it physically and Monika used to be told bitter words; that these people had been asking Monika to bring Rs. 50,000/- for starting their own business and that Monika's parents had given them the money; that business did not run and Monika was again subjected to beatings; that the jewellery which Monika had got in marriage, was also retained by these people and did not return; that on being tired she had been residing at her parental house for the last one and half years along with her daughter aged four years; that a divorce case is also going on with the husband; that she had friendship with one girl Upasana, who has been staying as a tenant in her parental house; that on 1.10.1995 Upasana had demanded a Saree of Monika's mother for going to duty, which was taken back by Manoj; that on 3.10.1995 there was some hot discussion between Monika's mother and Upasana and when Monika talked to her mother on this, then inmates of the house starting talking filthy and gave beating to Monika; that her father told Monika that she is a call-girl and was given abuses in most filthy language, which she could not explain; that Monika is not in good terms with her mother and sisters; that due to this quarrel, she had been compelled to go to the kitchen and gas was ignited by the gas lighter and she put her shirt into the fire.It is further stated that she was very much tired by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and other family members.The learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record, framed the charge under Sections 304-B/498-A/34, IPC against all the accused persons.It is the framing of charge under Section 227 of the Code, which is sought to be revised in this petition.The Trial Court record has been requisitioned.I have perused the same for the purpose of satisfying myself as to the legality, correctness and propriety of the framing of charge for the offences under Sections 304-A/498-A/34, IPC, framed by the Trial Court.Section 228 of the Code, which deals with the framing of charge requires that on consideration of the evidence placed on record, the Court has to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.In other words, the criterion for framing the charge under Section 228 of the Code is that the evidence relied on by the prosecution, if remains unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused at the trial or not.The Trial Court record contains the dying declaration of deceased Monika recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 3.10.1995 in Safdarjung Hospital, Burn Ward No. 11, wherein she is stated to have told that she is a divorcee; that previously there was a problem from her husband and his family but now there is no problem; that there are repeated harassment from husband and the other persons of the family on account of dowry; that she has burnt herself; that she was frustrated with life; that her in-laws are troubling her and sometimes her father also; that she has been feeling upset thinking about her future; that she did not want to be with her husband nor she wanted him to be with her; that she does not have any complaint against anybody regarding this incident and she herself did it out of frustration.The Trial Court record also contains the statement of Monika recorded under Section 161 of the Code wherein she has stated that she was married on 26.10.1990; that this marriage was a love marriage but was later on regularized; that after 2-3 months of marriage, the father-in-law M.L. Pasricha, mother-in-law Veena Pasricha, brother-in-law Vineet and husband Kamal Pasricha started harassing Monika; that these people had beer, taking of the household work from Monika to such an extent that she was not able to do it physically and Monika used to be told bitter words; that these people had been asking Monika to bring Rs. 50,000/- for starting their own business and that Monika's parents had given them the money; that business did not run and Monika was again subjected to beatings; that the jewellery which Monika had got in marriage, was also retained by these people and did not return; that on being tired she had been residing at her parental house for the last one and half years along with her daughter aged four years; that a divorce case is also going on with the husband; that she had friendship with one girl Upasana, who has been staying as a tenant in her parental house; that on 1.10.1995 Upasana had demanded a Saree of Monika's mother for going to duty, which was taken back by Manoj; that on 3.10.1995 there was some hot discussion between Monika's mother and Upasana and when Monika talked to her mother on this, then inmates of the house starting talking filthy and gave beating to Monika; that her father told Monika that she is a call-girl and was given abuses in most filthy language, which she could not explain; that Monika is not in good terms with her mother and sisters; that due to this quarrel, she had been compelled to go to the kitchen and gas was ignited by the gas lighter and she put her shirt into the fire.It is further stated that she was very much tired by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and other family members.The lower Court record also contains the statement of Ms. Upasana daughter of A.S. Kharbanda, which also suggests the incident of 1.10.1995 and 3.10.1995, as stated by the deceased in her statement under Section 161 of the Code.As far as the statement of deceased recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 3.10.1995, which is the dying declaration in view of the subsequent death of victim Monika, as pointed out above, indicates the reason for her committing suicide on 3.10.1995 was because of frustration; the frustration because she left her matrimonial home because of the discord with her husband and the alleged treatment meted out to her by the accused persons as suggested from the statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and her statement under Section 161 of the Code as regards demand of dowry and the spouses separated in company and she was required to stay at her parental house with her daughter, aged about 4 years.All these made her feel upset thinking about her future and that was the frustration.So, the frustration was the consequence of what happened earlier requiring her to stay at her parents' place with her daughter.It is also suggested at the same time that about one and half years prior to the incident she had been staying at her parents' place.The demand of dowry or the alleged ill treatment/harassment by the petitioners were atleast before one and half years of the incident and the matrimonial discord led to the filing of the divorce petition between the spouses.Section 304-B, IPC provides that the death of a woman caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it should also be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with, any demand of dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.In the instant case at least for the last one and half years prior to the incident, there does not appear any harassment caused by any of the petitioners as required under Sections 304-B IPC.This may be appreciated in light of matrimonial discord, the alleged harassment on account of demand of dowry, requiring Monika to come to her parents' house with her small daughter and the divorce petition pending.But, that can not be regarded as cause leading her to commit suicide and cannot be recorded as a cause proximate of her death.Naturally any lady with a daughter aged 4 years with her required to stay at her parents' place and the atmosphere at the parents' place not congenial, would feel frustrated and upset thinking about her future. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,785,557 | Appellants are respectively brother and relative of Sonelal (since deceased).According to the prosecution case, on 20/02/1996 at about 10.45 Sonelal committed suicide by jumping into the Well.The appellants are said to have filthily abused and humiliated Sonelal to such an extent that he could not tolerate and committed suicide.( 26 /7/13) The appellants have been convicted under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine stipulation, though they were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").After investigation, Crime No.109/96 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.In the result, the appeal stands allowed. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,793,973 | And In the matter of : Arshad Sekh ... ... petitioner Mr. Mazahar Hossain Chowdhury ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.P.P.... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Berhampur P.S. Case No. 418 of 2013 dated 04.04.2013 under Sections 448/307/286 of the Indian Penal Code ode.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the complainant.It appears that several of the accused have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,879,707 | Heard on the question of admission.2. Admit.3. Also heard on IA No.10282/2019, which is first application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.Petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 354 and 354-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 1-1 year RI respectively and fine of Rs.1000/--1000/- respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that during the trial petitioner was on bail.Final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.The petitioner has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.Per contra, learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.Thus, the application (IA No.10282/2019) for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 13.07.2020 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellants shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.9. List for final hearing in due course.(Virender Singh) Judge Sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2020.02.25 09:56:35 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,798,675 | (Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The father of the detenu is before this Court challenging the proceedings in BDFGISSV No.130/2013, dated 14.09.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty from detention.The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:We have heard Mr. | ['Section 294(b) 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. |
158,810,861 | After due consideration, the applications are allowed.Also heard on IA No.9747/2015, first application on behalf of applicant Rajaram S/o Kachru Malviya under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 389(1) for the suspension of sentence.The applicant convicted and sentenced as under:-After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-[ Rs. Twenty Five Thousand] and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/03/2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(Alok Verma) Vacation Judge skt | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,811,815 | This first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is in connection with Crime No.600/2017 under Section 294, 323, 307, 506-34 of IPC registered at Police Station Nagda, District-Ujjain.On next date, i.e. 01/09/2017 the complainant was admitted at Maharaja Madhav Rao Scindia, District Hosital-Ujjain and on examination Doctor mentioned one incised wound on left side of cheek.Investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.Trial is likely to take time. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,813,524 | The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/A1 and A2 are brothers.The 2nd petitioner had illicit relationship with one Kousalya.A2 and kousalya were constantly speaking over mobile phone which was objected by Kousalya’s husband Gobi as well as her brother Gouthaman.Due to which, there was enmity between them.On 20.04.2020, the petitioners herein along with two other juveniles had created problem with Gouthaman, brother of the Kousalya and attacked him with knife and wooden logs during which, the defacto complainant suffered injuries on his stomach and deceased Gouthaman on his head and face, the defacto complainant and deceased were taken to the hospital where the Gouthaman was reported dead and the defacto complainant was treated as in patient for a day.Hence the complaint.2/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8359 of 2020It is also seen that the defacto complainant’s group consisting of eight persons attacked A1 and A2 and there seemed to be free flow of attack between both the groups.Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions;(a) the petitioners shall execute their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioners have been confined on their release;(b) the petitioners shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lockdown and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.The Inspector of Police, ERUMAIPATTI Police Station, Namakkal District.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8359 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR.J, mpa Crl.O.P.No.8359 of 2020 09.06.2020 8/8http://www.judis.nic.inThe learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 20.04.2020 at about 07.00 pm.on the side of the defacto complainant, eight persons armed with wooden log were engaged, and attacked the petitioners, caused damages to the house and car of the petitioners.He further submits that the petitioners were brutally attacked and there was exchange of blow between the petitioner’s group and the defacto complainant’s group during which, A2 sustained fracture injury on the chin and jaw and A1 sustained grievous injuries and therefore a case was registered against the defacto complainant and others in Crime No.184 of 2020 under section 147,148, 294 (b), 324, 427 and 506 (ii) IPC.The petitioners were admitted in the Government Hospital, Namakkal and they were taking treatment as in patients.The petitioners are not reason for the death of the said Gouthaman and for the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant.It was the defacto complainant’s group who were aggressor armed with wooden log and knife, attacked the petitioners and it turned to be a group clash free flow and exchange of blows.Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.3/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8359 of 2020A2 was having illicit relationship with Kousalya and they were constantly speaking each other over mobile phone.Which was objected by the Kousalya’s husband/defacto complainant/Gobi as well as her brother Gowthaman.Earlier to this, there was a case registered in Crime No.262 of 2018 for the offences under sections 294(b), 506(ii) against the petitioners which is now taken on file in CC.No.289 of 2019 and pending trial on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal.Hence there was prior enmity between them.While so, on 20.04.2020, the defacto complainant and the petitioners, picked up quarrel during which, A1 and A2 armed with knife and two other Juvenile assaulted the deceased as well as the defacto complainant.O.P.No.8359 of 2020 in the age of around 17 years were engaged to finish off the said Gouthaman and the defacto complainant Gobi.Luckly, the defacto complainant/Gobi escaped from the attack.In Section 15 of the Act, heinous offences committed by Child is elaborated, as per Section 18(3) of the Act, orders to be passed by board, need to proceed against the Child as an adult, as per Section 2(20) of the Act, such cases be proceeded before the “children Court”.This case is of heinous offences.The investigating officer to take appropriate steps as per Juvenile Justice Act 2015 in proceeding against the Juveniles who are around 17 years of age.O.P.No.8359 of 2020Considering the facts of the case, it is seen that A1 and A2 had sustained grievous injuries and they were admitted in a Government Hospital, Namakkal, with fracture and taken treatment as inpatient for three days.(e) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;6/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8359 of 2020(g) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,817,485 | She travelled with present appellant to various places and never complained to anyone.Record of the lower court be requisitioned.Heard on I.A. No.6798/2015, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant- Banshi @ Banshilal son of Nathulal Madariya for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.The present appellant suffered the conviction and the jail sentence as follows :-The accused/appellant remained under custody during trial and he has also suffered sentence of almost 1 year out of 7 years awarded to him.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that disposal of appeal shall take time, and therefore, he prays that the jail sentence may be suspended and appellant should be released on bail.He further submits that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was 17 years of age.(Alok Verma) Judge Chitranjan | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,824,638 | Nothing is to be recovered from the applicants.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime number, therefore they are being decided by this common order.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to crime No.167/2015 registered at Police Station Chinore District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 294, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324. 325,326 and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality who have no criminal past alleged against them.Initially, the case was not registered for the offence under Section 326 of IPC but thereafter such offence was added.Similarly, the victim Bhagwan sustained one incised wound on his right parietal region on the head but no consequential fracture was found whereas he sustained incised wound on his right forearm and fracture of right ulna was also found, however, it was caused by the co-accused Gajendra Singh.However, the applicants assure that they will cooperate in the investigation.Consequently, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, these applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.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.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,825,537 | The learned Trial Court further passed an order that the sentences will run consecutively and that a sum of rupees one lakh (1,00,000/-) out of the total fine amount so realised shall be given to the widow of the deceased Batul Ghosh and in case of her death to her legal heirs.The prosecution case before the learned Trial Court can be stated in brief thus, that on 10.10.1984 at about 1.45 a.m. one Nabani Bauri, the local MLA of Gangajalghati Constituency, within the district of Bankura, accompanied by one Manik Ghosh, the Gram Pradhan of Barsal Gram Panchayat and Arun Bajpayee, a member of the Zilla Parishad of the said district came to the Officer-in-Charge (hereinafter called as O.C), Gangajalghati Police Station and informed that there was some tension at village Baralalpur as one Batul Ghosh of the village Palajuria had a clash with some men of the village Baralalpur in course of which Batul Ghosh sustained injuries.The matter was diarised as per GD Entry No.200 dated 10.10.1984 at 1.45 a.m and the said O.C himself went to that village along with one Sub- Inspector of Police J. Ghosh and a police contingent of sufficient strength.The said O.C left the Police Station at about 1.55 a.m on 10.10.1984 as per GD Entry No.201 dated 10.10.1984 and reached Baralalpur village at about 3 a.m. and on reaching the said village they found that a dead body was lying in a paddy field about 100 cubic from the village tank called as Talgaria and he identified the dead body as that of Batul Ghosh who was known to him from before as he was an accused in a dacoity with murder case.The Chaukidar of that area was also found near the dead body along with Pagal Ghosh, that is, the brother of the victim and also the FIR maker.The statement of that Pagal Ghosh was recorded on the spot at about 3 a.m. and the said statement was forwarded to that Police Station for starting a case under Section 302/34 of the IPC and accordingly that Police Station Case No.3 dated 10.10.1984 was started.The said O.C took up the investigation.The inquest examination was done on the dead body of the victim by the said OC.It was disclosed in that FIR that at about 5 p.m. the victim Batul Ghosh, his brother Pagal Ghosh and the wife of Batul Ghosh namely Menoka Ghosh went to their field to pluck brinjals.It may not be out of place to mention that the said field was about 800 cubic from their residence.After collecting brinjals in a basket that Pagal Ghosh started for his house but not through any shortcut route but through the so called main village thorough fare.It was then roughly 7 p.m. It was the day of Kojagori Laxmi Puja and naturally it was a moonlit night.This FIR maker (henceforth called as PW-1) noticed 4 persons on his way to home who were waiting on the northern bank of the tank 'Talgaria".Those persons are the present appellants namely Aditya Ghorui, Sujit Ghorui, Shaba Ghorui and Arjun Singh all of village Baralalpur.PW-1, however, reached home and as soon as he reached home he heard a voice of some alarm raised by someone and he rushed back to the field on the north-eastern corner of the said tank and found that the present appellants were assaulting his elder brother Batul with various weapons like tangi, spears, bhojali and lathi.It was further case of the prosecution that Batul died at the spot and he was bleeding profusely.This PW-1 raised alarm which attracted the villagers who came to the place of occurrence and the offenders fled away.The Chaukidar of Guska area came to the place of occurrence after the incident.Thereafter, the police came at about 3 a.m. and this FIR was lodged about which we have already told.Inquest examination was done on the body of the victim, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination, and his wearing apparels were seized.The police also seized one sheath of bhojali made of leather from the northern bank of the tank Talgaria and one basket in which brinjals were being carried by Menoka and Batul.The police also seized as per seizure list after the PM examination was done the wearing apparels of the deceased that is one green lungi and one white underwear both stained with blood.On the next day Pachai Ghosh and Menoka Ghosh were forwarded to Amarkanan Primary Health Centre and both of them were treated by Dr. Anjan Pal (PW-4).The police collected the post- mortem report of the deceased but could not collect the injury reports of Pachai Ghosh and Menoka Ghosh, which were however produced by the said doctor PW-4 before the Trial Court, at the time of recording his evidence.He also tried to arrest the other absconding accused persons but failed.The second I.O also could not arrest those absconding accused persons and he submitted charge-sheet against present appellants on 04.12.1986 showing appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 as absconders under Section 302 etc. of the I.P.C.Menoka Ghosh Respondent No.2 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudipto Moitra Mr. Samiran Mondal For the State : Mr. Saibal Bapuli : Mr. Arijit Ganguly For the Opposite Party No.2 : Tapan Deb Nandi Heard On : 19.02.2016, 23.02.2016 Judgment on : 18.03.2016 Indrajit Chatterjee, J. : This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Bankura on 07.02.1989, wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the present appellants in respect of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as the said Code) read with Section 34 of the said Code for the murder of the victim Batul Ghosh in furtherance of their common intention and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of rupees thirty thousand (30,000/-) each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.The learned Trial Court was further pleased to sentence the present appellants to suffer further period of rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of rupees five thousand (5,000/-) each in default to suffer further three months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to the victim Menoka Ghosh.One or two persons were also there along with the present appellants but they could not be identified.He further saw his father Pachai and boudi Menoka to request the present appellants to spare his elder brother and not to beat him anymore but they did not care and rather assaulted his father and boudi.They received bleeding injuries.The charge-sheet was received by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bankura on 30.12.1986 and he issued process for appearance of the accused persons including the three absconding accused persons.The appellant no.1 Arjun Singh, however, appeared in response to the summons but the other three accused persons continued to abscond.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 23.05.1987 only with the accused Arjun Singh and the learned Trial Judge was pleased to frame charge against the said accused Arjun Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the said Code on 10.03.1988 to which the said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.It may be mentioned that in Sessions Case No.8(6) of 1987 giving rise to S.T No. 2(3) 1988 charged was framed against all appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the said Code and it may also be mentioned that on 21.05.1988, the learned Trial Judge in the later Sessions case framed separate charge against the three accused persons who were committed later on, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code.All the four accused persons were charged on 08.06.1988 on 23.07.1987 and charge was framed against the Appellants Nos.2, 3 & 4 namely Arjun Singh, Aditya Ghorui, Sujit Ghorui and Shaba Ghorui for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the said Code on 21.05.1988 to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such the trial of Session Trial No.2 of March 1988 was started before the Trial Court.The trial had to be adjourned as some papers were not available and on 08.06.1988 the learned PP-in-charge filed one petition for framing of additional charge against all the accused persons under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the said Code and the said prayer was allowed and additional charge was framed against all the four accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the said Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To prove the charge the prosecution examined in all 12 (twelve) witnesses.Let us now say who they were, PW-1, as we have already stated is the de facto complainant who is also the brother of the deceased and also one alleged eye witness of the incident.PW-2, Menoka Ghosh is the widow of the deceased, also another alleged eye witness of the incident and also a victim.PW-3, is Pachai Ghosh, the father of the deceased who also allegedly saw the incident and also received injuries.PW-4, is the Dr. Anjan Pal who examined PW-2 & 3 at Amarkanan P.H.C.PW-5, is one Amarendranath Palit, one A.S.I of police who filled in the formal FIR.PW-6, is one Sanatan Debnath, being constable no.563, who accompanied PW-12 to the place of occurrence and he also escorted the dead body of Batul Ghosh to Bankura Medical College Morgue and at that time he was accompanied by one constable Sudhir Mitra.The dead body was identified to the Medical Officer at the morgue by this witness, this witness also handed over the challan and a copy of the inquest report to the Medical Officer.This witness also collected the wearing apparels of the victim from the autopsy surgeon and made over to the first I.O of this case that is PW-12(however the wearing apparels were not produced before the learned Trial Court).PW-7, is that constable Sudhir Mitra, about which we have already told and he was only tendered by the prosecution for cross- examination by the defence.PW-8, is one Mangal Ghosh, one co-villager of the deceased who rushed to the spot hearing hue and cry and saw that the accused was murdered in the paddy field of Baralalpur.This witness saw PWs-1, 2 & 3 by the side of the body of the deceased.PW-9, is one Sudhir Mondal another co-villagers of the deceased, who came to the spot on that evening at about 8 p.m. he along with others were gossiping at Hari Mela of their village (Palajuria) and they heard hue and cry coming from that tank, Talagaria.Thus, this witness is one post occurrence witness.PW-10, is the second I.O of this case who submitted charge sheet in this case he also proved that he could not arrest the FIR named accused person and showed three accused persons as absconders .PW-11, is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body.PW-12, is the first I.O of this case.The defence preferred not to adduce any oral and documentary evidence but submitted notes argument and also the learned advocate of the defence made oral submission.The prosecution also did the same.Separate argument was made on behalf of opposite party namely Menoka Ghosh.P.C is that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.It was also the case of the defence that they had no knowledge or complicity in this incident but after Batul Ghosh died a false case was fabricated against them in collusion with the police.It was also claimed by the defence before the Trial Court that the victim Batul Ghosh was a man of questionable character who was involved in a case of dacoity with murder and as such it was not unlikely that he might have quarrelled with other persons and that he was murdered by other partners of that gang.At the time of argument the learned Lawyer of the appellants attacked the story of the prosecution as to the filing of the FIR at a belated stage.He submitted that the incident took place at about 7 pm on 09.10.1984 whereas the FIR was handed over to the police at 3 a.m. (in the intervening night) at the place of occurrence which was forwarded through one policeman to Galgajalghati police station and the case was registered ultimately at 5 a.m. on 10.10.1984, that is after a gap of 8 hours.He submitted that the police came to the place of occurrence at 3 a.m. On this point he cited the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2004) 10 SCC Page 141 State of Punjab Vs.Daljit Singh and another, in which case the FIR was lodged at 6 a.m. on the next day, when the incident occurred at 8 p.m. on the previous day, wherein the Apex Court was not satisfied as to why the defacto complainant could not go to the Police Station which was situated 5 Km.in the opposite direction and that was held to be one ground of acquittal by the Apex Court.On this point the learned defence counsel also cited another decision of the Apex Court as reported in 1991 Cr.L.J 1391 (SC) Peddireddy Subbareddi and other Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh.In the decision of Daljit Singh's (supra) the Apex Court did not believe the explanation that critical law and order situation was existing in that area, but the FIR maker went to a village 5 Km.away from the place of the incident to inform his grand- mother about the occurrence who did not report the matter instantly to the police station and that apart there was also delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate.In the instant case before the floor of this Court it was not the situation.In the second decision there was delay of 15 hours in lodging the FIR and apart from this circumstance the Apex Court did not believe the evidence of PW-1 who was the sole eye witness of that incident being highly interested witness and also highly artificial.Every case is to be judged on its own facts.Here the incident took place after 5 pm in the evening and continued at least up till 7:30 p.m and in a village.The police was informed for the first time at 1:45 a.m on that very night, police came at 3 a.m, thus, it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging the FIR.There cannot be any straight jacket formula to match every situation.The family of the deceased consisted of three persons, one old father, the widow of the deceased and the brother apart from the deceased.The widow and the father of the deceased also got injuries.It is to be considered that the members of the bereaved family were busy with the victim who was murdered.Apart from the legislative intent we have the decision on this point as cited in (2006) 12 SCC 37 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 370 (Chatar Singh vs. state of M.P) on the facts stated below where the trail court imposed sentence for ten years for the offence under Section 364 of the IPC, under Section 365 IPC for four years and under Section 120 B rigorous imprisonment for five years and under Section 201 of the Code further rigorous imprisonment for two years and it was further ordered that the punishment of the 364 IPC will run consecutively, while for the other offences it was to be run concurrently that is total period of 20 years RI was imposed.The High Court also confirmed the same and in such situation the Apex Court held that provisos appended to Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that the accused could not have been sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than 14 years.In the case before this Court the same theory will naturally apply and the court cannot impose any substantive sentence for other offences like Section 323 of the IPC or to direct that the sentences will run concurrently for further period of one year on two counts thus naturally that period of substantive sentence cannot be treated as per law and that portion of the judgment cannot be confirmed.I have already said that the main witnesses of the prosecution are PWs 1, 2 & 3 and the corroborative witnesses are the doctor and the investigating officers.This court being the last fact finding court it must reappraise the evidence on record.PW 1 is Pagal Ghosh that is the full brother of the victim Batul Ghosh he deposed that on the date of the incident he with his elder brother and Menoka Ghosh the wife of Batul Ghosh went to their field which is situated in the Southern side of the village Ghuska to plaque brinjals and after plaquing brinjals he returned back to his house with a portion of the brinjals and his elder brother and sister-in-law were coming behind and they were some long distance.This witness further deposed that when he was returning home he found that the accused persons namely Aditya Ghorui, Sujit, Saba Ghorui and Arjun Sing all of village Baralalpur were sitting in the lower part of the Northern bank of the tank Talgaria.He further deposed that as soon as he reached home he heard a cry and his father wanted to know as to what was the matter and thereafter this witness went to Talgaria tank and he heard a cry of his elder brother Batul and he reached to the place of occurrence through a short cut route and he found the accused persons named above were beating his elder brother Batul.He also found his father and sister-in-law were lying on the feet and entreating them telling "please do not beat do not beat".This witness also saw the accused persons to hurl blows to his father and sister-in-law and when he reached accused persons they also came to beat him.It is very much clear from his evidence that the father and sister-in-law tried to save the life of his elder brother but the accused persons hurled blows on his father and sister-in-law and thereafter his elder brother failed down on the paddy field then the accused persons hurled blows with "lati".This witness fixed up the time of the incident to be just after the evening but it was a moonlit night.He also deposed that hearing hue and cry many other persons of the village rushed there but the accused persons fled away and this witness found his elder brother dead.This witness was extensively cross-examined.There are some contradictions as regards the incident and the evidence.This witness deposed that he could not identify the voice giving out the alarm at that time this answer is of no significance as this witness in the next paragraph categorically deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence he found four persons were hurling blows on his elder brother with several weapons like tangi, spare, vojali and lati and he also duly identified the persons and named them.It is true that as per evidence some villagers came.It is also true that except PWs 8 & 9 none came to depose in favour of the prosecution.He noticed injuries on the presence of his father and Boudi (elder sister-in-law) he also deposed that there were one and two others in that gang but he could not identify them.This is a natural answer coming from one eye witness.It is very much possible that in such attack the victim party may identify some of the accused persons and some may be left out.It is true that this witness deposed that after the incident some co-villagers came but unfortunately the names of those co-villagers were not taken by this witness.It is also clear from his evidence that when the villagers were approaching to the place of occurrence the offenders fled away.Thus, the offenders were not seen by the villagers.It is true that Choukidar of Guska area came to the place of occurrence after the incident.This witness was a natural eyewitness and his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out.In one answer in his cross-examination he deposed that he did not see anything about the incident at all and that we do not know actually how my elder brother died, the evidence of a witness is to be taken as a whole and not on piecemeal sentences.There are some tit bits in her evidence which may be termed as contradictions but such contradictions are minor contradictions and those cannot be treated as exaggerations or omissions.This court is satisfied that PW 2 is also another eyewitness and not only one eye witness but also one injured eye witness.She being a housewife and she saw this accused Aditya Ghorui when he used to come during the election days.This witness sustained injuries for which she was taken to Amarkanan Health Centre along with PW 3 that is her father-in-law.This witness also deposed regarding the further details in what manner the incident took place and also deposed regarding the place of occurrence.This witness has described the place of occurrence and also the topography of the place of incident.This witness duly identified by the accused persons in that moonlit night.This witness is none else but the ill-fated father of Batul Ghosh, the deceased.Such a witness cannot implicate some others letting of the real assailants in a case of murder of his son.The ill-fated father we can say is one truthful eyewitness as we get from his total evidence on record.This witness also has the backing of the injury report of the Amarkanan Public Health Centre where he and his daughter-in-law were treated.PW 4 is another important witness from the side of the prosecution.This witness was posted at the Medical Officer of Amarkanan PHC at the material point of time and on 10.10.1984 at about 10 a.m. he examined both PW 2 & 3 of village Palajuria and on examination he found one lacerated wound, one tender swelling and one superficial bruise with tender swelling in the body of PW 3 and on examination of PW 2 Menoka Ghosh he found one lacerated wound on her forehead.It is also clear from his evidence that the patient party told him that they were assailed with lati and some heavy objects by Aditya Ghorui, Arjun Singh and Saba Ghorui.On going through his cross examination we are satisfied that there are no reasons to describe him as untruthful one.PW 5 was then posted as ASI of GangajalGhati Police Station and he received the FIR through the Constable No.C/563 as forwarded by the Officer in charge of the said PS.This witness drew up the formal FIR which he duly proved and as such his evidence is formal in nature.PW 6 is that constable who took the FIR from the place of occurrence to the police station as directed by the OC Gangajalghati PS.This witness also escorted the dead body to the morgue of Bankura and one Sudhir Mitra another constable accompanied him.Thus, this witness is also formal in nature.PW 7 was tendered by the prosecution for cross examination.PW 8 is the co-villager of PWs 1, 2 & 3 and he came to the place of occurrence after the incident was over and the victim was lying dead in a pool of blood this witness also deposed that he saw the PWs 1, 2 & 3 by the side of the body of Batul and he had talked with PW 1 & 3 over the matter and other portion of his evidence was rightly denied by the court being hear say in nature as PWs 1 & 3 did not disclose the incident to this witness.This witness is also witnessed to the seizure but still then this witness is formal in nature as because he did not see the incident.PW 9 is another such witness who came to the place of occurrence after the incident.PW 10 is the second IO of this case.He could not arrest the three absconding accused persons and submitted charge sheet against the four accused persons showing three as absconders under Section 302/34 IPC.PW 11 is the Autopsy Surgeon who saw as many as 18 injuries on the body of the victim.The death of the victim is not dispute in this case and as such considering the evidence of this doctor we are satisfied that such injuries which the doctor saw on the date of the autopsy were sufficient to cause death of one human being.PW 12 is the first IO of this case who deposed that he came to know as to the incident from the local MLA, Gram Pradhan and a member of Zilla Parishad Bankura that something had happened at village Baralalpur as Batul Ghosh of Palajuria had a clash with some men.The GD entries were duly proved by this witness.This court cannot say that the information given by those political persons could have been treated as FIR.Such cryptic information cannot be treated as FIR.From the evidence of this witness it is clear that when he came to the PO he found the dead body of Batul Ghosh lying about 100 cubits away from the tank called Talgaria on a paddy field and he prepared a sketch map and also prepared the inquest report.He seized some articles by preparing seizure list and also recorded the statement of some witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is further clear from his evidence that he forwarded Pachai Ghosh and Menoka Ghosh to Amarkanan PHC for necessary treatment by sending a requisition to the said PHC.He could arrest one accused Arjun Singh and held raids in the houses of the other FIR named accused persons but failed to apprehend any other accused.We have gone through the cross examination of this witness there is nothing in the said extensive cross examination to brand the witness as one interested police officer.The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and they did not make out a case and inform the court that they are innocent and they are falsely implicated in this case.But neither of these accused persons could submit that what was the reason of their false implication in this case.On behalf of the defence it was argued and cross examined that the victim was not a man of good character as he was an accused in a case under Section 396 of the IPC it is a settle proposition of law that bad character of an accused cannot be agitated before the trial court to prove that aspect.Here in the present case accused/appellant Arjun Singh could be arrested on 10.10.1984 but the accused nos.2, 3 & 4 could be arrested only in April, 1988 whereas this incident took place on 09.10.1984 and certainly we can presume some ill motive of the accused persons who were absconding even considering the legal proposition that mere abscondence of one accused cannot by itself prove the guilt of the accused.To us it will allow to presume something adverse against the three accused persons.We affirm the order of conviction on all the counts.They must surrender before the learned trial court within 21 days from this day otherwise the learned trial court will be at liberty to issue warrant of arrest against all these accused appellants to serve out the sentence.I Agree: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,588,289 | PW 2 Shankarrao, PW 3 Subhadrabai, PW 9 Sitaram and PW 10 Ramdas are the persons who speak about the demand of dowry and ill-treatment to deceased Lata.PW 5 Subhash is a witness on panchanama of various seizures and particularly Exh. 31 is a panchanama of a demonstration made by accused No. 2 Trimbak as regards the opening and closing of the door from outside of a room where Lata was found dead.Exh. 24 is the inquest.Lata chained the door of the room from inside and burnt herself.Incidentally, my sister Mathurabai came outside to answer natures call.She found fire in the room.Therefore, she called and awoke Bhujangrao Anandrao.When Bhujangrao pushed the door, he found it to be closed from inside.Bhujangrao called Babanrao Vithalrao and they both entered in the room by removing the tin and opened the door.When they saw Sau.Lata, they found her in dead condition.They told me as above.Hence I lodge my complaint.Enquiry be kindly held."Undisputedly, this report came to be lodged at the behest and under instruction of original accused No. 1 Bhujangrao.In this report, they tried to paint a picture of suicidal death by Lata.This report as came to be lodged at the behest of accused No. I Bhujangrao is palpably false as proved from medical evidence.This report is calculately made to mislead the prosecution and investigating agency.It is found from the testimony of PW 9 Sitaram through Exh. 31 a panchanama of demonstration that the chain of the room could be operated from outside and it was convenient to any person and particularly the inmates in a situation of emergency to open the door even from outside.Even then the venture of accused No I Bhujangrao of informing that on seeing the flames be rushed and reached the top and remove the tin sheet is farcical and was with an intention to give further colour to a story of suicidal death.From record, this report was lodged after two hours.Accused person deliberated and then thoughtfully lodged the report.Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao in his examination Under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide Question No. 52, has admitted by saying that accused No. 3 Kailash had filed a report in Police Station.Undisputedly, the accused No. 1 Bhujangrao bus accepted this circumstances.JUDGMENT A A. Desai, J.Since both the appeals arising out of the common set of facts and judgment have been heard together and being disposed of by this judgment.On 2 5-1986 Lata (since deceased) married with original accused No. 2 Trimbak, Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao and original accused No. 3 Kailash lire respectively his father and uncle.On 25-6-1987 at night Lata .in her matrimonial home found dead owing to burn injuries.A case of accidental death was registered.The body was then sent for post mortem.Dr. Garja (PW 12) who conducted the autopsy, submitted report vide Exh. 75 wherein 'he has stated that amongst other deceased Lata suffered an incised wound 6 inch deep on chest and other contused wound on her person.PW 1 Vilas Pawar vide Exh. 20 lodged a report of homicidal death.The offence was accordingly registered.Exh. 30 is a discovery memorandum and seizure penchanama is Exh. 30-A of article knife which is claimed to have been made by the accused at the time of crime.The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, recorded a finding of homicidal death discussing, the material in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment.While scrutinising the material on the record, we bear in mind as proposed by Mrs. Sirpurkar.No doubt, it is true that there is no substantive evidence involving the accused persons in the incident leading to homicidal death of Lata.However, the incident of crime occurred within four walls of the house of the accused persons.The circumstances which we have noticed are as under 8-We arc initially dealing with the circumstances other than motive.Undisputedly, as per the post mortem report and evidence of Dr. Garje (PW 12) deceased Lata suffered incised wound on chest and other contused injuries."This day 25-6-1987 in the night, I was sleeping in my home.At that time at about 11 O'clock Prahlad Kisanrao Deshmukh came to me and told me that Sau.Lata was burnt.Hence I went there and observed that Sail Lata was died in the room due to burning and smell of kerosene was emitting and a bottle of kerosene was lying nearby.Undisputedly further homicidal death occurred in the house.Even according to the accused, the room was chained from inside.He himself bad to reach inside the room by opening the tins of the roof.It, therefore, suggests that the third person or any outside had no access to the place where the dead body was found as per spot panchanama.This establishes the fact that homicidal death took place while Lata was exclusively in their custody.From these circumstances, it becomes, obligatory for the accused person to offer any plausible explanation which may suggest about their innocence.Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao has offered the explanation in cross-examination, or in.report vide Exh. 80 that he got the knowledge of burning from somebody.He had no knowledge of burning and after receiving the knowledge he removed the tins from the roof.The explanation as offered in view of our earlier discussion not only improbable but the lame is palpably false.Giving false explanation is the incriminating circumstance involving the accused in the crime.Accused No. 2 Trimbak who was the husband of deceased Lata claimed alibi by laying (hat at the relevant time be was not there.He has not offered any explanation as to where he was.The explanation is lame and unsatisfactory.Taking into consideration the incident as occurred undisputedly none of the accused have heard any cries or shouts of the deceased though it was quite natural.It, therefore, appears that piercing injury was caused by gagging her mouth.This could not be the act of individual.It necessary requires more than one person.Besides this, the position as described of a dead body in an inquest panchanama marked as Exh. 24 is that the deceased was lying on a floor keeping both her hands under her head as if she was taking sleep.It also suggests that while in flames she was motion-less.This further indicates that Lata was done to death before she was set on fire.These aspect! definitely indicate that both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are involved in that crime.From the testimony of PW 1 Vilas who is a brother of deceased Lata, it is clear that there was a demand of dowry before the settlement of marriage.It is further clear that part of the payment was made and the balance could not be paid in time.Vide Exh. 19 a post-card whereunder he made a request to the accused No I for gram of some time for payment.Besides this on record that is no evidence of PW 2 Shankar, PW 3 Subhadra, PW 9 Sitaram and PW 10 Ramdas.They speak about the ill-treatment.Moreover, Exh. 19 was seized and attached during the course of the search of the house of the accused person.This material clearly established the motive of the accused person to torture deceased Lata for extracting the amount of dowry.If, therefore, follow! that both the accused Nos.1 and 2 were deeply interested and surcharged with a motive to commit a crime by bringing an end to the life of Lata.Homicidal death of Lata is fully established.The circumstance involving accused Nos. I and 2 are lodging a false report with a definite intention, homicidal death while in the custody and not offering any explanation therefore and the motive which we have lastly discussed.In view of the circumstances and the incident as occurred, accused person, namely, Nos. I and 2 have shared the common intention and executed their mission resulting in homicidal death of Lata.We, therefore, hold them guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The finding of acquittal as recorded cannot be sustained.Undisputedly, as discussed earlier and from the evidence of Dr. Garje PW 12 and post mortem report Exh. 75 it is clear that deceased Lata sustained incised wound on chest and as per our discussions the said injury was pre-burning.The accused persons with an intention which we have discussed calculatedly poured a kerosene oil on her person to give a colour of suicidal death.In doing 10, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were deeply arrested.They did this to escape from Justice.As such, they are also guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard Mr. Kukdey, the -learned Counsel.Ha strenuously urged that accused No. 3 Kailash has also played a vital role in lodging the false report.He, therefore, submitted that accused No. 3 also shared the common intention with accused Nos. 1 and 2 and as such, he is equally guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.We have gave some anxious consideration on the argument.However, it appears from Exh. 80 that he is residing in the name village at Shirpur.The prosecution could lead the evidence only to the extent that ha has lodged the report of suicidal death due to burning but that was at the instance and behalf of original accused No. 1 Bhujangrao.It cannot be further said that he has shared the same and common intention with accused No. 1 to lodge a false report.The say or version of accused No. 1 Bhujangrao he has endorsed while lodging the report.However, it cannot be said with entire certainty that be could extract a knowledge or evil design of accused No. 1 when ha directed him to lodge a report.He, therefore, rind ourselves difficult to hold accused No. 3 guilty with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We maintain the finding of acquittal recorded in his favour.We, therefore, do not want to interfere with.With the assistance of the learned Counsel for both the parties, we nave perused the testimony of the witnesses referred to above.This 'is countered by Mrs. Silpurkar- with a submission that the incident wherein the accused persons were involved does not satisfy the lest of rarest amongst rare and as such in her submission leniency should be shown.We have considered the arguments and pass the following order :-Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1989 is hereby allowed.Finding of acquittal as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 3S-1-1989 is hereby set aside.We convict accused No. 1 Bhujangrao and accused No. 2 Trimbakrao for the offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and we direct them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each.In case of default, they shall further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.We maintain the finding of acquittal in favour of accused No. 3 Kailash recorded by the trial Court.They shall surrender to their bail bonds within one month. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,830,943 | 1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent heard bothsides finally at the stage of admission.She as well as respondent No.2 are medicalpractitioners by profession.They have one daughter.Thepetitioners contend that, the respondent No.2 was ill-treating hiswife and, therefore, quarrels started.Respondent No.2 hadassaulted his wife on 23-01-2017 for which she was admitted to CivilHospital, Beed and then shifted to Deep Hospital, Beed.It is the contention ofthe petitioners that, after respondent No.2 got knowledge about thelodging of the said complaint, he made false complaint to givecounterblast against the petitioners.It was alleged inthe complaint that, daughter of petitioner No.1 was not ready tocohabit with him and was insisting that he should become'Gharjavai' (Son-in-law who stays at wife's home).He had tried tocohabit with her but she was not co-operating, and therefore, he hadfiled proceeding for divorce which was then withdrawn because ofthe pressure from the petitioners.All the petitioners wentto his hospital and abused him.It was alleged that, petitioner No.1was insisting that, he should give divorce to the wife and pay Rs.10Lakh.When he denied, the petitioners had beaten him by fistsblows.::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 :::Hence, present petition.Heard learned advocate Mr. N. L. Jadhav for petitioners andlearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.There is absolutely no ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 ::: 5 WP 1996-2019explanation for the delay.It can be seen from the contents of thenon-cognizable offence registered against respondent No.2 on thecomplaint by his wife that her father had gone there to fetch her,and at that time the respondent No.2 had assaulted her by fists andblows, abused and gave threat to kill.::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 :::The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the reasonsgiven by the learned Magistrate while issuing process and alsosupported the reasons given by the learned Revisional Court.It wassubmitted that, the procedure has been properly adopted by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed.::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 :::As regardsthe other accused i.e. present petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned,the complainant has given particular acts those which were allegedlycommitted by them.When all these facts thus have been ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 ::: 7 WP 1996-2019considered by the learned Magistrate and the impugned orderpassed by the learned Magistrate reflects proper application of mindthe same was then considered by the learned Revisional Court indetailed, hence no case is made out for this Court to invoke itsConstitutional powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitutionof India.Hence, there is no merit in the petition, writ petition standsdismissed.::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 :::(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGEvjg/-.::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:23:43 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,588,364 | The appellant is the brothers' son of P.W. 1, Ayithal.On the morning of 3rd October, 1967, the appellant approached his aunt, P.W. 1, and asked her for a rupee saying that he was feeling giddy as he had not taken food.P.W. 1 told him that she had no money and offered to give him food.But the appellant did not want food and went and sat near the well at a distance of 30 or 40 marks., P.W. 3, Thangaraju, aged 12 years, P.W. 4 Selvaraju, aged 13 years, and other boys were playing near the well.The deceased child Rajeswari was standing nearby.The appellant caught hold of the child, and snatched the silver waist-cord worn by it and when the child cried he dashed it on the stone nearby.P.W. 1, her daughter P.W. 2, Govidammal, the boys P.Ws. 3 and 4, P.W. 5, Karuppa Chetti, living at a distance of 50 feet from the well and P.W. 6 Arunachalam, who was then going along the road, claim to have witnessed the occurrence.In spite of their crying aloud, the appellant dashed the child against the stone a second time and left the place.Just after he passed P.W. 6, the latter took a cycle, which was being pushed along the road by one Manickam, and proceeded on it, with Manickam on the carrier, to catch hold of the appellant.The cycle driven by P.W. 6 dashed against the appellant and this resulted in the appellant, P.W. 6, and Manickam falling on the ground.The appellant sustained minor injuries, but he escaped.The appellant was arrested with his blood-stained dhoty.The appellant is alleged to have made a statement about the silver waist-cord, but no recovery was made in pursuance of the same.P.W. 2, Govindammal, took the child to the Mill Hospital, but the Doctor there found that the child was dead.It was only thereafter P.W. 1 gave the complaint Exhibit P-1, in this case.JUDGMENT K. Sadasivam, J.Appellant Chinnapaiyan alias Arumugham has been convicted under Sections 379 and 302, Indian Penal Code, for having committed theft of a silver waist-cord from the possession of the female child Rajeswari alias Nageswari, aged about 5 years, and caused the death of the said child in the course of the same transaction, by dashing her against a big stone at about 9 a.m., on 3rd October, 1967 at Jagir Ammapalayam village, and sentenced to R.I. for six months on the first charge and to death, subject to confirmation by this Court, on the second charge.P.W. 14, Dr. Vijayal, conducted post-mortem on the body of the child Rajeswari and she found a laceration on the right side of the chin, and abrasion on the right side of the chest, a group of abrasions above the right chest, an abrasion on the right chest below the axilla, an abrasion just above that injury and a minute abrasion on the left knee-cap.The doctor reserved her opinion as to the cause of death and sent the viscera for chemical analysis and she gave her final opinion that the deceased child would appear to have died due to shock on account of the injuries to the abdominal wall and chest.The appellant was produced before the Sub-Magistrate, P.W. 13, Thaiyanayagam, for his judicial confession being recorded.In this judicial confessions the appellant has stated that on the date of occurence, he went to beat his aunt's son, P.W. 8, Ganesan, as he was unable to bear the troubles given by him, that.P.W. 8 was not in his house, that the child Rajeswari, daughter of' P.W. 8, spat on him and showed her left leg against him, that he lifted the child catching hold of its legs and dashed it out of anger and that immediately after dashing the child he went straight to the Police Station.During his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, In the committal Court, the appellant pleaded inability to recollect whether he made a judicial confession.He stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence and that he saw the child lying dead on the rock and he ran away.During his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Sessions.Court, the appellant gave the following version:There was enmity between me and P.W. 8 (Ganesan).I went to his house to get back the amount.He was not present.I quarrelled with his wife Kandayee.The deceased child came out and spat on me and also showed her legs.I pushed it down.There were stones there.It fell down on that.I was going away I heard people saying that the child had died.So I went straight to the Police Station.Thus, the appellant does not dispute the fact that he took the child and hit it against the stone.There is also no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 6, about the act of the appellant in catching hold of the child and hitting it twice against the stone.In fact, no suggestion was made to P.W. 8 that he took any loan from the appellant.He has only stated therein that P.W. 8 gave him trouble for a long time and that unable to bear the same he went to beat him.P.W. 1 has stated that the appellant came and asked her for a loan of a rupee and that she offered to give him food.It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 8 that the appellant was leading a. wayward life and that P W. 8 has even chastised him on one occasion.But there is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 to support this statement The learned Sessions Judge has rightly pointed out that in the earliest report, Exhibit P-1 given by P.W. 1 she has given the same version which she has given at the trial There is nothing in Exhibit P-1 to support the plea of the appellant that the deceased child spat on him or showed its legs.Even assuming the said statement in Exhibit. P-13 to be true, we fail to see how the act of the young child of 5 years would constitute a provocation and much less grave provocation, to sustain the plea of grave and sudden provocation under Exception (1) to Section 300, Indian Penal Code.It is unlikely he would have attempted to commit theft of that waist-cord in the presence of so many witnesses.It is-true P.Ws. 1 to 5, among the eye-witnesses, speak to the appellant having snatched away the waist-cord Evidently, the act of the appellant in taking hold of the child, and the subsequent missing of the waist-cord must have induced a belief in these witnesses that the appellant took away the waist-cord It should be noted that the appellant immediately went to the Police Station with his blood-stained dhoti and.We have already referred to the evidence of the Doctor that she had reserved her opinion about the cause of death and sent the viscera for chemical analysis.She, however gave her opinion finally that the child would have died of shock due to the injuries to the abdominal wall and chest.It is clear from her evidence and the post-mortem certificate, that the chambers of the heart were empty, and this gives a clue as to how the shock caused the death of the child.In Glaister's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Eleventh Edition, page 127, it is stated as follows:Primary shock, a frequent cause of syncope, results from different impulses which cause reflex vasodilatation and a resultant serious fall in the blood-pressure due to the actual diminution of the volume of the blood passing through the heart to the arteries.The capillaries of the skeletal muscles are chiefly affected, and in these the blood collects instead of returning to the heart, causing a temporary deprivation of the blood from the circulation 'and cerebral anaemia In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Sixteenth Edition, page 249, it is stated that death may occur from shock without any visible injury from paralysis of the heart by a blow on the cardiac region, or from the inhibitory action of the solar plexus caused by a blow on the pit of the stomach in the upper part of the abdomen.Having regard to the above facts it is not possible to bring the present case under Clause (3) of Section 300, Indian Penal Code, but only under the second clause of Section 299, Indian Penal Code There can be no doubt that the appellant did intend to cause injuries to the child but it could not be said that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.It is clear from the medical evidence in this case that the child died of shock.The appellant, when he caught hold of the child and hit it against the stone twice, should have known that death was likely to be caused. | ['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,844,111 | Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.(Delivered by Hon.Arvind K.Tripathi,J.) 1- Shri B.D.Sharma, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Km.4- All the three appellants are in jail since the date of conviction.5- The brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report was lodged by Manveer Bahadur on 19.3.2003 which was registered at 10.00 A.M. as Case Crime No.65 of 2003 at PS.Bhuta, District Bareilly.As per First Information Report version on 19.3.2003, the informant and his son Dig Vijay Singh and Veer Pal s/o Ram Das of the same village and other persons were singing Holi festival song.At the same time the accused appellant Ashok Kumar and others in drunken condition started quarreling.However, persons present there intervened.Subsequently at about 8.00 P.M. the appellant Ashok Kumar s/o Shyam Lal , Bhoop Ram s/o Rupali Ram and Raj Kumar s/o Jagannath Prasad came there with licensed gun.Raj Kumar was having gun of his father and Ram Chandra s/o Bulaki Ram was armed with country made pistol.They started indiscriminate firing causing firearm injuries to Dig Vijay Singh and Veerpal.Dig Vijay Singh expired on the spot.The accused caught hold the hand of the Dig Vijay Singh and they tied rope around the neck of Veer Pal and dragged them towards their house.Due to indiscriminate firing villagers started running towards house and closed the doors.While running they left there shoes chappal and empty cartridges were also lying on the spot.The animals started running after breaking the rope.The terror was created in the village.The incident was witnessed by Prabhat Kumar s/o Lakshya Chandr, Babloo s/o of Nanhey Lal, Devendra Kumar s/o Lakshya Chandra and others villagers in the light of petromax and torch.They tried to catch hold the accused but firing in the air and showing their gun and country made pistol they went towards jungle leaving both the dead bodies in the house of Ashok Kumar.Number of villagers were collected there.He went for lodging of the First Information Report.The report was got written by one Kunwar Sen. The investigating officer started investigation.Police reached on the spot.The investigation was started by the then SHO Harvir Singh who went on the spot alongwith the police personnel including S.I. Raj Kumar Singh.Blood and blood stained earth were taken from the spot which was sealed in separate container.Four empty cartridge were recovered from the place of occurrence.The recovery memo was also prepared regarding shoes and chappal.Petromax was taken into custody and thereafter it was handed over to the witness Nathhu Lal.Thereafter on 21.3.2003 one plastic rope was recovered on pointing out of the accused.The accused were arrested.From their possession double barrel gun, two cartridges, one single gun and one cartridge were taken into custody.Recovery memo was prepared.The recovery memo was proved and exhibited.6- The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.7- According to report received from Forensic Laboratory, Agra U.P. the fire was from gun recovered from the accused appellant.9- The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to prove its case.PW-1 Manveer Bahadur, the informant, PW-2 Constable Vishwajeet Singh who prepared chick report and made G.D. Entry and he proved the chick report and G.D. Entry and which was exhibited as Ext.Ka-2 and Ext.Ka-3 respectively, PW-3 Devendra Kumar, witness of panchayatnama, PW-4 Dr. Deepak Kumar Saxena who conducted the postmortem examination of the bodies of the deceased Dig Vijay Singh and Veer Pal, PW-5 S.I. Aditya Kumar Mishra who prepared panchayatnama on 20.3.2003 as in the night of 19.3.2003, there was no sufficient light for preparation of panchayatnama and he proved panchayatnama of Veerpal and Dig Vijay Singh, P.W.6 S.I. Raj Kumar Singh who accompanied, the then Investigating Officer,(the then S.H.O.)Harvir Singh for recovery and collecting sample of blood and blood stained earth.Four empty cartridges were also taken into custody.The Petromax was taken into custody.He inspected the place of recovery of gun and recorded the statement of the witnesses.Subsequently the statement of the other witnesses were also recorded.After completing investigation he submitted charge sheet on 3.9.2003 in Case Crime No.65/2003 under section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and which was exhibited as Ext.Site plan was prepared and Exhibited as Ext.Meena, learned A.G.A. appeared on behalf of the State.2- The present appeal has been preferred assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.8.2010 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bareilly in S.T. No.437 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No.65 of 2003, under section 302 I.P.C. PS.Bhuta District Bareilly convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment.3- We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.S.I. Raj Kumar Singh, PW-6 The accused appellant Ashok Kumar, was arrested with SBBL gun, Bhupram with DBBL gun, Raj Kumar with DBBL gun and Ram Chandra on their pointing out rope used for dragging Veer Pal was recovered.The gun and cartridges recovered from the accused appellant were sealed.Recovery memo was prepared in presence of the witnesses.On the body of Dig Vijay Singh firearm entry of 2 cm x 2 cm x bone deep was found.3 cm on right side of head and 3 cm above right year on the parietal bone in the area of 6 cm x 4 cm measuring 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep.The cause of death was a result of anti mortem injuries.According to postmortem examination report of the deceased Veer Pal there were following injuries noted:-1) Firearm wound of entry 3cm x 2 cm muscle deep on middle of left thigh and number of firearm of entry were noted in the area of 15 cm x 14 cm measuring 0.2x 0.2 cm x bone deep.2) Firearm wound in the area of 12 cm x 10 cm on right arm and size of firearm injuries were noted as 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep.3) Contusion with number of injuries around the neck measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm.8- After completing formalities the investigating officer submitted charge sheet and the case was committed to the court of Sessions.Charges were framed under section 302 and 201 I.P.C. The accused appellant denied the charges and pleaded to be tried.He was S.H.O. Of the Police Station concerned.The First Information Report was registered in his presence.Panchayatnama was prepared on his direction, recoveries were made.PW-9 Constable Roop Ram who brought the report from Forensic Laboratory Agra which was proved and submitted before the trial court as Ext.After the prosecution closed the evidence the statement of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the charges and wanted to adduce the evidence.Four witnesses were examined from side of the defence.DW-1 Mahendra Pal Singh to show that on the date of Holi Festival Raj Kumar visited his house.He is brother-in-law (sala) of the accused Raj Kumar, DW-2 Ram Bharose Lal to prove alibi to the effect that the shop of the accused appellant Ashok Kumar was adjacent to his shop, which used to remain open on all days during entire year.There was no Holiday to close the shop, DW-3 Ramesh Chandra to prove alibi that the accused Bhupram was his tenant who was residing with his wife in his house on rent and according to him he was apprehended by the police while he was going to school, DW-4 Mohd.Saleem to prove of Manveer Bahadur who was working in the irrigation department and was known to him.It was informed by Manveer Bahadur that from his first wife there was a son, namely Dig Vijay Singh who was residing at the house situated at Joginaveda and there was suspicion regarding illicit relationship with his second wife.Due to that he ousted his son Dig Vijay Singh from the house where he was residing and he did not use to visit to his village.He tried to show that both father and son (deceased) have no good relation.Thereafter he went to his house.He was brought by the accused Ashok Kumar for evidence.10- Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact no body had seen the incident and on the basis of false allegation due to suspicion the appellants were implicated in the present case.It appears that the incident took place at some other place.The deceased were assaulted by some unknown persons.It was unnatural and unbelievable that there was indiscriminate firing but no firearm injury was caused to any other person who are claiming to be present there and witnessed the incident.However, it was unnatural that they were dragged to the house of one of the appellants (Ashok Kumar).Since the informant Manveer Bahadur was intermediate pass and as such it was unnatural that he got the First Information Report written by third person (scribe Kunwar Sen).In fact he was not present on the spot.After he came to know regarding the incident, then the First Information Report was lodged and registered and the appellants were apprehended from their houses showing the recovery of gun from them.The appellants were falsely implicated in the present case.It was night incident and there was no sufficient light, hence it appears that no one could identify the assailants.There was no talking term of the informant with his son deceased Dig Vijay Singh as there was suspicion of his illicit relation with the second wife of the informant that is step mother of the deceased.The prompt First Information Report was lodged by the informant Manveer Bahadur, father of the deceased Dig Vijay Singh.The incident took place at about 8.00 P.M. on 19.3.2003 at the time of Holi function, when they were singing Holi Song.First Information Report was got written by one Kunwarsen because he was mentally disturbed due to murder of his son and nephew.The distance was about 8 km from the place of incident, hence it is incorrect that the informant was not present on the spot.The dead body was recovered from the house of accused Ashok Kumar and from the place of occurrence blood and sample of blood stained and simple earth as well as four empty cartridges were recovered.As per report of the Forensic Laboratory it is clear that there was firing by the same gun recovered from the possession of the accused appellant.The medical reports have also corroborated the prosecution story.12- The incident took place on the second day of Holi function and there was light of petromax and torches, hence in view of the fact, the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt and as such the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced under section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment by the trial court.13- So for as the presence of the informant Manveer Bahadur P.W.-1 is concerned, there is no material to show that his presence was doubtful.He lodged the First Information Report at 10.00 P.M. regarding the incident took place at 8.00 P.M. And the distance of police station from the place of incident is about 8 Km.14- So for as the light is concerned, it was second day of Holi function so the presence of sufficient light while they were signing Holi song is not unnatural and unbelievable.There was light of Petromax (gas lantern) and torch which were also shown to the I.O. recovery memo was prepared and the same was given in the custody of the owner/witnesses.After consuming liquor, before the incident, quarrel took place in between the accused and the deceased, hence there was motive for committing offence and if the motive was to kill Dig Vijay Singh and Veerpal, hence if they were targeted, then even if witnesses who were present there did not receive any injury, merely on this ground, their presence could not be doubted.Dig Vijay Singh expired on the spot.However, body of Dig Vijay Singh and injured Veer Pal were dragged to the house of Ashok Kumar.The accused were chased and since other persons started collecting at the place of occurrence and as such they ran away leaving the dead body.15- So for as dragging of the bodies are concerned, the witnesses cannot read the mind of the assailant but it appears that they wanted to ensure the death of both injured Dig Vijay Singh and Veer Pal.Apart from that from the postmortem examination it is clear that there were injuries around the neck to show that the accused tied up the rope, around the neck of Digvijay Singh and dragged him.16- From the place of the incident blood stained earth recovered and four empty cartridges were recovered, hence the place of incident is not doubtful.The rope was recovered on the pointing out of the accused.According to report received from the Forensic Laboratory it is clear that the firing was from the gun which was recovered from the accused appellant.It was found that the blood was found at the place in between the place of occurrence and house of Ashok Kumar where dead body of injured and deceased were dragged and carried away.17- So for as the plea of alibi is concerned, there was no reliable material at the time of incident that the accused appellants were with the defence witnesses.Due to night incident spot was inspected next day morning by the investigation Officer.According to investigating officer S.I.Harvir Singh who was examined as PW-8 when the First Information Report was lodged and registered by the informant Manveer Bahadur on 19.3.2003 he was present at the place of police station.The accused were searched.Search was made to apprehend the accused but they were not traceable.There is no material contradiction to create doubt regarding prosecution case and there was no reason of false implication and in view of the allegation there is motive for committing offence.18- Hence in view of the facts and circumstances it is clear that the prosecution succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Accused-appellants came with fire arm, started indiscriminate firing.The offence was committed with premeditation and with common object, and as such all the accused who were involved in the incident were rightly held guilty and convicted under sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. The firing was with an intention to cause death and to cause bodily injuries to the deceased Dig Vijay Singh and Veer Pal which were sufficient to cause death and cause of death was as a result of anti mortem injuries.19- So for as section 201 I.P.C. is concerned, the accused appellants were acquitted. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,588,609 | In self-defence Basant struck lathi blows on Munnalal who fell down and became unconscious.The medical report showed that Munnalal had received five injuries : (1) contused wound on the right side of the head; (2) contusion just above the right ear; (3) contusion, left side of the head near tuft of hairs; (4) contusion with abrasion, right upper arm; and (5) swelling on left ankle joint.Basant accused had received two injuries, (1) contused wound on the top of head size 1 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep; and (2) painful defused swelling on back of lower third right fore-arm.The prosecution could produce only one eye-witness of the occurrence.JUDGMENT Agarwala, J.Parasram alias Har Prasad, and Basant were prosecuted under Section 304, Penal Code, read with Section 34 Penal Code, for having caused the death of one Munnalal.They have been convicted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.They have come up in appeal to, this Court.The prosecution case was that the accused, who are father and son, were neighbours of Munnalal residing in village Chitora in the district of Budaun.They wore relations of each other and had descended from a common ancestor.Their houses were adjacent to each other.There was a cattle trough in front of the house and baithak of the deceased Munnalal.This cattle trough adjoined the platform of the house of the accused.There was a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of the cattle trough between the accused and the deceased.On 14th June 1947, there was a quarrel over this trough between Munnalal deceased on the one hand and the accused and one Ramdin on the other, which resulted in a fight.The accused and Ramdin gave lathi blows to the deceased as a result of which his skull was fractured and he died.The defence was that there was a quarrel between Parasram accused and Munnalal over the cattle trough; that Munnalal was the aggressor and gave him a lathi blow first with the result that he fell down and became unconscious; that when Basant, accused 2, wanted to protect his father and raised his lathi with that object, then Pashpati and Shankar on the side of Munnalal, and Munnalal himself gave him lathi blows.He was Tara.Four others were examined in the Court of the committing Magistrate as eye-witnesses but they (joined that they bad seen the occurrence.They were, therefore, not examined by the prosecution in the Sessions Court.Now Tara said that on hearing a noise he had gone to the place of occurrence; that on reaching there he heard hot words being exchanged between Munnalal on one side and the accused on the other; that it was Munnalal who wielded his lathi first and then the accused used lathis in return; and that the deceased received a lathi blow from Basant accused.From this statement it is quite clear that it was Munnalal who was the aggressor because he struck the first blow without the accused used having assaulted him or having threatened to assault him.The learned Sessions Judge, however, says that Tara appears to have stated about the deceased having used his lathi first only to save the accused from punishment and to give them an opportunity to plead the right of private defence.The learned Sessions Judge then goes on to say that if this statement be taken to be true, even then the accused had no right of self-defence.According to him when two parties are armed with lathis for a fight to enforce their supposed ownership over a property it does not matter which party attacks first and right of private defence also does not arise in such cases.It is quite evident that both the accused were armed with lathis from before starting of the fight They must have, therefore, come there with the intention of fighting and cannot be given the benefit of the right of private defence simply because the deceased wielded his lathi first.490 P.C.; Punjab Co-operative Bank, Ltd. v. Commissioner, Income-tax, Lahore A.I.R. (27) 1940 P.C. The facts of that case were that there was a dispute between two parties about a piece of land.The complainant claimed the disputed land having fallen on partition to the share of the landlord; while the accused alleged that it had fallen to their share.The complainant had.previous to the date of occurrence, sown the crop in the disputed field and crop was growing.On the date of occurrence the accused proceeded to the field passing by the house of the complainant.They said to the complainant "Come out Haramzada, you and your sons.I am going to the field." The Court held that the accused went to the disputed land deliberately intending to fight and defied the complainant and his father to come and oppose them; and that there was no occasion for their going to the field that day as the field had already been sown and was growing and that the petitioners were suddenly called on to protect their rights or supposed rights.The High Court dismissed the revision.At this time the complainant's party had either finished the cutting or ceased to do so, when they saw the accused approaching.The latter attacked the complainant's party and drove them to their village. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,080,305 | The case of the prosecution, in brief, was as under:(a) Pursuant to complaint received on 10.07.2016 in Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod preliminary investigation was undertaken which revealed that 14 persons had left India to join Islamic State of Iraq and Seria (ISIS) which is declared to be a terrorist organisation (Serial No.38 in the First Schedule to the UAPA).(b) During the course of investigation, A2–Yasmeen was arrested on 01.08.2016 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi while she was attempting to travel to Afghanistan along with her child.(c) According to the prosecution, there was a criminal conspiracy between original Accused No.1 (husband of A2-Yasmeen) and A2- Yasmeen from 2015 pursuant to which conspiracy A1 and A3 to A15 left India and joined ISIS in Afghanistan; and A2-Yasmeen was an active participant supporting terrorist activities of ISIS; and she had raised funds to further the activities of ISIS and had received funds which were utilised for supporting the activities of ISIS.A Nos.1199 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.461 of 2019Union of India vs. Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid @ Yasmeen 3Out of 15 accused named in the charge-sheet all the other accused were declared to be absconding and A2-Yasmeen alone was sent up for trial for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Section 125 IPC and under Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA.The charges were framed against her in respect of said offences.Contention is that the money was deposited by A1 in the account of Sonia Sebastian and the ATM card given to Sonia Sebastian was used by A2 for collecting the amounts.It is stated that the CCTV footage would show that the 2nd accused has withdrawn money from the bank accounts.A Nos.1199 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.461 of 2019Union of India vs. Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid @ Yasmeen 5 The 2nd accused was arrested on 1.8.2016 and she was under judicial custody in Kannur women prison.Uday Umesh Lalit, J.Special leave to appeal granted.The judgment and order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2018 has given rise to these two appeals, one by Union of India against acquittal of A2-Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid @ Yasmeen in respect of offences punishable underSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMUKESH KUMARDate: 2019.08.02 Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), Sections 39 and 4017:20:13 ISTReason:of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA for short) and Crl.The prosecution examined 52 witnesses and relied upon various documents and material objects.5) After going through the material on record, the Special Court for the trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, found that the prosecution had established the case against A2-Yasmeen and convicted her for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 125 IPC and under Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, seven years, seven years, seven years and seven years respectively under the aforesaid five counts.A2-Yasmeen was also directed to pay fine in the sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 120B IPC, in default whereof she was directed to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.A Nos.1199 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.461 of 2019Union of India vs. Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid @ Yasmeen 4The High Court by its judgment under appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of A2-Yasmeen for the offences punishable under Section 125 IPC, Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA while upholding her conviction for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.The High Court however reduced the substantive sentence from three years and seven years to one year and three years respectively on said two counts.The other elements, namely, sentence of fine and the default sentence were not varied or modified by the High Court.During the course of its judgment, the High Court observed as under:-At the time of admission, her personal belongings were entered in a register.Among the articles, there were two Idea SIM cards.The memory card contained revelation videos and videos relating to ISIS, audio speech of Anwar Alwaki, a brief guide to Islamic State and women of Islamic State.This according to the prosecution further proved that she was preparing to go to Afghanistan at the instance of the 1 st accused.“There is evidence to prove that the 2 nd accused was associated with A1 who propagated ISIS ideology and had gone even to the extent of joining him.Her attempt to proceed to Afghanistan was with a clear intention to meet 1st accused and to involve in IS Crl.A Nos.1199 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.461 of 2019Union of India vs. Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid @ Yasmeen 6 related activities.The High Court went on to observe as under:As regards charge under Section 40 of the UAPA, the High Court found that she was not raising any funds for terrorist organisation; the amounts she received were for personal use and for purchasing tickets for travel and other arrangements for herself and for her son and as such charge under Section 40 of the UAPA was not made out.Evidence has yet to be led and the trial yet to commence.Hence the prosecution is yet to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was part of a conspiracy which led to the attack on Prof. Jacob.The only ground that weighed with the High Court while reducing the sentence was sympathy. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,083,931 | WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 5 of 10WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 6 of 10The first information report (FIR) no.337/09 was registered on 13.07.2009 at the instance of the third respondent in these proceedings alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), apparently on the basis of a complaint lodged under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), in police station Serampore District Hooghly, West Bengal under the directions of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Serampore, District Hooghly, WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 1 of 10 in the State of West Bengal.It appears from the copy of the said FIR and the other documents on record that the third respondent, a native of district Hooghli in the State of West Bengal had, inter alia, claimed in her complaint that she had entered into a marriage with Sh.Prashant Meena, son of the first petitioner, according to vedic rites and customs on 10.02.2009 at a temple in New Delhi.WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 1 of 10By the petition at hand, invoking criminal writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, presented in February 2010, the petitioners prayed for the above- said FIR to be quashed or, in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus to be issued directing the appropriate authority to transfer the said FIR from Kolkata (State of West Bengal) to the jurisdiction of appropriate court in New Delhi.It may be mentioned here that the writ petition was presented for and on behalf of the six petitioners including the first petitioner, she being the mother of the person of whom the third respondent (the first informant of the case) claimed to be the lawfully wedded wife, others being their close relatives.On submissions made, at the instance of the third respondent on 07.07.2004, two of the original petitioners (Sunita and Gaurav) were, however, deleted from the array on the ground that the FIR was "not directed" against them.In terms of the amended memo of parties submitted on 04.08.2010, in the wake of the said order dated 07.07.2010, the petition has been pressed further by the remaining four original petitioners, the second petitioner (Arvind) and fourth petitioner (Renuka) being the other son and daughter of the first petitioner, they being siblings of Prashant Meena while WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 2 of 10 the third petitioner (Seema), is wife of another son of the first petitioner.WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 2 of 10It is noted that the additional standing counsel for the second respondent (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) appeared and accepted notice on the very first date, though it must be added that his presence was inadvertently wrongly recorded to be on behalf of the first respondent (State of West Bengal).The matter essentially arises between the petitioners on one hand and the first and third respondents on the other.The third respondent filed a formal reply resisting the prayer made in the writ petition and the accompanying applications.After she had put in appearance, some efforts were made to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, inter alia, by referring the parties to mediation, though with no fruitful results.Before filing the petition at hand, the petitioners had moved bail application (217/2010) in this court invoking Section 438 of the Cr. PC.The said application was granted by order dated 03.02.2010 in terms of which the petitioners were to be released, in the event of they being arrested, on interim bail for the specified period, subject to they furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, taking note of their submission that they intended to approach the concerned court in the State of West Bengal.The interim bail was granted to enable the petitioners "to approach the competent court in the State of West Bengal for any appropriate relief which they think would be available to them in law".By a subsequent order dated WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 3 of 10 11.02.2010, this court extended the period of interim bail by two more weeks.WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 3 of 10During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court by moving an application under Section 438 Cr. PC (C.R.M. No.2945/2010) which came up for consideration before a division bench of the said court.By order dated 08.04.2010, Calcutta High Court declined to entertain the said application under Section 438 Cr. PC and directed the petitioners to appear before ACJM, Serampore, District Hooghly, in the State of West Bengal, calling upon the said court to take an appropriate decision "keeping in view the fragile materials" against them and also suggesting their absence from the proceedings to be condoned, after their initial appearance, having regard to the fact that they would have to travel "all the way from Delhi".It is the submission of the third respondent that the petitioners challenged the order dated 08.04.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition (Crl.) no.22934/2010 but opted to withdraw the same seeking liberty to move the appropriate court for grant of order under Section 438 Cr. PC which request was granted.It is the submission of the petitioners that by subsequent order on another petition later moved, the Supreme Court granted relief in the nature of anticipatory bail to at least one of the petitioners (Renuka), the counsel being not aware about status of others.It is fairly conceded by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings at WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 4 of 10 hand, the investigation into the FIR by the West Bengal police was concluded and a report under Section 173 Cr.PC has come to be filed in the court of ACJM, Serampore, District Hooghly, in the State of West Bengal.It was submitted on behalf of the third respondent, and conceded at the hearing by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that except for the fourth petitioner (Renuka), no other petitioner has appeared in the court of ACJM, Serampore, in the proceedings relating to the criminal case which has been registered on the basis of a report under Section 173 Cr. PC on which cognizance was taken and process issued by the said court.State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 640 and Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar Vs.State of Maharashtra and WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 5 of 10 Anr., (2009) 11 SCC 286 to argue that the fact that the FIR was registered in another State cannot be the sole criteria to take a decision on the contentions raised in the petition at hand.She referred to Y.Abraham Ajith and Ors.Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 100, Bhura Ram and Ors.State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2008) 11 SCC 103 and Preeti Gupta and Anr.State and Anr., 2001 (59) DRJ 417, Neera Singh Vs.State, ILR (2007) 1 Delhi 691, Naresh Kumar and Ors.State, (2002) 61 DRJ 273, Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Anr.Monica, (2009) 10 SCC 604, Shakson Belthissor Vs.State of Kerala and Anr.State & Ors, (2004) 77 DRJ 725, Neelu Chopra and Anr.Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.State of Maharashtra and Ors., judgment dated 02.12.2010 passed in Crl.The petitioners had surrendered to the jurisdiction of the competent courts in the State of West Bengal, inter alia, by approaching the Calcutta High Court to seek the necessary reliefs.The order granted by the division bench of Calcutta High Court accorded the requisite protection to the petitioners even to the extent of calling upon the court of ACJM, Serampore, District Hooghly, in the State of West Bengal, not to insist on their personal presence provided, of course, that they are properly represented.Since the court of ACJM, Serampore, District Hooghly, in the State of West Bengal, has issued process, it is only proper that the petitioners appear appropriately (may be through counsel) in the said court and raise all defences in fact, or law, as are available to them, including on the question of propriety of the territorial jurisdiction invoked by the third respondent.In the facts and WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 9 of 10 circumstances, it would not be proper for this court to sit in judgment over the said issues which, it must be said, at the cost of repetition, include questions of facts - all the more so, because remedies before the superior courts in the State of West Bengal are available.WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 9 of 10For transfer of a criminal case pending before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction in one State to another in different State, the power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, inter alia, under Section 406 Cr. PC, being available, it is inappropriate for this court to be exercising such jurisdiction at the present stage of the proceedings in the criminal case in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Thus, reserving all contentions of the petitioners concerning the merits of the criminal case, the writ petition with pending applications are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent courts in the State of West Bengal to seek appropriate reliefs in accordance with law.(R.K. GAUBA) JUDGE APRIL 17, 2017 yg WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 10 of 10WP(Crl.) 241/2010 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,090,782 | G.Varghese For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.85 of 2017:-The appellant in Crl.Rajiv Gandhi.P.W.1 is his father.The deceased was working in a sweet stall in Kerala State.P.W.1 was residing at Pelavarathi Village.All these accused were also residing in the same Village.A.1 was the Village Head.The daughter of A.1 is Ms.Ramya, had illicit intimacy with the deceased for some time.When this relationship came to light, P.W.1 and the other family members warned Mr.Rajiv Gandhi and requested him to disconnect his relationship with Ms.A.1, by suppressing the above relationship, given in marriage Ms.Ramya to some one else.Though, Ms.Ramya was not willing for the said marriage, as she was very particular to marry the deceased.The deceased had gone back to Kerala.3.After 4 or 5 days of marriage of Ms.Ramya, A.1 and his men had brought the deceased from Kerala to Pelavarathi Village.In the said Village, on 14.09.2013, A.1 and his men conducted a panchayat.They imposed a fine of Rs.15,000/- to P.W.1 and to the deceased for his mis-conduct.P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- and took time to pay the balance.It is further alleged that as soon as the panchayat was over around 11.00 pm, all these 13 accused, attacked the deceased with hands and legs and also with stones.They tied him to a stone.On the next day morning at 10.00 am, the accused allowed P.W.1 to take the deceased after untying him.It is the further case that they threatened P.W.1, not to disclose about the occurrence to anyone and instead, take the deceased to a private hospital.The deceased was admitted in the said hospital.At that time, the deceased was semi-conscious.There were abrasions and contusions on his body.There was also an abrasion measuring 10x10 cm on the head.In the said Nursing Home, P.W.12 Dr.Sudhir, gave treatment to the deceased.At that time, one Mr. Ramesh (P.W.3) who accompanied the deceased to the hospital informed P.W.12 that the deceased had fallen from the motor cycle and sustained the contusions and abrasions.Uma Maheshwari (P.W.13) attended the deceased and at that time, she was told by P.W.3, the Uncle to the deceased that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons with weapons and the weapons used were also not known to him.P.W.13 recorded same in an Accident Register and admitted the deceased in the hospital.The deceased was semi-conscious at that time.Therefore, the deceased was taken to the Government Medical College and Hospital at Dharmapuri.When the deceased was taken to the said Hospital, near Thopur Village, he died.Hence, the body was sent to the mortuary at the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri.5.Thereafter, on intimation from the hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.15) went to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the Police Station, at 12.00 noon on 19.09.2013, he registered a case in Crime No.316/2013 for offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., against all the 13 accused.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.6.The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police.Common Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.42, 85 & 169 of 2017:- Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., by the appellants against the judgment in S.C.No.13 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.In Crl.A.No.42 of 2017:-For Appellant/A.3 : Mr.Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/A.2 to A.13, passed in S.C.No.13/2016 dated 20.12.2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District and convict the respondents/A.2 to A.13 for the offence framed against them under Sections 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.A.No.42 of 2017 is A.3; the appellants in Crl.A.No.85 of 2017 are A.2, A.4 to A.13 respectively and the appellant in Crl.A.No.169 of 2017 is A.1 in S.C.No.13 of 2016, on the file of the learned Additional & District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.A.No.163 of 2017 has been filed by P.W.1 against the acquittal of A.1 for offence under Section 364 I.P.C., and the other accused from the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. Crl.A.1 to A.13 stood charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 364, 342, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.12.2016, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as detailed below:-NoAccusedSection of lawConviction1A.1 148, 342 & 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for three years, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C.,Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,2A.2 to 13147, 342, 323 & 324 I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for three years, for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.,The trial Court ordered the above sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A.1 to A.13 are before this Court with Crl.However, the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A.13 for the offence under Section 364 I.P.C., and also acquitted A.3, A.5, A.7 & A.13 for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. As against the said acquittal, P.W.1/the defacto complainant has come up with Crl.A.No.163 of 2017 and the State has filed Crl.That is how all these criminal appeals are before this Court.The deceased in this case was one Mr.He went to the place on occurrence at 2.00 pm on 19.09.2013, prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.He examined many more witnesses at the place on occurrence then, on going over to the hospital, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon on 20.09.2013 and forwarded the body for Postmortem.7.P.W.11 - Dr.Hemalatha, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 21.09.2013 at 3.55 pm and she found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-External Injuries1.1.5 x 0.5 on right big toe.2.1 x 0.4 cm, 0.4 x 0.4 cm on right foot.3.0.4 x 0.4cm on right 3rd toe.4.0.3 x 0.3 cm on right 4th toe.5.2 x 0.5 cm on front upper part of right leg.6.0.4 x 0.4, 1 x 1 cm on front of lower part of right thigh.7.11 x 5-3 cm on outer aspect of lower half of right forearm.8.5 x 4 cm on back of right wrist.9.0.5 x 0.3 cm on back of right middle finger.10.0.4 x 0.4 cm back of right ring finger.11.8 x 2 cm on outer aspect of right mid arm.12.10 x 3 cm on outer aspect of upper part of right arm.13.5 x 3 cm on outer aspect of lower part of right arm.14.7 x 2 cm on front of right mid arm.15.0.5 x 0.5 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm on front of right side of mid chest.16.2 x 1.5, 1 x 1.5 cm on outer aspect of right side of chest.17.3 x 2 cm on right shoulder.18.6 x 3 cm on left shoulder.19.5 x 3 cm on outer aspect of upper part of left arm.20. 14 x 8 cm on outer aspect of left mid arm.21.5 x 2cm , 4 x 0.5 cm , 3 x 0.3 cm on outer aspect of left side of chest.22.6 x 2 cm on outer aspect left side of forehead and face.23.2 x 0.3 cm on left cheek.24.1 x 0.3 cm on outer aspect of left knee.25.0.4 x 0.4 cm on front of left knee.26.1 x 0.5 cm, 1 x 1 cm on front of upper part of left leg.27.1 x 1cm, 1 x 1 cm, 0.7 x 0.3 cm on left foot.28.0.3 x 0.3 cm on left 2nd toe.29.5 x 3 cm on outer aspect of upper part of left thigh.30.8 x 4 cm, 7 x 3 cm on back of left side of abdomen.31.9 x 3, 12 x 6cm on back of left side of chest.32.8 x 3 cm, 9 x 5 cm on back of right side of chest.33.5 x 3 cm on back of left shoulder.34.1 x 1.05 x 0.5 cm on back of right thumb.35.2 x 3cm on back of left elbow.36.1 x 0.5 cm on nose.She opined that the death of the deceased was due to the effects of the multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.P.11 is the Postmordem certificate.8.P.W.16 during the course of investigation, collected the medical records.While in custody, A.1 made a voluntary confession and produced a sum of Rs.1,800/-.P.W.15 recovered the same.Then, he forwarded all the arrested accused to Court for judicial remand.At this request, learned judicial Magistrate recorded the statement to some of the witnesses.The investigation was thereafter, continued by his successor P.W.17 on 21.01.2014 onwards.He collected the postmortem certificate and examined many more witnesses.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as against all the appellants/A.1 to A.13 as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.The appellants/A.1 to A.13 denied the same as false.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited, besides 9 Material Objects.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the father of the deceased has spoken about the occurrence.P.W.2 a close relative of P.W.1, though examined as an eye witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution.He has stated that he heard about the occurrence.P.W.3 is yet another close relative of the deceased.He has also stated that he participated in the panchayat but, he did not see that the deceased being attacked in the panchayat, by any of the accused.Thus, he has been treated as hostile.P.W.4 yet another relative of the deceased has turned hostile and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.5 has stated that he heard about the occurrence and then, took the deceased to the hospital.He has also treated as hostile.P.W.6 who was examined to speak about the observation mahazar and rough sketch and also about the vital facts has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.He has spoken about the occurrence, in detail.He has also spoken about the overt-acts against all the accused.He has also stated that in the panchayat, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was imposed as fine on P.W.1 and the deceased.He has also stated that when the people in the crowd tied the deceased in a stone and attacked him.12.P.Ws.8,9 and 10 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, in any manner.P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.12 Dr.K.Sudhir has Spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Sri Priya Hospital.P.W.13 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Krishnagiri.P.W.14, the then learned Judicial Magistrate has spoken about the statements recorded from some of the witnesses.P.Ws.16 & 17 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.13.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 chose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.14.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellants, as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court with Crl.A.Nos.42, 85 & 169 of 2017 and challenging the acquittal of some of the accused in respect of some of the offences, P.W.1 has come up with Crl.A.No.163 of 2017 and the State has come up with Crl.15.As we have already narrated, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was attacked by all the thirteen accused on 14.09.2013 around 11.00 pm.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no plausible explanation for the said delay in preferring the complaint by P.W.1 to the Police.16.But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/P.W.1 would submit that the said delay in preferring the complaint has been duly explained by the prosecution.According to them, since, A.1 happened to be the Village Head and since, all the accused had threatened P.W.1 and others not to go to Police Station with any complaint, no complaint was infact made on time.But, no witness has stated more particularly, P.W.1 has not stated that he did not go to the Police Station because of the alleged threat made by the accused.Thus, this explanation now made before this Court is only an after thought and it has got no foundation by way of evidence through P.W.1 or any other witness.17.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would next contend that, at the earliest point of time, when the deceased was taken to Sri Priya Hospital by P.W.3 who is none else than the Uncle of the deceased accompanied by P.W.1, it was informed to the Doctor that the deceased had fallen from motorcycle and sustained injuries.That was recorded by P.W.12, the Doctor who examined the deceased in the said hospital in Ex.P.13 Case sheet issued by Kuppam Hospital.The deceased was semi-conscious at that time.There were only abrasions and contusions found on him.There is no explanation as to how the Doctor (P.W.12) was informed that the deceased had fallen from the motorcycle.This is the earliest information given to the independent authority by the prosecution witnesses which should carry some weightage.After the Doctor's advice, the deceased was taken to the Government hospital at Dharmapuri.18.P.W.13 Dr.At that time, the deceased was in a semi-conscious state. P.W.3 and others who were brought the deceased to hospital informed the Doctor (P.W.13) that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons by means of unknown weapons.P.W.13 has recorded the same in Ex.P.14 Accident Register.There is an entry in the said medical record that the deceased had sustained injuries due to assault around 1.00 am on 16.09.2013 near his house by number of persons, not known and the weapons used in the occurrence also were not known.This statement was made after four days of the occurrence.It is not explained to the Court as to why the Doctor (P.W.13) was informed by P.W.3 who was accompanied by the family members of the deceased that the deceased was attacked near his house by number of persons who were not known and the weapons used were also not known.The deceased died on the same day.Even thereafter, P.W.1 and others did not prefer any complaint to the Police.Thereafter, only on 19.09.2013, Ex.P.1 - complaint was made.It is for the first time, after four days of the occurrence, the allegation was made that these 13 accused had attacked the deceased with hands, legs and stones and caused his death.19.Above all, except P.Ws.1 and 7, all the other independent witnesses have turned hostile.A perusal of the evidences of P.Ws.1 & 7 also would go to show that there are lot of contradictions over which.P.W.1 has stated that in the panchayat, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was imposed as fine and he paid Rs.2,000/-.But, P.W.7 has stated that in the panchayat, fine of Rs.25,000/- was imposed.Had it been true that in the panchayat, such fine was imposed, this contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 7 would not have emerged.P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was tied to a stone and he was attacked by many people with stones, hands and legs and also with sticks.But, he has not stated that any one of these accused had attacked the deceased.He has in a very vague manner has stated that 10 people surrounded the deceased and attacked him.He has not specifically stated as to whether any one of these accused had attacked the deceased.P.W.7 has stated that A.1, A.3 & A.4 have attacked the deceased.21.In the result, Crl. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,091,691 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Ranjan Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
32,690,746 | The brief facts essential for the appreciation of the instant case are as follows.On 20.12.2016 the co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia is stated to have visited the Office of the Additional Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department at Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the "Official"), and showed him a digital image of the copy of an arms licence said to have been issued by the State in his favour.The present petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the order of framing charge dated 9.8.2017 by the Court of the Learned XII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.400366/17 whereby charges for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed.By showing the official the copy of the arms license issued to him, the co- accused requested the official to hand over the original arm license to him.The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and two other co-accused persons being Karan Singh Bhatia and Abhishek Thakur.The prosecution story as unfurled in the charge-sheet is that the petitioner herein is stated to be an old friend of co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia who had informed the petitioner herein that the file relating to the issuance of a gun licence was stuck up with the respondent-State for two months and there was no movement of the said file.Upon this, the petitioner herein is stated to have informed the co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia that a friend of his by the name of Abhishek Thakur, who is engaged in the business of property brokerage also does the job of liaising with the State authorities and that he was in a position to expedite the movement of the file pertaining to the arms licence sought by co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia.Thereafter, the petitioner herein is alleged to have introduced co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia to co-accused Abhishek Thakur and Abhishek Thakur is stated to have given the co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia an assurance that his work would be done and that the same would cost Rs.1,50,000/-.An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid to the co-accused Abhishek Thakur by the co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia allegedly through the petitioner herein and the balance of Rs.50,000/- remained to be paid to co-accused Abhishek Thakur.Abhishek Thakur is also stated to have told Karan Singh Bhatia that he would always get in touch with the petitioner herein to know about the progress relating to his work.This is the narrative of facts which is undisputed and which is revealed from the memorandum under Section 27 IPC of Karan Singh Bhatia.In the course of investigation, the petitioner and the co- accused persons were all arrested and they were subsequently granted the benefit of bail.The custodial interrogation of co-accused Abhishek Thakur revealed as to how the document was forged.Upon information given by co-accused Abhishek Thakur, the police recorded the statements of the two material witnesses in this case who are Yusuf, Son of Abbas Ali, aged 43 years, resident of 44, Yashwant Plaza, Indore, and Shaif Ali, Son of Manawad Ali, aged 22 years, resident of M-787, New Azad Nagar, Indore.Yusuf Ali, in his statement under Section 161, states that he is running a computer-typing and photo-copy shop at Yashwant Plaza, Indore, under the the name and style of Fashion Enterprises.He further states that on 14.12.2016 one person came to his shop with a letter to be typed out from the Secretariat which was for the issuance of licence.That person is stated to have told that he only wanted the licence to be typed out in the format that was given to the witness and that the signatures would be taken of the officer concerned at Bhopal itself.The statement of witness Shaif Ali is just as important.Besides having stated what witness Yusuf Ali has stated to the police, Shaif Ali states that the person informed him that the licence was to be typed out in the name of one Karan Singh Bhatia, Son of Sant Veer Singh Bhatia, resident of 7, Khandwa Road, Guru Govind Law College.The said licence would be signed by the officer concerned at the Secretariat only.This witness states that in the regular course of his business he typed out the said licence, saved the copy of the same on the hard drive of his computer and took two print outs of the same and gave it to the person who had given his name as Ashish alias Abhishek.The role of the petitioner as revealed by the prosecution is that, after the document was typed out by Shaif Ali and given to Abhishek Thakur, Abhishek Thakur took a photograph of the said document on his mobile and forwarded the same to the petitioner herein who further forwarded it to the co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia.From the undisputed case of the prosecution itself, it is apparent that the role played by the petitioner herein extends only to (a) firstly, introducing the co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia to co-accused Abhishek Thakur and thereafter (b) upon receiving the photographed image of the fabricated document on to his mobile as sent by co- accused Abhishek Thakur and thereafter forwarding the same to co-accused Karan Singh Bhatia. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
32,692,550 | The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.397/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station-Annapurna, District-Indore.As per the prosecution case, at a relevant time, applicant- Komalchand was RTO agent and resident of 18 MTH Compound, Indore.THESE are first bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Two imported cars were registered on the basis of false address i.e. 18 MTH Compound, Indore, which is address of the applicant-Komalchand.At a relevant time, applicant Hariram Rohit was the ARTO and Rohit Attu was the clerk.The aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants, Rohit Attu, Vijay Kumar Chawla and Zafar Thazhathepurayil (car owners).The offence was committed for evasion of tax.Learned counsel for the applicant-Komalchand submits that the applicant is aged 77 years and permanent resident of Indore, having no criminal antecedents.If the prosecution case is taken on its face value, the alleged act is punishable under Sub Section 2 of Section 179 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for which maximum punishment is imprisonment for 1 month or fine of Rs.500/-.The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation.In such circumstances, he be granted anticipatory bail.It was the duty of concerned clerk to verify the documents.The applicant has only signed the papers.He has not committed any offence, however, he is ready to co-operate with the investigation.In such circumstances, he be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the non- applicant/State vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the applicants have hatched the conspiracy for evasion of tax and on the basis of false documents, got registered the vehicles.In case they are granted anticipatory bail, they may temper the evidence, hence, prays for dismissal of the applications.I have considered the overall facts of this case, I am of the view that the alleged offence was committed in the year 2008 and is depend on documentary evidence, hence, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required.In such circumstances, the applicants have made out a case for granting anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the applications are allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest the applicants shall be released on bail on submitting fixed deposit receipt (FDR) of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) each of any nationalized bank in the name of District and Sessions Judge, Indore for two years in the Trial Court and upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac Rupees) each with one separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for their appearance in investigation as and when directed and required.The applicants are also directed that they will not threat, induce or make any promise to the prosecution witnesses and temper the evidence, otherwise their bail shall be cancelled.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicants during trial with the condition that when the final report shall be filed, the applicants would furnish fresh bail bond as per this order.The applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on them.It is made clear that if the applicants will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicants.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) | ['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. |
32,693,407 | Police Station, Channi, Tq.Patur, Dist.Akola for an offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on he executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.(iii) The applicant is directed to attend Police Station, Channi, Tq.Patur, Dist.Akola twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Tuesday and shall be with the investigating officer from 3.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. till filing of the charge- sheet.After filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant shall attend the police station once in 15 days, until culmination of the trial.The application is disposed of.JUDGEkahale ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 04:50:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 04:50:33 ::: | ['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. |
32,695,552 | None for respondent no.2, though served.The complaint was obviously filed only to harass the petitioner and wreak personal vengeance.To sum up, even if the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence would be made out. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
326,998 | i)P.W.1-Ambiga was the Headmistress of of Adaikanpatti Panchayat UnionPrimary School and P.W.2-Rajathi was the Teacher in that School.Both of themused to travel from Trichy to attend the School and return back to their homesin the evening.ii)On 18.4.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., after the school hours, both of themwere waiting for the bus in the Thuvarangurichi Main Road in front of theSt.Antony's Matriculation School.At that time, three persons came in a MotorCycle andthey got down near them.The first accused threatened P.W.1 with a knife andsnatched away the golden chain from her and pushed her down.When P.W.2 cameto rescue, the first assaulted her and attempted to snatch her 'thali kodi'.However, P.W.2 hold her 'thali kodi' and shouted.She sustained injury on herright side of the neck.On hearing the hue and cry raised by P.Ws 1 and 2persons nearby gathered for their rescue.On seeing them, the accused left theplace.iii)Then P.W.1 went to the Thuvarangurichi Police Station and gave acomplaint Ex.P1 to P.W.5- Head Constable attached to that Station.He also gave a memo toP.W.2 and sent her for treatment.iv)On the basis of the memo given by the Police, Doctor-P.W.3 attached toThuvarangurichi Government Hospital examined P.W.2 and found the followinginjury and gave her treatment:P6 to 8 are the confessionalstatements.At the time of checking their finger prints, he recovered fivepackets weighing five grams each, including one packet of chilly powder, a knifeand the Motor Cycle.At about 8.30 p.m., from the second accused he recovered abroken gold chain weighing about three sovereigns-M.O.1, a knife and a 'Ganjapacket' weighing about 5 grams.He prepared a Mahazar-Ex.P.W.8 also examined the witnesses P.Ws 6 and7 and recorded their statements and completed his investigation.vi)The further investigation was conducted by P.W.9-Inspector of Policeattached to Thuvarangurichi Police station.He visited the scene of occurrenceat 6.15 p.m. and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence of thewitnesses P.W.4and one Palanisamy.He also prepared a sketch-Ex.He examined P.Ws 1 and 2and recorded their statements.He sent M.O.1-golden chain which was recoveredby the Inspector of Police, Edamalaipatti Pudhur Police Station, to the Courtand on 22.4.2002 he gave a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai toremand the accused.He also gave a requisition to the Magistrate for conductingthe identification parade.On 28.5.2002, P.Ws 1 and 2 identified the accusedbefore the Magistrate.P.W.9 also examined P.Ws 6 and 7 and recorded theirstatements.He completed the investigation on 8.6.2002 andfiled a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 394, 398, 397 r/w 34IPC.5.When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., in respectof the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidenceadduced by the prosecution, all the accused denied their complicity in the crimeand they have statedthat they have been falsely implicated in the case.Both of themused to travel from Trichy to attend the School and return back to their homes.Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Crl.These appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 9.2.2004 passed inS.C.No.366 of 2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court No.II), Tiruchirapalli.2.The appellant in Crl.A.No.411 of 2004 is A1; the appellant inCrl.A.No.274 of 2004 is A2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.234 of 2004 is A3.Since all the appeals arose out of the same Judgment, common Judgment ispronounced."1.Liner-centrism on the right side of the neck.He received the statement from one Swaminathan,Head Constable and registered the case in Station Crime No.98 of 2002 underSections 332, 353 and 307 IPC and arrested three accused who are also theaccused in the present case.6.On consideration of the evidence, the learned Additional DistrictJudge, FTC II, Trichy, found the accused guilty and sentenced them toimprisonment as detailed below:AccusedConviction under sectionSentence imposedA1394 of IPC4 years rigorous imprisonmentwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 6 months R.I.394 r/w 511 of IPC4 years rigorous imprisonment397 of IPC7 years rigorous imprisonmentA2 & A3394 r/w 34 of IPC4 years rigorous imprisonment for each of them with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each,in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment.The learned trial Judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently.7.Challenging the order of the learned trial Judge, the above appeals havebeen preferred by the accused.On 18.4.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., after the school hours, both of them werewaiting for the bus in the Thuvarangurichi Main Road in front of the St.Antony'sMatriculation School.At that time, three persons came in a Motor Cycle andthey got down near them.According to the prosecution that the first accusedthreatened P.W.1 with a knife and snatched away the golden chain from her andpushed her down.When P.W.2 came to rescue, the first assaulted her andattempted to snatch her 'thali kodi'.However, P.W.2 hold her 'thali kodi' andshouted and in the course of which she sustained injury on her right side of theneck.On hearing the hue and cry raised by P.Ws 1 and 2 persons nearby gatheredfor their rescue.On seeing them, the accused left the place.10.Then P.W.1 went to the Thuvarangurichi Police Station and gave acomplaint Ex.P1 to P.W.5- Head Constable attached to that Station.He also gave a memo toP.W.2and sent her for treatment.On the basis of the memo given by the Police,Doctor-P.W.3 attached to Thuvarangurichi Government Hospital examined P.W.2 andgave her treatment:11.Now the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the identity ofthe accused were not established and hence the case was not proved against theaccused.12.P.Ws 1 and 2 deposed that they knew the accused.Even P.W.1categorically stated that the first accused snatched away her golden chain atthe knife point.She gave a complaint Ex.In Ex.P1, she has stated that shecan identify the accused.But in the complaint the physical feature of theaccused were not given.The investigation Officer-P.W.9 gave a requisition tothe Judicial Magistrate to conduct the identification parade.On 28.5.2002,P.Ws 1 and 2 identified the accused before the Magistrate.P.W.6 also state that he along with P.W.7 saw the three accusedat Edamalaipatti Pudur Police station on 18.4.2002 at about 7.00 p.m.17.So, the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 6 would show that the accused wereshown to them before conducting the identification parade.Eventhough P.Ws 1and 2 were not aware of the accused, they were shown to them before theidentification parade and the accused were identified before the JudicialMagistrate.Further the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the identificationparade was not examined and his report was not marked.Hence on analysing thecase in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions, I am of the view thatthe identification as claimed by the prosecution became worthless and it willnot strengthen the case of the prosecution, since identification of the accusedis not established in the manner known to law.Therefore, the evidence ofP.Ws 1 and 2 will not be helpful for the prosecution.17.So far as the recovery of weapons from the accused Nos.2 and 3 areconcerned, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws 5 to 7 to provethe recovery of weapons, however P.W.7 turned hostile.18.Since the identity of the accused is not established, the allegedrecovery in the presence of P.Ws 5 and 6 will not strengthen the case of theprosecution.On careful consideration of the evidence, I find that theprosecution has failed to prove that the accused committed the offence.19.Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tiruchirapalliis set aside.1.Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tiruchirapalli.2.The Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi Police Station, Thuvarankurichi.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,270,626 | A.212/1996 Page 1 of 8A.212/1996 Page 1 of 8Briefly stated, case set up by the prosecution is that on 10 th May 1991 the appellant Kirpa Shankar had gone to see night show at Vijay Cinema along with his co-accused Rakesh and Zafar Ali.Mohinder Singh and PW-5 Abdul Aziz had also gone to see the night show at Vijay Cinema.During the interval, some talks took place between the appellant and the deceased Mohinder Singh.After the show was over, the appellant Kirpa Shankar, Mohinder Singh deceased and PW-5 Abdul Aziz left the cinema hall on a two-wheeler scooter No.When they reached at a distance of 150 yards near the petrol pump, appellant raised a demand of Rs.4,000/- from the deceased and forced them to stop the scooter.Meanwhile, his accomplices Zafar Ali and Rakesh also arrived.It is stated that Kirpa Shankar warned PW-5 Abdul Aziz to stay near the scooter and he along with Zafar Ali and Rakesh took the deceased to the left side of the road.Appellant Kirpa Shankar asked the deceased to return his 4000/- rupees failing which he threatened to kill him.Deceased protested that he owed no money to the appellant.Thereafter, at the instance of appellant Kirpa Shankar, Zafar Ali and Rakesh caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Kirpa Shankar gave 3 or 4 chhuri blows to the deceased.As a result of chhuri blows, deceased fell down and all the three accused including the appellant Kirpa Shankar fled away towards Lal Bagh.PW-5 Abdul Aziz took the deceased to Hindu Rao Hospital in a three- wheeler scooter where he was declared brought dead.A.212/1996 Page 2 of 8A.212/1996 Page 2 of 8It is alleged that PW-5 Abdul Aziz before taking the deceased to the hospital also informed police control room about the incident.Pursuant to the information, ASI Ram Kumar along with one Constable reached at the spot of occurrence and found that the injured had already been removed to the hospital.He, thereafter, contacted Abdul Aziz and recorded his statement Ex.PW-5/A and sent it to the police station for registration of the formal FIR.It was further alleged that on the pointing of Abdul Aziz, appellant Kirpa Shankar as well as his co-accused Rakesh and Zafar Ali were arrested from the park C-Block, Industrial Area, Wazir Pur.On interrogation, they made disclosure statement.Appellant Kirpa Shankar in his disclosure admitted having committed the murder and stated that he had concealed the weapon of offence i.e. chhuri in the corner of the park.Thereafter, he led the police party to a corner of C-Block park and got the chhuri recovered.The sketch of the chhuri was prepared.It was sealed and taken into possession.The blood stained clothes of the appellant were also taken into possession and the case property was deposited in the malkhana.PW-13/A. It is PW-5 Abdul Aziz who had taken the deceased to the hospital.However, in the column of the description of the deceased, his name, parentage and the address are shown as `unknown'.He has pointed out that similarly even DD No.21-A dated 10-11/5/1991 Ex.Appellant Kirpa Shankar has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.47/1991 arising out of FIR No.88/1991 registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi for having committed murder of Mohinder Singh and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo RI for a period of six months.After completing necessary formalities of investigation, charge sheet against the appellant and his other co-accused was submitted in the Court.Appellant Kirpa Shankar and his co-accused were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC.All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.A.212/1996 Page 3 of 8A.212/1996 Page 3 of 8Accused Rakesh Kumar died during the pendency of the trial.Learned trial Judge found that involvement of Zafar Ali in the commission of crime was doubtful.He accordingly acquitted him giving him benefit of doubt.Appellant Kirpa Shankar, however, was convicted under Section 302 IPC.The impugned order of conviction mainly rests upon the eye witness account of the occurrence given by PW-5 Abdul Aziz and purported recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. chhuri Ex.P-2 and the blood stained clothes of the appellant at his instance.It may be pointed out that PW-5 Abdul Aziz is also the witness to the aforesaid recovery of incriminating articles.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is based on sole testimony of PW-5 Abdul Aziz who is not a reliable witness.He has submitted that witness Abdul Aziz claims himself to be a friend of the deceased but his version is belied by the MLC Ex.PW-10/A also records that the Duty Constable, Hindu Rao Hospital had conveyed information to the police station on telephone that a person aged 25 years with name, address and parentage not known was brought in injured condition by Abdul Aziz.It is argued that had the deceased been his friend, Crl.A.212/1996 Page 4 of 8 the witness PW-5 Abdul Aziz would definitely have disclosed the name of deceased Mohinder Singh at the time of preparation of the MLC.It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that even the alleged history detailing the cause of injuries suffered by the deceased is not mentioned in the MLC which leads to an inference that PW-5 Abdul Aziz had not seen the actual occurrence but he happened to come across the injured after the occurrence and brought him to the hospital.A.212/1996 Page 4 of 89. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has supported the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge.He, however, has not been able to explain as to how the deceased came to be described in the MLC as `unknown', s/o `unknown', resident of `unknown' .We have considered the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record.The entire case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the testimony of PW-5 Abdul Aziz who is claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence as also the witness to the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. chhuri Ex.PW-5 Abdul Aziz has stated that on the fateful night, he had gone to see the movie at Vijay Cinema along with his friend Mohinder Singh on the scooter of Mohinder Singh.He has also stated that after movie, the appellant Kirpa Shankar joined them and they proceeded from the cinema hall on the two-wheeler Crl.A.212/1996 Page 5 of 8 scooter of Mohinder Singh.After they had moved about 150 yards from the cinema hall, Kirpa Shankar asked Mohinder Singh to stop the scooter and, thereafter, he took him aside to a distance of 6-7 paces and demanded Rs.4000/- from him.In the meanwhile, he was also joined by his co-accused Rakesh and Zafar Ali.Mohinder Singh protested that he did not owe any money to the appellant and on this at the instance of appellant Kirpa Shankar, Zafar Ali caught hold of Mohinder Singh and he stabbed Mohinder Singh twice or thrice with a chhuri which blows ultimately proved to be fatal.If this version of the witness is to be believed, then he was well- acquainted with the deceased.Had the aforesaid version been true, in all probabilities PW-5 Abdul Aziz would have given the particulars of the deceased at the time of his admission in the hospital when the MLC Ex.PW-13/A was recorded.The description of the deceased in the MLC Ex.PW-13/A as `unknown', s/o `unknown', resident of `unknown' leads us to the inference that the deceased was not previously known to Abdul Aziz.PW-13/A raise a strong doubt that neither PW-5 Abdul Aziz was a friend of the deceased nor he was the witness of the occurrence.A possibility cannot be ruled out that PW-5 Abdul Aziz Crl.A.212/1996 Page 6 of 8 by chance came across the deceased lying in injured condition at the spot of occurrence and brought him to the hospital for treatment.We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the testimony of PW-5 Abdul Aziz being unreliable.A.212/1996 Page 5 of 8A.212/1996 Page 6 of 8The other important factor which persuaded the learned Trial Judge to return finding of conviction against the appellant is the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. chhuri Ex.P-2 at the instance of the appellant.PW-5 Abdul Aziz is again the star witness of the prosecution to prove the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant.He has stated in his testimony that the appellant Kirpa Shankar made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/F that he could get the chhuri recovered and pursuant to that he got it recovered from a park under the bushes.He also proved the sketch of chhuri Ex.PW-5/D and the pointing out-cum-recovery memo Ex.PW-5/E and stated that he appended his signatures on these exhibits as witness.Once we have concluded the testimony of PW-5 Abdul Aziz in respect of the occurrence is unreliable, we find it unsafe to rely upon his testimony regarding the disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to recovery of chhuri Ex.The other witnesses to the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence are police officials who obviously are the witnesses interested in the success of the case.The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the appellant is acquitted. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
32,706,692 | The petitioner preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25/01/2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.63/2002, arising out of the judgment dated 17/07/2002 passed by JMFC, Loudi in Criminal Case No.79/1994, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-accused/applicant applied for caste certificate of 'Ghoshi Caste' by producing mark sheet and caste certificate before the Executive Magistrate but in the original record, the caste of applicant/accused was mentioned as 'Ghosh'.When the Executive Magistrate questioned the accused, he snatched his mark sheet and caste certificate and chewed them.Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses further corroborated by medical evidence.Therefore, the petitioner is rightly convicted under Section 420 of IPC.With regard to sentence, admittedly the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 26 days.No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner had been proved by the prosecution therefore he seems to be first offender.Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed.The remaining amount be deposited in the trial Court within 3 months, failing which he shall undergo S.I. for 3 months.With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, revision petition stands disposed of.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE manju | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
32,719,126 | Dated: November 20, 2013 .............ORAL JUDGMENT :-1. Rule.By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heard finally.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 :::The petitioner challenged the order of his conviction by filing an appeal before the Court of Sessions which was allowed by setting aside the order of conviction, but directing, in effect, a ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 ::: 3 wp 68.2010.odt re-trial of the petitioner.Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing present petition.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 :::It is only in the event of breach of the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 ::: 7 wp 68.2010.odt bond executed, that the offender would be liable to be sentenced.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:33:26 :::Thus, from this point also, the order passed by the Magistrate was bad in law.The petition is allowed.The order of conviction of the petitioner is set aside.The petitioner shall stand acquitted. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,903,560 | ORDER Judgement pronounced by T. Jayarama Chouta, J.Charges framed against the accused No.3 and 4 are punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on 3 counts for sharing common intention to commit the murder of Ali, Sekar and Nehru and under section 201 of Indian Penal Code on 3 counts for causing the evidence to disappear so as to screen themselves from legal punishment of the murder of these persons and they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I for 3 years on each count.The prosecution case in brief is as follows: Accused No.1 Rajendran was running an illicit arrack shop in which accused 2 to 4 Manoharan Perumal and Pachaiyappan and P.W.4 were working as employees.They are all residents of Suthukulam Village within the jurisdiction of Cuddalore Police Station.On 7.7.87, all the three deceased Ali, Nehru and Sekar along with P.Ws. 2 and 3 Kumar and Nethaji came to accused No.1's shop and ordered for illicit arrack.employee of accused No.1 namely Mottai Veni, regarding quantity of liquor supplied to these persons.All the three deceased assaulted P.W.4 with hands.It was at 11 p.m. They consumed the liquor and left the place and lied on the heap of sand near the shop in the open place.Accused No.1 owner of the shop scolded that these people were creating problems always and hence took the assistance of other 3 accused and went to the place, where 3 deceased were lying, with casuarina stick.Accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the deceased Ali; Accused No.2 who also had a stick with him attacked Nehru and Sekar.They left the place and went to a nearby fishing tank.They sat for some time, then went near the place and when they saw Sekar was alive, assaulted and throttled him and after making sure that he was dead, all the accused took the bodies from that place and buried them in a small well behind the house of P.W.5 Kalamani.P.Ws.2 and 3 who had accompanied the deceased after consuming the illicit liquor leaving three deceased persons to lie down on the sand, went to a distance to answer nature's call.Sitting behind the bushes, they have noticed all the incident from there.It was the further case of the prosecution that Accused No.4 Pachaiyappan, out of fear, on 12.7.87 appeared before P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer of Cuddalore and narrated the incident which was recorded as Ex.He forwarded Ex.P1 along with his report Ex.Accused No.1 was tried for the offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Ali and under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on two counts for sharing the common intention to commit the murder of Ali.He was also tried for an offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code on three counts for causing the evidence to disappear so as to screen himself from the legal punishment of the murder of Ali, Sekar and Nehru.He has been convicted under sections 302, 302 read with 34 (2 counts) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also under section 201 (3 counts) Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under go R.I for 3 years on each account.Accused No. 2 was tried for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts for committing the murder of Sekar and Ali, under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on two counts for sharing common intention to commit the murder of Ali and under section 201 of Indian Penal Code on three counts for causing the evidence to disappear so as to screen himself from the legal punishment of murder of Ali, Sekar and Nehru.He has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts and under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also under section 201 of Indian Penal Code on three counts, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years on each count.P2 to Cuddalore O.T. Police Station along with accused No.4 on 12.7.87, on the basis of which a case in Crl.No.473 of 1987 was registered under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code by P.W.26, the Sub Inspector of Police.P.W.26 prepared the F.I.R. and forwarded the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate as well as to his superiors.P.W.27, the Inspector of Police after receiving the said F.I.R., took up the investigation.After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 302 read with 34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.On committal, the learned Sessions Judge examined 27 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and got marked Ex.P1 to 35 and M.C.Nos.51 to 52 were produced before the Court.Except marking Ex.D1, no witness was examined on behalf of the accused.The learned Sessions Judge, after concluding the trial and after examining the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminating circumstances against them, by judgment dated 7.9.88, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.We heard Mr. Doraiswamy, learned advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Syed Fasiuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents.They took us through the material evidence and relevant documents.The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Court below was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, so called eye witnesses to convict the appellants and their evidence suffers from serious legal infirmity.He pointed out that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were not the eye witnesses and they could not have witnessed themselves and a false case has been foisted against the appellants.His further submission was that Sessions Judge was not Justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 whose evidence cannot be believed at all, in view of the fact that their conduct did not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court.He has also argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the statements of the witnesses being received by the Court.According to him, the incident has taken place on 7.7.87 and as per the prosecution, the witnesses were examined on 13.7.87 and those statements were received by the Court only on 4.11.87 nearly after four months.No explanation for the said delay has been offered by the prosecution.9. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.He tried to support the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge.P.Ws. 2 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident whereas P.W.4 has seen accused No.4 going from that place of occurrence with blood stain in his hand.When he was questioned by P.W.4 he narrated to him that he and the other accused have committed murder of 3 persons.He has also submitted that such statement revealed to P.W.5 who corroborated the version of P.W.4 and hence the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the appellants for the offences for which they have been charged.to prove the guilt of the accused.In this case, even though according to the prosecution, the murder has taken place on 7.7.87 in the night hours, the dead bodies were seized only on 13.7.87 and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination has clearly admitted that the bodies were in a decomposed stage and were not in a position to be identified by anybody.Even though the prosecution tried to establish the identity by examining the persons related to the deceased, as per the version given by the Doctor, since the dead bodies were not in a position to be identifie, the evidence of these witnesses could not be believed.P.W.19 conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sekar on 13.7.87 and stated that since the body was highly decomposed identification marks could not be made out.He noticed that rigor mortis passed away and on examination of the skull, depressed fracture of the skull measuring 3"x 2" on the right temperioparietal area, left leg disarticulated and separated, left femur separated out the burned, lacerated muscles, nerbes and vessels exposed.He also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ali and noticed depressed fracture of the skull on the left tempero-parietal area measuring 3" x 2".He has also mentioned that since the body was highly decomposed, identification marks could not be made out.He has furnished his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 5 to 7 days prior to the post-mortem due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injury sustained and issued certificate Ex.He conducted the post-mortem examination over the body of Nehru on the same day and noticed that the body was highly decomposed and the skin was completely peeled off from the body in an incomplete manner and the identification marks could not be made out.He has not noticed any external injuries except both the legs from the knee joint completely disarticulated.He was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to strangulation and asphyxiation 5 to 7 days prior to the post- mortem.The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the main witnesses to the occurrence.Both the witnesses in a stereo type have deposed that they all gone with the three deceased to the illicit arrack shop of the accused No.1 on the night of 7.7.87 and there arose quarrel between them and P.W.4, servant, who was supplying arrack.He has further stated that they left the arrack shop at about 11 p.m. and all the three deceased lied on the heap of the sand in the open place when P.Ws. 2 and 3 went for attending nature's call and at that time all the accused came there, armed with sticks and they noticed from that place where they were sitting.Accused 1 and 2 assaulted the deceased with sticks.After seeing the incident, they left that place and out of fear they had gone to some other place without revealing this fact to any other persons.If really the accused had any grievance, they had grievance against these two witnesses also.These witnesses have not been attacked by the accused.It looks as if they have been spared by these accused only to depose against them.Further more, the incident has taken place at about 12.30 night and these witnesses have spoken that they have gone for answering nature's call behind bushes and from there they witnessed the incident minutely.The conduct of these witnesses in not revealing this fact to anybody gives an impression that they were not eye witnesses to the incident.These witnesses went to the shop with all the three deceased.They used to go to the arrack shop together for consuming arrack.On that date also, all the five of them had gone together and these witnesses were very close to the three deceased persons.When the three deceased were assaulted and done to death, atleast these witnesses, if they are really present at the time of incident, would have raised hue and cry, but they have not done.That place where the incident had taken place is surrounded by some houses and lorries and some other vehicles used to be parked nearby.When these three deceased were being attacked by the four accused, then one would have expected to raise hue and cry so as to attract the attention of the persons who are residing.No witness has been examined from the residential houses near the incident, even during the investigation to find out whether any person has witnessed the incident.The conduct of these witnesses in keeping quite for a long period of 6 days without revealing this fact to anybody is most unnatural and artificial.The learned Sessions Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of these witnesses.These are the witnesses who have been secured by the prosecution to depose against the accused.Next set of evidence is P.Ws. 4 and 5. P.W.4 is none other than the worker, working under the accused No.l in the said shop along with other accused.According to him, after serving the liquor to the deceased and P.Ws. 2 and 3, he left the shop after collecting that days wages and was sleeping in his house.At about midnight, be heard barking of the dog.He and his wife got up and saw accused No.4 coming to the scene of occurrence with blood stain in his hands.When he questioned the accused No.4, he along with other accused warned those persons and asked him to keep quiet.He has admitted that the shop of the accused No.l was run on the next day as well as on 10.7.87 as usual.All the accused were present.If really the accused had attacked the deceased and committed the murder, it is hard to believe that these accused would remain in village running the shop without any kind of fear and tension.This conduct of the witness, is not above doubt.Even this P.W.5 Kalamani has not revealed this fact to anybody till he was examined by the police.The incident has taken place behind his house.He has admitted that on 8.7.87, he was examined by the police.But he did not reveal this fact before them.He is the person who has been convicted for offences and his name was registered in the K.D. register and police were keeping vigilance about his movement and daily he was appearing before the police to mark the attendance.It will not be safe to place reliance on the evidence of this witness.It is pertinent to mention here that the criminal taw was set in motion in this case only on 12.7.87, when the accused No.4 appeared before P.W.1, the village Administrative Officer of Cuddalore.P.W.1 has stated that on 12.7.87 at about 7 p.m. Accused No.4 appeared before him and he narrated before him about the commission of murder of 3 persons by the other accused.On the basis of such statement, P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence and saw the leg of one dead body.Even though he had gone to the scene of occurrence and found the dead bodies, the Village Administrative Officer has not made any arrangement to post somebody to keep watch over the dead bodies.Even though the police station is 10 feet away from the office of P.W. 1, he has not lodged a complaint before the police station on the same day night.He has further admitted that the dead bodies were found, surrounded by residential houses and people used to park the lorries during might time.According to him on the next day, P.W. 18 the Tahsildar came there and held an enquiry.The learned Sessions Judge has discarded the evidence of P.W.18, Tahsildar.It is the prosecution case that after committing the murder of these three persons, they shifted the dead bodies to the well and buried.Next day they burnt the dead bodies.Where these dead bodies were burnt is surrounded by residential houses and people used to move about.These facts were not known to anybody.This part of prosecution case cannot be believed.It has come in the evidence that number of dogs were there where the dead bodies were buried and, they would have given some clue to the persons who are residing in that locality, when the bodies were there for a period of six days, and their evidence gives an impression that the prosecution has tried to build up the case against the accused.The statement of the witnesses even though was recorded on 13.7.87, it was received by the Court on 4.11.87, nearly after four months.No explanation was offered by the prosecution why there was such a delay in sending the statements to the Court.From the evidence, it is revealed that all the accused were present in the village and the shop of the accused No.1 was being run regularly even after the date of incident.If really the accused had committed the murder of three persons, one would have expected these persons not to be there in the village to run the said shop near which the murder has taken place.The prosecution has adduced the evidence of P.W.8 to show that on 7.7.87 at about 3 a.m. the accused 1,2 and 4 went to his tea shop and Al took some kerosene.In the cross examination this witness has admitted that he did not know the date of selling and he has not stated before the police that accused No. 1 asked for the kerosene and he has not mentioned the quantity of kerosene.It is hard to believe one would keep open the shop even during night time, so as to people can go and purchase at 3 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge had believed the version of these witnesses without considering the impropriety in the evidence.We are not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence.After reassessing the entire evidence in the light of the materials placed before the trial Court and on the basis of the arguments advanced before us, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the accused.Accordingly the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and acquitted. | ['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. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.