id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
190,360,961 | He was a member of the Village Panchayat Board of Uthayanoor Village in Sivagangai District.PW1 and PW2 are wife and husband respectively.They were all residing in the same Village.The accused was alsoresiding in the same village.All of them were agriculturists by profession.(b) In Uthayanoor Village, there was a thrashing floor which wascommon to all.The agriculturists having land in that area used the same forthe purpose of drying agricultural products.The deceased and PW2 had onceentered into an agreement with the Village Panchayat Board to make some constructions on the said common thrashing floor.This was opposed by theaccused as he claimed right to use the same for the purpose of drying theagricultural products from his field.This resulted in enmity between thedeceased and the accused.(c) On 01.04.2015, the accused had spread chillies on the saidcommon floor for drying the same.PW2 wanted the accused to remove the same for drying paddy, but the accused refused to do so.He told the deceased topersuade the accused to remove the chillies and to leave vacant floor to PW2for the purpose of drying paddy.The deceased and PWs.1 to 3 had gone to thehouse of the accused at around 9.45 p.m. The deceased, being the member of the Village Panchayat, called the accused from his house.The accused came out.They all reached the common thrashing floor.There the deceased wantedthe accused to remove the chillies and to leave the thrashing floor vacant toPW2 for drying paddy.This resulted in a quarrel.The quarrel went on forten minutes.The accused suddenly rushed to his house and came to the thrashing floor again.The quarrel continued.In culmination of the quarrel,it is alleged that the accused took out a knife from his waist and repeatedlystabbed the deceased.When PW2 intervened, he stabbed him also repeatedly.After stabbing the deceased and PW2, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.PWs.1 and 3 cried for help.The villagers gathered.The deceased diedinstantaneously succumbing to the injuries.P1 is the complaint.P15 is the FIR.He forwardedboth the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to theInspector of Police.He went to the place of occurrenceand prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of PW2 and another witness.He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earthfrom the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses.P4 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to the vitalorgans, between 8 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(h) PW12 examined PW2 in the hospital and recorded his statement.The accused surrendered before the Court.PW12 took the Police custody of theaccused on 06.04.2005 on the orders of the learned Magistrate.While incustody, he gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW7 and anotherwitness, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife.Inpursuance of the same, he took the Police and witnesses to his house and tookout the knife from the hide out.He has a big family to look after.The occurrence was not apremeditated one.It had happened at the spur of the movement on account ofthe lose of his self control due to the provocation caused by the deceased.(Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.2 of 2006 on the fileof the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.He stood charged for the offenceunder Sections 302 and 307 IPC.By judgment dated 11.10.2006, the trial Courtconvicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC andto undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for theoffence under Section 307 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence,the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.PW1 with the help of others tookPW2 to the hospital.(d) PW4 - Dr.At that time, PW2 was unconscious.PW1 told the doctor that PW2 was attacked by aruval by a known person at 10.00 p.m. in the field.PW4 found thefollowing injuries on PW2:?1) An incised wound 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm seen on the left cheek extending from angle of mouth to angle of mandible.Muscles, nerves, bloodvessels exposed.Bleeding present.2)An incised wound 5 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm seen on right side chest.3)An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm seen over abdomen above (MC).4) An incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm seen on right side chest.5)A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm seen on right palm of righthand.?P2 is the accident register.Then, she admitted him as inpatient and gaveintimation to the Police.On returning to thePolice Station, he registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2005 under Sections302 and 307 IPC.Then, heconducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the hospital for postmortem.(g) PW5 ? Dr.Meenakshisundaram conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 02.04.2005 at 8.30 a.m. He found the following injuries:?External Injuries: There are about 5 stab injuries on the back.1)A stab wound on the back of the right shoulder horizontal of about 5cms length x + cm breath x 10 cms depth, the direction of the wound goesobliquely upwards beyond the back of the neck, piercing the deeperstructures, muscles, nerves, arteries veins, (Carotids and jugular veins)with multiple blood clots seen inside the wound.2)A stab wound on the right shoulder below wound No.1, vertically ofabout 5-1/2 cm length x + breadth x 8 cms depth.The direction of the woundis deep injuring muscles, nerves, arteries.3)A stab wound, horizontal at the centre of the (torn) over thevertebral body of about 5 cm x + cm x 4-1/2 cm depth.Wound is deep,injuring vertebral body with blood clots seen.4)A stab wound on the back of the left shoulder, horizontal, 5 cmlength x s cm breadth x 10 cms depth.The wound is obliquely upwards, goesbeyond the back of the neck, piercing deeper structures, muscles, nerves,jugular veins, arteries with multiple blood clots seen inside the wound.5)A stab wound on the back of the left side below wound 3 x 4,horizontal 5 cms x + cm x 8 cm depth, the wound in deep piercing the deeperstructures muscles, nerves blood vessels, blood clots seen inside the wound.6) A stab wound on the left wrist 5 cms x 1 cm x 4 cm depth, piercingthe tendons and blood vessels.?The same was recovered under a mahazar.Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handedover the material objects to the Court.He gave a request to the Court forforwarding the material objects for chemical examination.The reportrevealed that there was human blood on all the material objects, includingMO.1 knife.PW12 collected the medical records and examined the doctors.PW13 continued the investigation and finally, laid charge sheet against the accused.(i) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed twocharges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13witnesses were examined and 21 documents and 5 material objects were marked.(j) Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses,who have spoken about the occurrence in a vivid fashion.PW4 has spokenabout the injuries found on PW2 and the treatment given to him.PW5 hasspoken about the postmortem conducted by him on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW6 has spoken about thepreparation of the observation mahazar and rough sketch, and the recovery ofthe material objects from the place of occurrence.PW7 has spoken about theconfession said to have been given by the accused to the Police and theconsequential recovery of MO.1 ? Knife.PW8 is the constable, who has statedthat he carried the dead body to the hospital for postmortem.PW9 has statedthat he carried the FIR from the Police Station and handed over the same tothe learned Judicial Magistrate at 2.59 a.m. PW10 is the Head Clerk of theMagistrate Court, who has stated that he forwarded the material objects forchemical examination on the orders of the learned Magistrate.PWs.12and 13 have spoken about the investigation done.(k) When the above incriminating materials were put to theaccused, he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness and nor to mark any document on his side.His defence was atotal denial.(l) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Courtconvicted him under both the charges and accordingly, punished him.P1 has been substituted asan after-thought.He would further submit that PW1 had told PW4, when shehad taken PW2 to the hospital, that PW2 was attacked by a known person with aruval in his field, whereas, according to the prosecution, the accusedstabbed him with a knife in a thrashing floor.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, vehemently,oppose this appeal.According to him, PWs.1 to 3 are natural witnesses andtheir presence cannot be doubted at all.He would further submit that PW2 isthe injured eyewitness and there are no reasons to reject his evidence.Hewould next submit that the medical evidence duly corroborates theeyewitnesses account.He would further submitthat the recovery of MO.1 - knife at the instance of the accused would alsofurther strengthen the case of the prosecution.Thus, according to him, theprosecution has clearly proved the case against the accused beyond reasonabledoubts and the trial Court was right in convicting him under Sections 302 and307 IPC.We have considered the above submissions.The occurrence had taken place in the thrashing floor.It isnot as though the thrashing floor is situated far away from the house of theaccused.The rough sketch marked as Ex.P16, which has not been disputed by the accused, would go to show that the thrashing floor is situated justopposite to the house of the accused.The distance between the actual placeof occurrence and the house of the accused is hardly 100 meters, as shown inthe rough sketch.Now, it is the case of the prosecution that PWs.1 to 3 andthe deceased had gone to the thrashing floor.The purpose of their visit wasto make a request to the accused to remove the chillies so as to allow PW2 touse the thrashing floor.From the thrashing floor only the deceased hadcalled the accused.The accused came out of his house and he reached the thrashing floor.In the thrashing floor, in the capacity of the member ofthe Village Panchayat, the deceased had requested the accused to remove the chillies.Thus, the presence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be doubted at all.More particularly, thepresence of PW2, who is the injured eyewitness cannot be doubted.Further, itis not as though the injuries sustained by PW2 were minor or superficialinjuries.The injuries were all long size cut injuries.The fact that PW2sustained injuries in the very same occurrence has not been disputed by theaccused at all.It is too difficult to believe that an injured witness, whohas suffered such serious injuries, would have omitted the real assailantswith a view to implicate the accused falsely.Thus, we do not find anyreason to reject the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 at all.The learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused wouldsubmit that at the earliest point of time, PW1 had told the doctor that PW2was attacked with aruval by one known person in the field, whereas, accordingto the case of the prosecution, the occurrence was in the thrashing floor andthe attack was made with a knife.In our considered view, this contradictionmay, at the most, go to make the evidence of PW1 unbelievable.But, on thatscore, we cannot reject the eyewitness account of PW2, who is an injuredeyewitness.As we have alreadyconcluded, the presence of PW1, at the place of occurrence, has been clearlyestablished by the prosecution.When her husband (PW2) was unconscious and PW2 was struggling for life in the hospital in a critical position, she would havegiven some statement which is now found to be inconsistent.The learned senior counsel would submit that PW1 has admitted that even before they proceeded to the hospital, the Police intercepted, towhom some information was passed, whereas PW11 has stated that when he was on bundobust duty, he received an information about the occurrence.The learnedsenior counsel would submit that that the information, which was passed on toPW11, at the earliest point of time, has been suppressed.This argument,though attractive, does not have any force, because some body, who came to the place of occurrence, would have informed the Police over phone about theoccurrence, but that information cannot be taken as a full-fledged statementso as to register a case.Thus, this argument of the learned senior counseldeserves only to be rejected.The learned senior counsel would next contend that assumingthat it was this accused, who had caused injuries on the deceased as well ason PW2, the said act of the accused would not make out an offence underSections 302 and 307 IPC.The eyewitnesses have admitted that the quarrel went on for tenminutes.It was only at that time, the accused took out the knife from hiswaist and stabbed the deceased.But, PW2 has stated that the accused went to the house and came with a knife and then stabbed.There was no strong motive.He never aimed at PW2.The accused, out of provocation, having lost his self-control, causedinjuries on the deceased.Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, witha view to strike a balance between these two, we are inclined to sentence theaccused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks forthe offence under Section 304(i) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment forthree years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorousimprisonment for four weeks, for the offence under Section 326 IPC.13.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in thefollowing terms;(a) The conviction and sentence imposed against theappellant/accused under Section 302 IPC in S.C.No.2 of 2006 is set aside,instead he is convicted under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.(b) The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC against the appellant/accused in S.C.No.2 of 2006 is set aside, instead he isconvicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in defaultto undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.Theperiod of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off underSection 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall standcancelled.The fine amount, if any, already paid by the accused shall beadjusted.The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure theaccused and to commit him in prison so as to serve out the remaining periodof sentence.1.The Sessions Judge, Sivagangai District.2.The Inspector of Police, Salai Gramam Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,366,567 | After themarriage, PW-1 and accused no.1 resided at village Paryanti for 10days.Thereafter they went to Mumbai and started residing in oneroom of parents of PW-1 and later moved to an independent roomKJ ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 ::: 3/12 205.Apeal1463.03.docwhich was taken on rent.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant-State.Prakash D.Gharge a/w Mr.Vivek Patil a/w Mr.[Respondent nos.1 & 2 are present in Court].::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated30.7.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mhaswadacquitting the 5 respondents (accused) of offences punishable undersections 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a womansubjecting her to cruelty), 312 (Causing miscarriage), 323(Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult withintent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (Punishment for criminalintimidation) read with 34 (Acts done by several persons infurtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Gharge appearing for the respondents points out thatrespondent no.3 has died on 25.8.2019 and the appeal againstrespondent no.3 has abated.Therefore soon after the marriage, accusedno.1 started demanding the transfer of cattle grazing license and as itwas not possible to transfer the license immediately for at least untilDiwali since brother of PW-1 was living at Mahad, accused no.1 wastold to hold on.He did not, but started beating and kicking PW-1.Thereafter the father of PW-1 went to the village Paryanti andinformed accused no.5, the father of accused no.1 about the ill-treatment meted out by his son on their daughter.There also the ill-treatment byaccused no.1 continued because the demand for transfer of cattlegrazing license was not met and it seems accused no.1 was alsodemanding an additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was theamount that accused no.5 had spent on accused no.1 to make himAthletic.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::According to prosecution in the month of June-2001 when PW-1was 4 months pregnant, on 23.6.2001 accused told PW-1 that herfather had deceived him, poured kerosene on PW-1 and threatened toKJ ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 ::: 4/12 205.Apeal1463.03.docset her on fire.It seems accused no.1 also kicked on stomach of PW-1due to which she was bleeding for 3 days and she miscarried thefoetus.Thereafter accused no.1 and accused no.4 admitted PW-1 tothe hospital of one Doctor Modase (PW-4).PW-1 did not file anycomplaint as she was willing to cohabit with accused.On 19.7.2001accused drove PW-1 out of the house as the parents of PW-1 were notfulfilling the demands of accused.Hence, she went to Mumbai.On24.8.2001 PW-1 filed complaint at Chembur police station followed byfurther complaint on 1.9.2001 to Devadasi Vikas Mandal and FIR on11.10.2001 at Mhaswad police station.Thereafter all the accusedwere arrested and released on bail and charges were framed.Theaccused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::In the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 ofCr.P.C., the accused had denied the charges totally and according tothem a false case is filed.In the charge-sheet 9 witnesses have been listed in addition tocomplainant including the parents of PW-1 but only 5 witnesses havebeen examined, one of whom is the Investigating officer.Strangely, theparents of PW-1-complainant have not testified.The 5 witnessestestified are: Complainant Lata Gulab Narle as (PW-1); SugandhraoKJ ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 ::: 5/12 205.Apeal1463.03.docMohite, Chairman of Devadasi Vikas Mandal as (PW-2); RenukaDevisingh Hajare, Secretary of Devadasi Vikas Mandal as (PW-3);Dr.Rajendra Ratanchand Modase as (PW-4); and Chandrakant AnandaKambale, Investigating officer as (PW-5).It is noted in the impugnedjudgment that prosecution has failed to examine the remainingwitnesses even though ample opportunity was given.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::At the outset, I have to note that there are no allegationswhatsoever in the evidence of PW-1 against accused nos.2 to 5.Learned APP Ms.Dabholkar in fairness agreed and stated that order ofacquittal as against accused nos.2 to 5 cannot be faulted in anymanner.That leaves only accused no.1-the husband.The only eyewitness to the incident of beating and illegal demand is PW-1 herself.PW-3 Renuka a social worker of course says she saw on one occasionthat accused no.1 was beating PW-1 and that she took PW-1 toChembur police station and lodged a complaint.No complaint isproduced and the Chembur police has not been called to depose toprove the said complaint.PW-3 also says that she was a neighbour ofPW-1 and she knows PW-1 and her family very well and hence alsoappears to be an interested witness. .::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::8. PW-1 says at the time of marriage it was agreed that the cattlegrazing license in the name of her brother would be transferred toaccused no.1 and because it was not possible to transfer the sameimmediately, accused no.1 was assaulting and beating her with wire,belt and also poured kerosene on her and threatened to set her on fire.No cattle grazing license has been produced.Secondly, there was noagreement in writing at the time of marriage to prove that there wassuch an agreement to transfer the cattle grazing license.Therefore, itis difficult to believe that accused no.1 used to beat PW-1 because thecattle grazing license was not transferred in his name.As regards the demand of Rs.3,00,000/- on 23.6.2001 and thebeating on that day, there are no complaints filed at all.On17.7.2001, it is stated the accused drove out PW-1 unless his demandswere met.PW-1 says she went to Mumbai on 19.7.2001 along withher father.On 24.8.2001 they filed an application to Chembur policestation.On 1.9.2001, they filed an application to Devadasi VikasMandal and lastly on 11.10.2001 they filed the FIR in Mhaswad policestation.The father and mother of PW-1 has not been examined.Evenher sibling/s have not been examined.The complaint/applicationdated 24.8.2001 to Chembur police station is not produced.Thecomplaint/application dated 1.9.2001 to Devadasi Vikas Mandal is notKJ ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 ::: 7/12 205.Apeal1463.03.docproduced.Therefore, if you consider all these dates, there is a hugedelay.The delay has not been explained and not even an attempt hasbeen made to explain the delay.If PW-1 had gone back to Mumbaiwith her father on 19.7.2001 she could have immediately lodged acomplaint even at Mumbai.But PW-1 says on 24.8.2001 almost 36days later she filed an application at Chembur police station which isnot produced.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::It is settled law that delay in lodging the complaint cannot beused as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution's case anddiscarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging thecomplaint.GianChand 1 observed as under :-"Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report.Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not.If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version1 (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 71KJ ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 ::: 8/12 205.Apeal1463.03.doc on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution.However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.In the present case, PW1__the mother of the prosecutrix is a widow.PW1 obviously needed her family members consisting of her in-laws to accompany her or at least help her in lodging the first information report at the police station.It remained an unpleasant family affair on the next day of the incident which was tried to be settled, if it could be, within the walls of family.That failed.It is thereafter only that the complainant, the widow woman, left all by herself and having no male family member willing to accompany her, proceeded alone to police station.She was lent moral support by Ruldu Ram, the village Panch, whereupon the report of the incident was lodged.The sequence of events soon following the crime and as described by the prosecution witnesses sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay.It was found to be so by the learned Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::We are satisfied that the delay in making the FIR has been satisfactorily explained and therefore does not cause any dent in the prosecution case".PW-2 has no personal knowledge and says everything is hearsay.Therefore, his evidence also has to be discarded.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::Therefore, charge under Section 498-A of IPC has to fail.As regards section 312 of IPC, it is the case of PW-1 that on23.6.2001 accused no.1 kicked and punched her on her stomach dueto which there was heavy bleeding and she miscarried.14. PW-1 says after the bleeding for 3 days, accused nos.1 & 4 tookher to the hospital of Dr.Modase at Mhaswad.First of all, PW-4 doesnot say that PW-1 was pregnant or she had conceived for her tomiscarry.Secondly, in his cross-examination PW-4 says that in the first10 weeks of pregnancy a woman may abort or miscarry withoutanyone giving blows on her stomach.PW-4 also says PW-1 did nottell him any incident of beating and there can be bleeding within 10weeks of pregnancy.Onemore fact which is relevant is it was accused nos.1 & 4 who took PW-1to the doctor when her bleeding did not stop for 3 days.Therefore,there is no substance in the charge under section 312 of IPC whichalso has to fail.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::As regards sections 323, 504 & 506 of IPC, PW-1 says thataccused no.1 used to beat her with wire and belt.There is no medicalreport to prove any of that.PW-2's evidence as noted earlier is hearsay.PW-3 says she has personally seen accused no.1 at the time ofbeating PW-1 but says the beating took place one year prior thereto.Therefore, the evidence is rather vague and we cannot rely on thisevidence to convict the accused.The specific threats are also notmentioned.The evidence of PW-1 is not supported by any otherwitnesses.There is also huge delay in lodging the FIR and the delayhas not been explained at all.A complaint filed at Chembur policestation has not brought on record.The version of PW-1 that accusedescaped from the clutches of Chembur police has not been proved.In these circumstances, it is very difficult to believe thestatement of PW-1 alone and interfere with the order passed by thetrial Court.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::Appeal dismissed.(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)KJ ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 02:44:45 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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. |
190,378,544 | And In the matter of: Monirul Sk.alias Sk.Manirul. .. petitioner.Mr. Anjan Datta, Ms. Madhurima Sarkar. .... for the petitioner.Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan. ... for the State.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Panchla Police Station FIR No. 311/2016 dated 19.10.2016 under Sections 498A/323/509/354B/376/511/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, the petitioner presented this application on 5th April, 2017 for a direction that in the event of his arrest, he may be released on bail.We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary.( Dipankar Datta, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,903,822 | JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this order I will dispose of two petitions one filed by Roop Chand (Cr. M. (M) 1228/87] and the other by Kalu Ram [Cr. M. (M) 1287187] both filed under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) seeking their release on bail.Both the petitioners are brothers.They Along with 19 or 20 other accused are facing trial for offences under Ss. 147/148/149/341/427/329/307/302/120B, Indian Penal Code .All the co-accused except the petitioners have been released on bail.Teja, one of the co-accused, is presently on interim bail.A cross-case has also been registered against the complainant party which consists of 19 accused.They are also facing trial for similar offences except S. 302 Indian Penal Code .All of them have been released on bail.In this the Supreme Court held that an order refusing an application for bail did not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and.different considerations.Mr. Sharma said that he had a legal submission to put forward for the release of the petitioners on bail. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,903,833 | The prosecution case in brief, was that on 7th April, 1991, in Village Aali, prosecutrix Rajjubai (P.W. 7) aged above 16 years, had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of her cousin brother Rama.After attending the marriage ceremony while she alone was returning to her house in the night at about 10.00 PM, she was caught hold from her waist by the appellant and took her inside the garden owned by one Nandkishore of Village Aali.She tried to raise alarm but her mouth was gagged.She was laid down under the mango tree, thereafter appellant No. 1 Bhanwar committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent and Will.At that time co-appellant Ramnarayan was guarding them.It is, further, alleged that after performance of sexual intercourse by Bhanwar, Ramnarayan also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent and Will.After ravishing she was threatened not to disclose about this, to anybody.The prosecutrix, thereafter, reached at her house where she disclosed the incident to her mother, uncle Kailash (P.W. 1), father Nandu (P.W. 3) and Aunt Soumitibai (P.W. 5).On the next day i.e., on 8-4-91 at about 11.30 AM the prosecutrix lodged report in the police station on the basis of which, offence under Sections 376 and 506/34, IPC was registered.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.The Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences as mentioned above, which were denied by the appellants.According to them, they have been falsely implicated in the case.Their defence was that they were taken from their house by Thanedar Bhadodia in a theft case but thereafter, they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Nandu (P.W. 3) who was village Choukidar, in a false case of rape with her own daughter.In defence, they have examined 2 witnesses Ramchand (D. W. 1) and Narsingh (D.W. 2) whereas the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and got proved in all 11 documents,The submissions of the counsel for the appellants are that the prosecutrix was a grown up girl but her version has not been corroborated by the medical evidence.The prosecutrix was examined by lady doctor Dr. (Smt.) B. Sabarwal (P.W. 4) who did not find even any scratch on her person.According to the counsel for the appellants, the appellants were falsely implicated in the case.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the prosecutrix Rajjubai (P.W. 7) just after the incident immediately disclosed about the incident to her uncle Kailash (P.W. 1), father Nandu (P.W. 3) and aunt Soumitibai (P.W. 5).FIR Exh. P-7 was also lodged immediately after the incident without any delay.The Police Station was about 10 kms.away from the village.-There was no reason for the prosecutrix or her family members to implicate the appellants in a false case of rape involving the reputation of their daughter and family.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the submissions of the appellants and the appellants are rightly convicted by the Trial Court.The prosecutrix, Rajjubai (P.W. 7) has deposed in her statement that she was coming back alone, after attending the marriage ceremony, to her house, in the night between 10.00 PM to 11.00 PM on the way, she met both the appellants.Appellant Bhanwarsingh caught her mouth and thereafter she was taken to garden belonging to one Nandkishore, where she was ravished by the appellants one after another.During this period she tried to raise alarm but her mouth was gagged.After commission of rape upon her, when freed from the grip of the appellants, she rushed to her house where she was being searched by her parents, she disclosed the incident and name of the appellants.A detail cross-examination was done by the defence Counsel but nothing material has come up in the cross-examination except one or two minor contradictions and omissions.The version of the prosecutrix Rajjubai (P.W. 7) has been duly and effectively corroborated by Kailash (P.W. 1), Nandu (P.W. 3) and Soumitibai (P.W. 5), they all have stated in one voice that immediately after the incident in the same night, the prosecutrix disclosed about commission of gang rape with her against her consent and Will and thereafter, they have lodged report in the police station.Merely because in the medical report no injuries were found by the doctor, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecutrix and other witnesses are speaking lie.There is no concrete motive or reason for the prosecutrix or her parents for lodging false report against the appellants.The defence of the appellants that they were taken by ASI Bhadodia from their house in a case of theft but thereafter, at the instance of Nandu (P.W. 3) Village Choukidar and also father of the prosecutrix, they were falsely implicated in the case of rape.In a cross-examination, (in para 22) of the prosecutrix, the defence has given suggestion that before marriage, the prosecutrix used to go to enjoy film with appellant Bhanwarsingh.By this suggestion, indirectly the defence wanted to establish a case of consent but it does not sound well.If the prosecutrix was a consenting party, she would not have allowed for commission of sexual intercourse with her by two persons and if she has any relations with appellant No. 1 Bhanwarsingh, Bhanwarsingh would have not allowed appellant No. 2 Ramnarayan to ravish the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix has stated that during the course of incident, her bangles are broken.The appellants have examined Ramkunwar (D.W. 1) and Narsingh (D.W. 2) both the witnesses have stated that is one fine morning at 6.00 a.m. Nandu Choukidar came to his house and disclosed about the incident of theft in his house.Along with Nandu Choukidar, Thanedar Bhadodia and other persons were also present.They disclosed that they have a doubt upon the appellants for theft of Rs. 4000/-.If this was correct, then why appellants or their relations have not immediately complained this fact to superior officials about false implication in the case of rape.Apart from this, if the complainant and police had doubt upon the appellant about the commission of theft, they could have very easily implicated them in the case of theft instead of involving prestige and chastity of their own unmarried daughter.This defence of the appellants does not appeal to this Court.Narsingh (D.W. 2) has stated that he was knowing the appellant Ramnarayan and on one fine morning Sub-Inspector Bhadodia came to the house of Ramnarayan and taken him from his house.He also went to police station where he was told by one Ramibai, sister of appellant Ramnarayan, that Ramnarayan detained in police station in a theft case.In cross-examination this witness was not able to speak about theft as to when it had taken place and on so many points he had given evasive replies.In the aforesaid evidentiary scenario of the case, same is clearly establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, appeal of the appellants deserves to be dismissed.It is, accordingly, dismissed.The appellants arc directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the sentence.The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stands cancelled. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,387,899 | as C.R.R. 2736 of 2014 With CRAN 2913 of 2017 In the matter of : Umapada Pal & Ors.... Petitioners.Mrs. Pampa Dey (Dhabal)....for the Petitioners.Having considered the averments made in the application for restoration, being CRAN 2913 of 2017, the order dated 06.07.2017 is recalled.The application, being CRAN 2913 of 2017, is disposed of.The main application is restored to its original file and number.Petitioners pray for quashing of the impugned proceeding being G. R. Case No.50 of 2013 arising out of Indas Police Station Case No.15 of 2013 dated 31.1.2013 under Sections 147/148/323/342/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code.It has been alleged that the first information report was belatedly registered under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It has also been alleged in the first information report that over a loan transition, the petitioners had abducted the defacto complainant and had subjected him to physical assault 2 and theft.It has been argued that the allegations are out and out false and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case.In fact, petitioner No.2 had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.No.998 (W)of 2013 against the wrongful activities of the defacto complainant/opposite party no.2 and the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Officer-in-charge of Indas Police Station to ensure that the defacto complainant/ opposite party no.2 does not harass the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.I have considered the materials on record.The revision petition is thus, disposed of. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,326,213 | O R D E R: (Per T. V. Nalawade, J.).The application is filed for suspension of substantivesentence given against the Applicant in Sessions Case No.376 of2011, which was pending in the Court of learned Additional SessionsJudge, Aurangabad.The present Applicant, who was Accused No.2 inthe said matter, is convicted for the offence punishable under Section302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufferimprisonment for life.He and others are also convicted for the offenceof conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian PenalCode and for that offence also he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 ::: 2 56 APPLN.2828.2018.odtfor life.There are other offences like offences punishable underSections 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with 25 ofthe Arms Act (for this offence also punishment is given to the presentApplicant of imprisonment for life) and other offences.Accused No.1,Shaikh Raju @ Raju Jahagirdar was shown as main Accused and heis real brother of the present Applicant.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 :::2 Heard both the sides.Seen the record of evidence andthe reasons given by the trial Court.3 As against the present Applicant, there is not only thedirect, but there is circumstantial evidence also.Just prior to theincident in question, one incident had taken place at petrol pump andthere witnesses like PW-14, PW-17 and PW-24 had seen the presentApplicant and his associates quarreling with deceased, Sunil @ AnnaLashkare.At that time also, the widow of deceased and other witnesslike PW-19 were present in the car, which the deceased had taken topetrol pump.From the petrol pump, when deceased was proceedingwith the witnesses towards Aurangabad in the car, near Nagar Nakacircle, one car gave dash to the car of deceased from backside atabout 10:50 pm and it continuously kept giving dash and so the ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 ::: 3 56 APPLN.2828.2018.odtdeceased stopped the car.The car was at a distance of around 100meters from the circle.Evidence is given by the widow and othereye-witnesses that when the driver of the car, which had given dash,came towards the car of the deceased, he also alighted from the carand started quarreling with the deceased.Evidence is given that whenthe quarrel was going on, two persons from Aurangabad side came onmotorcycle and then two more motorcycles came on which there were4 to 5 persons and so 7 to 8 persons gathered on the spot and thensome persons held the hands of deceased and some persons took outpistols, which they had brought and started firing bullets at thedeceased.The widow and other persons, who were mainly childrenshouted for help, but firing was going on.The widow tried to catchhold a person and that was the present Applicant.There was scuffleand then mobile of the present Applicant fell there.This was takenover by the police during investigation.The present Applicant isidentified by the widow of deceased (PW-9), PW-19 and otherwitnesses from the petrol pump.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 :::4 The learned APP took this Court through the evidence likeCDR record with respect to IMEI number of aforesaid mobile.There isalso evidence of PW-20, employee of Accused No.1 showing that ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 ::: 4 56 APPLN.2828.2018.odt Accused Nos.1 and 2 used to contact each other on this phone and it used to remain with Accused No.2, present Applicant.5 Medical evidence shows that there were multiple firearm injuries on the dead body and four bullets were recovered from the dead body.Though, apparently the incident started with first quarrel, which took place at the petrol pump, considering the illegal activity in which the deceased was involved and the Applicant and his brother are involved, Matka business (gambling), it can be said that there was a rivalry due to this illegal activity and the incident took place out of that rivalry.Such incident cannot be taken lightly as such persons form gangs and create terror in the society.He is a real brother of main Accused and there is material of aforesaid nature against the present Applicant.He started the incident and he was there when the rival was finished by using many associates.In the result, the application stands rejected.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 :::[ SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]ndm ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:42:16 ::: | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,453,319 | 1. Rule.Heard forthwith. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,333,549 | The instant application has been filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) for quashing the summoning order dated 14.3.2018 and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 2012 of 2016, (Nirog Chandra Vs.Rajesh Kumar and Ors.), u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Nagla Khangar, District Firozabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-II, Firozabad.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant No.1 against the O.P. No. 2 and others. | ['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,335,813 | B of the Indian Penal Code.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,347,825 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.The husband is still in jail The bail order of the applicant shall not be used for claiming parity by the applicant.The post mortem report reveals that deceased has sustained eight injuries over her person and she died on account of strangulation.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.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the applicant Kishundhari Gupta, 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 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,378,111 | Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.681DBA of 2000 and Criminal Revision No.1242 of 2000 whereby theSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed byANITA MALHOTRADate: 2019.04.1516:52:58 IST respondent No.1(State) herein and the criminalReason:1 revision filed by respondent No.2(Complainant)herein by setting aside the judgment dated06.06.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge,Rupnagar in Sessions Case No.10 of 1998 andconvicted both the appellants for the offencepunishable under Section 302 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referredto as “IPC”) and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/each.In default of payment of fine, they shallundergo further rigorous imprisonment for a periodof six months each.A few facts need mention hereinbelow for thedisposal of these appeals.Appellant No.1Ashok Kumar Mehra is thefather of appellant No.2Kushwant@SukhwantKumar Mehra.Both the appellants, i.e., father andson were prosecuted for commission of the offence 2 of committing murder of one Inderjit Dhiman.TheSessions Judge by judgment/order dated06.06.2000 passed in Sessions Case No.10/1998acquitted both the appellants.The State and the Complainant both feltaggrieved and filed criminal appeal and criminalrevision in the High Court.By impugned order, theHigh Court allowed the criminal appeal as well asthe criminal revision and while reversing thejudgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge,convicted both the appellants and awarded them lifesentence, which has given rise to filing of theseappeals by both the accused persons, i.e., fatherand son.Heard Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counselfor the appellants and Mr. Ankit Swarup & Ms.Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for therespondents.Now, so far as the issue relating to thegenuineness of the date of birth of appellant No. 2 isconcerned, firstly, it is not in dispute that appellantNo.2 had filed his date of birth certificate in theSessions Court; Secondly, the prosecution did notobject to the correctness of the birth certificatebefore the Sessions Judge; Thirdly, this Court byorder dated 11.07.2011 granted bail to appellantNo.In the light of these four reasons, we are of theview that it is not necessary to hold any furtherinquiry on this question.In view of the foregoing discussion, we are ofthe considered opinion that since appellant No.2was a juvenile on the date of commission of theoffence and though till date he has alreadyundergone considerable jail sentence partly as anundertrial and partly as a convict, yet the appealfiled by appellant No. 2 has to be allowed as wasdone in the case of Raju (supra) without going intothe merits of the case and passing any otherconsequential order in that regard.The appeal of appellant No. 2 is accordinglyallowed.The impugned order qua appellant No.2 isset aside.………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] …...……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI]New Delhi;April 15, 2019 9 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,381,698 | offence under section 294, 452, 323, 506-II of IPC and against the respondent no.2 for the offence under section 294, 506-II of the IPC and after trial vide judgment dated 06/02/2013 passed by the JMFC, Satna in Criminal case No.14227/2007, respondent no.2 was acquitted for the charge under section 294, 506-II of the IPC and respondent no.1 Bhola Nath was convicted for the charge under section 323 and 448 of the IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.800/- and Rs.700/- respectively with default clauses and acquitted for the rest of the charges.Against aforesaid judgment, respondent no.1 filed appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, which was registered as a Criminal Appeal No. 79/2013 and on behalf of the applicant, appeal was filed against the order of acquittal of respondent and inadequate sentence.Both appeals were disposed of by impugned order dated 30/05/2014 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna whereby the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed on the ground that the amended provision providing right to file appeal against the acquittal before the Sessions Judge is not applicable in the case in which the incident has taken place earlier the date of amendment and amendment has came into effect after the date of incident.The appeal filed by the respondent no.1 was also dismissed with the modification of conviction of the respondent no.1 under section 451 of IPC instead of section 448 of the IPC and the sentence remained unchanged.In the aforesaid back ground, applicant had filed this petition for leave to appeal. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,384,802 | Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that in light of the notification issued by the State Government dated 25/03/2015, it is the duty of local body to identify persons and to prepare a ID / slip of beneficiary.The ID / slip prepared by the local body forwarded to Bhopal for verification and again sent back to the Corporation entitling the beneficiary to HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M. Cr. C. No.9224/2018 (Rameshchandra Jangde Vs.State of M. P.) -2- receive the ration from Fair Price Shop.It has been stated that the employees of the local body have prepared forged and fabricated IDs / slips and total loss to the State exchequer is about ten crores rupees and the petitioner at no point of time was involved in the matter of preparation of forged identity cards.It has been further stated that the job of the petitioner was to supervise proper distribution of ration to the eligible persons and he was at no point of time required to verify whether the ID / slip is forged or fabricated.The offence, if any, is committed by the employees of the local body.He has also brought to the notice of this Court that in identical circumstances this Court has granted bail to another employee of the same department, who was also not involved in the matter of preparation of forged ID Card / slip, vide order dated 28/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4948/2018 (Vandana Baberiya Vs.State of M.P.).The order passed in the aforesaid case reads as under:-"Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Mr. Kamal Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent State.It has been stated that as per the Notification Annexure P/5 dated 7/6/2016 issued by the State Government and it is the local body who is required to implement the National Food Guarantee Scheme framed under the Act of 2013 and it was not the petitioner who has issued at any point of time any card or any slip to any beneficiary.Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that at the most the applicant can be charged for not performing her supervisory duties.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has argued before this Court that it was the duty of the applicant to check whether the supply is being done to proper and genuine person or not and as she failed to perform her duties she has been made an accused.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that undisputedly, the applicant is a lady, she is a Government Servant serving since 2013 and therefore, after careful consideration of the case diary as well as the Notification dated 25/3/2013, the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed.Certified copy, as per Rules."On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by Tej Prakash Vyas Date: 2018.03.09 17:07:19 +05'30' | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
793,874 | It is an admitted position that from October, 1983 to the date of incident i.e., 2-2-1984, appellant Swaminath was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at T.T. Nagar Police Station in the town of Bhopal.In November, 1983, on a report lodged by one Sushila Bai before the T.T. Nagar Police Station, a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Mohan Singh and the investigation of the said case was entrusted to this appellant Swaminath.It is further an admitted position that during the course of investigation, appellant Swaminath went to Vidisha in November, 1983 and sought information as regard the criminal record of Mohan Singh.After the investigation, appellant Swaminath found the allegation levelled by Sushila Bai to be untrue and accordingly submitted the final report.It is also admitted that a case under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar at T.T. Nagar Police Station on 28-1-1984 on a report given by accused Ganpat Singh and from 29-1-1984 to 1-2-1984 appellant did not report for duty at the Police Station and remained at Vidisha.There is further no dispute that on 31-1-1984 appellant wrote (Ex. P-42) to the Officer Incharge of the Kotwali Police Station of Vidisha, Raghuveer Singh (P.W. 11) for deployment of Police force, to arrest Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar, at which on 1-2-1984 at the instruction of Raghuveer Singh, constables Man Singh and Moolchand (P.W. 5) were assigned duties to assist the appellant to arrest Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar and for his transfer to Bhopal with 303 Bore Rifle.There is further no dispute that on 1-2-1984 at about 12 P.M. appellant Swaminath went to Ram Dwara at Vidisha and informed Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar that he had come to arrest him in connection with the report given by accused Ganpat Singh at T.T. Nagar Police Station, Bhopal and after his arrest, went to the Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha at 3 P.M. along with constables Moolchand (P.W. 5) and Man Singh and made entries in the daily register at 3 P.M. It is also admitted that on the next day i.e., 2-2-1984 this appellant made entry in the daily register, took out Shiv Prasad from the lock-up and at the instance of the appellant, constable Moolchand handcuffed the deceased Shiv Prasad and gave the key of the handcuff to the appellant.On 2-2-1984 Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar died.According to the prosecution, a Trust known as "Ram Dwara Trust" belonging to Ramsnehi sect exists at Vidisha and the responsibility to look after the movable and immovable property of the Trust lay with the Mahant.According to the prosecution, one Nishanshay Ram was the Mahant of that Trust and one Amolakram also used to live with him.There was dispute between Nishanshay Ram and Amolakram with regard to the office of the Mahant, which ultimately developed into serious dispute between them.Accused Mohan Singh along with other persons sided with Nishanshay Ram whereas the deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar was the main supporter of Amolakram and with his help, Amolakram became the Mahant of the Ram Dwara Trust and in a public function he declared Shiv Prasad as his successor.During this period, Nishanshay Ram and Amolakram used to sell the landed property of the Trust and for that, Nishanshay Ram executed power of Attorney in favour of accused Mohan Singh.The Trust had also established a school and accused Mohan was one of the members of the Governing Body of the said school, of which Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar was the President.Accused Mohan was also the Head Master of the said school for some time, but in the year 1982 deceased Shiv Prasad not only removed him from the post of Head Master, but also removed him from the Governing Body of the school and for that, relationship between the deceased Shiv Prasad and accused Mohan became tense.Prosecution story further is that accused Ganpat Singh was also annoyed with the deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar as he suspected that deceased had got dacoity committed in his house and as such he also joined accused Mohan Singh in the tirade against Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar.The disputes and differences between them were such that the police resorted to prohibitory proceedings.According to the prosecution, investigation of the case instituted by Sushila Bai against accused Mohan Singh in the T.T. Nagar Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was entrusted on 26-11-1993 to appellant Swaminath, who was posted there as Sub-Inspector of Police.After the investigation, appellant Swaminath submitted a report on 29-12-1983 concluding that Sushila Bai had lodged a false report against Mohan Singh at the instance of deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar.The City Superintendent of Police, approved the report given by the appellant and instructed for prosecuting Sushila Bai for offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.Prosecution story further is that accused Mohan Singh and Ganpat Singh became close to appellant Swaminath, during the investigation of the rape case and accused Mohan Singh had proposed to this appellant for the marriage of his daughter.According to the prosecution, friendship between them developed to the extent that they decided to murder Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar.According to the prosecution, in a criminal case instituted by accused Mohan Singh, deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar was released on bail in January, 1984 and thereafter he started living in the Ram Dwara.As he was apprehending threat from Mohan Singh, on his demand, Police guard was posted from 20-1-1984 at Ram Dwara for his protection.Hence, it became difficult to make any attempt on his life.As such, accused persons hatched-up a criminal conspiracy and in the chain thereof, accused Ganpat Singh lodged a false report against Shiv Prasad on 28-1-1984 at Police Station, T.T. Nagar where this appellant Swaminath was posted as Sub-Inspector.Appellant, who had gone to Vidisha purportedly in connection with the case instituted against Shiv Prasad by accused Ganpat Singh went to the Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha and gave a written request to P.W. 11 Raghuveer Singh, the Inspector of Police posted there, for deployment of force to arrest Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar in connection with crime No. 57/84 registered at T.T. Nagar Police Station at Bhopal.Inspector Raghuveer Singh was requested, deputed Constables Man Singh (P.W. 20) and Moolchand (P.W. 5) to assist the appellant in arresting Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar and taking him to Bhopal.Prosecution story further is that on 1-2-1984 appellant along with the aforesaid constables went to Ram Dwara and after accused Ganpat Singh came there with 12 bore double-barrel gun, he arrested Shiv Prasad.Appellant tried to take him on foot but at his request, he was taken on a Tonga to the Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha where appellant entered the time of arrival i.e., 3 P.M. in the daily register.There Shiv Prasad was lodged in the lock-up.Prosecution story further is that on 2-2-1984 appellant Swaminath made entry in the daily register, took out Shiv Prasad from the lock-up, put handcuff on his one hand and took him to Vidisha Railway Station accompanied by the two Constables Man Singh and Moolchand and accused Ganpat Singh, armed with the gun.According to the prosecution, appellant sent Shiv Prasad along with the Constables by Train but he stayed back.When the two constables did not find appellant at the Bhopal Railway Station, they took Shiv Prasad to T.T. Nagar Police Station, where they informed Inspector Subhash Chand Tiwari (P. W. 24) about the arrest of Shiv Prasad.Appellant Swaminath came to Bhopal thereafter and went to T.T. Nagar Police Station on an auto-rickshaw and instructed the constables to take Shiv Prasad back to Vidisha as he had left the Police case-diary at Kotwali Police Station there.The two constables along with the appellant and Shiv Prasad returned to Vidisha in the said auto-rickshaw.Appellant Swaminath, according to the prosecution, instructed the two constables to put the handcuffs on both the hands of Shiv Prasad, as he shall be produced before the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha at which the two Constables tried to unlock the handcuff from one hand so as to put that on both the hands of Shiv Prasad but it did not open.Hence appellant along with two constables went to the Reserve Police Line and got the handcuff unlocked and then put the same in both the hands of Shiv Prasad.Thereafter, according to the prosecution, appellant along with the two constables i.e., Moolchand and Man Singh and Shiv Prasad proceeded towards Bhopal in the auto-rickshaw and on the way at village Managaon, the two constables and the appellant look food in a hotel.Here the appellant asked the two constables to return and made endorsement to that effect on the duty warrant.Thereafter, they proceeded along with Shiv Prasad to Bhopal.According to the prosecution, when the two constables and the appellant and Shiv Prasad reached Bilkhariya out-post situated within the district of Bhopal, appellant Swaminath instructed the two constables to return as he had already entered in his area.At this, the two constables Man Singh and Moolchand got down from the auto-rickshaw.While the two constables got down from the auto-rickshaw, Shiv Prasad was handcuffed and its key was with the appellant and he was also carrying the 12 bore double-barrel gun belonging to accused Ganpat Singh.According to the prosecution after the two constables got down in front of Police Station situated at village Bilkhariya, appellant Swaminath instructed the driver of the auto-rickshaw to proceed towards Bhopal and on the way, got down at village Kolwa pretending to urinate and shot dead Shiv Prasad from the 12 bore double-barrel gun belonging to accused Ganpat Singh.Leaving, the dead body of Shiv Prasad on the road, appellant Swaminath proceeded towards Bhopal on the said auto- rickshaw.On reaching Bhopal, appellant Swaminath went to the barrack of Head Constable Uma Shankar Dwivedi (P.W. 22), who was posted in the 25th Battallion of the State Armed Force and paid the fare to the auto-rickshaw driver by taking money from him.Thereafter, he went to the Habibganj Railway Station by the auto- rickshaw and proceeded to Vidisha by a Passenger train in the night.Amar Singh found the dead body of Shiv Prasad having handcuffs lying by the side of the road.He informed the Police Post situated at Bilkhariya on the same day at 5.45 P.M, Receiving the said information, Head Constable Rajiv Lochan (P.W. 15) and Constable Tej Singh (P.W. 2) immediately reached the place of incident and leaving Tej Singh there, Head Constable Rajiv Lochan went to the Police Station Piplani and informed In-charge Inspector Bhim Singh about the incident.Information given by Head Constable Rajiv Lochan was recorded as Dehati Nalishi by Inspector Bhim Singh and on the basis of that, a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Piplani and information was sent to the Senior Police Officers.Immediately, thereafter the Senior Police Officers along with Dr. Hiresh Chandra (P.W. 9), the Director of Medicotegal Institute came to the place of incident and Dr. Chandra inspected the place of incident.Postmortem examination of Shiv Prasad was conducted by Dr. Hiresh Chandra on 3-2-1984 and in his opinion Shiv Prasad died of the gun-shot injuries.Appellant reached Vidisha in the night between 2nd and 3rd February, 1984 and went to the residence of Superintendent of Police Shri De-Cruz, confessed his guilt and surrendered.Shri De-Cruz called Deputy Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Pandey (P.W. 26) telephonically and directed him to take the appellant to Bhopal along with Guard and produce him before the Superintendent of Police.As directed, Krishna Kumar Pandey took appellant Swaminath in his custody and produced him before the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and at his direction, handed over the accused to the Officer-in-Charge of Piplani Police Station, Bhim Singh.According to the prosecution, on 3-2-1984 the investigation was entrusted to D.S. Tambe (P.W. 41), an Inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department.During the course of investigation, appellant Swaminath stated that the gun and three live cartridges are with accused Ganpat Singh, hence memorandum was recorded and the Investigating Officer went to the residence of accused Mohan Singh but neither he nor Ganpat Singh was found there.On 5-2-1984 accused Ganpat Singh voluntarily appeared along with the 12 bore gun and three live cartridges in Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha which were seized.Further, on 15-2-1984on the memorandum of accused Ganpat Singh, two empty cartridges of 12 bore and three live cartridges were recovered from his house.On the memorandum of accused Mohan Singh recorded on 28-2-1984, a diary was recovered from his house.P.W. 24 Inspector Subhash Chandra, the Officer Incharge of T.T. Nagar Police Station had stated in his evidence that on the information given by accused Ganpat Singh on 28-1-1984, appellant Swaminath had registered a case against Shiv Prasad under Section 294 and 506B (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code.Entry No. 3434 dated 28-1-1984 of the daily register also shows that appellant had left the Police Station at 10.52 P.M. to arrest Shiv Prasad.There is controversy as to whether appellant left the Police Station after obtaining the permission from the Officer Incharge of the Police Station.In our opinion, same is inconsequential in view of the plea of the appellant himself in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code itself that he had left the Police Station in connection with investigation of the case instituted against Shiv Prasad.P.W. 11 Raghuveer Singh, Inspector and Officer Incharge of the Kotwali Police Station, Vidisha has stated in his evidence that appellant made written request (Ex. P-49) on 31-1-1984 to make available police force to render assistance in apprehending Shiv Prasad.This is further fortified from the evidence of Head Constable P.W. 19 Haricharan.It is relevant here to state that in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant had admitted that he had gone to Ram Dwara to arrest Shiv Prasad but has denied that at that time he was armed with a double-barrel gun.However, from the evidence of P.W. 5 Moolchand, the constable who was assigned duty to assist appellant Swaminath in arresting Shiv Prasad as also the evidence of P.W. 3 Rajaram, P.W. 4 Satya Prakash and P.W. 7 Tulsiram, we have no manner of doubt that appellant went to Ram Dwara to arrest Shiv Prasad and at that time, he was armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun.P.W. 29 Head Constable Parmanand had stated in his evidence that on 1-2-1984 at about 3 P.M. appellant Swaminath, Constables Moolchand and Man Singh came to Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha and at that time, Shiv Prasad was in their custody.Appellant had made entry in the daily register (Ex. P-47).He had further stated in his evidence that after this appellant kept Shiv Prasad in the Police Station lock-up, he made entry in the daily register.From what has been stated above, it is evident that appellant arrested Shiv Prasad, took him to the Kotwali Police Station along with Constables Moolchand (P.W. 5) and Man Singh and lodged Shiv Prasad in the Police Station lock-up.P.W. 5 Constable Moolchand has stated in his evidence that on 2-2-1984 appellant made entry of departure in the daily register and got Shiv Prasad out from the Police lock-up.He has further stated that on the instructions of the appellant, he handcuffed Shiv Prasad and handed over its key to the appellant.In fact, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this appellant had admitted what was stated by P.W. 5 Moolchand in his evidence that he made entry in the daily register, took out Shiv Prasad from the lock-up and he was handcuffed by P.W. 5 Moolchand and its key was given to him.It is relevant here to stale that duty warrant (Ex. P-12) clearly shows that P.W. 5 Constable Moolchand was assigned the duty.However, P.W. 29 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Parmanand had stated in his evidence that in the morning of 2-2-1984, while he was on duty at the Kotwali Police Station as Head Constable he had found the entry of departure in the daily register of the appellant Swaminath.There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which could give rise about his veracity.From the evidence referred to above, it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that appellant sent Shiv Prasad along with Constables Moolchand and Man Singh to Bhopal.P.W. 5 Moolchand had further stated in his evidence that after 45 minutes when he reached the Police Station T.T. Nagar, appellant sent a message that Shiv Prasad be brought to the Court for production and when he along with Man Singh and Shiv Prasad came out from the Police Station, appellant got them seated in an auto-rickshaw and he also accompanied them.According to this witness, when the petrol was filled in the auto-rickshaw at a petrol pump, appellant disclosed that he had left the case-diary at Vidisha and instructed the auto-rickshaw driver to proceed towards Vidisha.There is nothing on the record which in anyway creates doubt in the evidence of P.W. 5 Moolchand and from his evidence it is evident that Shiv Prasad was in the custody of the appellant and Constables Moolchand and Man Singh while he came out from the T.T. Nagar Police Station and they proceeded towards Vidisha on an auto-rickshaw.Moolchand (P.W. 5) had further stated in his evidence that Shiv Prasad was taken to Vidisha in the auto-rickshaw by appellant Swaminath and he as also Constable Man Singh accompanied them.According to him, appellant went to the Vidisha Police Station, kept the auto-rickshaw outside the Police Station and on return, disclosed that he shall be produced before the Vidisha Court.He has further stated in his evidence that thereafter appellant stated that Shiv Prasad had to be produced before the Superintendent of Police of Vidisha and hence he directed to put the handcuffs in both of his hands.According to him, when this witness tried to unlock the handcuff which was in one hand, he did not succeed and although Shiv Prasad requested that his both hands may not be handcuffed, appellant declined his request and directed this witness to take him to the police lines.He has further stated in his evidence that at the Vidisha Police lines, the defective handcuff was unlocked and it was put on both his hands.P.W. 36 Head Constable Ajab Singh, who was posted as Duty Clerk on 2-2-1984 at the Police Lines Vidisha had also stated in his evidence that appellant along with Constables Man Singh and Moolchand and Shiv Prasad came on an auto-rickshaw to the Police Line and disclosed his identity as Sub-Inspector of Police posted at T.T. Nagar Police Station in the town of Bhopal and requested him to change the handcuffs of Shiv Prasad.According to this witness, he asked the appellant to take the permission of the Reserve Inspector at which, appellant directed and asked him to open the handcuff and at his request, he put oil on the handcuff and it got opened.Evidence of P.W. 36 Ajab Singh has remained unchallenged and from that it is evident that while leaving the Police Lines, appellant was armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun.According lo P.W. 5 Moolchand, after the appellant left Police Lines at Vidisha along with Shiv Prasad, he first took the auto-rickshaw to the office of Superintendent of Police and thereafter to his bungalow, but according to his evidence, appellant declined to meet the Superintendent of Police in the absence of Fee-cap and hence directed the auto-rickshaw driver to proceed towards Bhopal.This witness has further stated that when the auto-rickshaw reached near the hospital, he stated that Shiv Prasad shall be produced before the Court at Bhopal and thereafter they proceeded towards Bhopal.This witness had further stated that when they reached village Mana, situated on the highway between Vidisha and Bhopal, he, constable Man Singh, auto-rickshaw driver and appellant took meals and Shiv Prasad took lea.P.W. 5 Moolchand had further staled in his evidence that after taking meals at village Mana appellant instructed him and Constable Man Singh to return to Vidisha but it was declined by him.Appellant staled that his area is nearby and he will produce Shiv Prasad in the Court at Bhopal and insisted them to return to Vidisha.Thereafter, according to this witness, appellant endorsed in the duty warrant (Ex. P-12) that Constables Man Singh and Moolchand should return.P.W. 5 Moolchand had further stated in his evidence that the appellant dropped him and constable Man Singh at Bilkheriya Police Post which is at distance of 4 kms.from village Mana on the Vidisha Bhopal Highway.P.W. 2 Tej Singh and P.W. 15 Constable and Head Constable posted at Bilkheriya Police Post had supported the evidence of P.W. 5 Moolchand in this regard.P.W. 5 Moolchand had also stated in his evidence that while he and Constable Man Singh got down at Bilkheriya Police Post, appellant was sitting in the auto-rickshaw along with Shiv Prasad, who had handcuffs on both the hands and its key and one 12 bore double-barrel gun was with the appellant.P.W. 2 Constable Tej Singh P.W. 15 Head Constable Rajiv Lochan have also supported the evidence of P.W. 5 on this question.Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 2Tej Singh, P.W. 5 Moolchand and P.W. 15 Rajiv Lochan, it is evident that appellant along with Shiv Prasad came to Bilkheriya Police Outpost and at that time, Shiv Prasad was in handcuffs and the appellant was carrying a 12 bore double-barrel gun.From their evidence, it is further clear that Constables P.W. 5 Moolchand and Man Singh were dropped at Bilkheriya Police Post and appellant proceeded along with Shiv Prasad in the auto-rickshaw towards Bhopal.Moolchand (P.W. 5) has stated in his evidence that a Bilkheriya he along with Constable Man Singh took a truck and came to Bhopal and from their by train came to Vidisha at about 7.30 P.M. P.W. 2 Constable Tej Singh and P.W. 15 Head Constable Rajiv Lochan, who were posted at Bilkheriya Outpost had Mated that the two Constables Moolchand and Man Singh left for Vidisha on a truck.ORDER C.K. Prasad, J.Appellant Swaminath along with Ganpat Singh and Mohan Singh were put on trial for offence under Sections 120, 120B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. First Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 30th June, 1993, passed in Sessions Trial No. 99/84, held this appellant guilty of offence under Sections 302, 120B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 and 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence Under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Other accused persons were also found guilty of offence under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by their conviction, the preferred separate appeals.Ganpat Singh and Mohan Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore their appeals had abated.Seized gun, cartridges, empty cartridges clothes of the deceased and his spectacles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar.Ballistic Expert J.P. Nigam (P.W. 35) on examination of the gun found the same to be in working condition and signs of discharge in both the barrels.He also found gun shot hole as also lead in the clothes of the deceased Shiv Prasad.After usual investigation, Police submitted charge- sheet against the appellant and accused Ganpat Singh and Mohan Singh.Appellant as also other accused persons denied to have committed any offence.The plea of appellant Swaminath is that on 28-1-1994 at the instruction of the Officer in-Charge of the Police Station Subhash Chand (P.W. 24) on the report of accused Ganpat Singh, he registered a case under Section 294 and 506B of the Indian Penal Code.He has further stated that the Officer Incharge entrusted the said case to him for investigation and in course thereof, he arrested Shiv Prasad on 1-2-1984 and detained him in the lock-up situated in the Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha.According to him, on 2-2-1984 Shiv Prasad was taken out from the lock-up and was given in custody of the two Constables Moolchand and Man Singh and they without his permission, went away with him and he made separate entry in the daily register in the Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha in this regard but the same has been torn by the Police Officer.According to him, thereafter at 9 A.M. he boarded the Train from Vidisha to go to Bhopal and when he reached T.T. Nagar Police Station, Asset.Sub-Inspector of Police Subedar Singh asked him to go to the Court directly.According to his defence, he waited in the Court till 5 P.M. and thereafter went to Bhadbhada, took loan of Rs. 50/- from Head Constable Uma Shankar Dwivedi (P.W. 22), boarded the Train at Habibganj Railway Station for Vidisha and as the Train was running fate, he reached there at 5 A.M. and informed the Superintendent of Police that the two Constables Moolchand and Man Singh had not produced Shiv Prasad before the Court at Bhopal.Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined 41 witnesses.One defence witness has also been examined.We have heard Shri Ashok Tiwari for the appellant.In fairness to Shri Tiwari, he concedes that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the death of Shiv Prasad was homicidal in nature is based on the evidence on record and he can not legitimately call for its reversal in this appeal.We have perused the record.P.W. 9 Dr. Hiresh Chandra, who had conducted the post-mortem examination has found following injuries on the body of the deceased :--(1) Gun shot on the left shoulder region 7 cm.below the acromion process.Size circular 1.8 cm.in diameter with abraded upper quadrant and inverted margins, lacerated.The abrading is also extending to the lateral aspect below and slightly lateral, about 8 mm.below is a circular abraded area size 2.2 cm.in diameter with another bruising and 12 cm.below the acromion in the same line another abraded and bruised area size 2 x 0.5 cms.The upper wound was 145 cm.from the heel.(2) Gun shot wound on the left back at the level of 12th rib situated 9 cms.from mid line and 112 cms.from the heel.The character was inverted, lacerated margins with abrasion in the upper part related to tatooing in the upper region indicated.(3) Size 13 cm.below the acromion exist wound lacerated abraded margins oval slightly size 1.2 cm.in diameter with tearing effect in margin.Fracture of the numerous bone related and situated 139 cms.above the heel.(4) One healed scar (abdominal operation scar) about 10 cms.(5) The para-vertible strip of muscles in the cervical and upper thorasic region echymosed.The track of the wound from the back was slightly upward medially and forward.On the way it has lacerated the spleen, kidney pancreas, stomach and some pallets have travelled in the lungs cavity also.The wads have been recovered.The chest wall in and the back area on 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th of ribs was echymosed.(6) Entry wound and the exit wound in the shoulder have grazed the sterno-clavicular joint involving the whole track as echymosed and contused.Direction of the track was from the left to the right slightly downward and coronal plain."In the opinion of the doctor, Shiv Prasad died due to shock on account of bleeding as a result of gun shot injury.We do not find any reason to doubt the testimony of P.W. 9 Dr. Hiresh Chandra and hence in agreement with the Trial Court, we hold that the death of Shiv Prasad was homicidal in nature.Raghuveer Singh had further stated in his evidence that at the request of the appellant, Constables Moolchand (P.W. 5) and Man Singh were assigned duty on 1-2-19S4 with 303 bore rifles.In fact, the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has accepted the same.P.W. 5 Moolchand had stated in his evidence that since December, 1983 he was deputed at Ram Dwara along with Head Constable Haricharan and on 1-2-1984 at the request of appellant, Head Constable Hari Charan had assigned the duty to arrest Shiv Prasad along with Constable Man Singh.He has further stated in his evidence that when this appellant Swaminath came to Ram Dwara to arrest Shiv Prasad, he was armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun.P.W. 3 Rajaram, P.W. 4 Satya Prakash and P.W. 7 Tulsiram have also stated in their evidence that when this appellant came to arrest Shiv Prasad, he was armed with a double-barrel gun.From this, the facts which emerge are that the deceased was taken out from the Police lock-up at Vidisha and appellant along with Constables Moolchand (P.W. 5) and Man Singh proceeded towards Bhopal.It is relevant here to state that P.W. 5 Constable Moolchand had stated in his evidence that Shiv Prasad, while in their custody was taken to the Vidisha Railway Station by appellant and Constable Man Singh was also there.He has further stated in his evidence that after appellant got him, Shiv Prasad and Constable Man Singh scaled in the train, appellant proceeded towards the Guard's coach and when they got down at Bhopal Railway Station, appellant was not seen there.According to this witness, he waited at the Bhopal Railway Station for about 1 1/2 hours but the appellant did not turn up and hence he along with Constable Man Singh and Shiv Prasad went to the T.T. Nagar Police Station and the Head Constable at T.T. Nagar Police Station having declined to make entry of their arrival, they waited at the Police Station along with Shiv Prasad.From their evidence it is evident that Shiv Prasad was taken to Vidisha and thereafter to the Vidisha Police Lines and the appellant handcuffed him at the Police Lines.P.W. 7 Tulsiram had also supported the case of the prosecution on this question and had stated that he had seen appellant along with two Constables and Shiv Prasad, who had handcuff in one hand going on a Tempo towards the Police Lines.P.W. 7 Tulsiram has although admitted that he was the disciple of Shiv Prasad but on this ground alone, we are not prepared to discard his evidence.According to the prosecution, on 2-2-1984 while Shiv Prasad was arrested, appellant was armed with a 12 bore double- barrel gun, which fact is established from the evidence of P. W. 3 Rajaram, P. W. 4 Satya Prakash, P. W. 5 Moolchand and P. W. 7 Tulsiram.P. W. 5 Moolchand has further stated in his evidence that the appellant was armed with 12 bore double-barrel gun when he went to Vidisha Police Lines to get the handcuff unlocked.P.W. 36 Ajab Singh has also stated in his evidence that while the appellant came on an auto-rickshaw to the Police Lines and while leaving the place, he was armed with a double-barrel gun.According to P.W. 5 after he returned to Vidisha, entry was made in the daily register.This fact finds support from the evidence of Head Constable Parmanand (P.W. 29) and Constable Mohkam Singh (P.W. 34), who had stated that on the direction of Parmanand, he had made entry in the daily register about the arrival of Moolchand and Man Singh.From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, it is crystal clear that after the appellant left Police Station Bilkheriya along with Shiv Prasad, Constables Moolchand and Man Singh returned to Vidisha.This is further fortified from the duty warrant (Ex. P-12), which contains the endorsement "WAPAS KIYA JATA HAI" and which also bears the signature of the appellant.P.W. 31 J.B. Sharma, the handwriting expert has clearly opined that the endorsement in the duty warrant (Ex. P- 12) and signature thereon belong to the appellant.P.W. 2 Constable Tej Singh and Head Constable P.W. 15 Rajiv Lochan have stated in their evidence that at about 5.45 P.M. on 2-2-19S4 one Agar Singh, a resident of village Adampur gave information to the Bilkheriya Out-post that a dead body in handcuffs was lying at village Koluwa by the side of the road.They have further stated in their evidence that when they reached there, they found that the person lying dead was the same who left Bilkheriya Out-post 30 minutes before along with the appellant.They have further stated that gun-shot injuries were found on the body of the deceased and blood was found there.Thereafter, according to these witnesses, P.W. 2 Tej Singh was left at the site and P.W. 15 Head Constable Rajiv Lochan informed the Simirka Police Station about this incident and the information given by Rajiv Lochan was recorded as Dehali Nalishi (Ex. P-35) by the Inspector at 6 P.M.The Superintendent of Police Bhopal requested P.W. 9 Dr. Hiresh Chandra at 7 P.M. on 2-2-1984 to make inspection of the place of occurrence and according to his evidence, he reached there at 8.50 P.M. According to this witness, he saw 12 bore gun injuries on the body of the deceased Shiv Prasad.P.W. 4 had also stated that Shiv Prasad was lying dead in handcuffs.From the evidence aforesaid, it is clear that 30 minutes after the appellant left in the company of Shiv Prasad in handcuffs his dead-body was found in handcuffs by the side of the road near village Koluwa.It is relevant here to state that the 12 bore double-barrel gun, the weapon used in the crime was seized during the course of investigation and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination and the same was examined by Ballistic Expert P.W. 35 J.P. Nigam, who had stated that the gun was in working condition and had also found signs of discharge in the barrel.From what has been found above, the following circumstances emerge:--(A) On the information of accused Ganpat, a case under Sections 294 and 506B of the Indian Penal Code was registered by appellant Swaminath at the T.T. Nagar Police Station and he went to Vidisha on 29-1-1984 for investigation of the case, (B) On 31-1-1984 appellant gave application to the Inspector of Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha to provide Police force to arrest the deceased Shiv Prasad in connection with Crime No. 57/84, registered at T.T. Nagar Police Station, (C) In the light of the application given by the appellant, on 1-2-1984 Constables Man Singh and Moolchand were assigned duty to assist appellant, (D) On 1-2-1984 appellant armed with 12 bore double-barrel gun along with the Constables went to Ram Dwara and arrested deceased Shiv Prasad who was then taken to the Kotwali Police Station, Vidisha, (E) On 2-2-1984 the deceased was taken out from the lock-up of Vidisha Police Station and handcuff was put in one of his hands and thereafter the deceased along with the appellant and Constable Moolchand and Man Singh went to Vidisha Railway Station, (F) Deceased Shiv Prasad and Constables Man Singh and Moolchand reached Bhopal but having not found the appellant there, went to the T.T. Nagar Police Station.Appellant Swaminath reached T.T. Nagar Police Station thereafter and informed the two Constables that he had left the Police case-diary at Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha.He directed the two Constables to lake Shiv Prasad to Vidisha and the appellant accompanied them, (G) After reaching Vidisha, handcuffs were put on both the hands of the deceased Shiv Prasad.Appellant along with the two Constables Man Singh and Moolchand left Vidisha for Bhopal on an auto-rickshaw and Shiv Prasad was in handcuff at that time.Further, appellant was armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun.Appellant as also two Constables Moolchand and Man Singh took meals in a line hotel at village Mana, (H) At village Mana, appellant released the two Constables and endorsed the said fact on the duty warrant, (I) Appellant along with the deceased and the two Police Constables came upto Bilkheriya Outpost where the two Constables got down and appellant along with Shiv Prasad proceeded towards Bhopal in an auto-rickshaw and at that time, he was armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun and deceased was in handcuffs.(J) Half-an-hour after the appellant and deceased left Bilkheriya Out-post, the dead body of Shiv Prasad was found lying by the said of the road having got shot injuries, (K) The double-barrel gun recovered was in a working condition and had signs of discharge. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,394,078 | According to prosecution, on 06.06.2010 on the basis of report of Bahadur Singh Rajput police Obedullaganj, District Raisen registered an F.I.R. against 15 named and other accused persons at Crime No.224/2010 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. and other sections containing allegations of formation of unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with a common object of murder of Rupesh Singh and for causing grievous and simple injuries to Harpal Singh, Tuphan Singh and Jay Singh.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in medical evidence neither deceased nor any of the injured sustained gunshot injuries whereas in charge sheet against present petitioners allegations have been made that they were armed with firearms and they shot at the deceased and injured who Cr.R. No.678/2012 (2) sustained bullets and pallets injuries whereas in medical evidence there has been no injuries of bullets and pellets caused by firearms.In view of the aforesaid discrepancy and lapse, there is a lack of sufficient ground, to proceed against present four petitioners. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
794,058 | JUDGMENT Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.This is an appeal by 76 accused (alleged to be the residuum of 1,000 rioters) in S. C. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1950 on the file of the Court of Session, West Tanjore division.In these two cases, popularly known as the Nanalur Rioting Case, there were in all 122 accused before the Court of Sessions.The charges against them were as follows:That you, accused 1 to 122, on or about the 14th day of April, 1948, at 'Singamangalam and 'Vadakku Nanalur', were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., preventing the arrest of persons and rescuing of arrested psrsons concerned in the rioting at 'Thuvarankollai Odai,' 'Singamangalam,' on 12th April 1948; and as-saulting and murdering the Police party stationed at 'Vaddakku Nanalur' and wresting by force the rifles of the Police, committed the offence of rioting, that you accused 44, 47 and 49 were armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and the rest of you under Section 147,I. P. C., and within my cognizance.That you, accused 1 to 122, at or about the same time and place, and in the course of the same transaction, did an act, to wit, armed yourselves with sticks; 'aruvals' and other deadly weapons, and attacked the Police party with stones, causing injuries to the Policemen with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act, you had caused the death of the Policemen you would have been guilty of murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.That you accused 1 to 122, at or about the same time and place, attempted to commit dacoity, an offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.In that locality there were three kinds of troubles and factions slowly growing, as is only natural in these post-war days of furious ferment.One was between the 'landlords' or 'Mirasi-dars' (many of the P.W.s' are Mirasidars') and landless labourers' to which class most of the accused belong.The second faction was between 'Congressmen' like P.Ws' 13, 29, etc., and 'Communists' to which class most of the accused are said to belong.Some of the accused, like Accused 37, were "rival congressmen" or "ex-Congressmen." The third faction was between 'cast Hindus' to which class many of the P.Ws belong, and 'Hari-jans and Pallas' to which class many of the accused belong.On 12-4-1948, some Congress leaders going round on their propaganda work were wayiaid and attacked by a huge hostile mob near the outskirts of North Nanalur village.The car by which they were travelling was stopped and smashed and overturned, and it lay by the side of the road at a place call "Thuvarankoilai odai', a couple of furlongs to the north of the village.In connection with the investigation into this case of rioting, a police party proceeded to Nanalur.Two constables, P.Ws 1 and 2, had been stationed near the overturned car for the purpose of watching it.On the 14th of April the date of the present occurrence, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took a photographer, P.W. 21, and directed him to take photographs of the damaged car.Leaving P.W.s. 21, 26, 7 and 8 at the spot, the Deputy Superintendent proceeded to North Nanalur.From there he took a party of reserve police and went to 'Sendamaraikkan' in order to apprehend the persons who had taken part in the rioting on the 12th.At North Nanalur a small police force consisting of a Sub-Inspector, Ramiah Pillai, a Head Constable, P.W. 12, and four constables were left.The police arrested two persons, Kal-yanasundaram and Subramaniam, and kept them in their custody at North Nanalur.By about 5 P.M. on 14-4-1948, P.W. 21 finished taking his photographs of the wrecked Congress car.Then the damaged car was taken out of its rut and placed on its wheels in order to take it on to the road.A driver who had gone in another car to take the photographer there was examining and setting right the mechanism of the wrecked congress car with a view to take that car to North Nanalur.By this time a hostile mob about 600 or 700 strong went there shouting slogans like, "Long live the Revolution" "Victory to the RedFlag" "Down with the Congress" "Cut the Policemen!" "Beat the policemen!" "Snatch their muskets" etc.", and pelting stones freely, and rather aimlessly, more with an intent to intimidate the police to release the arrested people, and not to arrest more people, than with a specific intent to hurt any specific police officer or Congressman or 'Mirasidar.' P.Ws 1 and 2 warned the crowd not to raise such slogans, and not to pelt stones.As the crowd did not stop shouting slo-gans or pelting stones, P.Ws 1 and 2 fired a round each.But this did not stop the crowd which kept rushing forward.So the two constables, P.Ws. 1 and 2, retreated backwards.A portion of the mob tried to prevent P.Ws. 1 and 2 from reaching North Nanalur.P.Ws 1 and 2 fired some more shots, with a desire to create terror in their pursuers, and finally succeeded in fleeing to North Nanalur, the crowd chasing them close.At North Nanaiur, P.wS 1 and 2 told the police stationed there about the incidents.The ponce party then stationed itself underneath a stout tamarind tree.When the crowd rushed to that tree, the Sub-Inspector warned the crowd several times not to shout slogans or throw stones.Stones continued to be pelted by members of the crowd, but most of them fell harmlessly on the tamarind tree instead of on the police.The mob was by then one thousand strong; and some of the members were armed with sickles, axes and sticks.Some had also baskets filled with stones.One Natesan, who was armed with a sickle and a stick, was at the head of the mob, and he Incited the members of the mob to attack the police and beat them soundly.The shouting of slogans went on; so too the pelting of stones.As the situation became dangerous, the police opened fire.The mob was thus caught between the Police party at the tamarind tree and the reserve party under the Deputy Superintendent of Police.It began to disperse.The reserve police made a 'lathi' charge and arrested accused 32, 42 to 51, 118 and two others on the spot.Accused 44, 47 and 49, all of them Harijans,, were armed with sickles and axe when they were found among the rioters and arrested.Two constables received trifling injuries due to stone hits during this riot.In all, 274 persons were put up before the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, in P.R.C. Nos. 2 and 4 of 1919 on his file.And I hereby direct you to be tried before me on the said charges.(Sd) K. SRINIVASAN, Sessions Judge."The learned Sessions Judge convicted 73 of the appellants unaer Section 147, I.P.C., and 3 of the appellants, namely accused 44, 47 and 49, who had been armed with deadly weapons during the course of the riot, under Section 148, I.P.C., and acquitted the rest.He directed all the sentences to run along with any other sentences which they might be undergoing.I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rama-chandran, and the learned Public Prosecutor 'contra.' The facts were brifly these.Natesan had his nead blown off by a rifle shot in that police firing.He died on the spot.Accused 58 and 59 also received serious rifle shot injuries.But they were removed by the other members of the mob and were arrested oaly later on when they presented themselves before P.W. 33, the doctor of the Thirutharaipundi hospital, for treatment.After the firing, the crowd retreated a little but later on reformed itself and surrounded the village, threatening to set fire to the houses and destroy the police party.But some resourceful individual, not named, managed to go on a cycle to 'Sendamaraikkan.' He informed the reserve police there about this attack by the mob.Immediately, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, accompanied by the reserve force rushed to North Nanaiur.He committed only 122 out of them to Sessions.I.P.C., holding that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the rioters ever Intended to 'murder' any constables, or to attempt to murder any constables, and that the prosecution evidence had only proved that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to assault andbeat the police or to use such small force against them. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,448,793 | Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the father of the prosecutrix has lodged the FIR for the incident referring about five months back whereby she has stated that the applicant has forcibly established physical relationship in agricultural field and made her pregnant and she has carried a pregnancy of five months and thereafter on a particulate date the applicant came to the house of victim and administered some medicene to her, consequently she was aborted.Undisputedly she was having a pregnancy of five months and at this stage of pregnancy can not be terminated by this fashion as alleged and that too the FIR was registered much delayed.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.07.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Manoj be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 520 of 2018, under Sections 376, 313, 315, 452 and 506 IPC, P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha/J.P.Nagar with the following conditions:-(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 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,457,178 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this 1st bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Chinnore, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.71/2016 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 294, 324, 323, 452, 336 and 506 of IPC with further added Section 302 of IPC.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.The applicant is in custody since 30.06.2016 and is alleged with murder.Specific allegation against the applicant is that he has assaulted the deceased with lohangi. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,459,445 | A.H.Ponda i/by Mr. Chandan Mukherji for theApplicant.Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik , APP for the Respondent-State.CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2019P.C. :Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in CrimeNo.468 of 2019 registered with the Santacruz Police Stationfor the ofences punishable under Sections 294, 114 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) andunder Section 3, 8(1)(2) and (4) of the MaharashtraProhibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants andBar-rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Workingtherein) Act, 2016 ('Said Act' for short).::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 01:03:57 :::5 The learned APP seeks time to ierify.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 01:03:57 :::Santacruz Police Station, he shall be released on executingPR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or moresureties in like amount.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 01:03:57 ::: | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,467,350 | 2) The submissions made and the record of evidence show that in the trial court it is proved that the present applicants were Councilors of Jalgaon Municipal Council at the relevant time, from the year 1996 onwards and many of them had become President of the local body during the relevant time.In that capacity they were public servants.They were of the group of Shri.Suresh Jain who was the Minister of Housing Department in the State Government and the M.L.A. of Jalgaon constituency at the relevant time.The applicants were elected from Aghadi by name Shahar Vikas Aghadi formed by Shri.Suresh Jain and so they were under his thumbs.This Aghadi came in power in subsequent elections also so during entire relevant time the group formed by Shri.Jain was in power.The case of the prosecution that Shri.Jain had hatched conspiracy with his close associates like Pradip Raisoni, Rajendra Mayur, Jagannath Wani and the Councilors and all of them acted as per the desire of Shri.Jain and they helped in carrying out the object of the conspiracy is proved in the trial court.The amount was given to the contractor in the name of mobilization advance but this amount was diverted to various concerns of the main accused and some amount was directly diverted to Shri.Jain police did not show courage to register crime and start investigation and then make progress in the investigation.Then one officer of IPS rank Shri.Ishu Sindhu showed courage and he made progress in the investigation.Saraswati Ramdas Koli.Alka Arvind Rane.Digambar Daulat Wani.Nirmala Suryakant Bhosle.1) The applications are filed for suspension of the substantive sentence given to the applicants in Special Case No.1/2014 which was pending in the court of the learned Special Judge Dhule.All the applications are filed only for relief of bail and not for suspension of the order of conviction.The trial court has convicted the applicants for offences punishable under sections 177,201,406,409,420, 120-B etc. of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(c),13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sentence of imprisonment of the period of 4 to 5 years is given to each of the applicants.Their appeals are already admitted by this Court.Heard learned Senior Counsel and other counsels for these applicants and learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri.P.P. Chavan.The record of evidence was made available by the learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::10 Cr Application 2956/2019 groupA scheme of construction of more than 11000 houses for economic weaker sections was floated by this local body at the instance of Shri.Jain and::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 ::: 11 Cr Application 2956/2019 group by using this scheme loan was obtained from HUDCO and many necessary permissions were obtained by Shri.Jain for this project.By giving go-by to the routine procedure and the officers of the local body, decisions were taken and the amount which was made available for the project was given to the contractor, Khandesh Builders Ltd. This was done tactfully by misusing the process of tender notice and by altering the conditions illegally.Suresh Jain.For this, a high power committee was constituted in the local body which was headed by Shri.Raisoni, a close associate of Shri.Due to reservation policy, Raisoni could not have become the President and so such modus operandi was used and through this high power committee the decisions were taken and implemented as desired by Shri.The outsiders like architects were appointed and to them also huge amount was given from the funds of the local body.Nobody dared to utter a word against Shri.Jain at the relevant time.Ultimately one Shri.Due to influence of Shri.Jain came to be arrested and charge sheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::3) Before the trial court the aforesaid modus operandi is proved and the money trail is also proved.Though the loss on record is shown to be Rs.169 crores, the actual loss sustained by the local body was huge and the financial condition of this local body is virtually crippled.The work was not executed and it is declared that the work itself is illegal.The sites were not fixed on the date of the tender notice and subsequently the sites which were reserved for other purposes were shown to be available for this project.Some construction was made but it is of no use and so it remained a dream of the economic weaker sections of people to get a shelter through the local body.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::no evidence of money trail to show that any part of money reached to them.Though it is true that there is no evidence of money trail as against the applicants, the fact remains that they were of the group of Shri Suresh Jain, they wanted to remain active in politics and these days many of the politicians enter politics not for social work but there is always the object of making material gain.Only due to the resolutions made by the general body to which the applicants were parties, the project could be started.Though some Councillors had opposed subsequently to some proposals, at other times they were party to the resolutions and there is record which is discussed by the trial court of that nature.Evidence is given as to how the money was disbursed and to whom the money went.Money went mainly to the concerns of Shri.Suresh Jain and Rajendra Mayur, Jagannath Wani, the close associates of Shri.Suresh Jain.When it became clear that the contractor was not executing the work and some disputes started, by passing resolutions the bank guarantee obtained under the contract was also released and so nothing was left in the hands of the local body.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::14 Cr Application 2956/2019 group5) The learned Special Public Prosecutor took this Court through various Government Resolutions which were not followed.He took this Court through the evidence of various Resolutions to show the participation of the applicants.The trial court has accepted the case of the prosecution of the nature suggested by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.The only question arises as to whether the substantive sentence needs to be suspended and bail needs to be granted to the present applicants even when there are aforesaid circumstances.6) There is one more circumstance.These circumstances can be considered against the applicants even at this stage.However, after the date of order of conviction they have been behind the bars.Most of them have paid the fine amount.The fine amount is of Rs.1.14 lakh and more::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 ::: 15 Cr Application 2956/2019 group amount in each case.It appears that the trial court has made attempt to see that at least the fine amount of Rs.169 crore is recovered by way of fine.The loss is caused due to the conduct of the present applicants, councillors but now they are made to pay fine of aforesaid amount by the trial court.It was submitted that due to pendency of the appeals before this Court which are very old there is no possibility of hearing of the present appeals in near future and it is not certain as to how much time will be required to hear these appeals.The appeals involve oral evidence of about 50 witnesses and there are thousands of documents.Paper book needs to be prepared and only after that the hearing is possible.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::7) The learned counsels for the applicants submitted that though the applicants are convicted for the aforesaid offences, considering the sentence which can be called as the short sentence, bail can be granted to the applicants.8) The learned Special Public Prosecutor referred to the observations made by various High Courts in the following cases.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::17 Cr Application 2956/2019 group In these cases when there was short sentence the substantive sentence was suspended and bail was granted.11) In the present matter in view of the material available and the appreciation of the material done by the trial court, at this stage it can be said that the present applicants were the puppets in the hands of the main accused.To remain in politics, to get posts of councillors there was no other option than to remain with the Aghadi of Shri.Suresh Jain.It is true that such conduct of the elected members like the councillors cannot be taken lightly as due to such conduct the loss of public money is caused.However, the aforesaid other circumstances also cannot be ignored.Nobody could dare to speak a word against Shri.Suresh Jain at the relevant time.In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that at present it can be inferred that the present applicants were not the main accused but they were accessors.This Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the applicants behind the bars till disposal of the appeals filed by them.They are behind the bars at least after the date of the conviction,::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 ::: 18 Cr Application 2956/2019 group for the period of more than one month.So the following order.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::12) The applications of the following applicants are allowed.No. Application Names of the applicants.Number 1 2955/2019 Gulabrao Baburao Deokar.2 2956/2019 Chandrakant Baliram Sonawane.3 2960/2019 Subhadrabai Suresh Naik.4 2969/2019 Sunanda Ramesh Chandelkar.Devidas Baliram Dhande.2. Liladhar Natthu Sarode.Pushpalata Shaligram Attarde.Dattu Devram Koli.Kailas Narayan Sonawane.Sadashiv Ganpat Dhekle.11 2998/2019 Shivcharan Kanyaiyalal Dhandore.12 2999/2019 Arun Narayan Shirsale.Afzalkhan Raufkhan Patwe.2.Iqbaloddin Pirjade.Mumtajbi Hussain Khan.Chatrabhuj Soma Sonwane.Rekha Chatrabhuj Sonwane.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::Vimal Budho Patil.19 3037/2019 Manjula Dharamendra Kadam.condition of deposit of the entire fine amount by each of the applicant.Before issuing the release order by the trial court in favour of the applicants, the trial court is to verify that entire fine amount is deposited by each of the applicant.After getting satisfied about it from each of the applicant, each of the applicant is to be released on bail on his/her furnishing PB and SB of Rs. One lakh with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.Only after getting the bonds of this amount and on furnishing solvent sureties by the applicants, the applicants are to be released on bail.The applicants are to produce pass ports::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 ::: 20 Cr Application 2956/2019 group if any in this Court.They are not to leave the country without taking prior permission from this Court.The surety given by one accused is not be accepted for other accused.Separate surety from each accused is to be obtained.Bail to be furnished in the trial court.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 :::13) Criminal Application No.2960/2019 filed by accused Sadhana Radhesham Kogta and Alka Nitin Laddha; Criminal Application No.2984/2019 filed by accused Sudha Pandurang Kale and Vijay Panditrao Kohle; and Criminal Application No.2997/2019 filed by accused Meena Anil Wani are allowed to be withdrawn and accordingly stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2019 02:11:20 ::: | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
79,471,167 | (Passed on 11th July, 2019) The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2011 passed by Second Additional Judge, Gwalior to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.269/2010, whereby the appellant/accused Umadevi-( 2 )- CRA No. 98/2011 Smt. Uma Devi Bhadoriya & another vs. State of MP been held guilty for the offences under Section 148 of IPC, sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 452/149 of IPC sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.200/-, under Sections 307 and 307/149 of IPC sentenced to five years RI for each offence with fine of Rs.500/- each, and under Section 323/149 of IPC sentenced to three months RI with fine of Rs.200/-.Similarly, appellant/accused Sonam has been held guilty for the offences under Section 148 of IPC, sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 452/149 of IPC sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 307/149 of IPC (on two counts) sentenced to five years RI for each each count with fine of Rs.500/- each, and under Section 323 of IPC sentenced to three months RI with fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulation.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Brief facts of the case are that son of complainant runs the shop of cyber cafe where one accused Vikas used to come for computer learning.When on 27.2.2010 complainant's son asked for money from accused Vikas then Vikash refused to give money and threatening the complainant's son left the place.On the same day, at 3.30 pm complainant Brij Kishore, wife Vimla and son Dharmendra were present in their house, all the accused persons namely Vikas Bhadoriya and Uma Devi armed with katta, Sonam-( 3 )- CRA No. 98/2011 Smt. Uma Devi Bhadoriya & another vs. State of MP armed with danda and two-three other persons armed with lathis came to their house.Accused Vikas asked about whereabouts of Vikas and hurled abuses.When complainant objected to it, then accused Umadevi fired a gun shot on complainant's son Dharmendra at his left foot; accused Vikas fired gun shot on the wife of complainant Vimla on her thigh; and Sonam committed marpeet with complainant by kicks and fists.The matter was reported to Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior, on which basis the police had registered a case at Crime No. 101/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 294, 147, 148, 149, 323 of IPC; sent the complainant for medical examination.After due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against appellants/accused Umadevi and Sonam before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior.It is pertinent to note here that a separate charge sheet has been filed in respect of accused Vikas before the Juvenile Court.Both the appellants/accused persons abjured the guilt and their defence is of false implication in this case.Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record held the appellants Umadevi and Sonam guilty for the offences and convicted and sentenced them as stated herein above.Aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal.-( 4 )- CRA No. 98/2011 Smt. Uma Devi Bhadoriya & another vs. State of MP5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of this appeal an application (IA No.1485/2019) under Section 320 sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed for disposal of the appeal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.It is on record that the complainant and the appellants have compromised their dispute and this compromise is willfully as verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court.As per the report of Principal Registrar, the offence under Section 323 and 323/149 of IPC is compoundable but the offences under Section 452/149, 307/149 and 148 of IPC are not compoundable.Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the conviction and sentence of the appellants Umadevi and Sonam for the offences under Section 323/149 and 323 of IPC respectively, are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.So far as the conviction and sentence under Sections 452/149, 307, 307/149 and 148 of IPC is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the parties have amicably solved the dispute and the appellants do not challenge307 of IPC was reduced.Hence, taking into account the factum of compromise between the parties and the fact that the appellant-( 6 )- CRA No. 98/2011 Smt. Uma Devi Bhadoriya & another vs. State of MP No.1-Umadevi is a widow lady, the case is pending since 2011, the sentences of six months RI with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 148 IPC, and one year RI with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 452/149 awarded by the trial Court against both the appellants are hereby affirmed.However, the sentence of five years RI with fine of Rs.500/- awarded against appellant-Umadevi for each offence under Section 307 and 307/149 of IPC is reduced to the period of two years RI with fine of Rs.500/- for each offence under Sections 307 and 307/149 of IPC.Similarly, the sentence of five years RI with fine of Rs.500/- awarded against appellant- Sonam for offence under Section 307/149 of IPC (on two counts) is reduced to the period of two years RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 307/149 of IPC (on two counts).The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within a period of thirty days from today, failing which the appellants shall suffer additional imprisonment as per judgment passed by the trial Court against the respective offence.The period already undergone by the appellants shall be adjusted towards the above mentioned sentence imposed by this Court.The fine amount, if already deposited by the appellants imposed against the offence 323/149 and 323 of IPC, shall be adjusted in the above mentioned fine amount imposed by this Court.The order passed by the trial-( 7 )- CRA No. 98/2011 Smt. Uma Devi Bhadoriya & another vs. State of MP Court regarding disposal of the seized article is hereby affirmed.The appellants are on bail.With the modification in the judgment of the trial Court to the above extent, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.Along with a copy of this judgment, the record of the trial Court be sent back immediately. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
794,723 | Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:-On March 22, 1992, the Custom Officers intercepted aship called Safina-Al-Burhani and upon search thereofrecovered five belts of gold biscuits of foreign origin.During interrogation, Abbas Hasan Subhaniya, the tandel ofthe said ship, disclosed that Harun Jusab Bhaya (A-8) andfor that a team of Custom Inspectors along with three sepoyswent to Khambhalia in a jeep which was driven by Chuni LalBarad (PW 46).The Custom Officers came to the office ofBrother & Brother Transport at Khambhalia where they spottedA-8 and informed him that he was being arrested inconnection with the smuggling of gold. A-8 then startedrunning away but the Custom Officers chased and apprehendedhim.When A-8 was being taken to Jam Nagar in a jeep forfurther investigation, he became violent and tried to escapefrom the grip of the Custom Officers who, therefore, stoppedthe jeep near Shrijee Hotel with a view to tie him with arope which they fetched from the nearby shop of Puncturwala.When A-8 was being tied with a rope, according to theprosecution, suddenly a truck bearing Registration No. GTE-7461 came from Khambhalia side and dashed against the jeepof the Custom Officers.As a result of this dash, the CustomOfficers who were standing near the jeep fell down.Jacob (PW 2) and Mahendrasinh Rayjada, a sepoy sustained theinjuries.The said truck immediately took a turn and againdashed against the jeep and in this process, A-8 couldsucceed in escaping himself from the clutches of the CustomOfficers. A-8 then boarded another truck which was parkednearby and fled away.According to the prosecution,appellant who was the driver of the truck intentionallydashed his truck against the jeep whereby two person,namely, Mahindersinh Rayjada, a sepoy died on the sport andSomaji Thakor, another sepoy died in the hospital.Theappellant then fled away.The Custom Inspector Mr. P.N. Desai (PW 1) then took alift on the motor cycle of Jadeja and reached the factory ofMeera Tiles and gave telephone calls to the Customs Officeand also informed the police station at Khambhalia about theincident.He then came back to the place of incident.J U D G M E N TS.P. KURDUKAR, J.This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorists andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short `theTADA') is filed by the appellant challenging the legalityand correctness of the judgment and order of conviction andsentence passed by the Designated Judge, Jam Nagar on June19, 1996 for various offences punishable under Sections 302,307, 225, 333 of the Indian Penal Code.In themeantime, police officers reached the place of incident andthereafter the injured were removed to the hospital.Atabout 8.30 p.m., an FIR was lodged by Mr. P.N. Desai (PW 1)in the police station.After completing the investigation, acharge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 147,302/149, 307/149, 332, 333/149 of the Indian Penal Code asalso under Section 3(a) of the Demolition of Public PropertyAct and under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA came to be submittedin the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khambhaliaagainst the appellant and seven other accused persons.Thecase was then committed for trial to the Designated Courtfor the aforesaid offences.The appellant and other seven accused persons deniedthe charges and claimed to be tried.According to them, theyhave been falsely implicated in the present crime.The prosecution in support of its case adduced theevidence of four eye witnesses, namely, Mr. P.N. Desai (PW1), Jacob (PW 2), Bharat Trivedi (PW 3) and Chuni Lal Barad(PW 46).The evidence relating to the Test Identification Parade wasalso produced at the trial.The appellant, however, did notlead any evidence in support of his defence.The Designated Judge, Jamnagar, after careful scrutinyof oral and documentary evidence on record by his judgmentand order dated June 19, 1996 convicted the appellant underSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him tosuffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-; in default to undergo further sentence of RI fortwo years.In addition to this, the appellant was convictedunder Section 307, 225, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Codeand was sentenced to suffer RI for various terms in additionto the payment of fine.Harun Jasub Bhaya, original accusedNo.8, however, was convicted under Section 224 of theIndian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer RI for twoyears and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default ofpayment of fine to suffer further RI for a period of sixmonths.Rest of the accusedpersons were, however, acquitted of all the charges.It is, therefore, needless to refer to the medicalevidence on record.In addition to these two unnaturaldeaths, P.N. Desai (PW 1) and Jacob (PW 2) were also injuredin the same incident.In order toestablish the identity, the prosecution relied upon theevidence of four witnesses, namely, P.N. Desai (PW 1), Jacob(PW 2), Bharat Trivedi (PW 3) and Chuni Lal Barad (PW 46).The learned trial judge, however did not accept the evidenceof Jacob (PW 2) and Chuni Lal (PW 6) as dependable to provethe identity of the appellant being the driver of the saidtruck.However, in our considered view, the evidence of P.N.Desai (PW 1) and Bharat Trivedi (PW 3) is totally unblemishand credible one to establish the identity of the appellantbeing the driver of the said truck.P.N. Desai (PW 1) in hisevidence has stated that he has seen the appellant 4 to 5times before the incident in the B & B Transport Company.Hecame to know the name of the appellant six months beforethis incident.He was introduced by senior Custom Officersfor preventive purpose.When the jeep was standing nearShrijee Parotha House, they were not aware that any truckwas coming from behind.When the truck came and dashedagainst them, they all fell down and the head ofMahindersinh was crushed.The truck thereafter went aheadand dashed against the electric poll and thereafter it camein reverse.Seeing this incident, Somaji who was sitting inthe jeep, got down and ran towards the road side.At thattime, the truck took a turn and came in speed and dashedagainst Somaji.On both these occasions, he saw theappellant being the driver of the truck from a distance of80-100 feet.The defence although cross-examined the witnessat great length but there is hardly any material brought outduring cross-examination which could discredit histestimony.We have carefully gone through the evidence ofthis witness and we see no hesitation to accept his evidencebeing credible one.The identity of the appellant being thedriver of the truck is fully established.The material onrecord also proves that the appellant was the associate ofHarun Jusab Bhaya (A-8).The manner in which the incidenttook place leaves no manner of doubt that the appellantpurposely and intentionally dashed against these CustomOfficers wherein Mahindersinh was crushed to death.Theappellant on the second time also brought the truck in speedafter taking a turn and dashed against Somaji who sustainedinjuries and lateron died in the hospital.In view of thesecircumstance, we have no manner of doubt that the appellanthas intentionally caused the deaths of Mahindersinh Rayjadaand Somaji Thakor.The FIR was lodged by P.N. Desai (PW 1) within a fewhours wherein the name of the appellant being the driver ofthe truck No. GTE-7461 was mentioned.The FIR also made amention of all details about the incident and it fullycorroborates the evidence of P.N. Desai (PW 1).The evidenceof P.N. Desai (PW 1) finds corroboration from that of BharatTrivedi (PW 3) who has also sustained minor injuries duringthe incident in question.He asserted that he was standingat a distance of 60 to 70 feet when the truck dashed againstMahindersinh Rayjada.He had seen the appellant driving thetruck in a great speed.We have gone through his evidencecarefully and we find that his evidence suffers from noinfirmity as regards the identity of the appellant.Thelearned Advocate for the appellant despite his efforts couldnot persuade us to disbelieve the evidence of these twowitnesses.The trial court, in our opinion, has rightlybelieved the evidence of these two witnesses.The evidenceof both these witnesses has clearly established that theappellant has intentionally caused the deaths ofMahindersinh and Somaji Thakor.The conviction of theappellant passed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.The learnedAdvocate for the appellant was unable to point out any errorin the impugned judgment as regards the convictions of theappellant passed on other counts.Thus, this appeal isdevoid of any merit. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,046,829 | The applicant is in jail.Today the matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No. 3540/2019, an application for suspension of sentence of the applicant.Learned counsel for applicants instead of arguing on the application for suspension of sentence, prays for hearing the matter finally.The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by JMFC, Sanwer in cr.case no. 971/2012 as mentioned below :- S.N. Conviction u/s Imprisonment Fine Default sentencec 1 Sec.279 IPC 3 months RI Rs.1000/-2 Sec.337 IPC(3 count) 3 months RI Rs.500/-4 Sec.146/196 Motor Till rising of Rs.500/-The applicant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment whereby learned 27th ASJ, Indore vide judgment dated 29.04.2019 in Cr.Appeal No. 356/2016 has partially allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence, hence this Revision.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.He is directed to be released by the trial court subject to verification that he has deposited the fine amount.Registry is directed for issuance of supersession warrant against the applicant Laxmanrao.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court along with record for information and compliance.as per rules.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge mk MUKTA KAUSHAL 2019.05.17 18:51:55 -07'00' | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,049,637 | as per rules.Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, war Datt 2.5.4.20=3fb5bcda9fd75d95d6c7cdcbd0 92ee5a74a94a5534aed3a66d9385cfcfc2 01e0, cn=Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2018.01.09 11:01:56 -08'00'This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo additional RI for five months.Learned counsel for the appellant has informed that the appellant has already undergone the sentence awarded to him and appellant does not want to press the appeal on merits, therefore, nothing survives in the present appeal.The appeal is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,054,553 | Without Costs.28.08.2017Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NornaTo1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise Secretariat, Chennai.2.The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai.S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J rna3.The Director General of Police, Dr.4.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.5.The Superintendent, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.Selvaraj, Senior Civil Surgeon, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.M.Subramani, Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District.W.P.No.4890 of 201628.08.2017The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is a victim of the incident of an offence that took place on 31.12.2012 and when he was admitted in the Government Hospital at Pollachi as in-patient, the statement of a writ petitioner was also recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police and the FIR was registered on 02.01.2013 under Sections 147, 148, 365, 342, 323, 387, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code.Further, the writ petitioner has given a complaint against the respondents 6 and 7 and filed Crl.O.P.No.13631 of 2015 before this Court, this Court pass an order on 8th June 2015 as follows.On an such frivolous allegations, if FIR is registered against Government Doctor and Inspector of Police, it will affect the administration of Criminal justice.The officials are protected against prosecution while discharging their official duties both under the Police Act as well under the Code of Criminal Procedure.Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner as aforesaid.The writ petitioner cannot attribute motivation on the ground that the date is wrongly mentioned in the Wound Certificate.Public officials performing duty on good faith cannot be harassed or no such direction as such sought for in this writ petition can be granted.In the event of any malpractice or corrupt activities or specific instance against the public officials action shall be initiated and not otherwise.The attitude of the petitioner in making such allegations against the public officials are to be deprecated and the manner in which the present writ petition is filed also to be condemned. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,055,262 | Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the State Mr. Manish Vashist, Complainant.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALBy way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.18/2017 under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi.Status Report is on record.Brief facts of the present case are that, on 14.01.2017 a complaint was lodged by one Nisha against her husband Akshay Kumar/present-petitioner, wherein she alleged that she was kidnapped by the petitioners and his family members at Begusaray in Bihar in the month of May 2016; that although a complaint was lodged by her father to the Police Station of Nagar in Begusaray, however no action was taken; that thereafter the complainant's BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 1 of 5 father moved an application before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusaray, upon which a compromise was arrived at between the family members of both the petitioner and the complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2016 in Begusaray; that at the time of marriage the complainant's parents gave dowry articles to the petitioner's family as per their status; that soon after the marriage, the behaviour of the petitioner and his family changed towards the complainant and they started hurling abuses and making cast based comments upon the complainant and his family members; that the petitioner showed his dissatisfaction on the dowry articles received during marriage and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and one motorcycle from the complainant; that at that time the complainant did not lodge any complaint under the fear of the petitioner and his family members as they threatened her that they would get the petitioner married elsewhere; that thereafter the complainant was sent back to her paternal house without any cogent reason; that on 18.07.2016 at about 8 p.m. the petitioner came to the complainant's house and started abusing her and also tried to hit her for getting his demands fulfilled; that hence thereafter the present complaint was lodged.BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 1 of 5Ms. Rita Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the allegations so made by the complainant are totally false and concocted, to humiliate and harass the petitioner and his family; that the petitioner and the complainant knew each other forone year and the marriage was a love marriage; that the petitioner is a Civil BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 2 of 5 Engineering student and so his father had arranged for a separate rented accommodation for him and the complainant; that the complainant stayed with the petitioner only for 2 months after marriage and thereafter she returned to her maternal home; that the complainant herself demanded Rs 5 Lakhs from the petitioner to dissolve the present marriage and threatened to harass and humiliate him and his family if her demands were not fulfilled; that the complainant has also alleged false kidnapping charges against the petitioner; that no demand was ever made by the petitioner or his family members as alleged by the complainant; that the mother of the petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 08.10.2016 of the erratic behaviour of the complainant; that the complainant is already married to one Arjun Das with whom her marriage has not been dissolved till date; that the petitioner has been joining investigation as and when required and called for; that there is no likelihood of the petitioner either absconding or fleeing from justice; that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court; that hence in the aforementioned circumstances, anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 2 of 5Per Contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, learned APP for the State opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of harassing and humiliating the complainant with demands of dowry.The learned Counsel also drew Court's attention to the documents whereby the complainant was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 3 of 5 and submitted that to escape the said proceedings the petitioner had married the complainant.It was further submitted that when the proceedings were going on before the CAW Cell , the complainant and her mother had sustained injuries on two occasions during a quarrel which had taken place with the petitioner and the said fact is supported by the MLC of the complainant and her mother.BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 3 of 5I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.For the purpose of deciding the present bail application, this Court need not go into the merits of the case, but only consider whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.By an order dated 08.05.2017, the petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court and was directed to join the investigation as and when required.Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation since then.Moreover, during the course of arguments, Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, learned APP for the State, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer submitted that the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation.Hence so far as the question of the petitioner fleeing away from the processes of law or not being available to participate in the investigation is concerned, neither any apprehension in this regard has been expressed by the Investigating Agency nor there is any BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 4 of 5 such fact which could be made a basis to assume that the petitioner will flee away from the process of the law.BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 4 of 5(i) the petitioner shall furnish his personal bond to the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned;(ii) the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer by notice in writing and shall cooperate with the investigation of the case;(iii) the petitioner shall not leave NCT without intimation to the Police Station /I.O concerned.The petitioner is further directed that he shall not tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses.Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case during trial.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 13, 2017//gr BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 5 of 5BAIL APPLN.852/2017 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,055,348 | No.1/State.Case diary perused and arguments heard.[2] As per prosecution story, on 9/5/2016 the complainant lodged the report averring that someone constantly phoned her by mobile no.8878139576 and made vulgar conversation and also sent vulgar SMS on her mobile phone number no.9753777637 and that person also registered a fake facebook and whats up account in which he used her photo and also pressurized her to do friendship with her.On this Police of P.S. Hatta, Distt.Damoh registered Crime No.202/2016 for the offence under Section 354A(ii), 354D and 507 of the I.P.C., Section 3 (2)(5)(a)of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Sections 66 & 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against the appellant and investigated the matter.During investigation, it was found that the appellant called the complainant and prepared her profile.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the matter.He is ready to co-operate in the investigation, so he be released on anticipatory bail.Therefore, he should not be released on anticipatory bail.[5] It appears from the case diary that the police connected the appellant to the crime on the basis of I.M.E.I. number of the mobile phone that the mobile phone which was used to harass the complainant, was presently used by the appellant.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/- | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,059,347 | they are behind bars.Criminal Application No. 4113/2017 is filed by the Statefor condonation of delay of 140 days caused in filing the applicationfor grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order ofSessions Case No. 3/2013, which was pending in the Court oflearned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.The Trial Court hasacquitted the respondents.Learned counsel Shri.Deshmukh hasfiled appearance for respondents.Both the sides are heard.In viewof the contentions made in the application and submissions made,this Court holds that sufficient cause is shown.The application isallowed.Separate number is to be given to theapplication filed for grant of leave to file appeal.The application is filed by the State for granting leave::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 ::: Cri.No. 4113/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 :::Thelearned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the respondents ofthe offene punishable under sections 302, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC forcommitting one murder.But the Trial Court has acquitted all therespondents for the offence of attempt of murder in respect ofBhimashankar and also for the offence of wrongful restraint whichwas alleged at the relevant time by the respondents.This Courthas carefully gone through the record of evidence and reasoninggiven by the Trial Court.There is direct evidence against all the threerespondents in the form of evidence of Bhimashankar (PW 9), whois injured witness, Shankar (PW 10), who was admittedly presenton the spot at the relevant time.Counter case was filed by therespondents against the deceased and the submissions made showthat the prosecution witnesses of the present case are acquitted inthe counter case.Evidence is given by the two aforesaid eyewitnesses that all the three respondents used weapons like axes.Specific allegations are made by PW 9 that all the threerespondents assaulted him by using axe.The injury certificateshows that injuries were mainly on the head portion.Evidence is::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 ::: Cri.No. 4113/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 :::given by these two witnesses that when they were taking theirbullock cart, the bullock cart was intercepted by all the threerespondents.It is their contention that they were having right touse the land of accused Manik as cart way and it is the case ofaccused Manik that they have no right to use that way as cart way.In provision of section 307 ofIPC, there are two parts.One part completes when intention andovertacts are proved.For the other part, the injuries are requiredto be considered.In the present matter, in view of number ofinjuries inflicted and the nature of weapons used, this Court holdsthat there is good arguable case for the State to file appeal againstthe decision of acquittal for aforesaid offences.In the result, theapplication is allowed.Leave is granted to State to file appeal.This Court has already granted leave to file appeal tothe State.For the same reasons are given.For the same reasons,appeal is admitted.It appears that the respondents are convictedfor the offences punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 ::: Cri.No. 4113/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 :::So, compliance of section 390 of Cr.P.C. is tobe done by serving them process in jail.6. Sent the record back to the Trial Court for preparationof paper book and after preparation of paper book and receipt ofthe record sent by the Trial Court, list the matter before this Court.Criminal Application No. 2996/2017 is filed forsuspension of substantive sentence and for bail.The applicants areconvicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No. 3/2013 by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur for the offencespunishable under sections 302, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC.They areacquitted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable undersections 307 and 341 of IPC.Both the sides are heard.The recordof evidence is available and this Court has perused the same.There is evidence of atleast three eye witnesses on therecord.It shows that all the three accused, present applicants usedaxes as weapons and they assaulted not only the deceased, butalso other two witnesses in respect of whom injury certificates areproduced.There is evidence of PW 9 - Bhimashankar that blows ofaxe were given by the accused on his head and the injury::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 ::: Cri.No. 4113/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 :::certificates show that most of the injuries were found on the headand one injury is described as grievous.One person died due to injuries sustained by him and other persondied after few months of the incident that is why he could not beexamined.But, other two injured eye witnesses are examined bythe State and there is one more eye witness.In the result, theapplication filed for suspension of substantive sentence is rejected.[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]ssc/::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:30:43 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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. |
58,059,648 | Mr. Amar Singh, Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior is present in person.This is fourth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier bail application has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 25.09.2017 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 09.11.2016 in connection with Crime No.207/2016 registered by Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior, for offence punishable under Sections 376D, 370(A)(1), 372, 506 of IPC added Section 376(2)F, G of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is incorrect to say that the prosecutrix was an orphan.On 06.12.2016, the prosecutrix was given in the custody of her relative Ajay Kumar Soni and initially, it was informed by Ajay Kumar Soni that the girl is in Bihar and therefore, an attempt was made to locate the prosecutrix in Bihar but she was not found there.This application is dismissed with aforesaid liberty. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,061,118 | Application disposed of.A.(SB) No.101/2012 Page 1 of 7 CO.A(SB) 101/2012 & Co. Application No. 2364/2012 (Stay)A.(SB) No.101/2012 Page 3 of 7On advance notice, learned counsel for the respondent has put an appearance.Counter submissions have been made.Learned counsel for the respondent points out that Naveen Gupta had been summoned in the Court and he had owned his signatures on the rejoinder as also the two accompanying affidavits.The documents have been perused.The CLB has noted the mismatching in the questioned and the admitted signatures yet on a perusal of the same and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent which is to the effect that the signatures of a person do vary at different points of time which submission is not out of context.A.(SB) No.101/2012 Page 4 of 7 appending his signatures on the aforenote documents.The offences, complained of by the petitioner, which are under Sections 463 and 471 of the IPC necessary entail a mensrea; in the absence of an intent to defraud the offence is not made out.A.(SB) No.101/2012 Page 4 of 7 | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
630,345 | JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Mainly contending that on the application filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 7 to 10 before the Settlement Commission, the order of immunity has been passed from penalty as well as prosecution, these applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to quash the private complaint filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range IX, Chennai, against ten accused including the petitioners.The first accused is the Express Newspapers Limited.Accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the directors and officers of Express Newspapers Limited.The petitioners being arrayed as accused Nos. 7 to 10 are the cold storage companies carrying on business in West Bengal and their directors.The gravamen of the charge is that Express Newspapers Limited claimed a loss of Rs. 74.65 lakhs in the trading in potatoes and set it off against its other income and thereby avoided payment of the legitimate tax and the tax sought to be evaded relating to the fictitious loss of Rs. 74.65 lakhs is about Rs. 50.95 lakhs.It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioners/ accused Nos. 7 to 10 created and fabricated records as though potatoes were purchased from the suppliers and those potatoes were sold to specific dealers who gave pay orders in favour of the first accused.It is further stated that during the enquiry, it was found that the petitioners/accused forged signatures of the alleged potato suppliers and forged invoices of sales, etc., and, as such, the petitioners/accused Nos. 7 to 10 committed the offences of abetment under Section 278 read with Section 276C and Section 277 of the Income-tax Act.Ultimately, the Settlement Commission passed an order on March 30, 1995 in, both the applications filed by A-7 and A-8 granting immunity from penalty and prosecution in respect of the matters arising out of the settlement.Based upon these orders, A-7 to A-9 filed an application in the year 1998 in Crl.O. P. No. 14209 of 1998 seeking for quashing.In the year 2000, A-10 filed a similar application raising the same ground in Crl.When these matters came up before this court, the petitioners filed another application in Crl.Therefore, the said ground was not pressed.Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while elaborating the point relating to the lack of maintainability in view of the immunity granted by the Settlement Commission would make the following submissions :The petitioners under Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, made applications to have the case settled and to grant immunity from penalty andprosecution.Admittedly, these applications were filed and admitted prior to the filing of the private complaint in question.By order dated May 31, 1990, the Settlement Commission allowed the application filed by A-l.Against the above order, the Department filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.Only thereafter, the assessee approached the Settlement Commission.It ought to have been rejected in limine.The Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application.With the above observations, the petitions for quashing are dismissed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
6,303,904 | Ct-34 (AD) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28/08/2018 in connection with Sankrail P.S. Case No. 604/2018 dated 25/08/2018 under Sections 341/354D/354/354A/509/506 /325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Rupam Sadhukhan.....petitioner.Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri ...for the petitioner.Mr. Avishek Sinha ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Sankrail P.S. Case No. 604/2018 dated 25/08/2018 under Sections 341/354D/354/354A/509/506/325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner says that the complaint is a product of political vendetta.The State produces the case diary and the statement of the victim.Considering the material on record, there is no need to take the petitioner into custody.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the 2 conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 3 | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,039,908 | (i) The criminal application is allowed.(ii) Applicant-Satish s/o Mohan Khandare, in connection with Crime No.114/2018 registered with Khillar Police Station, Tahsil Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati for offences under Sections 376(2)(L) (N) and 452 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, be released on bail on his executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like amount.(iii) The applicant is directed not to enter territorial jurisdiction of village Kokarda, tahsil Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati where prosecution witnesses reside, till completion of the Trial.(iv) The applicant is directed to furnish his residential address where he will be residing after releasing on bail to learned Judge of the Court below before whom Bail Bonds will be executed.(v) Learned Judge of the Court below is directed to impose conditions upon the applicant that he shall attend nearest Police Station of his residence once in a week, till the Trial is .....::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 01:44:50 :::ba600.19 24 3 over.(vi) With this, the criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 01:44:50 ::: | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,041,339 | - State.Heard on I.A. No.5494/2015 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of jail sentence of the Appellant No.1- Adesh S/o Rajbahadur Jaiswal and Appellant No.3-Chand Khan S/o Bashir Khan.The present appellants have suffered conviction and jail sentence, which are as under:Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they were on bail during the trial.The pistol which was allegedly used in the commission of crime was seized from the co- accused-Karim Khan, further it is alleged that Adesh used the pistol during the commission of the crime, however the pistol was not used during the crime and no injury was caused to any of the persons.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.Seventy Five Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellants shall be released on bail for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 19.01.2016 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed, by the Registry of this Court, in this behalf.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/- | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,044,597 | No.1/State.ad Case diary perused and arguments heard.M This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated of 09/10/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) rt Act, Seoni in Bail Application No.80/2017 whereby learned Special ou Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.537/2017 registered at P.S. C Lakhnadon, District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections h 294, 324, 323, 506 of the I.P.C., Sections 3 (2) (v-d), 3(1)(n-/k) of ig SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms H Act.As per prosecution case, on 02/09/2017 when the complainant Bharat was returning from Dharamshala Chouk, at that time applicant abused him with insulting words regarding caste and also assaulted him by sword.In the incident complainant Bharat sustained injuries on his head.ad (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) M JUDGE of rt ou as C Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI h Date: 2017.12.16 11:10:54 +05'30' ig HOn the report of the complainant, police registered Crime No.537/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 324, 323, 506 of the I.P.C., Sections 3 (2) (v-d), 3(1)(n-/k) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms Act and investigated the matter.During investigation on 07/10/2017 Police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned ad order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant is Pr innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this matter.The a charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take hy considerable time.The appellant is in custody since 07/10/2017, so ad appellant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the M appellant.of Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and charge- sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable time rt and the appellant is in custody since 07/10/2017, without commenting ou on merit, the appeal is allowed.C It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his h furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty ig Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the H satisfaction of Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the sh offence of which he is accused;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during ad the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous Pr permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.a Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.hy CC as per rules. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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. |
63,045,552 | Heard on I.A.No.23832/2014, an application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.Under such circumstances, the appellant prays for bail and suspension of execution of his jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a good case, in which the appellant Cr.A.No.690/2014 may be released on bail.Looking to the excessive amount of fine, it is also directed that recovery of fine amount shall be suspended till the disposal of the present appeal.He be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the office of this Court on 28.4.2015 and on such other subsequent dates as may be given by this Court for that purpose.Case be listed for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,934,513 | This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25.4.2003 in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut convicting accused-appellant Aflatoon under Sections 302 I.P.C and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, one year further imprisonment under Section 302 and six months imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The present appellant was convicted and he is in jail since 2001 i.e. the date of arrest.The brief facts are that appellant Aflatoon who lives in the neighbourhood of the complainant Babu (P.W.1), used to tease the ladies of the complainant's family.On 11.5.2001, appellant Aflatoon came to the house of complainant and started teasing the ladies of the complainant's family and on being objected by the deceased Iliyas son of the complainant, an altercation took place between appellant Aflatoon and deceased.Appellant Aflatoon returned back and soon after at about 5.30 p.m., came again with Shaqeel to the house of the complainant.Exchange of abuses took place once again and accused Shaqeel caught hold of Iliyas and appellant inflicted knife blows upon Iliyas.The occurrence was seen by Shamsher, Iqbal and Jameer also.Both the accused escaped after hue and cry were raised.Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.(Per Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.)Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned A.G.A. for State.Thereafter, the complainant took the deceased with the help of neighbours to the Medical College, Meerut where he was declared dead.Complainant Babu, thereafter, dictated his written report to one Tasleem who submitted the written report to Police Station, Lisari Gate, Meerut on that basis case was registered and investigation was carried out, inquest report was prepared, formalities for postmortem examination was caused and autopsy was conducted.After investigation charge sheet against the accused person in respect of murder was submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction.The accused were summoned from jail as both were not enlarged on bail.The co-accused was acquitted by the Sessions Court and the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal.The present appellant was convicted and he is in jail since 2001 i.e. the date of arrest.On the accused pleading not guilty, they were tried and the prosecution led its evidence by examining about 10 witnesses which are as follows:Deposition of Babu Deposition of Babu 4.5.2002 31.5.2002 PW1 PW1 2 Deposition of Shamsher Deposition of Shamsher 4.5.2002 31.5.2002 PW2 PW2 3 Deposition of S.I. R.C. Sharma 31.10.2002 PW3 4 Deposition of Dr. Rajkuamr 31.10.2002 PW4 5 Deposition of Constable Madanpal Singh 31.10.2002 PW5 6 Deposition of Constable Sharwan Kumar 31.10.2002 PW6 7 Deposition of Afsana 7.11.2002 PW7 8 Deposition of Mohd. Iqbal 7.11.2002 PW8 9 Deposition of S.O. Gajendra Singh 8.11.2002 PW9 10 Deposition of S.I. N.P. Dwivedi Deposition of S.I. N.P. Dwivedi 7.1.2003 7.1.2003 PW10 PW10In support of their ocular version following documents were filed:Written Report Ex. Ka.1Recovery Memo of Knife Ex. Ka. 12Recovery Memo of Blood stain earth Ex.ka.14Postmortem Report Ex.ka. 7Site Plan Ex.ka.13On the witnesses being examined and the prosecution having concluded its evidence.The accused were put question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but except pleading that they did not know anything and/or they have been falsely implicated, no material was placed nor any witness was examined as defence witness.It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the evidence of prosecution witnesses No.1, 2, 7 and 8 who are witnesses of facts are not corroborating each other, the submission of the learned counsel is that there is variance in their version and in the F.I.R. they were not named to be present.It is submitted that PW 2 and PW 7 could not have seen the incident as the place of occurrence they mentioned in their version is different from the place of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. Deceased Iliyas took his business in a place which is about 300 ft. away from the residence and, therefore, occurrence could not have been seen.The postmortem report would suggest that they would have been scuffled and site plan of the place of occurrence is also not showing the correct place of occurrence and, therefore, the accused should be acquitted.The prosecution has failed to examine the material witnesses who were shown to be present.The scribe was also not proved.There are several contradictions and the incident could not have been seen.PW 2 was not at all present at the place of occurrence.The genesis of the incident whether it was at Khokha or at the residence is also not proved by the prosecution.The alternative submission is that this was not the case where accused intentionally wanted to murder the deceased.Had that been done so, the weapon would have been the lethal weapon which would not the case in hand.The inquest shows only one major stabbed injury.The learned A.G.A. submitted that stabbing was in front of the house.There was no question for the father to falsely implicate the accused.The learned Trial Court has discussed the evidence at length.The learned Trial Judge, according to the learned A.G.A. based his judgment on the testimony of the eye-witnesses."14. P.W.9 Gajender Singh has stated that on 14.05.2001 he was Station Officer, Police Station Lisari Gate.On that date he was informed by Incharge Police out post Pilkhori that accused Aflatoon of case crime No. 221 of 2001 under Section 302 of I.P.C. was arrested.He alongwith other constables went to the outpost Pilokhori.Aflatoon was taken out of lockup.Then he and Sub Inspector took Aflatoon to the place where Aflatoon intended to get the from scheme no. 10 of Awas Vikas near a Ganda Nala from bush.He proved the recovery of the knife Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He proved the knife (Ext.1) which was recovered on the pointing of accused Aflatoon.This Court is mindful of the fact that in trial for the offence of murder, where the witness is a close relative of victim, it is necessary to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinize the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it.However, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness.It is trite law in criminal jurisprudence that version of an eyewitness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that such witness happened to be a relative of the deceased.In the final analysis, the evidence of the witness who were present and who have testified will be more important if the evidence is qualitative in nature.We have to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity.In this case it is an admitted position of fact that on the basis the circumstances and subsequent facts, independent source of information, except the police official, other persons present refused to testify and none was available.PW-1 Babu, the father of deceased-Iliyas has stated that Aflatoon used to tease the ladies of his family.The PW-1 is the father of the deceased.He has identified the accused-appellant who was the real assailant.From the evidence, it is very clear that the appellant had a grudge against the family of the deceased, thus, the evidence of eye-witnesses and also PW-5 and PW-6 goes to show that the prosecution had brought home the charges framed against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.PW-4 Dr. Raj Kumar deposed that the injuries could be caused by knife.He proved the injury report and said that the injuries could have been caused at 8.30 p.m. on 11.5.2001 and the injuries were sufficient to cause death.The prosecution also says that the accused.The prosecution also says that the accused stabbed Iliyas with knife and Iliyas died of stab injuries.Thus medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case.Injuries pointed out by P.W.4 Dr. Raj Kumar on the body of deceased are as follows:Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm from of abdomen upper part, 8 cm above umblicus.Linear abrasion 8 cm x 0.5 cm front of left shoulder.Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep front of right thing, lower part 11 cm above the right knee front.Thus the injuries can be said to be such which would cause the death.At one point, the witness has on a suggestion made by the counsel for the accused showed that he was alive when he was taken to the police station which is evident from the evidence of PW-2 and, therefore, the injuries were in normal course were inflicted to show that cannot be said to be with intention to cause death but there was definitely knowledge that stabbing twice on the abdomen may cause death and, therefore, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge.Therefore, it will be culpable homicide with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.The accused-appellant was found at the place of occurrence.He is the person who has inflicted the injuries and, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that he was the person who perpetrated the crime.The prosecution has discharged its burden.The recoveries were made separately at the instance of both the accused who took out the place from where they were planted and the places were such which could be known to accused only.State of M.P. Decided, (2011) 5 SCR 300 which have to be also kept in mind. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,935,313 | The complainant/respondent no.2 was well aware with the entire family members of the petitioner including wife and son since 2011, but she made false allegations without any basis.The petitioner never lived with the complainant though he helped her in the studies and some of the financial matter due to humanity.Shri Rajesh Sukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant.Relevant facts of the case are that on 28.07.2016, the complainant/respondent no.2/Pragya lodged an FIR against the petitioner stating that in 2004, she came to Indore for Study and came into contact with the petitioner.They liked each other.The petitioner said her that he is unmarried and due to family dispute living desperately.On 13.02.2004, they entered into wed lock at Shirdi.Thereafter, in the year 2012, they purchased a flat at Alok Nagar, Indore.As the office of the petitioner/Sunil was at Khargone, so, he used to come to Indore weekly, but suddenly, in 2015, behaviour of the petitioner was changed.He started coming to Indore in 10-15 days, stopped her monthly expenses and fee of her son.When she asked about all this, he abused and beaten her.Later, she came to know that the petitioner was already married and was having a son with the earlier marriage.The police registered a case and after investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 498-A, 494, 493 and 323 of IPC.He has been falsely implicated.During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention towards the affidavit of the respondent no.2, which reads as under: | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,739,402 | JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, J.Notice is served on all the parties.On 13th July 2004, this Appeal was heard and the Counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the Appeal should be decided finally at the admission stage.This Appeal arises from an order passed under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1950") by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur.The Judgment and Order dated 25th September 2000 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was confirmed in an appeal under Section 70 of the said Act of 1950 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune.Thereafter an application under Section 72(1) of the said Act of 1950 was filed in the District Court.The said application has been rejected.In view of this legal position, this Appeal can be heard and decided only if a substantial question of law arises.After having heard the Counsel appearing for the parties, in my view the following substantial questions of law clearly arise:(ii) Whether the Application under Section 72(1) of the said Act of 1950 could not have been entertained on merits as the issues involved in the said Application were merely academic?When this Appeal was taken up for hearing on 13th July 2004, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were made aware about the aforesaid substantial questions of law and the Counsel have made submissions on the basis of the same.As the Change Report was filed beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application for condonation of delay.By order dated 25th September 2000, the Change Report was accepted.the learned Assistant charity Commissioner recorded that no objection has been received from any outgoing Trustee.It is pertinent to note that the Change Report was filed on 17th July 2000 i.e. after lapse of four years from the date on which the alleged change occurred.An Appeal was preferred under Section 70 of the Appellants herein against the Judgment and Order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner.The said Appeal was dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 25th January 2001 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.The learned Counsel for the Appellants tendered a compilation of documents.The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has referred to the application for condonation of delay.In many cases notice is ordered to be issued when there is no dispute as regards the Change.Therefore, it is necessary that the Respondent No. 10-Charity Commissioner should bring to the notice of the Assistant Charity Commissioners and the Deputy Charity Commissioners in the State the law laid down by this Court.The Charity Commissioner must also ensure that Change Report proceedings are given priority by the Assistant/Deputy Charity Commissioners and expeditious disposal of such proceedings is ensured.Hence the following order:(i) The Appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,739,493 | These Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 29.11.2002 in S.C.No.336 of 2002, in and by which, A-1, A-2, A,4 and A-6 (appellant-A-1 in Crl.A.No.101 of 2003, first appellant (A-2) in Crl.A.No.920 of 2004, first appellant (A-4) in Crl.A.No.227 of 2003 and second appellant (A-6) in Crl.The case of the prosecution is as follows:A-5 is the maternal uncle of P.W.1. A-1 to A-6 are relatives.(b) On 15.11.2001 at about 12 noon, when P.Ws.1 to 3 were attending the nature's call, the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi, P.W.8 Murali, P.W.9 Ragu and their friends, committed the theft of wrist watches from P.W.1 Karthik and P.W.2 Vijay and immediately, they have gone to their village and intimated to their parents.A-1 to A-6 took P.W.1 Karthik, P.W.2 Vijay and P.W.3 Loganathan to Tirupur Bus Stand, from where they took P.W.8 Murali and P.W.9 Raghu and the deceased Pallaan to Jamunai Pallam Village and they assaulted the deceased and P.Ws.8 and 9 with M.O.1 (split pieces of bamboo sticks) and in that transaction, the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi died on the spot itself.P.W.8 and P.W.9 sustained injuries.(c) P.W.8 and P.W.9 went to Tiruppur Police Station and intimated the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police.With the medical memo, they were sent to the Government Hospital, where P.W.7 Dr.Suseela treated P.Ws.8 and 9 and gave Exs.P-12 and P-13 wound certificates.(d) P.W.1 Karthik went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-14 complaint to P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Cr.No.1320 of 2001 and prepared Ex.P-15 F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 323 and 302 IPC and the same has been forwarded to the concerned Magistrate, who received the same.(e) P.W.11 Inspector of Police took the matter for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-16 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-17 rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi.He also prepared Ex.P-18 inquest report.After the inquest, he sent the dead body for autopsy along with Ex.P-10 requisition.(f) P.W.6 Dr.Bhuvaneswari conducted autopsy on 16.11.2001, after the dead body has been identified by the concerned Police.She issued Ex.Spinal column intact.All injuries are of antemortem in nature.OPINION: The deceased would appear to have died of shock and Heamorrhage due to multiple injuries to brain about 24-30 hrs.prior to commencement of autopsy."In pursuance of the same, at about 6 a.m., A-1 has confessed that he is ready to hand over the hidden weapons and they have also been recovered under Ex.P-20 mahazar.M.O.1 bamboo sticks were recovered under Ex.P-22 seizure mahazar.(h) After autopsy, the Police Constable who is connected with the autopsy, has handed over the dead body of the deceased to the relatives and produced the belongings of the deceased in M.Os.2 to 4 under Ex.P-23 special memo.That has been sent along with Ex.A.No.227 of 2003) were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 323 and 304 (Part-2) IPC and A-3 (appellant in Crl.A.No.1061 of 2003) and A-5 (second appellant in Crl.A.No.920 of 2004) were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 342 and 304 (Part-2) IPC and they were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC, six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, for each of the offences under Sections 342 and 323 IPC and five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC, in respect of the respective accused.The sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeals have been filed.P-11 post-mortem certificate, in which the following injuries were indicated:"... Its condition then was Rigor mortis passed off in upper limbs and present in lower limbs.Appearances found at the post-mortem on a body of a male about 18 years with eyes closed, left eye blackened, mouth closed, tongue kept inside, bleeding through nostrils present.Teeth 8 | 87 | 8External injuries Multiple reddish brown contusion around the neck.(1) Multiple reddish abrasion on both sides of back.(2) An abrasion on the left ear about 2 cm x 2 cm.(3) a red contusion on the left cheek with blacking of eye.(4) Fracture mandible on the left side present.O/D No rib Fracture, Hyoid bone fractured.Tracheal rings dislocated.Soft tissues of neck congested red blood clots present.Lungs: Normal congested.Heart: Normal Right side chambers contain 50 ml of Fluid blood, left side empty.Stomach: empty.Small and large intestines normal filled with gas.Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: Normal congested O/D of skull about 50 gm of blood clot found below the scalp on occipital and temporal region.Left side of neck about 75 gm of blood clots found subdurally on the left side of brain.P-25 letter of the Court.Reports were received from the Forensic Sciences Laboratory under Exs.(j) After concluding the investigation, the investigating officer concerned filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 323, 325 and 302 read with 149 IPC, which was taken on file.The learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Tirupur, after following the procedures in furnishing the copies to the accused, committed the case to the District and Sessions Court.The learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, after framing necessary charges, questioned the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-28 were marked and M.Os.1 to 4 were produced.P.Ws.1 to 5 turned hostile.On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9, who are the injured eye-witnesses, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 Doctors, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, convicted the accused under Sections 147, 342 323 and 304 (Part-2) IPC and sentenced them, as indicated above.Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellants-accused would contend that P.Ws.8 and 9, who are the injured eye-witnesses, have not deposed with regard to the specific overt act against the accused, that there is a material contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, that the deceased sustained multiple brain injuries and that in Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate, P.W.6 Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to brain.Learned counsel for the appellants-accused would further contend that there is no evidence to corroborate the head injuries and hyoid bone fracture.P.Ws.8 and 9 have not deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased.So, the trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC.Since the deceased has sustained only simple injuries, the appellants-accused are only liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and not under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC.Ashok Dixit and another).State of Karnataka) and 2003 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 852 (Bhima @ Bhimrao Sida Kamble and others Vs.State of Maharashtra) to substantiate his contentions.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) took through the oral evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and submitted that P.Ws.8 and 9 are the injured eye-witnesses and they have categorically and clearly deposed before the trial Court that they were assaulted by A-1 to A-6 along with others.Since P.W.8 in his cross-examination itself has stated that they know the accused, as they were doing cooking work jointly, there is no need for conducting identification parade.They identified the accused before the Court.Even though P.W.1 has disowned his complaint, he admitted his signature.All the things have been considered by the trial Court in proper perspective and it came to the correct conclusion and there is no irregularity or illegality in the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused by the trial Court.Learned Government Advocate further submitted that since there is no motive, the trial Court has noticed that since the injuries were sustained by the deceased on the vital organs, the accused were aware that such injuries will be causing instantaneous death and in such circumstances, the trial Court has considered this aspect and came to the correct conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC.He prayed for dismissal of the appeals.Then, they intimated the fact to the accused and they went to Tirupur Bus Stand, from where they caught hold of the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi and P.Ws.8 and 9, who were identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 and then they came to the Village and they tied them in a water tap.The above facts are admitted and proved by the prosecution.At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that as soon as the incident was over, after receipt of the complaint, P.Ws.8 and 9 were sent to the Government Hospital along with medical memo, and P.W.7 Doctor has treated them, who issued Exs.P-12 and 13 wound certificates.In Ex.P-12 wound certificate, pertaining to P.W.9 Raghu, it is stated that P.W.9 was assaulted by 20 unknown persons who came in a gang near Jamunai Pallam on 15.11.2001 at about 12.30 p.m. using the wooden reaper and stones and it is stated in Ex.P-12 that P.W.9 Raghu sustained multiple linear abrasions over right and left side of the neck, front of the chest, back of the chest, right and left upper arms and also multiple linear abrasions over right and left side of the chest.In Ex.P-13 wound certificate pertaining to P.W.8 Murali, P.W.8 has stated that he was alleged to have been assaulted by 20 persons near Jamunai Pallam on 15.11.2001 at about 1.30 p.m. using iron, wooden reaper and stones and he sustained three linear abrasions over right and left side of the back of the chest.Thus, P.Ws.8 and 9 have sustained simple injuries.In such circumstances, there is no evidence before the Court to show that A-1 to A-6 alone caused the fatal injuries on the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi, which resulted in his instantaneous death.So, the evidence of Exs.P.W.9 Raghu, who is another injured eye-witness, has stated that the accused has taken them to their place where they were assaulted with stones and stick.He identified M.O.1 bamboo sticks.In his cross examination, he has stated that he was assaulted by 20 persons and they assaulted and they gave one beat each, whereas, six accused alone have assaulted and caused injuries to them.P.W.9, in his cross examination, has stated as follows:@/////Rkhh; 20. 25 ngh; bfhz;l Fk;gy; v';fis jhf;fpdhh;fs; vd;W ehd; nghyPrplk; brhy;ytpy;iy/ 20 ngh; Fk;gy; md;W te;J vd;id moj;jhh;fs; vd;W brhy;ypa[s;nsd;/ xU 20 ngh; te;jhh;fs;/ MSf;bfhU mo moj;jhh;fs;/ gpd;dpl;L ,e;j vjphpfs; jhd; gpd;dpl;L moj;JIn the abovesaid circumstances, while considering the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 when they were in the witness box, they have categorically stated that A-1 to A-6, the appellants herein alone have caused injuries to them and to the deceased.So, no reliance can be placed on the statement given by P.Ws.8 and 9 to P.W.7 Doctor in Exs.P-12 and P-13 wound certificates.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants-accused took me through the oral evidence of P.W.6 Doctor, who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate.Learned counsel submitted that P.W.7 Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the brain about 24-30 hours prior to the commencement of autopsy.Learned counsel also culled out the following portion of Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate:"...Hyoid bone fractured.Tracheal rings dislocated.Soft tissues of neck congested red blood clots present.Lungs: Normal congested.Heart: Normal Right side chambers contain 50 ml of Fluid blood, left side empty.Stomach: empty.Small and large intestines normal filled with gas.Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: Normal congested O/D of skull about 50 gm of blood clot found below the scalp on occipital and temporal region.Left side of neck about 75 gm of blood clots found subdurally on the left side of brain...."Thus, the aforesaid injuries have caused instantaneous death to the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi.But, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that these grievous injuries have been caused only by the appellants-accused.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (2) L.W. (Crl) 852 (cited supra) and submitted that the object of the mob was to teach them a stern lesson who are said to be bullies in the Village.In the circumstances, the common object was to commit the offences under Section 323 and Section 325 IPC read with Section 147/149, and not under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC.When a large number of persons were armed only with sticks or pelted stones which they could find anywhere either near the fields or on their way and it was not established as to who specifically attacked whom, it is not clear as to whether the intention was to cause death.Even if we accept the case that the deceased-Vithal was pursued right upto the 'wada', the object of the mob was to teach him a stern lesson who is said to be a bully in a village.In the circumstances and in the light of evidence, we must hold that the reasonable inference to be drawn is that the common object was to commit offences under Section 323 and Section 325 read with Section 147/149 IPC and not under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.The trial Court as well as High Court appear to have lost sight of crucial aspects."At this juncture, it is appropriate to scrutinise the medical evidence on record to find out the nature of injuries inflicted.As already stated, as per Exs.P-12 and 13 wound certificates, P.W.9 sustained only two simple injuries and P.W.8 sustained only one simple injury.But the deceased has sustained four injuries, as is evident from Ex."External injuries Multiple reddish brown contusion around the neck.(1) Multiple reddish abrasion on both sides of back.(2) An abrasion on the left ear about 2 cm x 2 cm.(3) a red contusion on the left cheek with blacking of eye.(4) Fracture mandible on the left side present."Even though the injuries have caused death, which was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries to the vital organs, and the death was the cumulative effect of all the injuries, because, P.W.6 Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to brain.In the abovesaid circumstances, even though the injuries have caused instantaneous death of the deceased, I am of the view that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of the deceased, but certainly, to cause some injuries.There is a contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 in respect of the wooden reaper alleged to have been used by the appellants-accused.Even though the appellants-accused were convicted under Section 147 IPC, that has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, as accepted by the trial Court.So, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 147 IPC are liable to be confirmed.The appellants-accused were also charged for the offence under Section 342 IPC for wrongfully restraining the deceased Pallaan alias Muthupandi and P.Ws.8 and 9 and tying them in a water tap and they have assaulted them.So, they were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 342 IPC.This is also proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, as accepted by the trial Court.Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 342 IPC are liable to be confirmed.That has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, as accepted by the trial Court.Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC are liable to be confirmed.The sentences imposed on the appellants-accused shall run concurrently.In fine, the Criminal Appeals are dismissed with the confirmation/modification in the conviction and sentence, as detailed below:(a) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused for the offences under Sections 147, 342 and 323 IPC are confirmed.(b) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC are hereby set aside, but the appellants-accused are hereby convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.The excess fine amount of Rs.4,000/-, if paid by the appellants-accused is hereby ordered to be refunded.(c) The sentences imposed on the appellants-accused shall run concurrently.07.01.2010Index: YesInternet:Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.State through Inspector of Police, Tirupur South Police Station, Coimbatore District.(Crime No.1320 of 2001)The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.A.Nos.227, 101 and 1601 of 2003 and 920 of 200407.01.2010 | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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. |
173,949,740 | 13.8.2014 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A.K. Singh, Govt. Advocate for the State.Heard finally.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.As per prosecution story, there was a sexual relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix before the date of incident.When the applicant has refused to marry with the prosecutrix, she lodged a concocted report against the applicant in regard to rape.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case along with age of prosecutrix, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge ravi | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,739,553 | The owner of the tourist taxi bearing registration No. TN-74/2979 is the sixth respondent.The first petitioner's native place is Kannattuvilai.The confessional statement given by Vincent and Suresh had been brought to the notice of the Second and third respondents by the fifth respondent but no further investigation has been conducted to find out the truth or otherwise of the confessional statement.The Seventh respondent, who also belongs to Kannattuvilai, has been enemical to the petitioners for a long time.Therefore, he joined with sixth respondent to implicate the petitioners in the above case.The petitioners have reason to suspect that the said Thangakrishnan was killed by hired hooligans, engaged by the sixth respondent.ORDER A.K. Rajan, J.The prayer in the Criminal Revision Case is to transfer the investigation to C.B.I.The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to investigate the case relating to the murder of late Thangakrishnan on the basis of the confessional statement given by Vincent and Suresh in Crime No.293 of 1998 on the file of the fifth respondent.The petitioners herein are accused in Crime No.40 of 1996 on the file of the fourth respondent of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The case relates to the death of one Thangakrishnan of Kannattuvilai, Neyoor Post, Kanyakumari District.Late Thangakrishnan was a tourist taxi driver.Late Thangakrishnan was his neighbour.On 7.2.1996, the first petitioner's cousin by name Raghu, Advocate, Eranial, Kanyakumari District, filed a complaint against the deceased Thangakrishnan for the offence of eveteasing, in which it was alleged that the said Thangakrishnan made menacing remarks against the first petitioner's daughter and on the basis of the complaint, the said Thangakrishnan was called to Eranial Police Station and he was warned by the Inspector of Police.After a few days, the body of Thangakrishnan was found near Cheranmadevi.At the instance of respondents 6 and 7, the petitioners were implicated by the fourth respondent on the suspicion that the first petitioner would have caused the murder of late Thangakrishnan.The second petitioner is the first petitioner's brother-in-law.The third petitioner is his nephew.Petitioners 4 and 5 are friends of the third petitioner.The fourth respondent did not investigate the case properly.The first petitioner and his wife sent several petitions to the District Collector, Kanyakumari and others complaining that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.He has also filed a petition before the first respondent on 8.10.1996, requesting him to transfer the case for an impartial investigation by the C.B.C.I.D. All the petitioners jointly presented a petition before the first respondent with a request that the case be transferred to C.B.I. for impartial investigation.On an earlier occasion, the first petitioner filed another W.P.No.13754 of 1996 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government to entrust the investigation of the case to CBCID.The petitioners submitted that they have been falsely and maliciously implicated in the case in order to help the real accused involved in the murder and to help them to escape from punishment.Both of them have confessed to the fifth respondent that the murder of Thangakrishnan was committed by Richard, son of Arumainayagam, Mohan Son of Kolappan, Mani, Suresh, Gopalakrishnan, Rajan and one Raja.According to the confessional statement of Vincent and Suresh the above named persons were engaged to commit the murder of Thangakrishnan for monetary consideration.The seventh respondent had helped the sixth respondent to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case.The fourth respondent, for the reasons best known to him, did not investigate the case properly but falsely implicated these petitioners.M.P.428 of 1998 was filed by the petitioners before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking further investigation of the case.Therefore, Criminal Revision Case No.314 of 2001 against that order has been filed.When the Criminal Revision Case came up for orders before this Court, it was represented that the remedy is only by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.In the above circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to investigate the case relating to the murder of Thangakrishnan on the basis of the confessional statement given by Vincent and Suresh in Crime No.293 of 1998 on the file of the fifth respondent and for other reliefs.Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 4 with respect to the averment that a false case has been filed against the petitioners.The respondents state that it was only based upon the materials collected during investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.They further deny that they have falsely implicated the petitioners at the instance of sixth respondent.The petitioner and the members of the family sent several petitions, making allegations against the police for a long period.They also demanded C.B.C.I.D. and C.B.I. enquiry but all them were rejected.The petitioners have stopped the trial by filing this writ petition.Hence, the allegations made against the police are baseless.The confession statements by the accused in Thiruvattar Police Station in Cr.No.33/98, 293 /98 and 346/98 were made only to safeguard the first petitioner, who is the main accused in this case.The first petitioner had never lodged any complaint against the police before this Court and he did not disclose any enmity between himself and the seventh respondent.Therefore, the petition is to be dismissed.Counter affidavit has also been filed by the fifth respondent, wherein it is stated that on 9.4.1998 at 3.30 p.m. one Francis, son of Chellakkan, Kannaanore came to Thiruvattar Police Station and preferred a complaint against one Vincent and 20 others, stating that on 9.4.1998 at about 2.30 p.m., they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and with an intention to murder the complainant Francis by cutting him with a chopper on his head and also cut witness No.2 Stellabai with the chopper on her right fore-arm, and witness No.3 Marimuthu on his head and witness No.4 Devadoss on his left shoulder and witness No.5 Rosemary on her right hand and committed theft of 3 sovereigns of jewels from the witness Jenni.On the basis of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police Thangaraj, registered a case in Thiruvattar Police Station in Crime No.293/98 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307 and 379 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, he arrested Vincent on 8.5.1998 at Kaliakkavilai Bus Stand.The said Vincent has not confessed anything regarding the occurrence in crime No.40/96 of Cheranmahadevi Police Station.But one Suresh confessed that "jp';fs;re;ij hpr;rh;L bry!;od;. uh$d;.Rnu&;.nfhghyfpU&;zd; vd;w jiyahl;o nfhghyfpU&;zd;.nkhfd;.Mfpath;fs; jp;';fs;re;ij fz;zhl;otpis j';ffpU&;zd;.vd;w fhh; oiutiu 1996 k; tUlk; gpg;uthp khjk; nrud;;khnjtpapy; itj;J bfhiy bra;J tpl;L khl;lhky; jg;gp epw;gth;fs; vd;Wk; bjhpa tUfpwJ@ This statement is hit by the provisions of the Evidence Act. As it is given to the Police Officer and since it has not resulted in recovery of any material object, some of the accused were arrested in that case.Therefore there is no basis for this writ petition.The petitioners filed the certified copies of the statement recorded by the investigating officers in the Thiruvattar case along with their typed set.Learned counsel pointed out that the first petitioner was implicated as an accused by the Cheranmadevi Police Station only on the statement given by the sixth respondent Vargheese Ackniraj and another person, who was the driver of the said Vargheese Ackniraj.The deceased Thangakrishnan had some relationship with the wife of Vargheese Ackniraj and that was the reason for his death.Therefore, in order to save himself, the sixth respondent herein, with the help of seventh respondent has made these petitioners as accused in that case.Immediately when these petitioners were arrested, the wife of first petitioner sent number of petitions to various authorities is proved by typed set filed along with this writ petition.Complaint was also given to the Inspector of Police, Cheranmadevi Police Station.Since the petitioners were not involved in the case, they have repeatedly sent petitions to save themselves.During investigation of Crime No.203/98 in Kanniyakumari District, Thiruvattar Police Inspector did not have any idea about this particular case.While he was examining the suspected accused, two persons one Suresh and another Vincent have given statements, confessing that Thangakrishnan was murdered by mercenaries, employed by the sixth respondent.Vincent, in his statement, has stated as follows:"fhl;lhj;Jiw ma;ag;gd; Mfhhp kfd; kzpfz;ld; Mrhh.gy nf!;fspy; jg;gp epw;gth;fSk; Typf;F mojof;F nghFk; Typg;giliar; nrh;e;jth;fshd jp';fs;re;ij mUikehafk; kfd; hpr;rh;L vd;w hpr;rhL bry!;od;.Jp';fs;re;ij btlLf;fhl;Ltpis nfhyg;gd; kfd; nkhfd;.g{rh!;jhd;tpis uh$h ,th;fis Vw;ghL bra;ayhk; vd;W brhy;ypg; nghdjpy; tutpy;iy vd;W brhy;ypa[s;shh;fs;@ Another person Suresh has also given similar confession.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this statement was given by one of the suspects, who were arrested during investigation in another crime.This statement reveals that the said Thangakrishnan was murdered by mercenaries but they were not called.Therefore, this would prove that the petitioners are not involved in the murder case, for which they are charged; but some other persons.Therefore, the police are duty bound to investigate whether the confession made by these two persons is true or not.At the end of investigation, if their statement is found to be true, the petitioners would be cleared of all the charges. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,849,365 | Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State.This appeal has been preferred by appellants to set-aside the judgment and order dated 28/29.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Pratapgarh passed in Session Trial No. 442 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2018, under Sections 354-A, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (10) & 3 (2)(5A) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh and also to set-aside the summoning order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned trial court.It is further submitted that an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 against the appellants alleging that on 14.02.2018 at 4.30 P.M., when the victim was returning back from her college, the accused persons intercepted her and outraged her modesty by physically assaulting her and on her resistance they addressed her with ugly casteist remarks.The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by some persons, who were working nearby.It is further alleged that when the family members of the victim went to the house of the accused persons to protest, accused Purshottam Pandey took out a rifle and threatened them to shoot.Highlighting the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. were patently absurd and could not be believed on the touchstone of probability.It is next submitted that the order of the summoning of the appellants was challenged by them by filing an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 585 of 2019 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2019 directed the appellants to approach the trial court by filing a discharge application within a period of two weeks from the date of the order with a further stipulation that the trial court will dispose the same within two months thereafter.It is next submitted that the appellants have filed an application for discharge before the court below highlighting each and every aspect of the matter.It is further submitted that it was apparent on record that the instant first information report has been filed on the basis of previous enmity as in the year 2009-10 the mother of the victim got a house allotted under Government Housing Scheme by showing her name as Smt. Shushila.In the year 2017-18, she changed her name from Smt. Shushila to Smt. Prabha Devi and got her name included in the eligible persons to get another house on subsidised rates and actually received Rs. 1,20,000/- from the Government.She also manufactured a fake Adhaar Card in the name of Smt. Prabha Devi.It is further submitted that the other witnesses of the alleged incident namely Munnu and Shiv Kumar are accused persons of a criminal case lodged by the appellant No. 1- Purshottam Pandey against Smt. Shushila, Munnu and Shiv Kumar.It is also highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants that at the time of incident the appellant No.3- Amit Pandey was admitted in a Government hospital at Allahabad and on 18.02.2018 marriage of the daughter of the appellant No. 1- Purshottam Pandey was held and on 14.02.2018 there was a ceremony of 'Mathmangara' and the appellants were busy in that and therefore, the whole story of the instant case is concocted and has been manufactured to take revenge by the mother of the victim.Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 (Prosecutrix) submits that there is no illegality so far as the order of the subordinate court is concerned, whereby the discharge application of the appellants has been dismissed.It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the F.I.R., which was lodged by the victim herself has been corroborated during the investigation by independent witnesses and also by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the stand, which has been taken by the appellants pertaining to the previous enmity, is not correct as the mother the victim had never applied for any house after getting one allotted in her favour and actually when she got a notice dated 06.07.2018 pertaining to the illegal transfer of certain money in her favour, she submitted an application to the Government Authorities on 09.08.2018, therefore, the stand of the appellants that the instant case has been initiated on the basis of the previous enmity is not correct.It is further submitted that all grounds taken by the appellants in the discharge application were not sufficient to discharge the appellants, as at the stage of framing of charge only sufficiency of material pertaining to the framing of charge is to be seen and the material/ evidence against the appellants is not derived as is required for conviction, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the court below.Learned A.G.A. also supported the order of the subordinate court on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the court below as minute points, which may be seen during trial could not be appreciated at the stage of framing of charges as only prima facie case is to be seen at the stage of framing of the charges.Having heard the arguments learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, perusal of record reveals that an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent No.2 against the appellants, wherein serious allegations pertaining to outraging her modesty by the appellants had been alleged.This Court, while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the High Court, made the following observations:...After considering the material on record, learned Sessions Judge framed the charge as stated above.That charge is quashed by the High Court against the respondents by accepting the contention raised and considering the details of the material produced on record.The same is challenged by filing these appeals.Order Date :- 17.7.2019 Praveen/Abhishek | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,849,570 | The State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, ...for the petitioner.Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, ...for the State.1 09/2016 DR CRR 202 of 2015 Siddhartha Dey Vs. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,853,466 | Appellants Rajinder under the influence of liquor came.He abused Rakesh and other persons of the street.Rakesh requested Rajinder not to abuse other persons in the street because it was a family matter.When abusing was going on, Surinder came out of his house and both i.e. Rajinder and Surinder started fighting with Rakesh.Some marpitai took place.Narangi Devi PW-4 deposed that when she was in the Crl.A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 4 of 10 street at around 10:30 PM on 21.08.1991 appellant Rajinder came in a drunken state and picked up a quarrel with Rakesh.He abused Rakesh.During the course of altercation and abusing, Surinder went inside his house and came out with something.Rakesh entered the house of Maya Devi and bolted the door from inside.He was unarmed.A verbal dual took place between Rakesh and Rajinder.The verbal dual resulted into physical fighting with each other.Surinder joined little later.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 10 of 10Vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.09.1996 the appellants have been convicted for an offence of having murdered their real brother Rakesh.Vide order 28.09.1996, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in Crl.A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 1 of 10 sum of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo further RI for six months.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 1 of 103. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the injuries which were inflicted upon Rakesh, but contends that from the acts committed by the appellants, there being no evidence of past motive, at best the evidence makes out a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC.We may note, at the outset, that the weapon of offence Ex. P-5, a knife, has been pen profiled by the learned trial Judge while recording the testimony of Sh.Niranjan PW-9 who deposed on 12.08.1993, in the following words:-"The knife Ex. P-5 produced in Court today is only a small CHHURI usually used in household for cutting vegetables etc., Its blade is 4.9 inches long and 1 inch wife with a wooden handle of 3.9 inches long attached with the blade."The injuries on the person of Rakesh as noted in the post- mortem report Ex. PW-15/A, which report has been proved by author thereof; namely, Dr.L.K.Baruah PW-15 notes the following four injuries on the person of Rakesh:-One incised wound on the front of chest place almost horizontally, 7 cm below the medial and of the left collar bone of size 3 cms.X 1.2 cms.Once incised wound on the antero medial aspect on the right leg on its upper part in frond side.This injury was placed 7 cm below the lower bordered on the Crl.A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 2 of 10 right patela and the size of the injury was 2.5 cms X 1.5 cms.Mussle deep.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 2 of 10Abrasion of size 5 cms X 2.5 cms were seen on the back of right side abdomen on his lower part and the injury was placed vertically.Abrasion of size 7 cms X 3 cms.was seen on the left side back of the abdomen in lumber area."In respect of injuries found on the person of the deceased, it may be noted that injury no. 1 proved fatal inasmuch as the knife entered the chest cavity between the second and the third rib and cut the right auricle of the heart.Death was due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from excessive bleeding.It may be noted that injury no. 3 and 4 are simple abrasion on the back of the right side abdomen.They appear to be the results of fists and blows inflicted on the back.Injury No. 2 is a muscle deep incised wound on the right leg.It is apparent that the said injury is on a non-vital part of the body.Only injury No. 1 is inflicted on a vital part of the body i.e. chest and has resulted in the heart being punctured.Let us briefly note the testimony of the said four witnesses.Rajbala PW-2, who is the neighbour of the appellants and the deceased deposed that the appellants and deceased were real brothers.They had a sister named Uma who wanted to Crl.A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 3 of 10 marry one Dalip.Whereas the deceased opposed the marriage, other family members were in favour of the marriage.On 21.8.1991 i.e. the date of the incident, at about 11 in the night she i.e. Rajbala, one Maya Devi, deceased Rakesh along with two person named Raghubir and Shiv Kumar were sitting outside house No. 1785 in the street.Rakesh entered house No. 1785 and bolted the door from inside.Appellant Rajinder broke open the door.Both Rajinder and Surinder entered the house.She heard sounds like "HO HO" and "MARNE KI".Both accused left and she saw Rakesh lying dead inside the house No. 1785 which belonged to Maya Devi.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 3 of 10Maya Devi PW-3 deposed para materia with the testimony of PW-2 but gave additional information, that the mother of the appellants and the deceased, namely, Smt. Sarla intervened.Their mother intervened.Accused Surinder came from his house and rushed towards the place where the fighting was going on.What happened thereafter was not seen by her.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 4 of 10Hori Lal PW-5 deposed that it was about 11 PM on 21.08.1991 when Rajinder came from somewhere and started hurling abuses.Rakesh objected.Rajinder and Rakesh started quarrelling, Surinder joined them.Their mother also came there.Both accused broke the door and entered.They came out after 2-3 minutes.He saw Rakesh dead.Smt. Sarla, mother of the appellants and deceased appeared as PW-11 but disclaimed any knowledge of how her son Rakesh died.She was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the learned APP.She denied having told police the facts which were sustainably recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.With reference to the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5, it is apparent that the appellants did not come together to assault Crl.A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 5 of 10 Rakesh.It is apparent that appellant Rajinder came to the street.He was drunk at that point of time.He picked up a quarrel with Rakesh.The reason for the quarrel was not any personal enmity but the fact that the Rakesh was opposed to the proposed matrimonial alliance of the Uma with a boy to which other family members were agreeable to.It is apparent that Rajinder was angry with Rakesh for opposing the marriage of Uma with a boy who was to the liking of the rest of the family members.Abuses between the two turned into a scuffle.Their mother Sarla intervened.Probably, she was slapped.It is not clear from the testimony of the witness Surinder came armed with a knife, for the reason two witnesses deposed that he went back and returned with a knife in his hand.Two witnesses did not state that Surinder went to his house and returned with a knife.All witnesses speak in harmony that when Rakesh entered the house of Maya Devi and bolted the same from inside Rajinder broke the door and he and Surinder went inside.What happened inside is not deposed to by any witness.There is thus probability that either Surinder or Rajinder Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 6 of 10 picked up a knife inside the house of Maya Devi and inflicted two incised injuries on the person of the deceased.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 6 of 10It assumes significance to note that when Rakesh entered the house of Maya Devi followed soon thereafter by Surinder and Rajinder, all other eye-witness continue to stand on the street outside.The appellants who were 2 in number could have, if they had desired to kill the deceased, inflicted as many stab injuries as they desired.Whatever happened; happened at the spur of the moment.Noting that the appellants had an opportunity to inflict more than two injuries; noting that knife was used only twice; nothing that the incident took place at around 11 PM in the dark, we hold that the evidence on record probablizes the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and not to offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.A perusal of the case law would show that unless extremely aggravated circumstances are found for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, the normal sentence imposed is to undergo RI for 10 years.We intend to make a departure in the peculiar facts of the instant case.The reason for our departure is that the Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 8 of 10 appeals filed in the year 1997 are being disposed of after nearly 13 years.As regards Surinder, when admitted to bail he had suffered an actual sentence of 7 years, 7 months and 19 days.He had earned remission for a period of 7 years and 7 months and 3 days.If we impose the sentence to undergo RI for 10 years, Surinder would have to suffer a remaining sentence of approximately 14 months.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 8 of 10There is no evidence that after they were admitted to bail the appellants have committed any other offence.In our opinion ends of justice would be met if we direct that the appellants shall undergo sentence for the period already undergone.The appeals are partially allowed.The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC is set aside.The appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section304 Part I IPC, for which offence we Crl.A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 9 of 10 direct that the appellants shall undergo imprisonment for the period they have already spent in jail.Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 9 of 10In view of the sentence imposed upon the appellants, we discharge the bail bond and surety bonds furnished by the appellants.PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 11, 2010 'mr' Crl. A. Nos. 78/1997 and 102/97 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
58,854,891 | Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.377/11 registered at police station Industrial Area, Dewas for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506, 504, 376 IPC and u/s 3(1)(10), 3(1)(12) & 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)As per prosecution case complainant went to the forest for collecting fire wood along with the applicant, the step- father of the prosecutrix.The applicant caught hold of the prosecutrix and asked her to remove her clothes.When she refused to his demand, he abused and assaulted her and threatened with dire consequences.She narrated the incident to her mother and thereafter report was lodged under sections 354, 323 & 506/504 -2- IPC.After a period of one month and 13 days, a written complaint was filed by the prosecutrix making allegation against the applicant that on the alleged date of incident, he committed rape on her.It is submitted that applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case.He further submits that the statement of the victim as well as her mother Rekhabai has been recorded and in their cross examination they have categorically denied the fact of filing the written complaint.Considering the fact that initially there was no complaint regarding commission of rape and after a period of one month and 13 days the written complaint was made by the prosecutrix alleging commission of rape on her and in -3- her cross examination she has denied the fact of giving the written complaint, the application deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant Durgesh is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.C.c on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,868,692 | On the complaint lodged by one Muruganandam, the respondent Police registered as a case Crime No.145 of 2016, on 31.08.2016 under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused including thepetitioners herein.During the course of investigation, it came to lightthat offences under the SC/ST Act were also committed and, therefore, analteration report was filed on 15.09.2016 including the offences underSection 3 (1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2014 along with the existing penalprovisions.Challenging the First Information Report, the petitioners arebefore this Court.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent.Today, Mr.A.Kasbar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, ThandigudiPolice Station, is present in Court.On instructions, the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Crl.Side) submitted that initially, the case was registered onlyfor the offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code andlater, it was altered on 15.09.2016 and the offences under the SC/ST Act wereincluded.Thereafter, the victim was in such a critical condition and thatthere was a second alteration report altering the offence one under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code.Subsequently, the victim died on 26.12.2016,pursuant to which, the First Information Report has now been altered and theoffence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been included.Thebail that was granted to the accused has also been cancelled by the SessionCourt.In the light of such materials having come on record duringinvestigation, this is not a fit case to quash the First Information Reportat the threshold.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Thandigudi Police Station, Thandigudi, Dindigul District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,871,545 | SG Allowed CRM 177 of 2019 In Re.An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of:Usharani Tarafdar and othersThe State of West Bengal Mr Arijit Ghosh ... for the petitioners.Mr Rana Mukherjee ... for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No.450 of 2018 dated October 30, 2018 under Sections 448/341/323/324/326/308/ 304/516/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and submits that the principal accused upon whom the main thrust of the allegation lies and who has suffered initial arrest.The petitioners are the relatives of the principal accused.In addition, the petitioners will report to the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) ( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) 3 | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,872,833 | Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the second bail application preferred by the applicant (accused) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.Earlier bail petition i.e. M. Cr.C. No.1728/2016 was dismissed as not pressed on 16/03/2016 The applicant is facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-B/34 of the IPC registered with Police Station Barud, Distt.As per the prosecution case, the wife of the present applicant committed suicide by hanging and in-laws have given statement against the present applicant and in those circumstances a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner as well as again her parents.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that parents of the present applicant have already been released on bail by an order dated 23/09/2016 passed in M. Cr.C. No.8933/2016 and prayer has been made for grant of bail.This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the circumstances of the case and after going through the statements available in the case diary, is of the opinion that the present bail petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,878,517 | giving rise to filing of the revision briefly stated are that the Station House Officer, Police Station Bareli, Distt.Raisen, filed the charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction in connection with Crime No.89/2008 initially, for offences under Section 294, 323, 506 Part II/34 of the I.P.C. However, later on, an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Ram Singh, son of Laxman Singh.As per the prosecution story, on 27.3.2009 at about 2.00 O'clock, the F.I.R. was lodged by Ram Singh that when he was at his 'Khaliyan', along with other family members including Mahendra Singh, at that time, the accused persons came armed with deadly weapons i.e. lathis, iron rods and farsa and on account of previous enmity, they started assaulting Mahendra Singh, who succumbed to his injuries and died.The accused persons also hurled abuses on the complainant and his other family members.On the basis of the complaint, the investigation was carried out and the offences were registered against other accused persons.Thereafter, the statements of Ram Singh, Ram Kumar, Radheshyam, Rajeev, Chhote Bhaiya and Shanti Bai were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the charges were framed and the evidence of Ram Singh (PW-1) was recorded.After recording the statement of Ram Singh, an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial Court, which has been allowed by the impugned order.In the aforesaid factual background, the applicants have approached this Court.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has supported the order passed by the trial Court.See: Ashok Dubey Vs. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,565,058 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.The marriage certificate/nikahnama is annexed as annsure-2 to the petition.The Court has perused the the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that on her own violation and accord, she has joined the company of the applicant and performed nikah with him and since then, they residing happily as husband and wife.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.Keeping in view the inter se relationship between the applicant and the victim and the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the applicant Rashid, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,657,115 | the premises of the present petitioner situated at Jagannath More, Police Station- Falta and inspected his service connection as well as the Meter being No. SB 980912 of the West Bengal State Electricity Board.On inspection, the State- authority detected theft of electricity, tempering of meter, installation or using of tempered meter as well as other illegal activities.It was also alleged that on inspection, tempering was evident on the both sides of the manufacturer's seals.It was further claimed that due to such dishonest act on the part of the petitioner, there was loss of electricity of 5990 Units/months for at least (6) six months and this amounted to loss of Rs.2, 26,068/-.Learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 1st December, 2004 directed inter alia, the petitioner to pay 25% of the assessed amount of Rs.2, 26,068/-.There was further direction for payment of reconnection charges as well as the cost of replacement of the meter in question.The authority concerned was directed to restore supply of electricity within 48 hours of such payment.Liberty was given to the petitioner to raise objection before the Assessing Officer who was further directed to consider the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing.The petitioner was further given liberty to prefer an appeal in case it remains dissatisfied with the order of the Assessing Authority.Grievances, as ventilated, may briefly be stated as follows: -By order dated 14th July, 2006, the said learned Court framed charge against the accused persons including the present petitioner under Section 135 (1) (1b) of the Electricity Act. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,672,839 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Smt. Beena Bai and Smt. Savita Bai in Crime No.104/2017 registered by P.S. Belkheda, District Jabalpur under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, deceased Kirti had married Simmu, son of petitioner Beena Bai and brother of petitioner Savita Bai, about 8 years prior to the date of incident.She had two children.The petitioners and his family members used to harass and persecute the deceased physically and mentally.They had a quarrel with regard to partition of the house.As a result, she committed suicide by hanging.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against either of the two petitioners.Even as per prosecution case, petitioner Beena Bai and her husband used to stay separately.Petitioner Savita Bai was married 4-5 years ago.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the bail application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Smt. Beena Bai and Smt. Savita Bai, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their 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 taj | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,674,466 | e ad C. as per rules.Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2017.12.21 13:28:23 +05'30' rt ou C h ig Ha This application has been filed U/s.438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of hy applicant Nilu Ghoshi in connection with Crime No.566/2017 of ad P.S. Garhakota, Distt.Sagar for offences under Section 148, 294, M 323, 307 and 506 of I.P.C.According to the case of the prosecution, the of applicants arrest is wanted in the above said case for being a member of an unlawful assembly who had caused injuries to the rt complainant side on account of which an offence U/s.307 of I.P.C. ou was also registered.The applicant is a 35 year old lady and a C house wife.The complainant is also a lady, though she has named h the applicant being present at the scene of occurrence along with ig the other co-accused persons.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated sh under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. He shall however join the investigation as and when directed to do so by the Police. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,880,805 | The applicants will report to the Police Station Dhamnod District Dhar once in a week on every Monday of the month between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon unless required to attend the Office of the Investigating Officer on that day.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C. c. as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Pithawe RC | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,881,008 | 1. Accused 1 to 6 in C.C. No. 5967 of 2007 have preferred Criminal Original Petition No. 26368 of 2007 and Accused 7 and 8 in the very same Calendar Case have filed Criminal Original Petition No. 26381 of 2007 seeking quashment of the aforesaid Criminal Proceedings pending before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai invoking the provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The second respondent, who is the husband of the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007, has lodged a complaint before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai seeking to prosecute the petitioners herein for offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 494, 496, 385, 387 read with Section 120B and Section 506(ii) IPC.All the petitioners in both the criminal original petitions completely suppressed the earlier marriage and arranged the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent on 1.9.2005 and cheated the second respondent.Petitioners 4 to 6 in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 demanded huge amount from the second respondent during the course of hearing of the criminal case, threatening with acid attack.With the aforesaid allegations, the second respondent has prayed for prosecution of all the petitioners herein.The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai referred the aforesaid complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent Inspector of Police, W25, All Women Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai, who registered the complaint in Crime No. 16/2007 under Sections 417, 495, 496, 385 and 506(ii) IPC and took up the case for investigation and filed final report before the said Court charging the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 for offences punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. (cheating) and Section 495 I.P.C. (solemnization of marriage concealing the first marriage), petitioners 2 and 3 in Crl.No valid ground is made out by any of the petitioners to quash the charge sheet.The second respondent, who is the husband of the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 26381 of 2007, the complainant has stated before the first respondent police that his father requested Dr. Rangabashyam and his wife to intervene in the matrimonial dispute between the second respondent and his wife, but, he had given an evasive reply that they had stopped associating with the family of the in- laws of the second respondent.Narayanan Venu Prasath was examined as LW4 by the first respondent.It is his version that the first accused and himself became thick friends and thereafter they decided to get married as the parents of the first accused were scouting for alliance.Thereafter, the relationship of Narayanan Venu Prasath with the first accused came to an end.Narayanan Venu Prasath has stated before the investigating officer that he got married Grahalakshmi, having been afraid of the family members, but, in fact, he did not live with her as husband and wife.In the further statement also, Narayanan Venu Prasath has come out with a version that, as he got married Grahalakshmi through registered marriage on 30.12.1998, in the aftermath of their love affair, he got a sim card with a telephone number for Grahalakshmi with her date of birth.He would further state that he provided credit facility for Grahalakshmi in his credit card as Grahalakshmi was his wife.The amount payable to the bank towards the credit card facility extended to both of them was paid only by him.At the fag end of 2003, he closed the said credit card facility, he reveals further.20. P. Rajesh, LW5, who accompanied Narayanan Venu Prasath, has stated before the Inspector of Police during the course of investigation that Venu Prasath did inform him that he got married the first accused Grahalakshmi in the aftermath of his life affair with her.Thereafter, he went to the Registrar's Office as requested by him for the purpose of registration of the marriage.E. Sankar, LW6, who also allegedly participated in the registration of the marriage between Narayanan Venu Prasath and the first accused, would also say that Venu Prasath informed him that he married the first accused in a marriage hall at Alwarpet and therefore, he co-operated for the registration of the marriage.D. Chandrasekar, LW7, who also played some role in the registration of the marriage would state that Venu Prasath informed him that his marriage with the first accused Grahalakshmi needed registration for the purpose of securing passport.He would further reveal that Venu Prasath informed him that he got married Grahalakshmi following the love affair with her.It is his version that he found Venu Prasath and his wife Grahalakshmi at the Registrar's office.Sudhir Kumar, LW8 comes out with a statement that he located a broker in the office of the Registrar to register the marriage of Narayanan Venu Prasath with Grahalakshmi.Mrs. Catherinal, LW9, who is working in the Registrar's office, would state that Venu Prasath informed her at the time of registration of the marriage that he got married Grahalakshmi on 30.11.1998 at V.M. Kalyana Mandapam at Alwarpet.ORDER M. Jeyapaul, J.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 and both the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 26381 of 2007 for offence punishable under Section 496 IPC (conducting marriage ceremony fraudulently) and petitioners 4 to 6 in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 496 (conducting marriage ceremony fraudulently), 385 (putting in fear of injury for committing extortion) and 506(ii) (threat to cause death or grievous hurt) of IPC.The petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 have contended in the petition seeking quashment that there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 495 and 496 IPC.There was no solemnization of marriage on 30.11.1998 at V.M. Kalyana Mandapam, Alwarpet, Chennai between the first respondent and Narayanan Venu Prasath as alleged.The registration of the marriage had been allegedly done on 30.12.1998 by producing a fake marriage invitation by Narayanan Venu Prasath.The registration of the marriage on 30.12.1998 is of no avail and therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to face the ordeal of Trial for offences punishable under Sections 495 and 496 IPC.Immediately after the alleged threat of extortion, no complaint was laid by the second respondent.The second respondent has chosen to falsely implicate all the family members of the first petitioner.No offence of cheating can be brought against the first petitioner since there is no legally valid first marriage.The first petitioner has no authority to investigate the offences punishable under Sections 495 and 496 IPC since cognizance of such offences can be taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned only based on the private complaint laid by the aggrieved party.Matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties wherein the alleged marriage with Narayanan Venu Prasath is going to be determined.The criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners are sheer abuse of process of court.The petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 26381 of 2007 have contended that they just participated in the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent.They were not at all aware of the alleged first marriage between the first petitioner and Narayanan Venu Prasath.No prima facie case has been made out as against them for offence punishable under Section 496 IPC.Therefore, the petitioners in both the criminal original petitions would submit that the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 5967 of 2007 may be quashed.In the counter filed by the first respondent, it has been stated that the offences mentioned in the charge sheet have been clearly made out.O.P. No. 26368, in his counter, would reiterate the tenor of his complaint and has submitted that the charge sheet has been laid by the first respondent police having satisfied prima facie that the offences mentioned in the charge sheet have been made out.Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings does not arise for consideration.The points that arise for consideration are1) Whether there is prima facie case as against A1 for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 495 I.P.C., A2 to A8 for offence punishable under Section 496 IPC and A4 to A6 for offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506(ii) IPC.2) Whether taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 495 and 496 IPC based on the police report is legally sustainable.Whether there is misjoinder of offences.Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 5967 of 2007 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai are liable to be quashed.9. Point No. 1: Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 would contend that the second respondent has initiated the instant criminal proceedings just to counter blast the complaint dated 7.5.2007 given by the first petitioner seeking justice for matrimonial offences committed by her husband and in- laws.The second respondent has come out with a totally artificial version as though a demand for five crore rupees was made and thereafter, step by step, the demand was hiked to fifty crore rupees just to attract the criminal offence.An imaginary allegation is thrown on 4th and 5th accused as though they threatened to throw acid on the second respondent.The materials collected by the first respondent would disclose that there was no valid marriage at all.Mere registration of the marriage in the absence of solemnization under Hindu Marriage Act will not attract either offence under Section 495 IPC or under Section 496 IPC.No complaint was lodged immediately after the alleged attempt to put in fear of injury in order to commit the offence of extortion.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 26368 of 2007 would submit that the petitioners have been slapped with the allegation of the commission of offence punishable under Section 496 IPC as they being the relatives of the wife of the second respondent failed to evince interest in conciliating the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.O.P. No. 26381 of 2007 failed to disclose the factum of earlier marriage solemnized under their blessings.The complaint preferred by the second respondent would read that the first accused Grahalakshmi having got married Narayanan Venu Prasath on 30.11.1998, registered the said marriage on 30.12.1998 and cheated the complainant suppressing the first marriage she solemnized with Narayanan Venu Prasath.The allegation as against A2 to A8 is that they having participated in the earlier marriage, chose to deliberately suppress the entire facts pertaining to the first marriage of the first accused with Narayanan Venu Prasath.He also annexed a copy of the marriage invitation along with the application seeking registration of the marriage.The witnesses, who accompanied Narayanan Venu Prasath informed her that they were witnesses to the marriage which took place at the marriage hall at Alwarpet.22. D. Kanniappan, LW16, who is the Manager of the complainant, would state that on 3.1.2007, when the complainant was entering into the Family Court, Chennai through the back door, Pon Kumar, A5 and his wife Abirami Pon Kumar, A6 threatened him with slapping criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the complainant do not oblige with consent for divorce.On 12.2.2007, when he was entering into the Family Court through the back door at about 10.00 am, Nagarajan, A4 and Pon Kumar, A5 demanded eight crore rupees to settle the matrimonial dispute.Thereafter, on 15.3.2007, they again demanded a sum of fifty crore rupees from the complainant failing which they threatened to take criminal actin for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC as against the complainant.The aforesaid statements recorded by the first respondent police in the aftermath of the reference of the complaint lodged by the second respondent invoking the provision under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would disclose that Narayanan Venu Prasath has exhibited oscillation as to the factum of the first marriage.At one stage, he has stated that except the registration of the marriage, there was virtually no performance of the marriage.In the same breath, he would state that he married Grahalakshmi following the love affair he had with her.The marriage registration certificate and the marriage invitation have been seized by the first respondent police.The Proprietor of the marriage hall was not in a position to assertively say whether there was any such marriage on 30.11.1998 between Narayanan Venu Prasath and Grahalakshmi.The Prohit banks largely on his diary to say that he had not performed any such marriage at the marriage hall in Alwarpet.If that be so, C.C. No. 3 of 1989 will have to be restricted to petitioners 1 to 3 alone, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of the marriage between the third petitioner and the respondent.The pending complaint in so far as it concerns petitioners 4 to 8 will have to be necessarily quashed in respect of those offences alone.In the aforesaid case, it is found that the offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code were committed long prior to the bigamous marriage.There had been misjoinder of accused also.The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant also had admitted that there had been misjoinder of offences.In the instant case, the allegation of cheating, solemnization of the current marriage concealing the first marriage, performance of the marriage fraudulently and putting in fear of injury for commission of extortion and threat to cause death or grievous hurt are so inter-mingled and inter-twined that it is very difficult to separate one offence from the other.The series of acts were so connected together as to form part of the same matrimonial transaction of the second respondent.No prejudice also caused on account of combining series of transactions.As per Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more offences than one forming the same transaction can be taken cognizance of together and tried at one trial.All the offences alleged to have been committed revolve around the marriage of the second respondent with the first accused.Point No. 4: The last point that arises for determination is whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 5967 of 2007 are liable to be quashed.It is found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed as against A7 and A8 for offence punishable under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code, but, there is sufficient prima facie material to prosecute A1 for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, A2 to A6 for offence punishable under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code and A4 to A6 for offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, Criminal Original Petition 26368 of 2007 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings as against A1 to A6 stands dismissed.Quashing the criminal proceedings as against A7 and A8 in C.C. No. 5967 of 2007, Criminal Original Petition 26381 of 2007 stands allowed.As the main Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of, Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1 and 2 in both the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,884,916 | The appellant is acquitted from the chargeslevelled against him.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall beR.MALA, J.SMLrefunded to him.The appellant/accused has come forward with this appeal challenging hisconviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (V&AC) -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, dated 16.04.2009 made in C.C.No.1 of2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offencespunishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention ofCorruption Act and sentenced him to undergo 4 years RI, to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 year RI for the offence punishable underSection 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo 4 years RIand to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 year RI for theoffence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention ofCorruption Act.The case of prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:Thatapplication was returned several times for rectifying certain defects andafter rectification, it was represented by P.W.2 on various dates and lastly,presented before the office of Executive Engineer, Sivagangai.On 06.03.2002at 04.30 p.m., when P.W.2 along with P.W.3 went to the office of theExecutive Engineer, the accused asked him to pay a sum of Rs.250/- as bribefor recommending the application for compassionate appointment.(iii) After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses,P.W.13 referred the case to P.W.14 for further investigation.(iv) The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, framednecessary charges against the accused.Since the accused denied the same intoto and pleaded not guilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 14 wereexamined and Exs.P.1 to P.31 were marked along with M.Os.1 to 4 on behalf ofthe prosecution.On completion of the examination of the witnesses on theside of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses and he denied the same as false.On behalf of thedefence, Ex.D.1 was marked and no witness was examined.The learned trial Judge, after considering the oral and documentaryevidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, against thewhich, the present appeal has been preferred.Assailing the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant,the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.2defacto complainant is not fully reliable.The appellant is not a competentperson to give appointment on compassionate ground.That factum was notconsidered by the Trial court.Even though P.W.3 was examined to prove thefirst demand, he has not deposed about the first demand.In his evidence, hehad stated that he was directed to go out from the seat where the appellantwas sitting.That factum was also not considered by the Trial Court.Thesecond demand was also not proved by the prosecution.According to theprosecution, no shadow witness has been accompanying P.W.2, while tenderingthe amount.P.W.4 is an attestor of the recovery.As such, with regard tosecond demand, there is no corroboration with the evidence of P.W.2.Acceptance was also not proved by the prosecution, because the amount hasbeen placed in the drawer of the appellant.The drawer was not under lock andkey.Till today, P.W.2 was unable to get his appointment on compassionateground, since one of the family members has got employment in JailDepartment.That factum was not considered by the Trial Court.Tosubstantiate his argument, he relied upon the following decisions of the ApexCourt and prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence:(i) Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra [CDJ 1979 SC 398].Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharasthra [CDJ 2000 SC 251].(vi) R.Gunalan v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police[2012(3) CTC 38].Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)would submit that it is true that the appellant is working as Superintendentin the Public Works Department at Sivagangai.The evidence of P.W.2 has beencorroborated by P.W.3 Sathiyan, who is none other than his friend.She wouldfurther submit that at the time of tendering the amount, no official witnesshas been accompanying him.I.P. [2011 SAR (Criminal) 76].She wouldfurther submit that the appellant himself has returned the applicationseveral times for compliance.The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and trap layingofficer P.W.13 has proved the acceptance and recovery and phenolphthaleintest ended in positive and after considering all the factors, the Trial Courthas rightly convicted him for the offences as stated above.Hence, she prayedfor dismissal of the appeal.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusalof the typed-set of papers, it is seen that the appellant is theSuperintendent in Executive Engineer's office, Public Works Department.P.W.2's father by name Subramanian, while working as Selection GradeAssistant, died in harness on 24.12.2000, leaving behind him P.W.2, his widowand two daughters and another son as his legal heirs.The second son gotappointment in Jail Department.But, admittedly, P.W.2 and his mother gave anapplication on 07.06.2001 claiming appointment on compassionate ground.Admittedly, that application was returned periodically for rectifying certaindefects.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2002 at 04.30 p.m., theappellant herein has made a first demand of Rs.250/- for recommending theapplication given for appointment on compassionate ground.However, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have categorically statedthat on 06.03.2002 at 04.30 p.m., when both were entered into the room of theappellant, the appellant made enquiry about P.W.3 and he directed P.W.3 to goout of the place.Itis partly reliable, which needs corroboration.P.W.5, in his evidence, hadstated that on his instructions only, the application has been returned bythe appellant for compliance.In page No.42 of the typed-set of papers, hehas specifically mentioned that the application given by P.W.2 has beenreturned twice only on his direction and he fairly conceded that theapplication has been scrutinized by the accused, but whereas it was returnedon his instructions only.He has gone to the extent of saying that withouthis instructions, the accused will not return the application.In suchcircumstances, there is no evidence to show that wantonly the appellantherein has returned the application for want of illegal gratification.Since the father of P.W.2 died while he wasrendering his service at Sivagangai, his mother made an application forcompassionate appointment and after rectifying some defects, P.W.6 sent thesame to the Superintendent.He transmitted the same tohigher officials.Insuch circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to provethat the appellant is a competent person to provide appointment oncompassionate ground.In his evidence, he had fairlyconceded that his younger brother got the appointment in Jail Departmentprior to the death of his father and he is not residing with them.Admittedly, there are so many conditions followed while granting appointmenton compassionate ground.It is partly reliable which requires corroboration.In respect ofthe first demand, P.W.3 has clearly conceded that the accused has asked himto go out of the place and then, he left the place and he do not know as towhether the accused made a demand.As per the prosecution case, during trapproceedings, no one has been accompanying P.W.2, the defacto complainant.Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by any other evidence.I.P. [2011 SAR (Criminal) 76] cited supra.It isappropriate to incorporate paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, in which,it was specifically stated that shadow witness has accompanied the defactocomplainant, which reads thus:Theprosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when themoney was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to provethat the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused.When thecomplainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint(Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that theaccused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of ExhibitP-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above materialfurnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused.(iii) acceptance;(iv) recovery; and(v) phenolphthalein test has to be positive.However, the second demand and acceptancehave not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.In suchcircumstances, the respondent has not sought for any rescue of Section 20 ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since the basic ingredients have notbeen proved by the prosecution, as per the dictum laid down by the ApexCourt.In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that theprosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonabledoubt and hence, the benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of theappellant and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge(V&AC) -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, dated 16.04.2009 made inC.C.No.1 of 2003, are set aside.The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shallstand cancelled.01.12.2014Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSMLTo1.The Special Judge (V&AC) -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.2.The Inspector of Police (V&AC), Sivagangai.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Judgment made inCriminal Appeal (MD)No.101 of 2009 | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
498,875 | On 14-2-1992 at about 12.15 to 12.30 a.m. the informant Abdul Jabbar Shaikh P.W. 1, a resident of Aashabibi Kalyan Road, Nasikwala Chawl, Bhiwandi, returned back to Biwandi in his car.When after parking his car, he was proceeding for his house he saw the Appellant-Afajal Ansari easing in front of his house and questioned him, on which the Appellant-Afajal Ansari replied whether the place belongs to his father.After easing Appellant-Afajal Ansari inflicted fist blows on the informant's person and caused bite injuries to him.The informant pushed him and raised shouts hearing which his father Banemiya Shaikh P.W. 2, his paternal aunt Kulsumbi, his wife Hameda Shaikh P.W. 8, his daughter Tabassum Shaikh P.W. 7, Halimabi Shaikh P.W. 4, Abdul Shaikh P.W. 5 and Iqbal Sayyad P.W. 6, came.In the meantime, Appellant-Afajal Ansari went to his house and came back with a stick and Appellant-Asammahammed Noor Mohammed Ansari, with a cable wire in his hand also came.Appellant-Afajal Ansari inflicted a stick blow on the informant's back, resulting in his falling down.He also inflicted a stick blow on the head of his paternal aunt Kulsumbi and Appellant-Azam Mohammed Noor Mohammed Ansari assaulted Kulsumbi with cable wire on her head.Thereafter Appellant-Afajal Ansari assaulted Banemiya Shaikh with the stick.In the meantime people gathered there.They intervened.Thereafter in the informant's car, the informant, his father Banemiya Shaikh and paternal aunt Kulsumbi were taken to Kumbharwada Police Station where the police told the informant to take his father and paternal aunt to Indira Gandhi Hospital at Bhiwandi, as they were seriously injured.Thereupon the informant took his father and paternal aunt to Indira Gandhi Hospital, Bhiwandi.On the person of Kulsumbi he found the following injuries :(i) C.L.W. over forehead 2" x 1" in frontal region; and(ii) C.L.W. over right ear.She was semi-conscious and he advised that she be taken to Civil Hospital at Thane.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through this appeal the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 28th July, 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 557 of 1992, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :(i) under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer 15 days' S.I.; and(ii) under Section 324 read with 34, I.P.C. to suffer 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer 15 days' S.I.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :On the person of Banemiya Shaikh P.W. 2, Dr. Khalil Tumandar found the following injuries :(i) C.L.W. over frontal region of size 1" x 1.2" and(ii) a big haematoma, over left maxillary region size 3" x 2".He also advised that Banemiya be shifted to Civil Hospital, Thane.In the opinion of Dr. Khalil Tumandar the C.L.Ws. suffered by the said persons were attributable to a hard and blunt object and could be caused by the stick (Article 2 shown to him).On the person of Abdul Jabbar Shaikh P.W. 1 the following injuries were found :(i) tooth bite mark over left forearm;(ii) tenderness over nose and eyes; and(iii) bleeding from nose.In the opinion of Dr. Khalil Tumandar, the tooth marks were the result of human bite and bleeding on the nose was possible from fist blows.On examination he found tenderness over right leg and left leg; a mark of abrasion over the left arm; and a mark of abrasion over his back; a C.L.W. 1/2" x 1/4" over the forehead: and an incised wound of the dimension of 1/4" on the left finger.The evidence of the informant Jabbar Shaikh P.W. 1 shows that from Indira Gandhi Hospital, Bhiwandi, his brother Asfan took his father Banemiya Shaikh and his paternal Kulsumbi to Civil Hospital, Thane, and he proceeded to Kumbharwada Police Station for lodging F.I.R.The evidence of P.S.I. Pravin Chintalkar P.W. l0 shows that on 15-2-92 at about 3.20 a.m. he recorded the F.I.R. of Jabbar Banemiya Shaikh and on its basis registered a case under Section 324 read with 34, I.P.C. and Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act, His evidence further shows that thereafter he commenced the investigation and interrogated the witnesses and arrested the Appellants on the same day itself.On 20-2-92 he came to know that Kulsumbi (from Civil Hospital, Thane she had been shifted to K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay) had succumbed to her injuries and after meeting the concerned doctor at K.E.M. Hospital and learning from him that she had died oh account of head injuries he converted the case to one under Section 302, I.P.C. and handed over further investigation to P.I. Pathak, who filed the charge-sheet.The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased-Kulsumbi was conducted on 20-2-92 by Dr. Ramesh Rane P.W. 9, who found on it the following external injuries :(iii) sutured craniotomy wound 24 c.m. in length over right parieto-temporal occipital region.On internal examination he found the following injuries.Subdural haematoma at temporal region, oedema of brain, diffused subdural haemorrhage on temporal and occipital region 40 grams clot at occipital region and intraventricular haemorrhage.According to Dr. Rane the deceased died on account of intra-cranial haemorrhage and he was medically hypersensitive.The evidence of Dr. Rane shows that C.T. scan was done and the same showed a clot on parietal occipital region.The case was committed to the Court of Session in the usual manner where the appellants were charged on the counts on which they have been found guilty, to which charges they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During trial in all the prosecution examined 10 witnesses; seven out of them viz. Abdul Jabbar Shaikh PW1, Banemiya Shaikh P.W. 2, Halimabi Shaikh P.W. 4, Abdul Shaikh P.W. 5, Iqbal Sayyad P.W. 6, Tabassum Shaikh P.W. 7 and Hameda Shaikh P.W. 8 were examined as eye-witnesses.Amongst them Abdul Shaikh P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.The other eye-witnesses, however, supported the prosecution and gave evidence incriminating the Appellants.Hence this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.In our view, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed, inasmuch as only an offence under Section 304(ii) read with 34, I.P.C. and not one under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. is made against the Appellants.We, however, feel that an offence under Section 324 read with 34, I.P.C, is made out against them and they have been correctly convicted thereunder.As mentioned earlier one of them viz. Abdul Shaikh P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.We have examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses.In our view the evidence of the eye-witnesses, other than Abdul Shaikh P.W. 5 who turned hostile, inspires confidence.It is pertinent to mention that out of them the informant Jabbar Shaikh P.W. 1 and his father Banemiya Shaikh are injured eye-witnesses.Jabbar Shaikh has deposed about the entire incident and the other witnesses who came after he was assaulted, on his shouts, have deposed about the assault on Banemiya Shaikh and Kulsumbi.We would first take up the evidence of the informant Jabbar Shaikh.He stated that on 14-2-92 at about 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. he returned back to Bhiwandi and when after parking his car near his house he was proceeding towards his house he found the Appellant Afajal Ansari easing in front of his house and when he reprimanded him, he gave him fist blows on his face and nose and had a bite on his left hand.Hearing his cries his father Banemiya, his paternal aunt Kulsumbi and others came.Afajal Ansari went back towards his house and came back with a stick and Appellant Azam Mohammed Noor Mohammed Ansari, with a cable wire in his hand also came.Thereafter Appellant-Afajal Ansari assaulted him, Kulsumbi and his father Banemiya and Appellant-Azam Mohammed Noor Mohammed Ansari with the cable wire assaulted Kulsumbi on head.We have examined the said version of Jabbar Shaikh and we find it to be credible.Earlier we have referred to the injuries found on the person of Jabbar Shaikh, Banemiya Shaikh and Kulsumbi and we find that they are in conformity with the manner of assault furnished by Jabbar Shaikh.It is pertinent to mention that although Jabbar Shaikh was subjected to extensive cross-examination but nothing could be extracted therefrom which would impair his credibility.In our view, the evidence of Jabbar Shaikh, coupled with the prompt F.I.R. of the incident, lodged by him at 3.30 a.m. on 15-2-92 at Bhiwandi Police Station, is sufficient to fix the involvement of the Appellants in the crime.We are fortunate that in this case there is plurality of ocular account and five other eye-witnesses, other than Abdul Shaikh P.W. 5 who had turned hostile have furnished ocular account; one of them Banemiya Shaikh is an injured eye-witness.They have deposed about the assault on Banemiya and Kulsumbi on the same lines as Jabbar Shaikh.Their ocular account is in accord with medical evidence.It is pertinent to mention that all of them lived in the proximity of the place of the incident and are natural witnesses of the incident and although they were subjected to extensive cross-examination but nothing could be extracted therefrom which would impair their credibility.Hence we believe their evidence also.For the said reasons we feel that the involvement of the Appellants in the incident has been established beyond reasonable doubt.However, we have no doubt that the learned trial Judge erred in convicting the Appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that there was no malice or II-will between the Appellants on the one hand and the deceased-Kulsumbi on the other.It is also pertinent to mention that the incident started on account of the informant Jabbar Shaikh questioning the Appellant-Afajal Ansari as to why he was easing in front of his house.On that Appellant-Afajal Ansari assaulted Jabbar Shaikh who raised cries, resulting in the arrival of Kulsumbi and others.It was at this juncture that Appellant-Afajal Ansari brought a stick from his house and Appellant Azam Mohammed Noor Mohammed Ansari came with cable wire and thereafter both of them inflicted blows on Kulsumbi, resulting in her receiving two C.L.Ws., one of which was on the frontal region and one on the right ear.Hence in our view an offence under Section 304(ii) read with 34, I.P.C. would be made out against them. ,In other, words they have been in jail for nearly 8 years and 10 months.We feel that the sentence already undergone by them, in the circumstances, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.In the result this appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,888,065 | The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Joymalya Bagchi, J) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,898,971 | The prosecution's case in short is that on 13.4.1992 at about 8.00 a.m the complainant Babulal (PW6) was going to 3 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 his shop near Madhai Bus Stop, Jabalpur.In the way near the pan shop of one Bhaghat the appellants met with the complainant and they surrounded him.The appellant Rajkumar and Chhotu assaulted him by daggers causing him injuries on his right waist, abdomen, right scapular region and left scapular region.The appellants were provoking others to kill the victim.However Ram Kumar, Munnilal, Gyan Gor and father of the victim came to the spot to save him.The complainant Babulal was taken to the hospital on the scooter of one Munna Patel and he was admitted.Sub Inspector Suresh Chand Shrivas (PW13) went to the vehicle hospital and wrote a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/15 as told by the complainant.Ultimately a case was registered at Police Station Ranjhi.Dr. Jain (PW8) examined the complainant at Medical College, Jabalpur and gave his report Ex.(Delivered on the 6th day of November, 2012) All these appeals arose from the common judgment dated 24.12.1996 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Ranjhi in ST No.449/1992 and therefore, they are hereby decided with a common judgment.The appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment dated 24.12.1996 whereby each of them was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the table below :All the sentences to run concurrently.He found four stab wounds to the victim situated at upper abdomen, left lumbar region, right lumbar region and left thigh.Out of those injuries, the stab wound which was caused in the abdomen had a hole in the peritoneum and also a tear was caused in the left liver and pancreas.In surgery those tears were repaired.After due investigation a charge sheet was submitted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur who committed the case to the Sessions Court whereas ultimately it was transferred to the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but they have stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity.However, Shri R. K. Dubey (DW1) who remained as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Ranjhi proved that there was a dispute between the complainant Babulal and one Rajendra about the property and therefore, the appellants were falsely implicated in the matter.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 341, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C and sentenced them as mentioned above.In Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 the appellant Raj Kumar could not submit bail bonds in compliance to the order dated 3.3.1997 and therefore, he was released after execution of actual sentence and therefore, his appeal turned infructuous.Hence at present the Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 is prosecuted by Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the except for the complainant Babulal all other eye witnesses have turned hostile.The complainant has also denied that he had lodged any FIR.He made omnibus allegations against the various appellants and therefore, it is 5 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 no where clear that who assaulted him.No overt act of the appellants was established and therefore, neither any unlawful assembly was constituted nor the appellants could be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C with the help of Section 149 of I.P.C. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the appellants may be acquitted.The learned counsel for the appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar has submitted that he was 20 years of age at the time of incident and he could be released on probation.However, he remained in the custody for more than five months in all and therefore, he may not be sent to the jail again.On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the offence done by the appellants appears to be grave and therefore, the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeals filed by the appellants can be accepted ? And whether the sentence directed against the appellants can be reduced ?Babulal (PW6) has stated that all the appellants were having knives and sticks and they assaulted him.Ultimately, he was taken to the hospital.All other eye 6 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 witnesses like Sunita Bai (PW2), Ramkumar (PW3) etc. were turned hostile.They could not say anything about the incident.However, the testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by Dr. Jain (PW8) who, saw the victim when he was admitted in the Medical College.He gave a report Ex.According to Dr. Jain the victim sustained four stab wounds, out of which three were simple in nature whereas the stab would caused in the abdomen made a hole in the peritoneum wall and some tear was also caused to the liver and pancreas.In the cross examination he has admitted that operation was done and such organs were repaired.The incident took place in the day light and therefore, it cannot be said that the victim could not see the culprits.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were falsely implicated due to enmity.However, enmity is a double edged weapon.One can assault due to enmity or one can be falsely implicated due to enmity and therefore, a strict scrutiny is required in considering the evidence given by the complainant.Under such 7 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant denies to lodge the Dehati Nalishi.Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/15 is duly proved by the Sub Inspector Shri Shrivas.In the Dehati Nalishi, the first version given by the complainant was recorded.If it is considered then it would be clear that he made the allegations against the appellants Raj Kumar and Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar that they assaulted him by daggers.Now the complainant Babulal states against all of the accused but looking to his version given in the Dehati Nalishi, his present version appears to be an after thought.Hence his testimony can be believed upto the extent which is corroborated by the F.I.R (Dehati Nalishi).In that Dehati Nalishi he has stated that remaining appellants surrounded him and they were shouting to kill the victim.It was stated by the victim Babulal that all of the appellants held sticks and knives and they assaulted the victims.However, looking to the version given in the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/15 it is apparent that except the appellant Raj Kumar and Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar none of the appellants assaulted him by any weapon.If the remaining appellants were present at the spot and they had any knives then there was no problem to them in assaulting the victim but, it is established that they did not participate in the assault and therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that when the complainant was taken to the hospital he had cooked a story against the remaining 8 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 appellants.Looking at such circumstances, it is possible that the remaining appellants were not present at the time when the incident took place.The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C with help of Section 149 of I.P.C but, if injuries of complainant are perused then it appears that the appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar and Ram Kumar caused four injuries to the complainant.Out of them three injuries were not deep.An approximation can be made that the appellant Ram Kumar and Chhotu each assaulted the victim for two times whereas their assault were not with force and therefore, no deep injury was caused on the back or chest of the complainant.Only one injury caused a hole in the peritoneum wall and damaged the vital organ.Under such circumstances, where the appellants left the victim after causing him 3-4 injuries and therefore, it is apparent that they were not intended to kill the victim.Similarly, they did not use much force in the assault.Hence the overt acts of the appellants do not fall within the purview of any part of Section 300 of I.P.C and therefore, the appellants could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. However, one injury caused to the victim was dangerous to the life and therefore, according to the provisions of Section 320(8) of I.P.C it comes in the category of grievous injury and therefore, the appellants can 9 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.It is established by the statement of the victim Babulal that Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar and Ram Kumar had assaulted him with daggers and that grievous injury was caused by them.It is no where clear that who gave that assault in the abdomen of the victim but, looking to the overt act of the two accused persons it is apparent that both of them were intended to cause such injuries and therefore, their own intention can be presumed for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. However, it is no where established that the remaining appellants participated in the crime.It is not proved beyond doubt that they were present at the spot.As discussed above if they were present then they could have also assaulted the victim because they were also armed according to the version of the victim, but no such assault was done by other appellants and therefore, neither their common object nor their common intention can be presumed.Hence, the remaining appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C or any inferior offence of similar nature either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of I.P.C.Initially FIR was lodged against six persons.Out of those one had expired during the trial but, as stated by the complainant no participation of other appellants is proved 10 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 beyond doubt and therefore, it cannot be said that they formed an unlawful assembly or they did any act in furtherance of any common object.Under such circumstances, none of the appellants can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C or any inferior offence of the similar nature.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C.Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the victim was going towards his shop.There was no intention of any accused to restrain him in going to the shop but, the appellants Shiv Kumar and Ram Kumar were interested to assault him and therefore, the victim was admittedly restrained.The victim was restrained to go further, due to assault caused by the appellants Ram Kumar and Shiv Kumar but, in lack of their intention they cannot be convicted for offence of wrongful restraint.Hence, the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that out of all the appellants only appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar can be convicted for offence punishable under 11 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar was 20 years of age at the time of incident but offence under Section 326 of I.P.C is punishable by life imprisonment and therefore, the appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar cannot be released on probation.He remained in the custody since 19.4.1992 to 29.5.1992 during the trial.Again after pronouncement of the judgment by trial Court he remained in the custody from 24.12.1996 to 24.3.1997 and therefore, he remained in the custody for 5 months and 10 days.He has faced the trial and appeal for last 20 years.Looking to his age at the time of incident and aforesaid harassment faced by the appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar, it is a proper case in which he may not be sent to the jail again but, some heavy fine may be imposed upon him.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the appeals filed by the appellant Biran @ Birendra Singh, Raju @ Rajendra and Ram Singh can be accepted in toto.Therefore, the appeals filed by these three appellants are accepted.Conviction as well as sentence directed against them for the offences punishable under Section 341, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C is set aside.They are acquitted from all such charges.They would be entitled to get the fine amount back if they have deposited in the trial Court.The appeal filed by the appellants Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar is hereby partly allowed.Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 His conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Section 148, 341, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from aforesaid charges but, he is convicted for the offence punishable under section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of the period which he had already under gone in the custody with a fine of Rs.7,000/-.The appellant Chhotu @ Shiv Kumar is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today.In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo for one years rigorous imprisonment.In case if fine is deposited then a sum of Rs.5000/- may be given to the victim Babulal s/o Rameshwar Gupta r/o Near Ranjhi Canal Jabalpur by way of a compensation.The appellant Birendra @ Biran is in custody and therefore, the Registry is directed to issue the release warrant forthwith for his release from the jail.The other appellants are on bail.Their presence is no more required.Therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 6.11.2012 bina 13 Criminal Appeal No.2339/1996 Criminal Appeal No.26/1997 Criminal Appeal No.101/1997 Criminal Appeal No.158/1997 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,900,641 | Heard on admission.Heard on I.A. No.12465/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Rohini Prasad Yadav.A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.300048/2008 by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni reveals that appellant Rohini Prasad Yadav has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 28/07/2018 10:43:03 2 CRA-5458-2018 Prevention Deposited 6 months Act 1988 All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Consequently, I.A. No.12465/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Rohini Prasad Yadav, is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19-12-2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 28/07/2018 10:43:03 | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,904,563 | Item No. 38And In the matter of: Janmejoy Ghosh & Ors.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.577 of 2013 dated 01.09.2013 under sections 341/323/325/379/34 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.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,626,070 | 1 02.09.2019 Item No. M/L137 Ct.No.01 AD & Saswata CRAN 2505 of 2019 in CRA 315 of 2019 Kalu RajbharThe State of West Bengal Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Krishan Ray Ms. Amrita Chal Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Anamitra Banerjee ... for the Petitioner Mr. Saryati Datta .. for the State This is an application filed by the appellant / applicant praying for suspension of sentence and bail.Immediately after the incident, an unruly mob approximately of about 40 / 50 persons assembled at the place of occurrence under the leadership of one Santosh Nandy, being armed with explosive substance, lathi, etc and allegedly caused grievous hurt to the on-duty police officers.The appellant, allegedly being one of the members of such unlawful assembly was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court as under.Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, U/s 365 Cr.P.C for his information and taking necessary action." The appellant has preferred an appeal assailing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Judge.We have carefully considered the impugned judgment. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,626,423 | On 27th November, 2016, there was religious ceremony at her matrimonial house at Aurangabad.On 29th November, 2016, Respondent made complaint to her mother against her husband.On 30th November, 2016, Respondent::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 3 went along with her mother.On 3rd December, 2016, she came to Aurangabad and later on went to Pune to cohabit with her husband.On 12th December, 2016, she went to her parents house.DATE : 17.06.2019 ORAL JUDGMENT:Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent heard finally.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::By this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed for quashment of private complaint case i.e. R.C.C. No.218 of 2017 registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the learned 2 nd Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.By referring the overall facts of the case and more particularly, the allegations made in the complaint and role attributed to the applicants in commission of offence, learned counsel submits that filing of such complaint and prosecution thereof is nothing but gross abuse of process of law.On 26th November, 2016, they came to Aurangabad for cohabitation.Subsequently, the complaint came to be made to Women Grievance Redressal Cell at Latur.On 16th April, 2016, some quarrel had taken place between the respondent and her husband.She filed complaint U/Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and his relatives.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::By referring the allegations made in the complaint,::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 5 learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the complaint make out a case to proceed against the applicants.It is further submitted that while deciding the Criminal Application filed by the co-accused Nos. 4 to 15 vide order dated 17th October, 2018, this Court has observed that the Respondent was residing in the company of the accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the applicants and there is prima facie case to proceed against them.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.Where the allegations in the First::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 6 Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 7 the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.On due examination of the allegations made, I am of the view that the case is made out to exercise the powers U/Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint against the applicants.The matrimonial discord between the Respondent and her husband i.e. son of the applicants, leads to filing of private complaint as against her husband and 14 other persons, which includes the present applicants.The filing of the complaint as against such large number of accused persons itself spell out the intention of the Respondent to implicate and harass in-laws and relatives of the husband.The Apex Court has time and again observed that while dealing with the complaints filed U/Sec.498- A of the I.P.C., the Police must be cautious::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 8 while registering the case against accused, in view of the tendency being noticed to implicate the innocent persons with ulterior motive to harass such persons.While passing the order, the Court has closely scrutinized the complaint made at the instance of the Respondent and categorically observed that the incident dated 16th April, 2017, which leads to filing of the complaint, no way make out the case for the offence punishable U/Sec.It is further observed that the demand of Rs.25 Lakhs found to be improbable.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::If we closely scrutinize the complaint filed by the respondent then except some vague allegations made against the applicants to force her to transfer the land in the name of husband of respondent, no specific overt acts attributed to applciants amounting to offence of cruelty, as explained under clause (a) and (b) of Section 498-A of::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 9 the I.P.C. It is quite settled position in law that all sort of cruelty not amounts to act of cruelty as contemplated U/Sec.498-A of the I.P.C. In order to constitute the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of the I.P.C., there must an act of cruelty as defined under clause (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of the I.P.C. If we consider the allegations made in the complaint and taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety still it spell out no act of cruelty as contemplated under clause (a) and (b) of Section 498-A. Stay of the applicants in her matrimonial house with the applicants was not more than 3 days.In the light of allegations made in the complaint and more particularly as against the applicants, it is difficult to believe that the Respondent was subjected to illtreatment and harassment with an intention to force her to submit to demand of dowry.In fact there are no specific allegations that the dowry was fixed in the marriage and for non-fulfillment of demand of such dowry, the respondent was subjected to illtratment and::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 10 harassment.It is also difficult to believe that within a period of three days of marriage, the demand of Rs.25 Lakhs to purchase a flat was made at the instance of the applicants and other co-accused.The allegations made in the complaint are vague and general in nature.The complaint appears to be a motivated and filed with ulterior motive to harass the in-laws of her husband on account of matrimonial discord with husband.In absence of any prima facie case being made out to proceed against the accused, the complaint filed against the present applicants deserves to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::The order to issue process appears to have been passed in casual manner.No scrutiny of allegations appears to have been made before passing the order.It is apparent from the face of complaint and order passed that the complaint has been filed and process has been issued by::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 11 the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Latur against the applicants who are residents of Aurangabad, situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.The Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited (2019 SCC Online SC 682) has held that the requirement of Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure to hold an enquiry before issuing the process U/Sec. 202 is a mandatory requirement of law.In that view also the complaint deserves to be quashed to the extent of applicants.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::Thus in view of conclusions to which arrived at that the complaint filed against the applicants is a gross abuse of process of law and filed with malafide intention to harass the applicants, in my view it is a fit case to invoke powers U/Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceeding against the applicants.The continuation of the proceeding against them would subject them to face rigours of criminal prosecution without any case to proceed against them.So also, in absence of compliance of Section 202 of the Code of::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: 3205.18APPLN.odt 12 Criminal Procedure and the complaint filed do not make out prima facie case to proceed against the applicants U/Sec.498-A of the I.P.C., the complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside.Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause "B".The proceedings of R.C.C. No.218 of 2017 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur is quashed to the extent of the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::None of the observations made in the foregoing paras shall have no bearing upon the other proceedings filed at the instance of respondent.Rule made absolute in the above terms.[V.L. ACHLIYA] JUDGE SGA::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 03:03:19 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,627,054 | gbi Crl.O.P.No.15519 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.5919 of 2020 01.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.17 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2) of the Passport Act read with Sections 420 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2) of the Passport Act read with Sections 420 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.He further submitted that from the petitioner'shttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.15519 of 2020 possession fifteen fake passports have been recovered and thereby corroborating his confession statement.Heard Mr.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.17 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.The petitioner is at liberty to produce all the documents before the investigating officer.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.01.10.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order gbihttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.15519 of 2020The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.15519 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,628,319 | Complainant suspected that prosecutrix was enticed by somebody.Police searched prosecutrix through electronic and print media.On 21.12.2012, investigating team located prosecutrix was residing with accused at SM-61, Village Razapur, Shastri Park, Gaziabad, UP.They were recovered from there.Statement of prosecutrix was recorded wherein she alleged that accused enticed and took her with him.PW1 Chander Pal in his examination-in-chief stated that he was working as a Peon in MCD.On 20.11.2012 at about 7:00 AM his daughter, aged around 14 years had gone to school and did not return back.His statement was recorded which was proved as Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, PW1 raised suspicion over the respondent Kishan who was residing in another gali.PW1 handed over the photographs of his daughter to the police.The victim was recovered on 21.12.2012 and was medically examined.P.C.PW1 deposed that his daughter was studying in 7th standard in Government School at Shahbad Dairy.The date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 10.04.1998 in the school records.It was deposed by PW1 that he cannot identify the respondent Kishan as he had never seen him before.PW1 came to know about the respondent Kishan when he was searching his daughter as some neighbourers informed him that the respondent Kishan might have taken his daughter.In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that his eldest son Krishan is about 19 years of age.CRL.M.A. 15866/2017(exemption)Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of 93 days delay in filing the leave to appeal.We find no ground to condone the delay in filing the leave to appeal, however, since we have examined the case on merits, delay of 93 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.The application stands disposed of.The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)against the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2017passed by the learned Trial Crl.L.P.558/2017 Page 1 of 11 Court in Sessions Case No.57922/16 arising out of the FIR No.427/12 registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairyunder Sections363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by which the respondent has been acquitted.L.P.558/2017 Page 1 of 11Accused established physical relations with her.Prosecutrix was got medically examined and her statement was also got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.Accused was arrested and charge-sheeted.Initially, charge for offence punishable under Section 363/366/376 IPC was framed against accused.However, an amended charge U/s 363/366 IPC and U/s 6 POCSO Act in alternative U/s 376(2)(i)(n) IPC was framed against accused.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all.The statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed to be falsely Crl.L.P.558/2017 Page 2 of 11 implicated in the present case.It was further stated that the victim left her home voluntarily and insisted that he should take her along.L.P.558/2017 Page 2 of 11Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record and the same is based on surmises and conjectures.She further submits that the learned Trial Court has lost track of the fact that the testimony of the victim has been consistent and the law is well-settled that an order on conviction can be passed based on the statement made by the victim.It is strongly urged before the Court that the learned Trial Court has overlooked that at the time of the incident, the victim was 14 years and 07 months of age.Her age was proved by PW-3 Mukesh, who had produced the school certificate during his examination.It is also contended that PW-1 and PW-2, being parents of the victim have also supported the case of the prosecution, which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered their rival submissions.The first question which arises for our consideration is with respect to the age of the victim.It is not in dispute that PW-3 Mukesh had produced the record from the first school the victim had attended which was exhibited as Ex.PW-3A/D. PW-4 Chhattarpal was examined who had produced the record from the second school which the victim had attended.It is not in dispute that the certificate was prepared based on an affidavit filed by the father of the victim and not based on any birth certificate.It would be useful to refer to the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 with respect to the age of the victim.L.P.558/2017 Page 3 of 11On 30.11.2012, a missing complaint was lodged to the Police Station Shabad Dairy.PW1 further stated that he had five children, his first child Krishan was born after eight years of marriage; second child Deepak was one year younger to Krishan; third child is the victim who was one year younger to Deepak; fourth child Kajal was three years younger to the victim and his fifth child Payal was four years younger to Kajal.PW1 has categorically stated that he had "never got date of birth child (sic) entered in MCD or any other authority." He further Crl.L.P.558/2017 Page 4 of 11 deposed that "I got my children admitted in the school.I do not remember what proof I have given for date of birth of my children.It is correct that I have given date of birth of my children in the school on the basis of guess work"L.P.558/2017 Page 4 of 11PW-2 Rajkumari (mother of the victim) deposed in her examination-in-chief that her eldest daughter (the victim), aged about 14 years was studying in 7thstandard in MCD school, Shahbad Diary.She further deposed that on 20.11.2012at about 7:00 am, the victim had gone to the school but had not returned from the school.It was further deposed by PW-2 that she and her husband had searched for the victim in nearby places and inquired from relatives.On 30.11.2012, her husband went to the police station and reported the matter.The suspicion was raised on the respondent Kishan who was residing in another gali.The victim was recovered on 21.12.2012 and the respondent Kishan was also apprehended by the police.The victim was medically examined at M.V. Hospital, Poot Khurd where PW2 was also present.The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C at Rohini Court and thereafter the victim was allowed to go with her by the order of the Court.PW2 could not identify the respondent Kishan as she had never seen him before.PW-2 deposed that she did not remember the date of birth of the victim.In her cross-examination, PW2 stated that she had five children but did not remember the date of birth of any of her children.PW-2 further stated that she did not have any proof of date of birth of any of her children.She stated that all of her children were admitted to the school by PW-1 and did not have any knowledge of the documents Crl.L.P.558/2017 Page 5 of 11 submitted by him regarding the age proof at time of their admission in school.PW-2 further stated that there was no gap year taken by the victim during her studies.L.P.558/2017 Page 5 of 11On a careful analysis of the testimonies of the parents of the victim would show that according to their assessment, the age of the victim was 17 years on the date of the incident, as per the testimony of the father, the victim was of 17 years and above and as per the testimony of the mother, the age of the victim was17 years of age.The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration age factor of the victim.The relevant paragraphs 10-13 of the judgment read as under:Age of the prosecutrix: Before dwelling upon the incident of kidnapping or sexual assault, let us find out what was the age of prosecutrix at the time of incident.Prosecution has relied upon the school record of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW3/A-D & Ex.Date of birth of prosecutrix is disputed by the defence by submitting that the school record of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as true indicative of her date of birth as witness who produced the school record during his cross-examination admitted that at the time of admission of prosecutrix, birth certificate furnished by her parents was not verified.It has also been contended that a Marriage Agreement Ex.PW5/B was duly executed by prosecutrix in which age of prosecutrix is mentioned as 21 years and this goes to prove that the prosecutrix had already attained majority on date of her leaving her house.L.P.558/2017 Page 6 of 11 equivalent certificate or the next option being the birth certificate issued by the municipal authorities or corporation or panchayat be obtained.In absence of aforesaid documents, a Medical Board will be constituted to determine the age of a juvenile.L.P.558/2017 Page 6 of 11Except for Ex.PW5/B there is no other document on record to controvert the date of birth of prosecutrix.In view of the mandate given under Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, age of juvenile (in present case, prosecutrix) as per her first attended School record is taken to be true.School record Ex.PW3/A to D goes to show that date of birth of prosecutrix is 10.04.1998 and as such on the date of incident (29.11.2012) prosecutrix was about 14 years 7 months old.Thus, it has to concluded that prosecutrix did not attain majority on the date she left her house."Having regard to the testimony of PW1 and PW2 being the father and mother of the victim, and the fact that the documents produced by PW3 and PW4 were not based on a birth certificate we find no infirmity with the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the age of the victim.The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164of Cr.P.C.In her statement in Court, she deposed on similar lines.The relevant portion reads as under:"On 20.11.2012, I went to my School.....at about 07.00 am and the accused Kishan (present in the court today correctly identified by the witness) was standing outside the school.Accused stated to me, "let us go for roaming (Chal Ghumne Chalte Hain)".I initially refused to go with him as I have to attend the school, but, accused insisted that I will drop you till the school time is over.Thereafter, I went alongwith the accused, went to the bus stand of Sector-26, Rohini and caught a bus.From there we went to the metro station and then to railway station and from there we went to Etah, U.P. and we took shelter in the night at Etah Railway Crl.L.P.558/2017 Page 7 of 11 Station, as it was quite late.On the next morning, we went to Kashganj in a Temple, where accused formally put Sindoor on my parting of head and did marry with me.From there we went to the Court and marriage papers were prepared by the accused.I put my thump marks on the said papers.We stayed one day at the house of sister of accused Kishan.On the next day, we went to Shastri Nagar, Delhi by bus and we stayed there in the house of distant relative of accused i.e. sister of accused.We stayed there for about two days and accused has made physical relationship with me.I made a call to my brother namely Ajeet from the house of sister of accused i.e. from Shastri Nagar, Delhi.After half an hour later police personnel came at the house at Shastri Nagar and apprehended me and accused Kishan and took us to the PS- Shahabad Dairy.Police got me medically examined.My statement was also got recorded at Rohini Court before a Magistrate.L.P.558/2017 Page 7 of 11.... The Marriage Agreement which was prepared at Kashganj Court, in which photographs of mine and that of accused were also affixed is Ex.SPW5/B and I had put my thumb impression at point A and accused had put his thumb mark at point B. ...."To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."L.P.558/2017 Page 8 of 11During her cross-examination, she admitted that she knew the respondent very well and she had accompanied him from Delhi with her consent.The victim as well as the respondent had taken a bus from Rohini and went to the Metro Station, then to Railway Station from where they went to Etah and took shelter at Etah Railway Station.During cross-examination, she admitted that there were many people around her, but she did not make any effort to draw their attention.The victim has also not disputed that they had gone to a temple in Kashganj where the respondent had formally put sindoor on the parting of her head and married her.Thereafter, they even went to the Court when marriage papers were prepared, when she had put her thumb marks and did not protest at any point of time.The respondent had even taken her to the house of his sister.L.P.558/2017 Page 9 of 11A complete reading of the evidence on record would show that the victim knew the respondent very well.She had accompanied him voluntarily, had travelled with him by bus, Metro to the railway station and then boarded a train from Delhi to Etah.During the entire period, the victim did not protest.There is no evidence on record that she was under fear and that the respondent had threatened her.The evidence shows that there was ample opportunity for the victim to shout for help or escape from the clutches of the respondent.After examining the Crl.L.P.558/2017 Page 10 of 11 testimony of the victim, it is clearly established that she left her house out of her own will, she did knew the respondent very well, she travelled together with the respondent, she got married to him first in a Mandir and then court marriage was performed.She put her thumb impression on the marriage document and admitted her age to be 20 years.L.P.558/2017 Page 10 of 11Even otherwise, it is settled law that the Appellate Court may only interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so [See Sheo Swarupv.King-Emperor,AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); M.G. Agarwalv.The present leave petition is dismissed, the leave to appeal is dismissed. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,628,697 | All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Renu, daughter of Suresh Bhagat and niece of Bhojraj Bhagat was married to the appellant Birbal about one year before the occurrence, in which adequate dowry was given to him at the time of the marriage.However, within one year of her marriage, appellant Birbal, husband of Renu, his brothers Awadhesh and Saral, his sister Roola, started demanding a motorcycle and a gold chain as additional dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand for dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her.Upon receiving information about the death of his niece, informant P. W. 1 Suresh Bhagat rushed to village-Vishambharpur along with other villagers and saw that the accused were going to burn the dead body of Renu.The incident was witnessed by a large number of villagers, who narrated the same to him.On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka 1) of the incident given by P. W. 1 at P. S.-Khampar, district-Deoria on 30.6.2008 at about 9.50 A. M. Case Crime No. 360 of 2008, under Sections-498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act was registered against the appellant, Birbal, his sister Roola and brothers Awadhesh and Saral.The chek F. I. R. and the relevant G. D. entry were prepared by P. W. 8 constable Prassidh Narain Singh, P. S.-Khampar, district-Deoria and brought on record as Exts.The investigation of the case was entrusted to R. P. Kannaujia, Circle Officer, Bhatapar Rani, who reached the place of occurrence on 1. 7.2008 and after inspecting the same, prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka 9).The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted by P. W. 6 Brij Kishore Lal, Naib Tehsildar, Bhatapar Rani on 30.6.2008 who after completing the inquest, prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka 3) and other related documents police form 13, photonash, letters addressed to C. M. O. and Reserved Inspector and specimen seal which have been brought on record as Exts.Ka 4 to Ka. 8 respectively.After completing the inquest, he dispatched the dead body of Renu to District Hospital, Deoria for post mortem.The post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by P. W. 5 Dr. K. C. Rai on 1.7.2008 at about 3.00 P. M., who also prepared her post mortem report (Ext. Ka 2).The post mortem report of the deceased indicates following ante mortem injuries:(1) Ligature mark size 42 cm x 3 cm present all around the neck just below thyroid horizontal, continuous round the neck.The base of groove is soft and reddish.Subcutaneous tissue under muscle ecchymoses.Heard Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned A. G. A.-I appearing for the State.(2) Fracture of thyroid bone present.The cause of death, according to the post mortem report was asphyxia due to strangulation.The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant and his brother Saral under Sections-498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act before the C. J. M., Deoria.Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the C. J. M. committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions, where the case was registered as S. T. No. 08 of 2009; State Versus Birbal and another and made over from there to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Deoria, who on the basis of the material on record, framed charge against the appellant under Sections-498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Sections3/4 of D. P. Act for trial after affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the appellant.The accused-appellant abjured the charges and claimed trial.The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the appellants examined as many as nine witnesses.P. W. 3 Sapna, real sister of the deceased, P. W. 4 Pankaj, P. W. 1 Suresh Bhagat, father of the deceased and P. W. 2 informant Bhoj Bhagat, uncle of the deceased as witnesses of fact while P. W. 5 Dr. K. C. Rai, who had conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased, P. W. 6 Brij Kishore Lal, Naib Tehsildar, who had conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report and other related documents.P. W. 7 R. P. Kannaujia, the I. O. of the case, P. W. 8 who had prepared the chek F. I. R. and the relevant G. D. entry were examined as formal witnesses.The accused-appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution case as false and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant because of greed of money.The appellant examined one Guru Prasad as D. W. 1, who proved the plea of alibi set up by him before the trial court.The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Deoria considering the submissions advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record convicted the appellant under Sections-498A, 304-B IPC and Section-4 of D. P. Act and awarded aforesaid sentences awarded to him, while his brother Saral was acquitted.Hence, this appeal.Firstly, Smt. Renu died within seven years of her marriage and her death was unnatural. | ['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. |
566,315 | Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under.At the time of the incident, the Appellant and the deceased were staying in village Asali, taluka Akrani, district Dhule.Some times thereafter, they passed through the road by the side of public well in the field of Rodwa Satya situated near a nursery.At that time, they were quarrelling and the Appellant was beating Surtabai by chappal and hands.Samkabai Chamarya Vasave, P.W.9, who was working along with Janya Vasave, P.W.2, Kantabai Masha Vasave, P.W.6, and Kusumbai Kutrya Vasave, P.W.7, noticed that Surtabai was weeping.She was giving calls to Samkabai Vasave and others to come to her rescue, but before they could reach, the Appellant threw her inside the well.He thereafter ran away.The Appellant was chased.In the meantime, these witnesses noticed Kirtya Fulya Vasave, P.W.I, the brother of Surtabai, coming from the road.Janya told him about the incident.Thereafter, Kirtya also joined in the chase.Near village Salibar, they arrested the Appellant, brought him to the house of sarpanch in village Mokh, and tied him there with a rope.The evidence of Kirtya Vasave, P.W.1, shows that thereafter the dead body of Surtabai was taken out from the well.Thereafter, he, sarpanch and the police patil went to the Police Station, Dhadgaon, where he lodged his F.I.R. affixing his thumb impression on it.The evidence of P.H.C. Bhanudas Ravsing More, P.W.10, shows that on 7-2-1994, he was entrusted with the investigation of the case.He went to village Mokh at about 12.30 in the noon and prepared inquest panchnama of the corpse of the deceased Surtabai, which was lying a cot, and thereafter, sent the same for autopsy.At that time, the Appellant was at the house of the village sarpanch.He arrested him and brought him to the police station.On that day, he recorded statements of Janya, Kantabai, Dhokibai and some others.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.The evidence of P.S.I. Janorkar, P.W.ll, shows that on 8-2-1994, he visited the place of the incident and prepared a spot panchnama.After completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet.Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Surtabai was conducted on 7-2-1994, between 3.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m., by Dr. Vilas Bhosale, P.W.3, who found on it a contusion on both ears.In the opinion of Dr. Bhosale, Surtabai died on account of asphyxia due to drowning.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the Appellant was charged for an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Although in his statement Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant categorically denied that he had thrown the deceased in the well, but in answer to question No. 2, he admitted that on 6-2-1994 at about 3 p.m., he along with the deceased left the house of his father in law, in answer to question No. 5, he admitted that he was arrested at Salibar and in answer to question No. 5 and question No. 20, he admitted that he was arrested from the house of sarpanch.During trial, in all the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.It is a matter of profound regret that although five out of them were examined eye witnesses, but excepting one, namely, Samkabai Vasave, P.W.9, the remaining turned hostile.But, it needs to be pointed out that eye witness Janya Vasave, P.W.2, who had turned hostile, when confronted with portions "A" and "B" of his statement recorded Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he had furnished ocular account, admitted having made the said portions of the statement.The learned trial Judge primarily on the evidence of Samkabai Vasave, P.W.9, convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence this Appeal.We have heard Mr. V.N. Damle, for the Appellant, and Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.We have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution, the statement of the Appellant recorded Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the impugned judgment.After the utmost circumspection, we are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this Appeal and, in our judgment, it deserves to be dismissed.The involvement of the Appellant in the instant crime is squarely fixed by the evidence led by the prosecution.We have the evidence of Fulya Vasave, P.W.8, the father of the deceased and father-in-law of the Appellant, who has stated that, on the date of incident, at about 4 p.m., the deceased and the Appellant had left his house.It is pertinent to mention that the cross examination of this witness was declined.Thereafter, we have the evidence of Janya Vasave, P.W.2, who stated that at the said time, while he was working along with Samkabai, P.W.9 and some others, in a nursery situated near the field of Rodwa Satya near a public well, he saw the Appellant and the deceased passing through the road.They were quarrelling.The Appellant was beating deceased Surtabai with a chappal.It is pertinent to mention that in cross examination, this evidence furnished by him could not be shattered and during cross examination, when he was confronted with portions "A" and "B" of his statement wherein he had given ocular account, he admitted having made the statement contained in those portions.Thereafter, we also have the evidence of.Samkabai, P.W.9, who stated that while she was working in the nursery at the aforesaid time and place, she noticed the Appellant and the deceased quarrelling and the Appellant throwing the deceased into the public well.It is pertinent to mention that her statement that the Appellant threw the deceased in the well is corroborated by two circumstances, viz :-(1) The corpse of Surtabai was taken out from the well; and (2)The autopay surgeon, Dr. Vijay Bhosale, stated that Surtabai died on account of asphyxia due to drowning.It is pertinent to mention that although Samkabai was cross examined, but nothing could be extracted there from which would discredit her presence on the place of the incident.The evidence of Janya Vasave, P.W.2, shows that not only the Appellant and the deceased were quarrelling, but the Appellant was also assaulting the deceased with chappal. | ['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'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,663,203 | Let the accused-applicant-Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, involved in Case Crime No.280 of 2015, u/s 323, 504, 506, 325, 307 IPC., P..S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Faizabad, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-(i) The applicant shall not be seen within the area of Police Station Kotwali Nagar.He shall only attend the dates of hearing in the civil court at district Faizabad.(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,633,601 | 4) The two victim girls, PW-4 and PW-5 were friends.They were residents of Partur, District Jalna.At the relevant time they had not crossed age of 16 years.Mother of PW-4 was working as maid servant to earn livelihood and she was required to maintain not only the prosecutrix but also other issues as her husband is dead.Parents of PW-5, other prosecutrix, hail from Hiwarkheda, Tahsil Sindhkhed-Raja, District Buldhana.The parents of PW-5 are very poor and as they could not afford to maintain PW-5, they had kept PW-5 in the house of sister of mother of PW-5 in Partur.PW-5 was not happy due to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 7 Appeal 153/99 group poverty and also due to bad treatment which she was receiving in the house of her aunt on maternal side.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::5) On 3-7-1994 PW-5 had some dispute with her maternal aunt.As she was starving she met PW-4 and expressed that she wanted to work to earn for her livelihood.PW-4 has a relative by name Sham Agrawal and he was running a shop in Parbhani city, District Parbhani.PW-4 expressed that Sham Agrawal can help them in giving job in Parbhani.Due to these circumstances on 3-7- 1994, PW-4 and PW-5 left Partur for Parbhani without informing anything to anybody from Partur.On 4-7-1994, early in the morning they went to Osmanpur Railway Station on foot and there they boarded a train proceeding to Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::These boys were also proceeding to Parbhani and they were doing some course in Parbhani.During talk, PW-4 and PW-5 disclosed to these boys that they were going to Parbhani in search of job.These boys advised the victim girls not to go to Parbhani and return to home.They informed that it was not safe for them to go to Parbhani.PW-4 and PW-5 and the two boys alighted at Parbhani from train.As the boys were advising the girls to return to home but as there was no train up to 3 p.m. the boys gave tea and food to these girls in a hotel.As there was time upto 3 p.m., the boys took these two girls to Talreja Talkies to see a movie.It was a matinée show and after seeing the movie the girls were expected to return by train to home.8) In Talreja Talkies three youngsters namely accused No.1-Suryakant Dhage, accused No.2-Arun Mapari and accused No.3-Suresh Kopre occupied the seats by the side of the two girls.They opened talk with the two girls and during talk the three accused realised that these two girls wanted to go to Sham Agrawal.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::9 Appeal 153/99 group Accused Nos.1 to 3 falsely represented to these girls that they knew Sham Agrawal and Sham Agrawal was their friend.They gave false promise to the victim girls that they would take them to Sham Agrawal.After arrival of accused Nos.1 to 3 in the theatre, the aforesaid two boys viz Raju and Abhay left the theatre.9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 took the two girls in an auto-rickshaw first to the house of a friend where they provided meals to the girls.From this house, accused Nos.1 to 3 took the girls to a banana garden situated at the outskirts of Parbhani city.In the banana garden, accused No.1-Suryakant took PW-4 to one side and then he committed rape on her.After that accused No.1 to 3 took PW-4 and PW-5 towards the side of a brook known as Pingad-Gad-Nala.There was water in the brook.10 Appeal 153/99 group 10) From the side of the brook accused No.1 to 3 took PW-4 and PW-5 towards the side of road.There they met accused No.4 namely Rameshwar Kanade.From there, accused Nos.1 to 4 took PW-4 and PW-5 to a lodge of Parbhani by name Visawa Lodge.They reached there at about 10.00 p.m. There accused Nos.1 to 4 informed to PW-4 and PW-5 that two Sahibs, accused Nos.6 and 7 were to come to the lodge and they would help PW-4 and PW-5 for getting work.After some time accused Nos.6 and 7 namely Nitin Dudhgaonkar and Kalyan Renge came to the lodge.They gave threats not to disclose the incident to anybody.Accused Nos.8 and 9 were managing the lodge.They kept watch and saw to it that there was no interference, there was no help to the victim girls.When accused Nos.6 and 7 left the lodge, accused Nos.1 to 4 took PW-4 and PW-5 to campus of Shanti Niketan school.There accused Nos.1 to 4 consumed liquor.Accused Nos.2,3 and 4 then left the campus of the school.10) From the side of the brook accused No.1 to 3::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::took the two victim girls to other place which is called as Wada, big house, where accused No.5 Tukaram Kharat was present.Tukaram gave threats to PW-4 and PW-5 to facilitate rape which accused No.1 wanted to commit.12) From the last place accused No.1 took the two victim girls to Parbhani Railway Station and there he left their company.While leaving he again gave threats to them not to disclose the incidents to anybody.In respect of the aforesaid five incidents of rape separate charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No.121/1994 was tried against the aforesaid nine accused persons.These accused are convicted for different incidents mentioned above.13) The second part of the prosecution case starts from the incident which took place at Parbhani Railway Station.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::Under the pretext that he would help PW-4 and PW-5 he took these two girls to retiring room situated on railway platform.Abbas Baig then called accused No.2 Ashok of Sessions Case No.139/1994, who was working as Police Head Constable and accused No.3 Tabuka of Sessions Case No.139/1994, who was working as Railway ticket booking clerk to the room.One more person also came with them.The retiring place had many rooms.Accused No.3 Tabuka of Sessions Case No.139/1994 and the other person took PW-4 to one room and there they raped her.After committing the rape these persons allowed the victim girls to leave the retiring room.The victim girls were very much frightened and in that condition they went to the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 13 Appeal 153/99 group bridge of the railway station and from there in search of water they went towards railway quarters situated by the side of the railway station.There, accused No.4 Bhansing Bundele of Sessions Case No.139/1994, who was occupying railway quarters as he was employee of railway, promised them to help and took them to his residential quarters.In his quarters, accused No.5 Raju of Sessions Case No.139/1994 was already present and one young boy aged about 12 years was also present.Accused No.4 of Sessions Case No.139/1994 supplied water to the victim girls and then he left the railway quarters by informing accused No.5 of Sessions Case No.139/1994 that he would return after some time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::15) At about 2.30 p.m. of 5-7-1994 accused No.4 of Sessions Case No.139/1994 returned to the railway quarters.He had brought with him a bottle of liquor and some food items.He gave the food items to the victim girls and asked the aforesaid young boy to leave the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 14 Appeal 153/99 group quarters.When the young boy left the quarters, accused No.5 of Sessions Case No.139/1994 took PW-4 to one room and there he raped her.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::16) Accused Nos.4 and 5 of Sessions Case No.139/ 1994 virtually used PW-4 and PW-5 upto 4.00 p.m. of 5-7- 1994 and then they called accused No.6 Munna @ Ravindra Singh and accused No.7 Mahesh of Sessions Case No.139/1994 to the railway quarters.From the railway quarters PW-4 and PW-5 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 of Sessions Case No.139/1994 in an auto-rickshaw to other place, Shakti Bungalow from Parbhani.Accused No.6 and 7 had come to railway quarters on their motor-cycle and they followed to that place on their motor-cycle.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::PW-4 somehow saved herself by giving information regarding her menstruation period.On the night between 5-7-1994 and 6-7-1994 the two victim girls were present in Shakti Bungalow.17) On 6-7-1994 in the morning when PW-4 woke up from sleep, she noticed that PW-5 was not there.Accused No.5 Rameshwar from Sessions Case No.139/ 1994 was present in Shakti Bungalow and he informed that PW-5 had already left the building.PW-4 searched for some time to find PW-4 and then she went to Purna Railway Station by a bus as she intended to return to home by railway.At Purna, PW-4 met a lady police constable and the said lady constable took PW-4 by train to Parbhani Railway Station.At Parbhani Railway Station PW-4 pointed PW-5 to the lady constable and due to that the lady constable took PW-5 to Railway Police Chowki and PW-5 was asked to stay there.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::to Partur by train.After returning from Partur, Giribai took PW-5 to Purna Railway Police Station.PW-5 was taken to Parbhani for medical examination on 7-7-1994 and she was medically examined.During course of investigation her clothes (Salwar and Kurta) were taken over.19) On 8-7-1994 PW-5 was taken to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani where another FIR came to be recorded and another crime came to be registered.On 7- 7-1994 police from Kotwali Police Station Parbhani went to Partur and they brought PW-4 to Kotwali Police Station.There, the report given by PW-4 came to be recorded.PW- 4 was then sent to New Mondha Police Station and in the crime registered there, her statement came to be recorded.PW-4 and PW-5 came to be recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code.The two victim girls took police to various places where the offence was committed against them.Accused persons came to be arrested.Some incriminating articles like clothes, carpets came to be recovered on the basis of statements given by accused persons.Blood samples of the accused persons were sent to CA office along with blood samples of the victim girls and vaginal swabs collected by medical officer.Similar evidence is given by PW-5 and both these victim girls have identified accused No.4 in the Court.PW-5 has given evidence that after arrival of accused No.4 again threat was given to them of life and then they were taken to Parbhani.PW-4 has given evidence that in auto-rickshaw they were taken to Visawa Lodge of Parbhani and there they were taken to room No.16 of the lodge and at that time it was around 10.00 p.m. She has given evidence that in room No.16 there was one ante room and there was a cot.29) Evidence of PW-4 shows that after taking them to the ante room accused Nos.1 to 4 said to them that their Sahebs would come there.He has identified the clothes of PW-4 as article Nos.4 and 5, Salwar and Kurta.51) Yeshwant (PW-18) has given evidence that on 8- 7-1994 he made inquiry with PW-5 about her clothes and he realised that her clothes like Salwar, Kurta were already taken over by Railway Police Station Purna.He has given evidence that as he realised that her underwear was not taken over, he took over the underwear under panchanama in CR No.73/1994 of Kotwali Police Station.54) Chalak (PW-20), Circle Police Inspector (CPI - Parbhani Rural) took over investigation of CR No.81/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani, the present matter, from Sub Inspector of the said police station.The other Crime at CR No.73/1994 was registered in Kotwali Police Station which is also in respect of present matter.The evidence of Chalak shows that during investigation PW-5 showed to him room No.16 of Visawa Lodge where the offence of gang rape was committed.He has given evidence that in the presence of panch witnesses he took over two bed-sheets which were found in room No.16 and also one underwear.He has deposed that PW-4 identified the said underwear as her underwear.He has identified article Nos.1,2 and 3 which are shown to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 40 Appeal 153/99 group be seized in CR No.81/1994 of New Mondha Police Station.He has given evidence that in the year 1994 accused Nos.1 and 2 with their one male friend had brought two girls to his house.67) The evidence of Chalak (PW-20) shows that he had sent all these articles to CA office along with covering letter.1) All these three appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.121/1994 which was pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani.The learned Sessions Judge Parbhani has convicted and sentenced the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 5 Appeal 153/99 group and 7 for offence of gang rape punishable under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.Criminal Appeal No.153/1999 is filed by the original accused No.7 Kalyan Renge.Criminal Appeal No. 281/1999 is filed by the State.The State has filed the appeal as the trial Court has given sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years only and the State wants to see that the convicted accused are sentenced with life imprisonment.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals can be stated as follows :-3) Two minor village girls were ravished in Parbhani city and at the outskirts of Parbhani city by different persons.In respect of these incidents two separate charge-sheets were filed and two cases were tried separately against those persons in respect of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 6 Appeal 153/99 group different incidents.In respect of other incidents, Sessions Case No.139/1994 was filed and that case is also decided by the same learned Judge of the Sessions Court.In view of the nature of allegations made by the two victim girls in the two cases, the case of the prosecution mentioned in both these cases need to be considered for better appreciation of the facts and circumstances.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::PW-4 and PW-5 could not resist as threats were given to them.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::After that accused No.4 of Sessions Case No.139/1994 raped PW-5.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::incidents against different accused by the trial Court.Accused Nos.1 to 3 had taken the victim girls from Talreja Talkies to banana garden with the intention to rape them and so against accused Nos.1 to 3 charge was framed for offence punishable under section 366 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Near banana garden and near the brook known as Pingad-Gad-Nala these youngsters raped the two victim girls and so in respect of those two incidents of rape there was a separate charge for offence of gang rape against these three accused.In Visawa Lodge accused Nos.6 and 7 raped the two victim girls and there was common intention as per the case of the prosecution and so there was charge against each of them for offence of gang rape.Against accused No.1 separate charge was framed for offence of kidnapping, for taking the victim girls to Munde Wada and there committing offence of rape with the help of accused No.5 and as there was a case that accused No.5 Tukaram had also raped one victim girl there was a charge for offence of gang rape against these two accused.The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 5 in respect of the incident which took place in Munde Wada and that acquittal is not challenged.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::23) PW-4, the first victim girl, has given evidence that on 4-7-1994 when they boarded a train at Osmanpur Railway Station for going to Parbhani, they met some persons who were acquainted either to PW-4 or to PW-5, the other victim girl.They have given evidence that they disclosed to these boys (Raju and Abhay) that they were proceeding to Parbhani in search of job.PW-4 has given evidence that these boys advised to return to their house::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 20 Appeal 153/99 group by saying that Parbhani is bad place, (it was not safe for them).PW-4 has deposed that these two boys told that at 3.00 p.m. there was a train for Partur and they should return to Partur by that train from Parbhani.She has deposed that as there was time of more than three hours, to kill the time, they decided to see a movie in a theatre, Talreja Talkies.These two boys gave tea to them in a hotel.She has given evidence that with these two boys they went to Talreja Talkies to see movie.These two boys sat on one side of these two victim girls in the theatre.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::24) PW-4 has given evidence that after some time the three boys came to them and they sat on their left side and they opened talk by asking as to from where they had come.PW-4 has given evidence that she disclosed that they had come to Parbhani and they wanted to see Sham Agrawal as they were in search of job.PW-4 has given evidence that these three boys (accused Nos.1 to 3) said to them that they were knowing Sham Agrawal and they would take them to the house of Sham Agrawal.These::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 21 Appeal 153/99 group three boys, accused Nos.1 to 3, are identified by PW-4 in the Court as the same boys.PW-4 has given evidence that when these boys were having talk with them, the first two boys who had come with them from the train left the theatre.PW-4 has given evidence that accused No.1 to 3 then took them out of the theatre and after calling auto- rickshaw they asked to them to board the auto-rickshaw.She has given evidence that due to aforesaid representation made by accused Nos.1 to 3, they boarded the auto-rickshaw.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::She has given evidence that after some talk, the three boys took them out of the theatre.PW-5 has correctly identified accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Court as the same three boys by taking their names.PW-5 has given evidence that there, meal was provided to them by these three boys and then::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 22 Appeal 153/99 group by saying that they would take them to the house of Sham Agrawal they again took them in one auto-rickshaw and they took them by the auto-rickshaw upto banana garden.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::26) PW-4 has given evidence that in banana garden there was no house and the soil had become wet and slippery due to rain.She has given evidence that accused Nos.1 to 3 took them inside of the banana garden and then accused No.1 Suryakant took her to one side of the garden and there by making her to fall on the soil he raped her by using force.She has given evidence that accused Nos.2 and 3 Arun and Suresh took PW-5 to other side of the garden.She has given evidence that after some time when the incident was over, she was taken to the place where PW-5 was present and then PW-5 informed that accused No.2 and 3 had raped her.PW-5 has given evidence that in the banana garden accused No.5 pointed a knife and wagh-nakh to her for giving her threats and after that she was raped one by one.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::27) PW-4 has given evidence that from banana garden they were taken towards the side of one brook, nala, for washing the clothes and the body as due to aforesaid incident their clothes had become muddy.PW-4 has deposed that at this place accused No.2 and 3 took her to one side and accused No.1 took PW-5 to other side of the brook.She has described the incident of rape.She has deposed that after that PW-5 met her and she disclosed when she was asked to wash clothes and body, she was raped by accused No.1 Suryakant by giving threats to her and after showing a knife to her.PW- 5 has given evidence that near the brook she was raped by accused No.1 and she had not given consent and after this incident she met PW-4 and disclosed about the incident.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::PW-5 has given evidence that it was told that these Sahebs help the poor and needy persons so they should wait for the Sahebs.Both of the them have given evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 remained there in room No.16 till arrived of the two::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 25 Appeal 153/99 group Sahebs.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::30) PW-4 has described the two Sahebs by giving description of their appearance and their clothes.Accused Nos.6 and 7 are identified by PW-4 in the Court.PW-5 has also described these two persons and she identified accused Nos.6 and 7 in the Court.31) PW-4 has given evidence that these accused Nos.6 and 7 had talk with them and they said that the two victim girls should allow them to do what was done with them by other persons (accused Nos1 to 3).PW-4 has given evidence that she said that they should not do such things with them as they were having pains due to wrong done by those boys.32) PW-5 has given evidence that accused Nos.6 and 7 did not pay heed to their request and accused No.6 took PW-5 to one room and accused No.7 gave threats to her and raped her.PW-5 has given evidence that accused No. 6 took her to other room and there he raped her and::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 26 Appeal 153/99 group that she had not consented to sexual intercourse.PW-4 has given evidence that both these accused gave threats not to disclose the incident to anybody as they were from high society (high family).PW- 4 has given evidence that when accused Nos.6 and 7 were committing the offence, accused Nos.1 to 4 were present in Visawa Lodge though in other room and accused Nos.8 and 9 (the staff of the lodge who are acquitted accused) were present in the vicinity and by remaining there they had helped accused Nos.6 and 7 for committing the crime.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::33) PW-4 and PW-5 have given evidence that from Visawa Lodge in one auto-rickshaw accused Nos.1 to 4 took them away from the lodge and on the way they stopped for purchasing liquor bottle and then they were taken to campus of one school.They have described the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 27 Appeal 153/99 group school building in their evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::34) PW-4 and PW-5 have given evidence that they were taken to the school and they were again raped.PW- 4 has given evidence that in the said school accused No.1 Suryakant and accused No.2 Arun took PW-5 to one room and remaining two boys took her to other room and they were Suresh and Rameshwar.In the Court she has identified all the four accused.She has given evidence that accused Nos.1 and 2 raped her in the building of the school.PW-4 has given evidence that accused Nos.3 and 4 raped her in the building of the school.PW-4 has deposed that after the incident PW-5 narrated the incident of rape on her.Both the victim girls have given evidence that accused No.1 remained with them and the remaining three accused left them there.Both the victim girls have given evidence that accused No.1 took them to railway station where they were left after giving threat of life to them.The evidence of PW-5 in respect of rape committed by accused No.1 on::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 28 Appeal 153/99 group her in one Wada after the incident of rape in the school need not be discussed as no conviction is given to accused No.1 in respect of that incident.Similarly, the evidence given as against accused No.5 on this incident need not be discussed.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::36) PW-4 has given evidence that till 3.00 a.m. of 6- 7-1994 they were virtually used for satisfying sexual lust by different persons.The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 shows that they were tired due to the aforesaid incidents and they slept in Shakti Building till morning.PW-4 has given evidence that when she woke up, she noticed that PW-5 was not there.She has deposed that on inquiry with the accused they informed that PW-5 had already left that building and so she went to bus stand.She has deposed that she boarded a bus for Purna Railway Station and she::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 29 Appeal 153/99 group went to Purna.She has deposed that on Purna Railway Station one lady constable accosted her and on inquiry she gave her address from Partur.Her evidence shows that she did not disclose the incidents of rape to the lady constable.Her evidence shows that the said lady constable felt it proper to reach this girl to her residential place, Partur and so she took PW-4 in train towards Parbhani.PW-4 has given evidence that when she reached Parbhani Railway Station, she saw PW-5 sitting on the platform and she pointed PW-5 to the lady constable.She has given evidence that she was frightened, she was not able to talk and so in Partur she took meal and went to bed.Her evidence shows that she did not narrate the incident to anybody including her mother as she was afraid that her mother will beat her and mother will drive her out of the house.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::37) The evidence of PW-5 shows that after the incident of rape was over in Shakti Building, she was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 30 Appeal 153/99 group sleeping in the building till morning of 6-7-1994 and when she woke up she noticed that PW-4 was not there.She has deposed that one person present in the building informed her that PW-4 had already left the building.She has deposed that she searched for PW-4 and then went to railway station as she intended to return to Partur.She has deposed that when she was waiting for train proceeding towards Parbhani, she noticed that in the same train PW-4 was travelling.She has deposed that a lady constable got down from the train and the lady constable took her to Railway Station Police Chowki and she was asked to sit there and wait for her.She has deposed that the lady constable went with PW-4 and she returned to railway police Chowki in the night time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::38) PW-5 has given evidence that she was taken to Railway Police Station Purna and there PSI Khan made inquiry with her.She has deposed that she narrated all the incidents but PSI Khan said that he would write down::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 31 Appeal 153/99 group whatever he wanted to write and so all the incidents were not recorded and the incidents were not correctly recorded.She has given evidence that her signature was obtained on the complaint but the contents were not read over to her.On the record, there are some statements which are shown as supplementary statements and this point will be considered at proper place.Here only it can be observed that in view of the surrounding circumstances the reports given under section 154 or even statements recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used in the present matter for corroborative purpose for some incidents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::39) The evidence of PW-5 shows that on 7-7-1994 she was taken to Parbhani for medical examination and there a lady medical officer examined her.She has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 PSI Khan took over the clothes, Salwar, Kurta, Punjabi dress and she was wearing those clothes, article Nos.9,10 and 11, Salwar, Kurta and Odhani at the relevant time.She has specifically stated in the evidence that in Salwar, articles 9 the lace is of a shoe.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::Kotwali Police Station Parbhani and there PSI Yeshwant took over her nicker (nicker, underwear was not taken over by PSI Khan).41) PW-5 has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 she showed various places where she and PW-4 were raped like banana garden, the brook, Visawa Lodge and school campus.She has given evidence that PSI Yeshwant prepared panchanama of this incident and her signature was obtained on the panchanama.PW-4 has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 PSI Yeshwant came to her house in the noon time and from Partur she was taken to Parbhani.She has deposed that there in the night time, her statement was recorded.Her report is proved at Exhibit 51 in her evidence.42) The evidence of PW-4 shows that on 8-7-1994 PSI Yeshwant took over her clothes like, Salwar, Kurta.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::43) PW-4 has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 PSI Khan came to Kotwali Police Station and made inquiry with her and said that he would record the statement in the manner which he would think proper and correct.Thus, both PW-4 and PW-5 have grievance against PSI Khan that he did not record all the incidents narrated by them.44) PW-4 has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 PSI Yeshwant took her with him and then she showed the places where they were raped.She has given evidence that PW-5 was also with police.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::was referred for medical examination and she was examined in Parbhani.46) The aforesaid evidence shows that PW-5 disclosed the incident first to police i.e. on 7-7-1994 and the first disclosure was made by PW-4 on 7-7-1994 in the night time.This circumstance needs to be kept in kind in view of the nature of challenge to the prosecution evidence.On the label pasted on the articles there are signatures of the panch witnesses.This witness is cross-examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor due to the aforesaid grievance of PW-4 and PW-5 against him.He has denied that he did not record the information given by these two victim girls in respect of all the incidents of rape.He has, however, given evidence on::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 ::: 35 Appeal 153/99 group other part of the investigation made by him.Thus, there is no independent evidence on the seizure of the clothes of PW-5 by police officers and there is evidence only of PW-5 and this police officer.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:04 :::48) PSI Yeshwant (PW-18) was attached to Kotwali Police Station, Parbhani.He has given evidence that when he learnt that PW-5 had given her report to Purna Railway Police Station and it was a case of gang rape, he supplied the information to the District Superintendent of Police Parbhani.He has deposed that he was directed to go to Partur and bring PW-4 to Parbhani and make the investigation.49) Yeshwant (PW-18) has given evidence that he prepared separate teams for making investigation of the matter and his officers took accused No.1 Suryakant,::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 36 Appeal 153/99 group accused No.2 Arun, accused No.4 Rameshwar, accused No.8 Dnyanoba and accused No.9 Machindra in custody.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::On this panchanama there are signatures of panchas also.The evidence of Yeshwant (PW-18) also shows that there is no independent corroboration of the evidence of panch witness to the seizure of the clothes made by Yeshwant.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::Evidence of Yeshwant (PW-18) shows that he had sent the victim girls to New Mondha Police Station as there was no toilet facility in Kotwali Police Station.He has deposed that he registered CR No. 81/1994 in respect of the incidents of rape which had taken place in banana garden, near brook, in the campus of the school, in Visawa Lodge and in Munde Wada.He has deposed that in the second report he recorded the incidents which had taken place in retiring room and in the railway quarters of accused No.4 of other case and Shakti Building.It appears that CR No.82/1994 was registered in New Mondha Police Station in respect of the subsequent incidents.In the cross-examination of PSI Khan (PW-17) it is suggested by the Special Public Prosecutor that in the report of PW-5, Exhibit 82, some incidents were not recorded.It is also suggested that some portions from Exhibit 82 were not stated before him by PW-4 but he recored them.Some portions like portions at Exhibits 172, 173 and 174 from the previous statement of PW-4 are in respect of the other case.There are more such portions in respect of other statements and this point needs to be considered and decided as one objection or challenge of defence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::53) PSI Yeshwant (PW-18) has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 PW-4 and PW-5 showed him the places where the incidents of rape had taken place and they were banana garden of One Mr. Subhedar (Exhibit 87), near::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 39 Appeal 153/99 group brook (Exhibit 88), the school campus (Exhibit 89) and Munde Wada (Exhibit 90).His evidence shows that one other place, Visawa Lodge was also shown by the victim girls but this place was not within his local jurisdiction and so he did not prepare panchanama of that place.Yeshwant (PW-18) has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 he referred PW-4 for medical examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::Exhibit 122 is proved in his evidence and the evidence shows that there were labels bearing signatures of panchas on these articles.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::55) The evidence of Sahebrao Vyavahare (PW-22), Police Inspector of CID Crime shows that he took over the investigation of the present matter viz. CR No.73/1994 registered in Kotwali Police Station and CR No.81/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station from the previous investigating officers including from Chalak.Thus, the investigation was made by many police officers as mentioned above and that was due to the grievance expressed in social media and also by the two victim girls.The evidence of Vyavahare shows that the grievance was raised in State Legislative Assembly also.56) Both PW-4 and PW-5 have identified in the Court all the appellants from the present appeals as the persons who committed rape on them.T.I. parade was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 41 Appeal 153/99 group arranged for giving opportunity to PW-4 and PW-5 to identify these persons after their arrest.The evidence of PW-4 shows that in the first T.I. parade she was asked to identify the persons who had committed rape on her and 13 persons shown to her in the campus of jail, Parbhani.She has given evidence that in the said T.I. parade she identified accused No.1 Suryakant, accused No.2 Arun and accused No.3 Suresh.She has deposed that she also identified the two persons who were present in the lodge as managers and she identified accused No.8 Dnyanoba and accused No.9 Machindra in the T.I. parade.The evidence given as against accused Nos.8 and 9 need not be considered as they are acquitted and the acquittal is not challenged.PW-4 has given evidence that on 20-8- 1994 in another test identification parade (T.I. parade) she identified one person who was an associate of the other accused who had committed rape on her.In the Court she has pointed accused No.6 Nitin as the person who was identified by her in the jail.She has given evidence that she identified accused Nos.1 to 4 in T.I. parade.She pointed these accused in the Court also by::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 42 Appeal 153/99 group saying that they were identified by her in the T.I. parade.She identified even accused Nos.8 and 9 in the T.I. parade and she pointed these persons also in the Court as the persons who were identified by her in the T.I. parade.PW- 5 has given evidence that on 20-8-1994 she identified accused No.7 as the person who was associate of the persons who had raped her.She pointed accused No.7 in the Court as the said person.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::57) The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 on the T.I. parade shows that they identified accused No.6 and accused No.7 in the Court but by saying that they were the associates of the persons who had raped them.Namdeo Jadhav (PW-16), the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, who conducted the T.I. parade has given evidence on these two T.I. parades.The correspondence made with him by police and the correspondence made by him with the jail is proved in his evidence.His evidence and the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 shows that precaution was taken by him to see that the girls were separately::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 43 Appeal 153/99 group taken to the place where the T.I. parade was conducted.He has given evidence which is similar to the evidence of PW-4 on the first T.I. parade and the record is consistent with the oral evidence.Similar evidence is there showing that PW-5 identified accused Nos.1 to 4 and also accused Nos.8 and 9 in the first T.I. parade.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::The challenge of the defence to the evidence of T.I. parades is being considered at later stage.Thus, there is evidence of two victim girls given in the Court to the effect that they identified these accused in the Court and there is also evidence of T.I. parade showing that in the T.I. parade::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 44 Appeal 153/99 group they together identified the appellants and this evidence is available as corroborative piece of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::59) There is medical evidence in corroboration to the versions given by the two victim girls on the incidents of rape.This point can be kept in mind and it can be ascertained as to whether the evidence given against accused Nos.6 and 7 is convincing and it can form base for conviction.60) The evidence of Dr. Jaishri (PW-13) shows that she examined PW-5 on 7-7-1994 and she found following things."On local examination she found :Matting of pubic hair was seen.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::45 Appeal 153/99 groupBlood stains on clothes & genital.No evidence of external injuries over the genitals.Hymen - Torn, congested + oozing through the tear present.P.S. - Speculum could be passed with difficulty, tenderness i.e. severe tenderness.Bleeding through cervical O.S. seen.On P.V. Examination she found:Vagina admits 1 finger with a pain i.e. severe tenderness.Bleeding through cervical was present."Evidence of Dr. Jaishri shows that she had taken vaginal swab and she had sent it to C.A. office.However, she did not find live or dead spermatozoa in the vaginal swab.She found following things during the examination."On local examination she found :Matting of pubic hair not seen;Blood stain on clothes & genitals were seen.Posterior fourchette congested and redness.Libia minor was slightly congested.Hymen - torn (old tear) No oozing, Bleeding through vagina was present.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::46 Appeal 153/99 groupNo evidence of injury over the external genitals.Her other evidence is as follows :--Per speculum examination I found :Medium size speculum passed with the minimum tenderness means pains; Bleeding through cervical was seen; vaginal swab was taken and sent for chemical analysis and for microscopic examination.vaginal mucosa is congested.I have used the word congested - it means redness.Uterus - normal size extroverted; Bleeding through cervical seen; vaginal smear taken for microscopic examination which revealed - No living or dead spermatozoa.The living spermatozoa are seen within 2 to 3 hours after the sexual intercourse and dead spermatozoa are seen if examined within 24 hours from sexual intercourse."Her evidence shows that she sent pubic hair and vaginal swab of PW-5 also to C.A. office.However, she did not notice live or dead spermatozoa in vaginal swab.She has given evidence that live spermatozoa can be seen within 2 to 3 hours after sexual intercourse and dead spermatozoa can be seen if examined within 24 hours from the sexual intercourse.The evidence already discussed shows that both PW-4 and PW-5 were examined after 24 hours of the last incident of rape.She has given specific evidence on the basis of examination done by her of PW-4 and PW-5 that against PW-4 and PW-5 sexual intercourse had::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 47 Appeal 153/99 group occurred.X-ray plates in respect of these two girls are at Exhibits 126 and 128 but that record is being discussed at later place for deciding the point of age of the victim girls.Here only one circumstance needs to be mentioned that Dr Jaishri has admitted in the cross- examination that bleeding from vagina of the victim girls was possible due to menses.However, this admission has no relevance as other symptoms mentioned by her in the evidence are in support of sexual intercourse, rape.Thus, the medical evidence gives general corroboration to the versions given by the two victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::62) The prosecution has examined Abhay Kulkarni (PW-2), a boy who had met PW-4 and PW-5 in the train when they were proceeding towards Parbhani on the first day.He has given evidence that he and his friend Raju had::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 48 Appeal 153/99 group met these girls and they had taken these two girls to Talreja Talkies Parbhani.He has given evidence that in the Talreja Talkies due to inquiry made by the manager of the theatre with them as they were in the company of the minor girls they became frightened and they left the theatre.He is cross-examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor as he did not identify accused Nos.1 to 3 as the same boys who had taken over the control of PW-4 and PW-5 in the theatre and no evidence is given by them.However, there is evidence on the circumstance that the two victim girls were taken to Talreja Talkies by them.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::63) Bandu Raut (PW-3) is resident of Parbhani and he has given evidence that he knew accused No.1 Suryakant and accused No.2 Arun from prior to the date of incident.He has given evidence that he remembered the incident as this incident took place within one month of his own marriage.He has admitted that he had supplied food to the girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::64) Chalak (PW-20) has given evidence that after taking over the investigation of the present mater on 16-7- 1994 he filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to take action against accused Nos.6 and 7 as they were absconding.Action was proposed under sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code.This evidence is on the circumstance that accused Nos.6 and 7 were absconding even when police had realised that they were involved in the offence of gang rape committed in Visawa Lodge.65) Chalak (PW-20) has given evidence that on 6-8- 1994 while in police custody accused No.6 Nitin gave statement in the presence of panch witnesses in respect of the incident and also the clothes which were on his person.The evidence on showing the lodge by::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 50 Appeal 153/99 group accused No.6 is of no use as this spot was known to police.Evidence is given by Chalak that after preparing second memorandum accused No.6 took police and the panchas to his house and from his house he produced his clothes like one Bush shirt, full pant, one banyan and underwear and a goggle of golden frame.Articles 5 to 8 and 14 are identified by Chalak as the same articles and they were shown as seized in CR No.81/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station.His evidence shows that except article 7, underwear, there were labels bearing signatures of panchas on other articles.Shivaji panch witness on this incident has given evidence on the memorandum of the statement and also the seizure panchanama and there is no reason to disbelieve this part of the evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::He has given evidence that after giving statement accused No.7 took police and the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 51 Appeal 153/99 group panch witnesses to Jam Society area.He has given evidence that accused No.7 then produced from his house his clothes like white shirt, white pant, underwear, banian and one chain of beeds.He has identified these articles in the Court.His evidence shows that article 10 and 11, pant and underwear, were not having labels bearing signatures of panchas when he was examined in the Court.Panch witness Shivaji Gore (PW-7) has given similar evidence on this incident.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::68) Yeshwant (PW-18), the Police Sub Inspector of Kotwali Police Station has given evidence that during investigation he arrested accused No.1 Suryakant and he took over his clothes like pant, shirt, underwear and banian (articles 7,8,9 and 10) in CR No.73/1994 registered::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 52 Appeal 153/99 group in Kotwali Police Station Parbhani.He has given evidence that the articles were kept in different cloth bags and they were sealed by him and the panchanama at Exhibit 85 was prepared accordingly by him.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::All these articles were having labels bearing signatures of the panchas and his signature.Similarly, on the articles which were taken over from accused No.1 there were labels even in the Court bearing signatures of the panchas.70) Yeshwant (PW-18) recorded statement of Bandu Raut.He had referred accused Nos.1 to 4 arrested by him for medical examination and there is record of medical examination of these accused persons.Accused Nos.6 and 7 were referred by Chalak for medical examination.71) Yeshwant (PW-18) has given evidence that on 11-7-1994 in the presence of panchas he seized the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 53 Appeal 153/99 group clothes like pant, shirt, banian and underwear, articles 18,19,20 and 21 in CR No.73/1994 of Kotwali Police Station and they were on the person of accused No.3, Suresh.On these articles there were labels bearing signatures of panch witnesses when the clothes were shown to him.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::72) Yeshwant (PW-18) has given evidence on the recovery of brass fighter on the basis of the statement given by accused No.2 Arun and that record is at Exhibits 92 and 93 and that record need not be considered in detail in view of the nature of evidence given by the two victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::He had referred both the victim girls to the Judicial Magistrate for recording their statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. The evidence of Yeshwant (PW-18) and the record show that panchas on the seizure of these articles made by Yeshwant were not examined and so the prosecution relied entirely on the evidence of Yeshwant (PW-18) on this piece of circumstantial evidence.75) It is the specific case of the prosecution that both the victim girls viz PW-4 and PW-5 had not completed age of 16 years at the relevant time and so there was no question of giving of consent by them for sexual intercourse.The tenor of the cross-examination of the two victim girls by the defence counsels shows that they tried to create probability of consent.In view of these contentions of the two sides the evidence given by the prosecution for proving the age of the two girls needs to be considered separately.This evidence is being discussed while considering the other challenges of the defence to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 55 Appeal 153/99 group that evidence and also the aforesaid evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::76) The challenges of the defence to the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution and other contentions made for the accused persons are as under :(i) Both the victim girls did not disclose the incidents immediately even when they had opportunity to disclose the incidents to the persons in the vicinity and even to the parents.They disclosed the incidents only when police specifically made inquiry with them.(ii) Both the victim girls gave different versions when different police officers recorded the reports.Both the victim girls did not narrate some of the incidents of rape when they made first disclosure and then did not disclose some incidents even when their statements were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.(iii) The victim girls had left the shelter of their guardians/parents on their own and so no offence of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 56 Appeal 153/99 group kidnapping or abduction was committed by any of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::(iv) The evidence given by the prosecution on age is not that convincing and the victim girls had probably crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.The Executive Magistrate did not act fairly.(viii) The evidence of the investigating officers shows that the State was required to change the officers many times.Their evidence creates probability that they were not fair during conducting the investigation.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::challenges one by one.Similar challenges are there in the other set of appeals.The challenge with regard to the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first as many things depend on the finding given on this point.78) The evidence of the prosecution on the age of the victim girls is in the form of oral evidence of two victim girls.There is also defence evidence in the nature of evidence of mother of one victim girl.The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of medical opinion on age of the two victim girls.79) In the case reported as 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 353 (Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra) , the Single Judge of this Court (one of us) had an opportunity to consider various kinds of evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth or age and the importance of each piece of evidence and the precedence which needs to be given when the two pieces of evidence are inconsistent::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 58 Appeal 153/99 group with each other.This Court referred the case of the Apex Court reported as AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others) and made following observations:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::"13. 'Age' as ingredient of both the aforesaid offences is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.This 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act needs to be proved like any other fact in criminal case.Oral evidence as to the age may always be available in such a case.Corroboration may be of circumstances which may differ for each case.The opinion of doctor on clinical or radiological examination cannot be accepted straight way as a legal proof.The margin of error is of two years on either side even when the age is ascertained on the basis of radiological examination.(Reliance placed on AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.].It is only medical opinion and other evidence including oral evidence cannot be discarded only because the medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence.Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated.Entry made in birth register has presumptive value in view of section 17(2) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and this position of law needs to be kept in mind, when there is conflict between medical evidence and the other evidence.In view of section 35 of Evidence Act, the entry made in school register about the date of birth also needs to be treated as relevant.Such register is kept in regular discharge of duty by school and it is required to be kept as per the Rules made by the State Government.When such entry was made before starting of dispute, many years prior to the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 59 Appeal 153/99 group commission of offence and when entry is proved by giving oral evidence of the concerned, due weight needs to be given to such entry.Such entries need to be treated as relevant and admissible in evidence, though such entry cannot form sole clinching factor for determining the age.It has no presumptive value like in the case of entry made in birth register as already observed."::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::80) PW-4, the first victim girl, has given evidence that she was born at Amarawati on 12-3-1979 and she received education in Lal Bahadur Shastri School at Partur.She has given evidence that her surname is Agarwal and also Mor.She has given evidence that she received education only up to 5 th Standard and then she left the school.Her father died in the year 1989 and she was living with her mother, brother and sister at Partur at the relevant time.In the cross-examination it is brought on record that in Amarawati there lives her uncle and the surname of the uncle is Mor though the family of PW-4 uses the surname as Agrawal.She has given evidence that in the school record her surname is shown as Agrawal.It is suggested to her that she was 13 years of age when she was studying in 6 th Standard but she has denied that suggestion.She has admitted that she has three more sisters and her elder sister is married but::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 60 Appeal 153/99 group remaining two are unmarried.It is brought on record in her cross-examination that to police she has given the age approximately.It is brought on record in the cross- examination that her elder sister was given in marriage when the sister was 18 years of age and her marriage had taken place 2 years prior to the date of the incident.She has given specific evidence in the cross-examination that she was 14 years old when she was working as maid- servant with some persons.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::81) It appears that PW-4 had given different age in different statements which were recorded by investigating officers and the age given was more than 16 years.Her evidence shows that she was frightened and she did not want to inform the incident even to her mother.The circumstance that one lady constable picked up PW-4 at Purna and she reached PW-4 at Partur is also there to indicate that police felt that she was under age and her care needs to be taken.It can be said that she wanted to avoid further trouble and that is why she had tried to tell::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 61 Appeal 153/99 group the age which was not correct and she was giving age which was higher than her correct age.Even if the answers given by her with regard to the age of her sisters are considered as they are, they do not lead to an inference that she had crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::82) For proving the date of birth of PW-4 the prosecution has examined one Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-14), who was working as clerk in Dhapibai Maternity Home, Amarawati.He has given evidence that as per the record of the hospital, one Kirandevi Ramgopal Mor was admitted in this hospital for delivery on 12-3-1979 and on the very day she delivered a female child at 1.30 p.m. He has given evidence that as per the register this was second female child to Kirandevi.Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-14) has given evidence that his hospital had informed about this::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 62 Appeal 153/99 group birth to Municipal Corporation Amarawati.It is suggested during his cross-examination that the entry cannot be read as for the second female child as there is no specific mention that whether it was a second female child or second male child.However, it was an entry of a female child.The oral evidence given by PW-4 and her mother can be considered in that regard.Some cross-examination is on the point that each entry was not signed by the person who had maintained the register but this circumstance cannot go to the root of the matter as it was the register regularly maintained by the hospital and the information was supplied on the basis of this entry to the local body.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::83) Dr. Rajkumar Dehankar (PW 15) is examined to prove the entry of birth date made in the record of Municipal Corporation Amarawati.He has given evidence that the entry at Sr.No.2131 of this register is in respect of female child and the name::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 63 Appeal 153/99 group of the father of the female child was Ramgopal Mor and the name of the mother was Kiran.Date of birth was shown as 12-3-1979 and the daughter was born in Dhapibai Hospital, Amarawati.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::84) In the cross-examination of PW-15 it is brought on record that in Column No.6 of the register initially the name of the hospital where the child was born was mentioned as "Ji.It is brought on record that subsequently this name was erased and the name of Dhapibai Hospital mentioned.His evidence shows that the entries from Sr. Nos.2116 to 2131 were in respect of the information supplied by Dhapibai Hospital and by mistake entries at Sr.Nos.2125 to 2131 were mentioned as the entries made on the basis of information supplied by "Ji.Ru".He has given evidence that subsequently correction was made to show that these entries were also made on the basis of information supplied by Dhapibai Hospital.This record is consistent with::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 64 Appeal 153/99 group the other record, of Dhapibai Hospital which is already mentioned.In the record of the hospital surname Agrawal is also shown when the surname Mor was shown.Much was argued on the circumstance that the entry was made mainly for Mor and in the record of local body also the surname is shown as Mor and there is possibility of interpolation and manipulation.It is very old record and in the evidence of PW-4 it is brought on record that her uncle's surname is Mor and her family is using the surname as Agrawal.The aforesaid correction in the record of local body was made for many entries like Nos.2125 to 2131 and so it does not look probable that the correction was made only for the present matter.Thus, the record of date of birth shows that at the relevant time, in July 1994, the age of PW-4 was below 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::She has stated in the evidence that she has four daughters and one son.She has given specific evidence that Rekha is elder issue and PW-4 was born to her after::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 65 Appeal 153/99 group Rekha.Though she had tried to say that PW-4 was aged 22 years on the date of deposition i.e. 13-10-1998, the particulars given by her about the age of her other issues show that she has falsely stated the age of PW-4 as 22 years.The son was not her second issue and he was 5 th issue.Her younger daughter was aged about 13 years on the date of deposition.She has admitted in the cross- examination that her marriage with Ramgopal took place 24 to 25 years prior to the date of the deposition and the first issue Rekha was born after 4 to 5 years of the marriage.She has specifically admitted that PW-4 was born 3-4 years after the birth of her first issue Rekha.These admissions clearly show that in the examination-in- chief she has falsely stated that the age of PW-4 was 22 years.This evidence of the defence shows that the age of PW-4 as per the evidence of mother was also below 16 years at the relevant time.The circumstance that even the mother has given evidence in support of the case of the accused needs to be kept in mind as there are allegations against some accused and police officers that due to influence of the accused persons the investigating agency did not care to correctly record the versions given by the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 66 Appeal 153/99 group two victim girls.This point will be again touched while considering the other challenge of the defence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::The examination was both clinical and radiological.Her evidence shows that she had taken X-ray plates to collect the factual data (Exhibit-128).She has given evidence that as per radiological examination head of radius was found fused but the lower end of radius was not fused and the process of fusion had not started.She has deposed that the X-ray of ilia-crest showed that ilia- crest had appeared but it was not fused and the process of fusion had not started.This data, information used for ascertaining the age and the chart supplied by the Civil Surgeon in that regard was referred by her and on the basis of clinical and radiological examination she has given opinion that age of PW-4 was between 14 and 16 years and it was including margin of error.She has given specific opinion that the age of PW-4 was not more than 16 years on the date of examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::She has given evidence that her parents live at Hiwarkheda though she was living at Partur with her mother's sister.She has given evidence that she received education in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur up to 6th Standard.88) Arjun Kukde (PW-21) has given evidence that PW-5 was student of his school Lal Bahadur Shastri High School, Partur, District Jalna.The witness is headmaster of the school and he had brought the original register of the school.He has given evidence that prior to giving admission to PW-5 in his school she was a student of Central Primary School Partur and along with the admission application she had produced transfer certificate issued by the previous school (C.P.S.).This witness is cross-examined extensively to ascertain as to who had admitted PW-5 in the school.Though from the signature appearing on the admission application the name of the person cannot be determined, there is evidence of PW-5 to the effect that at Partur sister of her mother and husband of the said sister of her mother were her guardians and they had admitted her in the school.This is also very old record and it is not possible that false record was created by this school only for the purpose of present matter.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::Even if the date is accepted as it is, inference is not possible that at the relevant time, in July 1994, PW- 5 had crossed the age of 16 years.His::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 69 Appeal 153/99 group evidence is of no use as his evidence shows that PW-5 was living with his family for about 10 to 11 years from childhood.In the cross-examination made by the Special Public Prosecutor, he has given specific admission that PW-5 was living with him as the financial condition of her parents was not good.He has given evidence that date of birth of PW-5 is 10-7-1981 and she was admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School at Partur.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::She has given evidence that in radiological examination she found that fusion of lower end of radius had not started though on the head of radius there was fusion.She has given evidence that X-ray plate of PW-5 showed ilia- crest but the process of fusion had not started.She has given evidence that she used this data and on the basis of clinical and radiological examination she has given opinion that age of PW-5 was between 14 and 16 years.She has given evidence that this opinion includes margin of error and in any case the age of PW-5 was not more than 16 years on the date of her examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::Act, 1969 quoted already, and the provision of section 35 of the Evidence Act show that even without examining the official, certified copy of entry made in the birth register is admissible in evidence.It was also argued that Dr. Jaishri used a chart given by civil hospital for ascertaining the age in which tests/data was given.There is no force::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 71 Appeal 153/99 group in both the challenges.Evidence of Dr. Jaishri shows that under her instructions and supervision the X-rays were taken by the technician.She has completed post graduate course after completing MBBS.To challenge the evidence of expert like doctor the opinion of the other expert needs to be confronted and then the matter needs to be left to the court to decide the point.When the opinion is based on some data and the Court is satisfied with the opinion given by such expert, it becomes the opinion of the Court.In view of these circumstances it is not possible to interfere in the finding given by the trial Court on the age of PW-4 and PW-5 which is to the effect that both the victim girls had not completed 16 years of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 72 Appeal 153/99 group age at the relevant time.This Court holds that the age of both the victims was below 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::There was no record of birth register.Mother's evidence on factual aspect was not found convincing and the Court held that the opinion of the Radiologist was necessary, which was not available.94) In the case reported as (2010)1 SCC 742 (Sunil v. State of Haryana) on which reliance was placed by the counsel for the accused, the facts were different.The::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 ::: 73 Appeal 153/99 group prosecutrix was not certain about her age and there was no record on the basis of which she had given age.In that case the doctor had clinically examined the prosecutrix and had sent the prosecutrix to Dental Surgeon/ Radiologist for verification but such verification was not done.Thus, the doctor who had done clinical examination was also not sure about the opinion which was formed on the basis of clinical examination.In view of these circumstances, the Apex Court held that there was probability that the age of the prosecutrix was not below 16 years.However, the Apex Court made it clear that there is no rule as such that such examination needs to be done in every case.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:05 :::95) In the case reported as 2010 Cri.There cannot be dispute over this proposition.The Other challenges of defence to the evidence and consideration of the evidence on the offences :::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::96) The trial court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for offence of kidnapping punishable under section 366 read with 34 of the IPC as they had taken PW-4 and PW-5 from Talreja Talkies to banana garden and then to the brook with common intention to commit offence of rape.They are convicted for offence of gang rape punishable under section 376(2)(b) of the IPC for committing offence of gang rape at banana garden and at Pingad-Gad-Nala.Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are convicted for offence punishable under section 366/34 as they had taken PW-5 from Visawa Lodge to the school campus with the same intention.Accused Nos.1 to 4 did commit offence of gang rape in the campus of the school against PW-4 and PW-5 and so they are convicted for such offences committed in the campus of the school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::97) The evidence given by PW-4 and PW-5 as against accused Nos.1 to 3 is already quoted.To the direct evidence there is corroboration of other circumstances which is already discussed and due to the act of these accused of taking the victim girls from the theatre to banana garden, they are liable for offence punishable under section 366 read with 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::Nos.1 to 3 that one after other, they committed rape on PW-4 and PW-5 first at banana garden and then at the aforesaid brook.On the basis of this evidence the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence of gang rape committed at the two places and in view of the circumstance that the two victim girls had not completed 16 years of age, the defence of consent taken by the accused cannot be considered.99) PW-4 and PW-5 have given specific evidence as against accused Nos.6 and 7 on the incident of rape which took place in Visawa Lodge.The evidence and the record show that accused Nos.1 to 4 were very much present in the lodge to facilitate the offence committed by accused Nos.6 and 7 and only due to accused Nos.1 to 4, the accused Nos.6 and 7 could commit the offence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::These four accused raped the two victim girls by dividing the two victim girls amongst themselves in the campus of the school and thus there was common intention of all the accused on that occasion also.101) The previous statements of PW-4 and PW-5 were confronted to them by the defence counsels during their cross-examination.Some omissions are pointed out and some inconsistent statements, contradictions were also pointed out to these two victim girls.The submissions and the record show that the first statement of PW-5 was recorded on 7-7-1994 and in that statement, which was treated as F.I.R., the incidents of banana garden, the brook, the lodge and the school campus were not mentioned.The grievance against police officer Khan is already mentioned.It can be said that there is no corroboration of the so called F.I.R. (Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::30) given by PW-5 to P.S.I. Khan of Railway Police Station.The evidence of Khan and even of Yeshwant shows that they were under misconception that these incidents had not taken place within their local jurisdiction, they were not entitle to record the reports and they were not entitled to make the investigation.They could have recorded the versions in respect of all the incidents of rape and they could have contacted their superior officers for taking further steps.It can be said that subsequently such steps were taken and Chalak, C.P.I., who had jurisdiction over all these spots was entrusted with the investigation of all the crimes.Subsequently, the investigation of both the matters was handed over to Vyavahare (PW-22) Police Inspector of CID Crimes and the same investigating officer filed charge sheets in both the matters.102) Much was argued on the circumstance like absence of some incidents in the previous statements of the two victim girls and also some inconsistencies in the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 79 Appeal 153/99 group previous statements in relation to the substantive evidence.In a case like present one it is necessary to keep in mind for Courts that when many police officers record the statements and there is some misconception as mentioned above, then it becomes the duty of the Court to find out the truth.Statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded many times and those statements are also confronted to PW-4 and PW-5 during cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::103) The two victim girls were from very poor families, they were new in Parbhani and they had no support of anybody in Parbhani.It appears that when the social media took up the matter, the things took proper turn and the authority started to look into the matter.The evidence of last investigating officer shows that even question was raised in respect of these incidents in State Legislative Assembly.When substantive evidence is there, which is corroborated by circumstances and it is possible for the Court to draw inference about the guilt of the accused, in spite of existence of circumstances like omissions of aforesaid nature and some inconsistencies,::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 80 Appeal 153/99 group those omissions and inconsistencies cannot go to the root of the matter.Police officers acted as per their own notions in the present matter.Even the learned Judicial Magistrates did not record the statements in respect of all incidents.On the basis of the statements recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrates, it can be said that they had not taken care to go through the statements already given by the victim girls to police.When Judicial Magistrate records statements of such girls under section 164 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the Judicial Magistrate to ascertain the nature of allegations, disclosures already made by the witnesses and then elicit information from such witnesses by putting questions if he feels that for any reason the witnesses are not disclosing few things which were already disclosed.Thus, most casual approach was adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrates and for the reasons already given not much can be made out due to the circumstance that even in the statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. some incidents were not mentioned by the two victim girls.What is important in the case like present one is the substantive evidence and when on the basis of the evidence available, inference of the guilt is::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 81 Appeal 153/99 group possible, the Court should not hesitate to base conviction on such evidence in spite of existence of the circumstances noticed in the present matter.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::The learned Senior Counsel submitted that due to variations in the versions given to the police from time to time and the omissions and contradictions proved by the defence in relation to the previous statements, the two victim girls could not have been believed.The Apex Court has made observations in this regard at paragraphs 11 and 12 and they are as under.It is, therefore, seen that the object of the legislature throughout has been to exclude the statement of a witness made before the police during the investigation from being made use of at the trial for any purpose, and the amendments::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 82 Appeal 153/99 group made from time to time were only intended to make clear the said object and to dispel the cloud cast on such intention.The Act of 1898 for the first time introduced an exception enabling the said statement reduced to writing to be used for impeaching the credit of the witness in the manner provided by the Evidence Act. As the phraseology of the exception lent scope to defeat the purpose of the legislature, by the Amendment Act of 1923, the section was redrafted defining the limits of the exception with precision so as to confine it only to contradict the witness in the manner provided under section 145 of the Evidence Act. If one could guess the intention of the legislature in framing the section in the manner it did in 1923, it would be apparent that it was to protect the accused against the user of the statements of witnesses made before the police during investigation at the trial presumably on the assumption that the said statements were not made under circumstances inspiring confidence.Both the section and the proviso intended to serve primarily the same purpose i.e. the interest of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::109) If the evidence of the investigating officers is considered to ascertain as to whether the two victim girls had disclosed all the incidents of the present matter it can be said that in supplementary statement PW-5 did disclose the incidents of the present matter also.That is why many statements of the two victim girls came to be recorded by different officers.It can be said that first time Yeshwant made an attempt to see that two separate F.I.R.s are recorded.This witness was extensively cross-examined by defence counsels but::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 89 Appeal 153/99 group she stood to the test of the cross-examination.The last incident took place on the night between 5-7-1994 and 6-7-1994 but in that incident only PW-5 was involved.That incident is part of other sessions case.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::111) Dr. Jaishri noticed bleeding from cervical OS.Dr. Jaishri noticed that there was posterior fourchette congested and redness and she noticed that hymen was congested.She noticed vagina was admitting one finger with minimum pains but bleeding through cervical was present.The record prepared by this witness is consistent with her oral evidence.Though there is possibility that PW-4 was observing menstruation, evidence of Dr. Jaishri in respect of sexual intercourse cannot be ignored.During cross-examination, Dr. Jaishri has admitted that possibly there was menstruation of PW-5 also.In case of PW-5 the circumstances were strong and rupture of hymen was fresh.In the first incident of rape, accused Nos.1 to 3::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 90 Appeal 153/99 group were involved and other accused were involved in the subsequent incidents.That cannot give any benefit to accused Nos.4,6 and 7 as there is substantive evidence against them and there are other circumstances.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::112) At Exhibit 204 there is CA report in respect of clothes of PW-5 (Salwar, Kurta and Jangiya).Jangiya was taken over on the next day.Blood was present on these clothes and it was of Group "A".PW-5 has the same blood group.It is not brought on record in her evidence that she was observing menstruation.In view of these circumstances and as the clothes were taken over immediately after making of the disclosure by PW-5 and that too by PSI Khan against whom there are allegations, this Court holds that there is no reason to disbelieve this circumstance.The hymen had fresh tear, it was congested and so this circumstance becomes more important.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::The clothes of accused Nos.6 and 7 were taken over after many days as they were absconding.It is already observed that in respect of the seizure of the clothes of accused Nos.1 to 4 there is only evidence of the police officer.Further, PW-4 was admittedly observing menstruation at the relevant time.In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the evidence in respect of presence of blood stains on the clothes of some of these accused and also on the clothes of PW-4 cannot be of much importance in the present matter.Some bed- sheets were taken over from the lodge and the panchanama at Exhibit 234 shows that blood was found on the bed-sheets.Bed-sheets were also taken over after few days and as it is a lodge this circumstance cannot be treated as clinching circumstance.114) In respect of the challenge to the evidence given on T.I. parade it can be said that there is substance in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused that there was no strict compliance of the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 92 Appeal 153/99 group guidelines given in paragraph 16 of Chapter I of the Criminal Manual of this Court.It is true that on both the occasions the number of dummy persons used by Namdeo Jadhav (PW-16) was less than the number expected in the guidelines.There is no record to show that dummy persons had appearance which was similar to the accused persons.However, the evidence of Namdeo Jadhav (PW-::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::16) shows that he was satisfied about the identification of the accused from the two victim girls in both the T.I. parades.115) It is true that accused Nos.6 and 7 were identified as associates by the two victim girls but the fact remains that they have given substantive evidence against these accused that they had raped them in Visawa lodge.accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested almost immediately.As accused Nos.1 to 4 were in the company of the two victim girls for about 12 hours there was no problem for PW-4 and PW-5 to identify them.It can be said that immediate arrest of these accused persons is also a circumstance showing that on the basis of information given by the two victim girls, police could easily trace out these accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::93 Appeal 153/99 group Names of accused Nos.6 and 7 were also transpired and the evidence is given that they were absconding for the aforesaid period.Husband and wife were involved as offenders and they were placed in the same test identification parade with six dummy for each.The Court had held that this was contrary to the provision of paragraph 16(2)(h) of the Criminal Manual of Bombay High Court and the Courts::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 94 Appeal 153/99 group below had rightly rejected this evidence.It was held that it was necessary in that case to hold two separate test identification parades by using different persons for each parade.It was case filed for offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 120-B, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::The safeguards adopted in this case by the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 95 Appeal 153/99 group Executive Magistrate were quite sufficient for ensuring that the parade was conducted in a reasonably foolproof manner."::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::The procedure is given as guidelines and non compliance of the procedure strictly as per the guidelines, cannot be a::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 97 Appeal 153/99 group ground for discarding the evidence on T.I. parade in each and case.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::In the present matter, the defence of consent was not available to any of the accused in view of the aforesaid record.Surprisingly, the tenor of the cross- examination made by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 shows that the questions were put to the victim girls that the victim girls had taken the initiative in the matter and one accused had left the place when one victim girl took initiative and the boy felt that he was not in a position to do anything.Such suggestions given in the case like present one can be considered as they are with regard to the particulars of the incident and they were positive suggestions to elicit evidence on consent.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::There was no reason for both these girls to falsely implicate these accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::121) Some argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that police did not try to trace Sham Agrawal, relative of PW-4 and his statement is not recorded.The fact remains that all the accused persons exploited the situation in which PW-4 and PW-5 had put themselves in.122) The learned Senior Counsel for the accused has placed reliance on a case reported as AIR 1957 SC 614(1) (Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras) on the point of appreciation of evidence.Some more cases were cited like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 ::: 100 Appeal 153/99 group (2007) 2 SCC 170 (Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra) .At para 13 of the first case following observations are made by the Hon'ble Apex Court :::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:06 :::Their evidence shows that they were supplied with food.The evidence does not show that there was much violence like assault on PW-4 and PW-5 though threats were given.Every time after committing rape the accused allowed the victim girls to leave the place showing that the accused wanted only to exploit the situation.The accused persons virtually used the two victim girls.In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed.The appellants-accused to surrender to bail bonds for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:01:07 :::time to surrender. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,635,936 | After the investigation only, the charge sheet has been filed for an offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act and hence, there is no necessity for filing application seeking extension of time.So, this ground also fails and consequently, the Criminal Original Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.However, a direction is issued to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.51 of 2011, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.03.03.2016Internet : YesJrlNote:- Registry is directed to return the records to the trial Court.The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.The Inspector of Police, S-2, Airport Police Station, Meenambakkam, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.MALA, J.JrlCRL.O.P.No.169 of 201603.03.2016 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,637,993 | ....petitioners.Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta ...for the petitioners. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,654,002 | Subramanian in C.C. No. 151 of 1998 was charged under Section 494 IPC for having married A2 for the second time while his wife the complainant-Dr.Mrs. Thilagavathy is alive.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and on appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when charges under Section 494 IPC against A1 and under Section 494 r/w 109 IPC against A2 were framed and questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 were marked.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. Crl.R.C. No. 630 of 2005 and Crl.The complainant-Dr.Her husband A1 is also in government service and he after worked in various places in the State lastly came to Manaparai in the year 1990 and that in the year 1990 both she and A1 were working in the government hospital at Manaparai and that at that time A1 was working as a Junior doctor under her and that she was in the family way for the second time, but A1 was leading a wayward life and inspite of her advice A1 refused to get himself reformed and that on 1.6.1991 she was subjected to cruelty which ends in an abortion of her seven months old featus and in the year 1991 she was transferred to ESI Hospital, Chennai, and during February-1992 A1 came to Chennai took apology from her and thereafter they lived together and A1 joined in M.S., Course at Madras Medical College.Since she could not give Rs. 2,00,000/- to A1, he issued a divorce notice, which was suitably replied by her.She has also produced the copy of the judgment in the divorce petition filed by A1 as Ex.According to her, on 13.12.1997 she received a letter from her uncle Rajan stating that A1 has married another women for the second time at Trichy.P.2 was sent.After receiving Ex.P.2-letter she became restless and was shocked and began to enquire ascertain whether the allegation in Ex.She went to Thusoor, where the alleged second marriage of A1 with A2 is said to have conducted.P.4 is the letter given to the villagers by P.W.1 requesting them to certify the second marriage.P.5 is the reply for Ex.P.6 is the birth certificate for the child born to A2 on 2.8.1998 issued by Namakkal Municipality.4. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the second marriage, who would speak about the engagement of the marriage between A1 and A2 on 5.1.1997 and at that time A2-Govindammal was working as a servant maid in A1's house at Chennai.According to P.W.2, A1 at the time of engagement itself has informed the relatives including the parents of A2 that he had already obtained an order of divorce against P.W.1, the first wife.According to P.W.2, the engagement between A1 and A2 took place in his house on 5.1.1997 at about 6.00 pm in the presence of the sisters and brother of A1 and that A1 had arranged feast and in the van he along with the relatives came to Chennai and the marriage between A1 and A2 was solemnized on 5.9.1997 and that both A1 and A2 exchanged garlands and A1 had tied up the Thali to A2, and that A1 has also arranged feast on the same day and P.W.4-Nithyanantham also participated in the marriage as well as in the feast.According to P.W.2, he was also present in the village on 14.1.1998 when the complainant-P.W.1 was making enquiry about her husband's (A1) second marriage and that for Ex.P.4-application Ex.P.5-reply was given by the village punchayators, in which he (P.W.2) has also signed along with the other witnesses.He would admit that he only informed P.W.1 about the solemnization of the second marriage A1 with A2 and that on 14.1.1998 P.W.1 came to the village to which A2 belongs and that she got Ex.P.W.4-Nithyanatham is indulged in real estate business.P.18 is the birth register maintained in the hospital.According to him, A2 was brought to his hospital on 2.8.1998 and that she requested him not to register the birth of the child, but he politely refused the same.On the above evidence incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., to which both A1 & A2 denied their complicity with the crime.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge A1 has preferred C.A. No. 77 of 2004 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-IV), Chengalput, Poonamallee, who after due deliberations to the submission made by the learned Counsel on both side and after scanning the evidence produced before the trial Court, has upheld the conviction of the trial Court, but modified the sentence to an imprisonment till raising of the Court instead of 3 months SI and also enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- with default sentence.Aggrieved by the findings of the first appellate Court the complainant, first wife of A1, has preferred Crl.R.C. No. 630 of 2005 challenging the findings of the first appellate Court in C.A. No. 77 of 2004 against the modification of sentence against A1 and also preferred Crl.A. No. 997 of 2004 against the findings of the learned trial judge in acquitting A2 from the charges under Section 494 r/w 109 IPC.A1 has preferred Crl.Now the points for determination in these revision petitions as well as appeal are as follows:i)Whether the conviction and sentence against A1 under Section 494 IPC by the learned first appellate Court is liable to be enhanced for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision in Crl.R.C. No. 630 of 2005?ii)Whether the findings of the learned first appellate Court in C.A. No. 77 of 2004 against A1 under Section 494 IPC is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in Crl.R.C. No. 939 of 2005?iii)Whether A2 is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 494 r/w 109 IPC for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal in C.A. No. 997 of 2004?13.The points:Both the Courts below have concurrently held on the basis of the available evidence both oral and documentary that the charges levelled against A1 under Section 494 IPC has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.Even during his answer to the incriminating circumstances put to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., A1 has not raised any defence.13(b) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Crl.The facts of the above cited case is that the accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC, but on appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the sentence under Section 302 but convicted the accused under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo two years of imprisonment, which was challenged before the Honourable Apex Court by the Sate of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been observed by the Honourable Apex Court as follows:Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endue under such serious threats.It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. There cannot be two opinion to the above said principle.But punishment should always be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.In the case on hand the charge against A1 is that he had married A2 for the second time.Both P.W.1 and A1 are government doctors and that they worked together at Manaparai Government Hospital in the year 1990 and that she meeted out cruelty at the hands of A1 on 1.6.1991 and the specific averment made by P.W.1 is that A1 had kicked her in the stomach while she was seven months advanced stage of pregnancy which resulted in abortion.Subsequently they came to Chennai in the year 1992 and she was working in ESI Government Hospital at Chennai and A1 was pursuing his higher studies in the Madras Medical College and that they lived together happily till 1996 and in order to set up a private clinic with modern equipments A1, according to P.W.1, had demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parents.Even according to her evidence, she came to know about the second marriage of A1 with A2 even as early as on 13.12.1997 itself through Ex.If at all, the case calls for severe punishment.It is in evidence that even to the relation of A2, A1 has informed that he has already obtained a divorce against the complainant, first wife and thus paved the way for the second marriage.Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned first appellate Court in C.A. No. 77 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC-IV), Chengalput at Poonamallee.In the result, the Crl. | ['Section 494 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. |
566,561 | JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J.This revision has been filed against the order dated 7.4.1992 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Burhanpur passed in Criminal Case No. 2481/91 by which, the respondent was discharged of the offence Under Section 176 of the IPC.It has not been demonstrated that it was a case where the law ordains a person having knowledge to give information to the Magistrate, police or any public servant.In the result, the revision is dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,656,376 | This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 363, 366 & 376of the I.P.C and u/s 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in connection with Crime No.24/2015 registered at Police Station Kushmi, District Sidhi.The incident is on 22.03.2015 and the prosecutrix came back on 02.04.2015 after having visit through public transport up to Bombay and stayed in a hotel and she did not raise any alarm during such period.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['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. |
566,564 | The prosecution case is that Miss Asha aged about sixteen years committed suicide by setting herself afire.The alleged date of incident is 24-1-1985 at 10.00 P.M. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that one young man Eknath was a conductor on a bus.He used to visit Ku.Asha frequently even at odd hours.JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.The two accused in this case have appealed to this Court against their conviction under Sections 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to one and three years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively to run concurrently.The incident is said to have taken place in the house of the deceased when she was sleeping in a room with her young brother and father Ramchandra (P.W.3), who was sleeping in the adjoining room.The alleged dying declaration, first in point of time, is Ex. P-5, recorded by Dr. B. M. Malviya (P.W.1), who examined her soon after the incident with burn injuries.In her statement to the doctor, her version of the incident was that when she came out of the room at 10.00 in the night for easing herself, the two accused persons, who lived as her tenants in the same house, approached her and made overtures for sexual intercourse.When she refused, the accused were said to have threatened her that they would defame her.In the same statement, she admitted that at that time the bus conductor was with her.The above statement Ex. P. 5 recorded by Dr. Malviya was made on 25-1-1985 at about 3.00 A.M. in the night.This statement to the police was made on 25-1-1985, twenty minutes after the earlier statement made to the doctor.In her statement to the police, which was recorded by S. O., H. S. Parmar (P.W. 8), the version of the incident given by her is said to be a material improvement over her initial version.In the F.I.R. lodged by her, it was stated that while she was sleeping with her brother Parmanand, the two accused persons, at 10'O clock in the midnight knocked the door.She opened the door and found one of the accused-appellant No. 2 Babulal s/o Kadu Rao at the door, but she did not give him entry and closed the door.After ten minutes, when she got up to go to the bath room, conductor Eknath came to her, as he used to come frequently.In the meantime the two accused persons entered the room and both of them caught hold of her and asked her that they be allowed to commit sexual intercourse.When she refused, they threatened that they would defame her and would commit rape.She started weeping.Although they did not commit any sexual intercourse but caught hold of her and thus outraged her modesty.It is her statement that she then asked Eknath to leave the room.After this incident she again got up at 11.00 in the night and poured kerosene on her body and lit herself afire.The third dying declaration is recorded as Ex. P. 6 by Naib Tahsildar Rakesh Babu Khare (P.W. 7) on 25-1-1985 at 2.44 P.M. In her statement made to the Naib Tahsildar, she implicated only appellant No. 2 Babulal and stated that he misbehaved with her, tried to kiss her and made overtures towards her, which she repelled.Thereafter, she was threatened with defamation and hence she set herself afire the same night.She also stated that the other accused was also present at the time of the incident.If the defence were true there was no cause for the deceased to falsely implicate the accused persons.Now remains the question of sentence.The accused had no business to dabble in the private affairs of the deceased, may be that she had illicit relationship with Eknath.They tried to take advantage of the situation of the deceased for satisfaction of their sexual lust.They deserve no leniency and deserve to be punished for offence with maximum sentence, but since there is no appeal for enhancement of sentence I maintain the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.Consequently, the appeal only partly succeeds.The two accused persons are acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed for the said offence. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,658,133 | Shri Neeraj Pathak, learned counsel for the complainant.Prosecutrix is present in person and she has been identified by Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.102/2014 registered at Police Station Digaura Distt.The allegation of prosecution is that the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was found to be disappeared from her house, report of which has been lodged by her father stating that the present applicant by alluring has taken away her daughter.On that basis offence under sections 363 and 366 of IPC was registered against the applicant.Later on prosecutrix has been recovered.Her statements under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., have been recorded.The statements of her family members were also recorded.On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered against the applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.The applicant is in jail since 10.5.2019 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 21/07/2019 22:25:34 2 MCRC-22552-2019 of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.CC as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 21/07/2019 22:25:34 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,658,924 | (22.02.2018) This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been pre- ferred on behalf of the applicants seeking quashment of the proceed- ings pending before J.M.F.C. Satna in criminal case no.4017/2010 arising out of charge-sheet filed in Crime No.7/2010 registered at Mahila Thana, Satna, for the offence under sections 498-A read with sections 34 of the I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibi- tion Act.2. Facts giving rise to the present case, briefly stated, are that marriage of applicant no.1 Chandresh was solemnized with respon- dent no.2 Smt.Preeti Shrivastava on 4.12.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs at Satna.Narottam after three months of the marriage started demanding Rs.1 Lac in dowry and she resisted 2 M.Cr.C.No.10180/2012 continuously, therefore, she was subjected to mental cruelty and ha- rassment.On 7.3.2010 when she went to meet his husband applicant no.1 he again demanded Rs.1 lac and he and his parents abused and assaulted her and threatened her that if she come back in their house they will kill her and also threatened to divorce her.After investiga- tion, charge-sheet was filed before J.M.F.C. Satna, who took cog- nizance against the applicants and applicant's no.1 father Narottam.Applicant no.1's father Narottam has expired.The aforesaid proceedings have been challenged by the appli- cants on the ground that the allegation with regard to demand of dowry is afterthought.The respondent no.2 and her father were present at Parivaar Paramarsh Kendra, Satna, on 20.8.2007 where they had disclosed that there was no demand of dowry and harassment on behalf of the applicants.Between the aforesaid period, i.e. on 7.5.2010 FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 alleging the aforesaid facts with regard to demand of dowry and harassment.The sequence of circumstances prima facie show that the alle- gations with regard to demand of dowry, harassment and torture made by the respondent no.2 are inherently improbable and absurd.The FIR has been lodged maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the applicants and with a view to spite him 3 M.Cr.C.No.10180/2012 due to private and personal grudge.It is further submitted that the Family court Satna vide order dated 11.3.2015 has allowed the divorce petition and rejected the respondent's plea with regard to harassment and torture in connection with demand of dowry by the applicants.On behalf of the respondent no.2 none has appeared. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
120,009,908 | He has been falsely implicated.It is contended by the counsel the applicant is habitual of various intoxicant and his sister has admitted him in the rehabilitation centre and it is just possible that on account of non-availability of intoxicant, he might have self inflicted by some hard and blunt object.The entire incident is within the rehabilitation centre.The applicant is in jail since 08.10.2019 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Shauquin, 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 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
12,001,624 | b) The complainant lodged complaint (Exh.41) with Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the "ACB Office") on 17.01.2011 contending that he was allotted the tender of work of epoxy cementing to the tanks of Chinese Hatcheries and hatching eggs at Mulanagar, in the month of May, 2009 @ Rs.465/- per sq.mtr.through the Office of the Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar.He completed said work in July, 2009 and accordingly, he obtained certificate from Fisheries Officer, Mulanagar.Thereafter, he received payment of Rs.20,000/- by cheque from Deputy Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Shri.In the meanwhile, Shri.Dangare was transferred.Thereafter, in the month of August, accused No.1 was posted as a Deputy Commissioner, Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar.On::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (4) CRI APEL 160-16 16.11.2010, he prepared the bill of his remaining work and submitted with Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar.He met accused No.1, Deputy Commissioner and inquired about his bill of Rs.1,00,000/-.At that time, accused No.1 asked him, how much amount will he give to him to make the payment.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::c) It is alleged that thereafter, on 20.12.2012, he received his bill by post.He visited Building and Construction Department at Rahuri and met to Site Engineer, Shri.At that time, accused No.2 told him to give 25% of the amount of the bill of Rs.1,00,000/-, i.e. Rs.25,000/-.Therefore, he lodged complaint with ACB Office.But accused No.1 was not preset in the office.f) Thereafter, again on 20.01.2011, it was decided to lay a trap, as accused No.1 was to come in the office till afternoon.Thereafter, the complainant along with panch No.1 reached near the Office of the accused at Parag Building, Collector Office premises and waited there.At about 4.45 pm, accused No.1 came.As per instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 issued letter to the complainant and asked him to keep ready an amount of Rs.25,000/-.Thereafter, they returned to ACB::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (7) CRI APEL 160-16 Office.h) Thereafter, on 08.02.2011, the complainant produced 30 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination i.e. total amount of Rs.15,000/-.Thereafter, the complainant, panchas and members of the raiding party of ACB Office proceeded towards the office of the accused.In the office, the complainant and panch No.1 met accused No.2 and informed him that the complainant has brought Rs.15,000/-.Then they met accused No.1 in his cabin.Complainant requested accused No.1 to do his work.At that time, accused No.1 instructed the complainant to keep the amount in an envelope, which accused No.2 will provide him and to hand over the said envelope in a pan tapari, adjacent to the same premises run by the son of his::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (8) CRI APEL 160-16 retired driver.Then accused No.2 handed over one white envelope to the complainant.Complainant removed tainted currency notes of Rs.15,000/- by his right hand, and held the envelope by his left hand and then put the tainted currency notes in the said envelope.Said accused accepted said envelope by his right hand and kept it on one shelf on his left side.Thereafter, as per the instructions of accused No.2, the complainant informed accused No.1 about handing over the envelope containing tainted currency notes.Again, the complainant and panch No.1 reached near pan tapari and the complainant gave pre- determined signal to the raiding party.Thereupon, members of the raiding party reached near pan tapari and Dy.S.P., Shri.ultraviolet lamp by creating artificial darkness and bluish shining i.e. effect of anthracene powder was seen on all currency notes.So also, light of bluish shining was noticed inside the white envelope.The number of currency notes were tallied with the numbers of said notes mentioned in pre-trap panchanama.The clothes and both the hands of the complainant were also examined under ultraviolet lamp and similar effect was seen.The complainant and panch No.1 narrated about the actual happening to Dy.S.P., Shri.The accused offered their explanations.j) Thereafter, on the same day i.e. on 08.02.2011, Dy.S.P., Shri.Copy of the letter is annexed herewith.(15)bogus bills by increasing the amount to 116 times of the original quoting Rs.465/ sq.meters on the back date and false posing of the (epoxy) painting work.Dhopavkar, Dy.Because Sandip Dalavi himself kept the money envelope with the pan-shop and after the::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (16) CRI APEL 160-16 signal, the havildar with Dhopavkar brought the same and handed over to Shri.Dhopavkar and bringing the Paan- Shop owner and Shri.(28)Considering the offences alleged against the accused and the submissions made on behalf of both sides, following points arise for my determination:i) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Nos.1 and 2, public servant demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- on 16.12.2010, 24.12.2010, 17.01.2011 and 08.02.2011 in the District Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar from the complainant and accepted the said amount through accused No.3 for the purpose of sanctioning the bill of work done by the complainant- contractor, to perform their official duty as a gratification other than legal remuneration and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act?My findings to the above points No.1 to 3 are in the negative for the reasons to follow :-The facts in respect of which, there is no dispute are that during the years 2010-2011, the complainant was painting contractor and in May, 2009, he was given tender of work of epoxy cementing to the tanks of Chinese hatcheries and hatching eggs at Mulanagar by the Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar.At that time, one Rajendra Bhanudas Dangare was the Assistant Commissioner in Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar and he was relative of the complainant.After transfer of Rajendra Bhanudas Dangare at Nashik, accused No.1 was the Assistant Commissioner, Class-II Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar, at the relevant time of incident and accused No.2 was the Assistant Fisheries Officer, Class-III in the said office.He received payment of Rs.20,000/- by cheque from Shri.Dangare before his transfer and charge of Shri.On 16.11.2010, the complainant prepared the bill of remaining work of rupees one lakh and submitted the same with Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(30)He then informed me that, Pawar had instructed him to inform me that, no work will be done without giving 25%.He also informed me that, I will have to obtain sanction from the higher authorities.Then we both returned back to ACB.In the Office of ACB, panch Patel informed entire incidence to Dy.Letter to that effect was issued.The letter now shown to me is the same.My name is mentioned in the said letter.(40)attended Anti Corruption Bureau on the same day at about 2.00 p.m. In the ACB, we were introduced with complainant namely Sandip Dalvi by Dy.We orally discussed with complainant.He narrated his grievance that, there is demand of bribe amount by the public servant namely Shri.B.D. Pawar, Dy.S.P. Dhopavkar informed all of us that, verification panchanama needs to be conducted.Therefore, I along with complainant proceeded on his motorcycle towards Parag Building, in the premises of Collector office.We reached on the first floor in the office of Fisheries Department at about 3.15 p.m. Then I along with complainant entered in one cabin.In the aid cabin one person was sitting.Said notes were kept in his left chest pocket.Necessary instructions were given to all of them.Then, he made a phone call on the mobile of accused No.2, from his mobile and accused No.2 informed him that accused No.1 has not yet reached in the office from Nashik.Therefore, they were waiting in ACB Office.Again after one hour, he made phone call to accused No.2 on his mobile from his mobile and accused No.2 informed that accused No.1 will come within a short time and that he would inform him accordingly.(45)"13] Therefore, I along with Mr. Patel proceeded towards Fisheries office on my motorcycle and other team members were following us in Government vehicle.We reached in the office and parked the motorcycle.I along with panch Shri.Patel visited the cabin of Mr. Sayyad.He was present in the cabin.Again he took out one file and informed us that, he will returned after meeting Mr. Pawar.Prior to that, he inquired with me as to whether I am ready with money.informed us that, I have been called by Mr. Pawar.Therefore, I along with Mr. Patel panch No.1 visited cabin of Mr. Pawar.I informed Mr. Pawar that, I have brought money as per agreement.Mr. Pawar informed me that, Sayyad will provide envelope to me, I should keep the amount in the said envelope and handover as per his instruction.We then came out of the cabin including Mr. Sayyad and entered in the cabin of Mr. Sayyad.Mr. Sayyad handed over me one white colour envelope and inquired::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (46) CRI APEL 160-16 whether I had brought correct amount.Then I removed tainted currency notes from my left chest pocket and asked Mr. Sayyad to count the same.But, he said O.K. I was holding white colour envelope in my left hand and kept the tainted currency notes in the said envelope.He also provided me one pin.I sealed the envelope with that pin.Now I say that, Mr. Pawar had instructed me to hand over the envelope to one driver who is having stall (tapari) situated at the entrance near compound wall of the building.He informed me this in front of Mr. Sayyad when I along with Panch visited him.Then Mr.Sayyad instructed me to handover said envelope to the owner of stall (tapari).I asked him that, I am not aware about the location of stall, therefore, he should come with me.Therefore, I along with panch and Mr. Sayyad arrived in the ground floor of office and reached near stall (tapari).(48)He has also denied that accused No.1 informed him that accused No.2 will provide him envelope, he should keep amount in the envelope and hand over the same as per the instructions of accused No.2 and that accused No.1 had instructed him to hand over said envelope to one driver, who is having paan stall at the entrance near compound wall of the building.So also, his evidence that he along with panch No.1 visited cabin of accused No.1 and informed accused No.1 that he has brought money as per agreement and accused No.1 informed him that accused No.2 will provide him envelope and he should keep said amount in envelope and hand over the same as per the instruction of accused No.2, which has not been specifically challenged in the course of cross-examination of the complainant is not sufficient to infer that accused No.1 made demand of bribe to the complainant to clear his bill on the aforesaid date.The complainant has not deposed that on 08.02.2011, he asked either accused No.1 or accused No.2 about clearing his bill and then either accused No.1 or accused No.2 demanded bribe to him.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(49)(50)At that time complainant informed him that, as per discussion between them took place on earlier day, he brought amount of Rs.15,000/-.Complainant also insisted to do the work of his bill today itself.Thereafter, accused No.2 said that, Pawar is present today.He will meet him.Then accused No.2 alone proceeded to meet with accused No.1 with file.In the cabin of accused No.1 again complainant repeated the same sentence that, as per discussion between him and accused No.2 took place yesterday, he::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (51) CRI APEL 160-16 brought the amount.He insisted accused No.1 to perform his work today itself.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(51)provided to him by accused No.2 and to hand over the said envelope in a 'Paan Tapari' situated adjacent to same premises run by son of his retired driver (l;~;n gs rqyk ikfdV nsrhy R;kr iSls Vkd vkf.k bekjrhps ckgsj lsokfuo`Rr M~~k;OgjP;k eqykph ikuVijh vkgs frFks ns-).He assured that, work of complainant will be done on same day till evening.Then we came out of cabin of the accused No.1 with Sayyad.Then we proceeded towards cabin of Sayyad.In the cabin of Sayyad, he handed over one white envelope to the complainant and instructed him to keep the amount in the said envelope.Therefore, complainant removed tainted currency notes by his right hand and he hold the envelope by his left hand and inserted the tainted currency notes in the said envelope.Prior to that, accused No.2 inquired with the complainant 'how much' (fdrh vkgsr-).Complainant said 15000 (ia/kjk gtkj-), and also asked the accused No.2 to count::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (52) CRI APEL 160-16 the currency notes (okVY;kl ekstqu ?;k-).Then accused No.2 said O.K. (fBd vkgs-).He provided one pin to the complainant.Complainant sealed the envelope with said pin.Then accused No.2 instructed complainant to handover said envelope in the 'Paan Tapari'.At that time, I along with complainant was standing at some distance.Then accused No.2 arrived near us and instructed complainant to hand over said envelope to the owner of Paan Tapari.(58)CRI APEL 160-16The appellant-State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "accused Nos.1 to 3") of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)The facts giving rise to this appeal in short, are as under:a) At the relevant time of incident, complainant-Sandip Vishnupant Dalavi (PW-1) was residing in Vikrant Chowk, Chaupati Karanja, Ahmednagar and he was a painting contractor.Accused No.1 Baburao Dipaji Pawar was working as Assistant Commissioner, Class-II in Fisheries Department at::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (3) CRI APEL 160-16 Ahmednagar, accused No.2 Sayyad Irfan Umar was working as Assistant Fisheries Officer, Class-III at Ahmednagar and accused No.3 Shaikh Abdul Kadir Fakir Mohammad, who is a private person was running a pan stall in the premises of the Office of accused Nos.1 and 2, at the relevant time of incident.d) After receiving the complaint as above, investigating officer, Shri.Dhopavkar issued a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad,::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (5) CRI APEL 160-16 Ahmednagar and called two panch witnesses, namely, Shri.D.S. Patel (PW-3) and Shri.They were introduced with the complainant.The complainant told his grievance to them, made in the complaint and as a mark of endorsement, they had signed on the complaint, lodged by the complainant.Thereafter, for conducting verification, panch No.1 Patel (PW-3) along with the complainant proceeded towards the office of Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar.They met accused No.2 and initiated talk about the bill of the complainant.At that time, accused No.2 said that, accused No.1 requires 25% of bill amount of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- and called the complainant on the next day.Thereafter, they came back to the ACB Office.Accordingly, verification panchanama Exh.54 was prepared.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::e) On 18.01.2011, the complainant produced an amount of Rs.10,000/-, consisting 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination in the ACB Office.Anthracene powder was applied to all the said currency notes and the demonstration was given.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (6)They were again relieved.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::Dhopavkar lodged complaint in Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar.Crime No.II 16 of 2011 was registered in Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar against the accused for the offences said earlier.Accused were arrested and subsequently released on bail.Dhopavkar recorded statements of some witnesses in the course of investigation.By that time, accused No.1 was retired and hence, no sanction to prosecute him was required.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Special Court (ACB), Ahmednagar.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.They have denied to have committed the offences alleged against them.Accused No.1 has relied upon his explanations Exh.68 and 69 given immediately after the trap on 08.02.2011 in presence of the panchas.So also, in his written statement Exh.87 filed at the time of his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, he has stated, as under:::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::Fisheries department at Ahmednagar was caught red-handed while accepting Rs.500/- as a bribe on 8/9/2000 while working on the post of District Fisheries Officer at Nashik.I was present in the trial as a presentation officer on behalf of the government in the case against Shri.Dangare while working on the post of Asst.Commissioner of Fisheries at Nashik.Dangare was held guilty in the departmental inquiry by the department and sent on compulsory::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (12) CRI APEL 160-16 retirement.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(12)Sandip Vishnupant Dalavi, painter at Ahmednagar being a relative of Shri.Rajendra Dangare was given the work of painting and repairs of the water tank and hatching tanks at Mulanagar Matsya Beej Utpadan Kendra at Rahuri, Dist.Actually, an estimation is required to be made from the Public Works Department for the works like construction, repairs, fencing, painting of tanks etc. by the Fishery Development Officer in the Hatching Center.Thereafter,the proposal is required to be given technical and financial approval by the Honourable Commissioner Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, and after availing the funds and transferring the same to PWD under the head of Minor Construction of account and getting completed the proposed work and obtaining the Fund Utilization certificate and is required to inform the government accordingly.In this respect several government resolutions have been issued and out of::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (13) CRI APEL 160-16 that, the government resolution of October 7, 2010 is attached herewith for information.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(13)Notwithstanding the fact that, Shri.Rajendra Bhanudas Dangare, without obtaining technical and financial approval from the superiors and the Government and without having any authority, called 3 quotations from his relative Shri.Dalavi and allotted him the work vide letter dated 16/6/2009, by showing his quotation on lower side.While inspecting the DSR for the year 2008-2009, it appears on the page no.109 that, the rate for painting per square meter is Rs.41.40 paise and labour charges Rs.9.45 paise have been shown.In this way, the work of 162 square meters has been done amounting to Rs.8802.50/- as per the DSR.However, Shri.Rajendra Dangare had paid Rs.20,000/- to Shri.Dalavi under the Minor Construction head.In fact, Shri.Therefore, Honourable Commissioner, Fisheries, Maharashtra::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (14) CRI APEL 160-16 State has been informed in writing to recover Rs.11,797.50 from M/s.Balaji Painting Contractor, Shri.Sandip Dalavi.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(14)Upon perusal of the page Nos.61 and 86 of the charge- sheet it reveals that, Shri.Pawar joined at Ahmednagar in August- 2010, that is false.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (15)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::When Shri.Dalavi asked me about his bills, I had told him that, the work allotted to you is not as per government rules and only to help you, Shri.Rajendra Dangare has allotted you without any authority.Therefore, question of demanding 25% amount to Shri.Sandip Dalavi to pass the bill of rupees One Lakh does not arise.Sayyad in my cabin, Shri.Dhopavkar himself was counting the currency notes opening the envelope on his own.He said to me that the envelope has been seized from the pan-shop owner as told by you and Rs.15,000/- found in the envelope as demanded by you.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(16)Therefore, you are guilty.You have accepted the amount of bribe through the Pan tapri wala (Paan Shop Owner).This he had written in the unsuccessful trap.Because, without my knowledge about who was paan wallah, where was the stall, the action was taken against me, upon the instigation of Shri.In fact, I was kept in the office unnecessarily until 6 pm while I was in the office from 2 to 2.30 on 08.02.2011 and taken to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at 6.30 in the evening and he (Shri.Dhopavkar) has made his publicity by calling the media and newspaper persons and published the same in newspapers.Thus, Rajendra::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (17) CRI APEL 160-16 Bhanudas Dangare, Sandip Dalavi and Dhopavkar had involved the prosecution witnesses in their conspiracy and made them to depose false.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(17)Thus, the action taken against me has been done without verifying the truth and to revenge me."Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed this appeal.P.N. Kutti, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the complainant PW-1 lodged complaint Exh.41 with the ACB Office, Ahmednagar, alleging that through accused No.2, accused No.1 demanded bribe of 25% of the bill amount of rupees one lakh, which was due to the complainant from the Office of accused Nos.1 and 2, as the complainant had completed the work of epoxy cementing::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (18) CRI APEL 160-16 to the tanks of Chinese Hatcheries and hatching eggs at Mulanagar.It is submitted that on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 and panch No.1 (PW-3), the prosecution has proved the demands of bribe made by accused Nos.1 and 2 from time to time.But the trial court has answered point Nos.2 to 4 in the negative.It is submitted that, when the prosecution has proved on the basis of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2, the trial court should have answered point Nos.2 to 4 in the affirmative.Thus, according to the learned APP, the prosecution has proved all the offences alleged against the accused.It is submitted that the prosecution could not examine the investigating::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (19) CRI APEL 160-16 officer due to his ill-health.Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the accused be convicted by allowing the appeal.Alternatively, it is submitted that the matter may be remanded to the trial court to record evidence of the investigating officer and to decide the same afresh.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(18)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(19)S.U. Sudrik, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted that as per complaint Exh.41 lodged by the complainant, on 24.12.2010 when the complainant had gone in the office of accused no.1 to meet him, accused No.1 said him that he (complainant) would not get letter and asked him to come later.However, he stayed there and afterwords, he was called in the office and when he went in his cabin, accused No.1 said him to have a talk with accused No.2 Sayyad and that he would clear his bill.There is an entry at Sr.It is further submitted that wife of accused No.2 had to go to Patna for training and accused No.2 had to accompany her and therefore, accused No.2 had reserved two railway tickets.So also, after attending the said training, the wife of accused No.2 was given attendance certificate.Referring the above circumstances, Mr.Sudrik, learned counsel submitted that the allegation of the complainant in the complaint Exh.41 that he met accused No.1 on 24.12.2010 and accused No.1 asked him to meet accused No.2, is false.Therefore, case of the prosecution that on 24.12.2010, the complainant met to accused No.1 and accused No.1 asked him to have a talk with accused No.2 in respect of bill of the complainant, is false.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(20)Sudrik, learned counsel further submitted that complainant (PW-1) has deposed that he was out of station from 3rd February, 2011 onwards and he made call from Mumbai to accused No.2 and during::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (21) CRI APEL 160-16 conversation, accused No.2-Sayyad informed him that accused No.1-Pawar instructed him to give Rs.15,000/- initially and to give remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- after passing the bill.Thereupon, the complainant said him OK.Thereafter, the complainant immediately returned to Ahmednagar and on 08.02.2011, the complainant visited ACB Office, Ahmednagar.It is submitted that the investigating officer has not collected record of call details of the mobile of the complainant of the relevant period to show that really, he called accused No.2 and then accused No.2 asked him that accused No.1 told him to give Rs.15,000/- initially and to give remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- after passing the bill.Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of the complainant regarding call to accused No.2 is imaginary.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(21)Sudrik, learned counsel further submitted that it has come in the evidence of complainant that accused No.1 informed him to get certification on his bill from PWD, Rahuri.Admittedly, the complainant has not produced certificate from PWD.So also, the::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (22) CRI APEL 160-16 prosecution has not produced the bill to show that the complainant has made all the compliances, which were required to get his bill sanctioned.It was also submitted that as per letter dated 16.06.2009 Exh.42, complainant was informed to start the work allotted to him immediately and to complete the same before 25.06.2009 and to submit the bill along with necessary certificate of Assistant Fisheries Development Officer, Mulanagar and the amount of his bill will be paid after the tender is certified by the Executive Engineer of PWD, Ahmednagar.It is submitted that the complainant has not made a compliance of certification by PWD as mentioned in this letter.So also, this fact is clear from Exh.41, complaint of the complainant.It is submitted that complainant has admitted that whenever, he visited the office of the accused, at any point of time, accused No.2 never instructed him to hand over the amount possessed by him, to him.Moreover, the complainant admitted that when he received the bill amount of Rs.20,000/-, there was no demand of any amount by anybody.Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of 25% of the bill amount of rupees one lakh of the complainant made by accused No.1 through accused No.2 and so also, the prosecution has failed to prove acceptance of said amount by accused No.3 for accused Nos.1 and 2, as alleged because the evidence of the complainant and panch No.1 in this respect is inconsistent and it is doubtful, whether the envelope containing tainted currency notes was really kept on shelf on the Pan Tapari of accused No.3 or not.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(22)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::Case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2010, 24.12.2010, 17.01.2011 and 08.02.2011, accused No.1 made a demand of bribe.As regards the second demand is concerned, it was made by accused No.1 through accused No.2 that the complainant will have to give Rs.25,000/- i.e. 25% of rupees one lakh bill amount and as regards the third demand is concerned, it was made on 08.02.2011 i.e. on the date of trap, by accused No.1 through accused No.2 and amount demanded was Rs.15,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(31)As regards the first demand, it is the case of the prosecution that on 16.11.2010, the complainant submitted his bill of rupees one lakh in the office of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on 16.12.2010, he went in the said office to inquire about the said bill and at that time, when he met accused No.1 and inquired about his bill of rupees one lakh, accused No.1 said him, as to how much amount he will give and thereupon, the complainant said him, why he should be given money.Thereupon, accused No.1 said him that he should take back his bill and bring the certification of Public Works Department and that his work would be done till the March end.On that day, he met one Shri.Sayyad and again said that he met Shri.Pawar, Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries Department.He inquired with him about payment of his bill.At that time, he inquired with him (witness) as to how much, he will::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (32) CRI APEL 160-16 give him for making payment of bill (rq>s chy dk<.;klkBh] rq eyk fdrh ns.kkj-).On that, he asked him for what he should give, on which accused No.1 said the bill will not be given now and they will see later on and then he left.In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, the complainant has stated that while lodging the complaint, he has mentioned correct dates.His evidence about above incident dated 20.12.2009 in the office of accused No.1 has not been specifically challenged in the course of cross- examination.However, when he has not stated in accordance with the allegations made in the complaint Exh.41 that he went to the office of accused No.1 on 16.12.2010 and at that time, accused No.1 made demand as above and when he has stated that he has mentioned correct dates in the complaint, his evidence is not sufficient to infer that on 16.12.2010, accused No.1 made demand as above to clear his bill.Another reason to arrive at this conclusion is that when he had submitted his bill in the Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar on 16.11.2010, there was no question of making demand of money from him by accused No.1 on::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (33) CRI APEL 160-16 20.12.2009, as deposed by him.Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove said demand.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(32)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(33)As regards the second demand allegedly made by accused No.1 on 24.12.2010 to the complainant is concerned, on oath the complainant has not stated anything in respect of said demand in accordance with the allegations made in the complaint.On the contrary, the complainant states that on or about 20.12.2009, after submitting the bill, he visited the office of Fisheries and met accused No.2 and again said, he met accused No.1 and when he inquired with accused No.1 about payment of his bill, accused No.1 inquired with him as to how much, he will give him for making payment of bill.This evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to infer that on 24.12.2010, when he met accused No.1, accused No.1 said him that he would not get letter and thereafter, accused No.1 called him in his cabin and said him to have a talk with accused No.2 and that he would clear::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (34) CRI APEL 160-16 his bill, as alleged in the complaint.If accused No.1 would have asked the complainant as above, on 24.12.2010, the complainant would have definitely deposed in accordance with the said allegation in the complaint.There is no other evidence on record that on 24.12.2010, accused No.1 made demand of bribe to the complainant.Thus, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the second demand as above, made by accused No.1 to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(34)As regards the third demand allegedly made by accused No.1 to the complainant on 17.01.2011 through accused No.2 is concerned, the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) in paragraph Nos.4 and 7 is as under:Sayyad was not present in the office.I then met Shri.He instructed me to meet with Shri.Therefore, on the same day, I met Shri.At that time, Sayyad inquired with me as to whether I have talked with 'Saheb' i.e. Mr. Pawar.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (35)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(35)CRI APEL 160-16 Then Shri.Sayyad took me near Tea stall situated in the said building on backside.He inquired with me as to whether I have discussion with Mr. Pawar.I informed Mr. Sayyad that, Mr. Pawar had demanded from me.Mr. Sayyad informed me that, Mr.Pawar have demanded 25% of total amount of my bill for clearing my bills.I inquired with him, as to which bill they are going to sanction.I was not ready to give amount.Now I say that, this demand was made on 20th, December, 2010 and he called me on 17.01.2011 and demand of 25% was made on that day.7] Thereafter, on the same day, I along with Panch Shri.Patel proceeded to meet Mr. Sayyad at his office.We both proceeded on my motorcycle.After reaching in the office of Mr. Sayyad, we both entered in his cabin.At that time, other persons were present in his cabin, therefore, he asked us to wait for some time.Then he called us in cabin after about 5 minutes.I along with panch Patel entered in the cabin of Sayyad.I::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (36) CRI APEL 160-16 inquired with him as to how much amount I will have to give for clearing the bill and bill of how much amount they are going to sanction and I will pay accordingly.He then inquired about panch No.1 Patel.I informed him that, he is my brother.S.P. Dhopavkar."::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(36)In the cross-examination on behalf of accused No.1, the complainant in paragraph 21 deposed as under:While lodging complaint I have mentioned correct dates.It is true that on 16.12.2010 I came to know that without certification from P.W.D. I cannot get my bills.It is true that::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (37) CRI APEL 160-16 till lodging of the complaint on 17.01.2011 said procedure of certification from P.W.D. was not carried out by me.Portion mark 'B' now read over to me from my complaint at Exh.41 is correct.While lodging complaint Dy.S.P. Dhopavkar had not inquired with me as to whether I have certified my bills from P.W.D. It is true that till 17.01.2011 I had not met Mr.Mahadik of P.W.D.Rahuri.It is true that on 17.01.2011 I lodge complaint mentioning that accused No.1 demanded money.It is true that the verification was conducted with accused no.2 Mr.Sayyed, but my complaint was not against him.It is true that though I had not met Mr.Pawar on 17.01.2011 but still on 18.01.2011 I produce trap amount of Rs.10,000/- and entire procedure of the trap was carried out.It is true that on 18.01.2011 when I visited office of accused no.1 with team of anti corruption bureau accused no.1::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (38) CRI APEL 160-16 was not present in the office.It is true that therefore on that day trap was withdrawn.It is true that therefore both panchas and myself had attended A.C.B. on 19.01.2011."::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(37)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(38)The complainant stated that portion marked "B" in the complaint Exh.41 lodged by him that, "*rsOgk rs eyk Eg.kkys] rqeps chykps uarj c?kq] ekpZ ,UM i;Zar d:u Vkdq] chy rqEgh ijr ?ksoqu tk vkf.k cka/kdke [kkR;kdMwu izek.khr d:u vk.kk] rsOgk eh chy u ?ksrk fu?kqu vkyks-" is correct.From the above evidence of the complainant, it is clear that till 17.01.2011 i.e., till lodging the complaint Exh.41 with the ACB Office, he did not obtain certification of his bill from PWD, Rahuri, as instructed by accused No.1 as per afore mentioned portion marked "B" in the complaint.So also, on 17.01.2011, he did not meet accused No.1 and he met only accused No.2 on that day to verify the demand.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(39)The evidence of panch No.1 Deepak Patel (PW-3) on the third demand made on 17.01.2011 in paragraph Nos.1, 2 and 3 of his deposition is, as under:"1] In the year 2011, I was attached to Zilha Parishad, Ahmednagar as District Agriculture Office.On 17.01.2011 letter was received to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar for deputing employees as panch witness.Therefore, I along with one Shri.S.S.Kadus, from the Health Department of the Zilha Parishad were deputed as panch witness.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::Commissioner, Fisheries Department.We had also gone through the complaint lodged by said Dalvi.Already marked Exh.41 now shown to me is the same complaint.After going through the complaint I had signed the same.3] Dy.His name was Sayyad.Said Sayyad informed us to wait for some time, as three persons were sitting in his cabin.After about 10 minutes, we::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (41) CRI APEL 160-16 were called in the cabin.Then complainant initiated talk about his bill.At that time, Sayyad said that, Pawar saheb required 25% (iokj lkgsckauk 25% ykxrkr-).Then complainant said 25% of one Lac is 25,000/- (,d yk[kkps 25% 25]000@& gksrhy-) He also instructed complainant to meet Mr.Pawar and also to give one application for obtaining permission for B & C department.Accordingly, immediately complainant forwarded one letter to Fisheries Department for issuing him letter addressed to B & Department.Complainant handed over his application to one Mr.Gadekar working in same office.He also informed us that, Pawar will be available tomorrow and called us tomorrow by saying that, till tomorrow he will complete the process.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(41)verification on 17.01.2011, when he along with the complainant met accused No.2, he said that he does not want to involve him in that issue.He admitted::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (42) CRI APEL 160-16 that, whenever, during verification, he along with the complainant met accused No.2, he never said to hand over the amount to him or to give amount for him.His evidence that on 17.01.2011, he along with the complainant reached in the Office of Fisheries Department at 3.15 pm, they entered in the cabin of accused No.2, accused No.2 said that accused No.1 requires 25% and the complainant said that 25% of one lakh is Rs.25,000/- has not been specifically challenged on behalf of the accused.So also, panch No.1 has not stated that accused No.2 informed the complainant that accused No.1 instructed him (accused No.2) to inform him (complainant) that no::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (43) CRI APEL 160-16 work will be done without giving 25% and that he (accused No.1) will have to obtain sanction from the higher authorities.Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of the complainant and Panch No.1 regarding the talk which took place between accused No.2 and the complainant in presence of panch No.1, on 17.01.2011 in respect of demand of bribe allegedly made by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(42)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(43)Considering the same, the fact that there is no consistency in the evidence of the complainant and panch No.1 and that till 17.01.2011, the complainant did not obtain certification from PWD, Rahuri and produce the same to clear his bill, the evidence of panch No.1 is not sufficient to infer that either accused No.1 himself made demand of bribe to the complainant or through accused No.2 on 17.01.2011, as alleged.As regards the fourth demand allegedly made by accused Nos.1 and 2 on 08.02.2011 is concerned, the evidence of the complainant is that on that day,::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (44) CRI APEL 160-16 in the morning time, he visited the ACB Office.Dhopavkar called panchas.He then produced Rs.15,000/-, consisting of 30 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination.Thereafter, anthracene powder was applied to said notes.After waiting for some time, he again made a call to accused No.2 and he informed him that accused No.1 is present and accused No.2 called him (complainant).As regards the actual demand, trap, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount on 08.02.2011 in paragraph 13 of his::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 ::: (45) CRI APEL 160-16 deposition, the complainant has deposed as under:::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(44)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::Then in our presence, Sayyad talked with owner of stall (Tapari) that, Pawar saheb instructed to handover the envelope to the owner of stall (tapari).I therefore, offered said envelope to the owner of stall (tapari).The owner::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (47) CRI APEL 160-16 of stall (Tapari) instructed me to keep the same on one shelf.I therefore, kept the same on the shelf.Then Mr.Sayyad instructed me to give intimation to Mr. Pawar that, envelope has been handed over to the owner of stall (Tapari).I therefore, by raising my right hand instructed team of Anti Corruption Bureau to stop.Thereafter,I along with panch proceeded in the cabin of Mr. Pawar and informed him that, I have kept the envelope with stall owner as per his instructions.Then Mr.Pawar signed papers of sanction and informed me that, my work will be done and I should visit 5.30 p.m. I along with panch immediately came out and reached near stall, and I gave pre determined signal by raising my left hand.Dy.S.P.Dhopavkar with his team immediately arrived and inquired with the owner of stall by showing his identity card.I then showed him the envelope lying in the shelf.The owner of stall was apprehended.Then team of Anti Corruption Bureau apprehended Mr. Sayyad and then entered in the cabin of Mr. Pawar.Then they returned back after some time and informed me that, my work has been done.Then I was called in the::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (48) CRI APEL 160-16 cabin of Mr. Pawar.My personal search was conducted.My hands and shirt was examined under ultraviolet lamp.At that time, effect of anthracene powder was noted on finger tips of my right hand and inside and on opening portion of my left chest pocket.The person sitting on the last bench are the same accused namely Mr. Sayyad, Mr.Pawar, and owner of stall.Later on I came to know the name of stall owner as Mr. Shaikh. "::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:10:59 :::(46)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(47)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::As far as evidence of panch No.1 (PW-3) in respect of fourth demand made on 08.02.2011 by the accused and acceptance of said amount on the said::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (50) CRI APEL 160-16 date by accused No.3 is concerned, in paragraph 13, PW-3 has deposed, as under:::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::At that time, complainant said he is not acquainted with the said Paan Tapari and accused No.2 shall accompany with him (dks.krk iku Vijhokyk vkgs eyk ekfgr ukgh] rqEgh pyk-).Thereafter, we three reached on the ground floor of the building.We reached on the Paan Tapari situated on the left hand side of the gate.Then I along with complainant reached near Paan Tapari.Complainant handed over envelope to the person sitting at Paan Tapari.Complainant handed over envelope to the person sitting at Paan stall.Said person accepted the envelope by his right hand and kept on one shelf situated on the::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (53) CRI APEL 160-16 left side.Complainant immediately gave pre determined signal.I can identify the owner of Paan Tapari to whom the envelope was handed over.The accused sitting on the last bench is the same person.(On inquiry accused disclosed his name as Shaikh Abdul).Therefore, complainant by making gesture by his right hand stop the team of Anti Corruption Bureau.Accused No.2 instructed us to meet.At that time, complainant informed to accused No.1 that, envelope has been handed over to the Paan stall owner.At that time, accused No.1 said not to worry and to confirm about his bill at about 5.30 p.m. (dkGth d: udks 5-30 oktrk ;soqu chykp ikgqu ?ks-).Then he made some remarks on the file of complainant.Then I along with complainant came out of his cabin.He again reached near paan tapari, and again complainant gave pre determined signal.Immediately, team of Anti Corruption Bureau reached near paan::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (54) CRI APEL 160-16 tapari.Then Dy.S.P. Dhopavkar inquired with me about the incidence.I informed him that, where the amount is kept.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(52)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(53)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(54)Then panch No.2 on the instruction of Dy.S.P. Dhopavkar taken into possession said envelope.Then Dy.accused No.3 proceeded towards cabin of Sayyad.I then informed Dy.Dhopavkar that, said person is namely Sayyad.Then Dy.S.P. Dhopavkar inquired accused No.2 about file concerning the work of complainant.Then accused No.2 produced the file which was lying on his table.The xerox copies of the said file was taken.I along with another panch signed on each page of the said file.Accused No.2 was arrested.At that time, complainant was not with us.He was instructed not to touch anywhere by his right hand.After entering into the cabin of accused No.1,Dy.Then all necessary articles were called required for post trap procedure.We entire team members::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (55) CRI APEL 160-16 had undergone test of ultraviolet lamp.But, nothing was noted.Then artificial darkness was created in the said room.The hands of all three accused were examined under light of ultraviolet lamp.But, effect of anthracene powder was not noted on the anyone's hand.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(55)Panch No.2 then removed the pin of envelope and then took out the currency notes from the said envelope.The currency notes were examined under ultra violet lamp, at that time, effect of anthracene powder was noted in light bluish shining on all currency notes.The said currency note were kept in one brown colour envelope.The currency notes were seized and sealed bearing signature of we both panchas and DySP Dhopavkar.Again artificial darkness was created.The white colour envelope was checked from inside under ultraviolet lamp at that time, light bluish shining of anthracene powder was noted inside the said envelope.Said white colour::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (56) CRI APEL 160-16 envelope was also folded and kept in one brown colour envelope.It was sealed bearing label of signatures of we both panchas and Investigating officer."::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(56)In the cross-examination, PW-3 has denied that he is deposing false that on 08.02.2011 in his presence, the complainant informed accused No.2 that he has brought amount of Rs.15,000/- as decided yesterday.So also, he has denied all other suggestions, denying the fact of putting Rs.15,000/- in the envelope and keeping said envelope at Paan Tapari.The above::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (57) CRI APEL 160-16 referred evidence of PW-3 that on 08.02.2011, he informed accused No.2 that he has brought Rs.15,000/- as decided yesterday and further his evidence that when he entered in cabin of accused no.1 with the complainant, the complainant informed that he has brought Rs.15,000/- as per the instructions of accused No.2, is not sufficient to infer that on the above said date, either accused No.1 or accused No.2 made demand of bribe of Rs.15,000/- to clear the bill of the complainant.Because said evidence only suggests that the complainant only informed accused Nos.1 and 2 regarding bringing amount of Rs.15,000/- and said evidence is not sufficient to state that either accused no. 2 or accused No.1 made demand of bribe of Rs.15,000/- on 08.02.2011 to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(57)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (58)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::As referred earlier, in their evidence, both complainant and panch No.1 have stated that they along with accused No.2 reached on the ground floor of the building/office and reached near stall (tapari).The complainant stated that in their presence, accused No.2 talked with owner of stall (tapari) that accused instructed to hand over envelope to said owner.The complainant stated that, he therefore, offered said envelope to owner of stall and owner of the stall instructed him to keep the same on one shelf and he therefore, kept the same on the shelf.He stated that accused No.2 instructed him to give intimation in this respect to accused No.1 that he handed over envelope to owner of the stall (tapari).Panch No.1 has stated that at that time, he along with complainant were standing at some distance.Accused No.2 then came near them and instructed complainant to hand over said envelope to owner of paan tapari.Then, he along with complainant reached near paan tapari.Complainant handed over envelope to person sitting on paan tapari.Said person accepted the envelope by his::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (59) CRI APEL 160-16 right hand and kept the same on shelf, situated on the left side.Complainant then gave pre-determined signal.He stated that he identified accused No.3 as a owner of tapari.There is no consistency in the above referred evidence of the complainant and panch No.1 regarding acceptance of envelope of tainted currency notes by owner of stall/paan tapari because as per the evidence of the complainant, he had kept the envelope on shelf of paan tapari as per the instruction of owner of paan stall, wheres, as per the evidence of panch no.1, owner of paan stall had accepted the said envelope by his right hand and then kept the same on shelf, situated on the left side.Therefore, it is doubtful, whether really accused No.3 owner of stall/paan tapari accepted envelope, containing tainted currency notes as deposed by panch No.1 or said envelope was kept on the shelf of Stall/Paan Tapari as deposed by complainant.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(59)The evidence of the complainant shows that after he has given pre-determined signal by raising his left hand, DySP Dhopavkar with his team immediately arrived there and inquired with the owner::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (60) CRI APEL 160-16 of the paan stall/tapari by showing his identity card.Then, he showed the envelope lying on the shelf.The owner of paan stall/tapari was apprehended.He has stated about examining his hands and shirt under the light of ultra violet lamp.He has not specifically stated that the envelope containing tainted currency notes of Rs.15,000/- was seized from paan stall/tapari.Panch No.1 (PW-3) has sated that after the complainant has given pre- determined signal, Dy.S.P.Dhopavkar inquired with him about the incident and he informed him that where the amount is kept.Panch No.2 on the instructions of Dy.S.P.Dhopavkar had taken into possession said envelope He stated that the hands of accused were examined under the ultraviolet lamp but effect of anthracene powder was not noted on anyone's hand.Panch No.2 then removed the pin of envelope and then took all the currency notes from the said envelope.Then currency notes were examined under the ultraviolet lamp.At that time, effect of anthracene powder was noted in the light, bluish shining was noted on all the currency notes in the light.This::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (61) CRI APEL 160-16 was conducted by creating artificial darkness.This evidence of panch no.1 has not been specifically challenged, on behalf of the accused.Another reason to arrive at this occasion is that, no anthracene powder was noted on the hands of any of the accused, when their hands were examined under the light of ultraviolet lamp.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(60)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(61)Defecne of accused No.2 is that, he was on leave on 22.12.2010 to 24.12.2010, as he had to go to Patna with his wife and therefore, he filed leave application Exh.82 and therefore, the case of the prosecution that on 24.12.2010, when the complainant went to meet accused no.1, accused No.1 told him that he would not get letter and thereafter, accused No.1::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (62) CRI APEL 160-16 called him in his cabin and asked him to have a talk with accused No.2 and that he would clear his bill and accordingly, he met accused No.2, who asked him to come on 17th on Monday is not believable.The said evidence of defence witness has not been shattered in his cross- examination on behalf of the prosecution.It also appears that two railway tickets of two adults'::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (63) CRI APEL 160-16 journey from Ahmednagar to Patna on 21.12.2010 were taken.Therefore, also it cannot be said that on 24.12.2010, either accused No.1 or accused No.2 made a demand of bribe to the complainant, as alleged by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(62)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(63)For all the reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove all the four demands made by accused Nos.1 and 2 on 16.12.2010, 24.12.2010, 17.01.2011 and 08.02.2011 and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- by accused No.3 and what is proved by the prosecution is only that investigating officer has seized envelope, containing tainted currency notes of Rs.15,000/-.When the prosecution has failed to prove demands and acceptance of bribe as above, no presumption under Section 20 of the Act, can be raised in favour of the prosecution and against the accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (64)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(64)CRI APEL 160-16There is no dispute that at the relevant time of incident both accused Nos.1 and 2 were serving in Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar as said earlier.There is no dispute that accused No.1 has retired from service, when the charge-sheet was filed against him.Therefore, no sanction was required to prosecute him.Parag Jain (PW-2), who was Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Mumabi in 2012, has deposed that accused No.2 was working as Assistant Fisheries Development Officer at Ahmednagar and he being Commissioner was competent to remove Assistant Fisheries Development Officer from the post.In the cross-examination, he admitted that accused No.2 was not having power to distribute the amount and if the bill amount is more than rupees one lakh, then the Commissioner is having authority to sanction the said bill amount.He has::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (65) CRI APEL 160-16 denied that he has mechanically granted sanction without application of mind.This shows that the accused No.2 had no reason to demand bribe to the complainant to clear his bill as the work of sanctioning bill was not within his power.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(65)At the cost of repetition in short his defence is::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (66) CRI APEL 160-16 that one Dangare was Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar prior to accused No.1 and during the period of Shri.Dangare, contract was given to the complainant, though, the complainant was not eligible to take such contract.While, Shri.Dangare was working as a District Fisheries Officer at Nashik was caught red-handed while accepting bribe and he was convicted in the said Special Case No.11 of 2001 and in the said case, accused No.1 was present as a presentation officer on behalf of the Government in the said case against Shri.Dangare, while accused No.1 was working on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries Department at Nashik.Therefore, according to accused No.1, he has been falsely implicated by the complainant at the instance of Shri.Dangare, who is relative of complainant.Another aspect to arrive at::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (67) CRI APEL 160-16 this conclusion is that immediately after the trap on 08.02.2011, accused No.1 gave statements Exh.68 and 69 before the investigating officer that accused No.2 has to defame him and he has not accepted the money and in Exh.69, he stated that Rajendra Dangare was compulsorily retired from service.There was case of accepting bribe of Rs.500/- against him.The complainant is the relative of said Rajendra Dangare.He never demanded bribe from the complainant.Accused No.2 at his own, falsely involved him.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(66)::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::In such circumstances, when on the basis of the evidence of the complainant and panch No.1, the prosecution has::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: (68) CRI APEL 160-16 failed to prove the demands of the bribe made by accused Nos.1 and 2 from the complainant on different dates, referred earlier and when it is not the case that accused Nos.1 and 2 accepted bribe amount and it was recovered from them and when it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt the acceptance of bribe by accused No.3 and recovery of it from him, for accused Nos.1 and 2, the offences alleged against all the accused are not attracted, there is no need to remand the matter to the trial court as per alternative submission made by the learned APP appearing for the appellant-State to record evidence of the investigating officer.The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution.The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::Hence, the appeal is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::(69)[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] sarowar::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 23:11:00 ::: | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
120,017,013 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4617/2019 (Bunty @ Bankat s/o Rameshchandra Chawda Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 22.02.2019 Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4617/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2019.02.26 10:44:47 +05'30' | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
120,025,953 | M.C. No.3629/2017 Page 1 of 2On 24th May, 2017 they had amicably resolved and settled all their disputes.The terms and conditions of the settlement were reduced to writing.1. Notice.Learned APP for the State, who appears on an advance copy, accepts notice.2. Notice to respondent no. 2 also.She is present in court and accepts notice.She is duly identified by IO SI Subhash.Thereafter, they continued to meet but due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2, they could not reconcile with each Crl.M.C. No.3629/2017 Page 1 of 2 other.Consequently, on the complaint of the respondent no. 2 the said FIR was registered against the petitioner.Copy of the settlement dated 24th May, 2017 is placed on record.The respondent No.2 states that she has voluntarily settled and resolved all her disputes with the petitioner without any force and coercion.Since the parties have amicably settled their all disputes, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR bearing No.0081/2017, registered on 21.03.2017 with Police Station R.K. Puram, Delhi, under Sections 354D/506/509 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed of accordingly.11. DASTI. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
120,027,792 | The petitioner through this petition preferred u/s. 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, "the Code", calls in question the legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 20.2.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangpur, District Rajgarh in S.T. No.496/2016, whereby charges u/s. 306 and 498A of the IPC have been framed against him.As per prosecution, Neetu, who was married to petitioner-Subhash Rathore 12 to 13 years back, committed suicide on 6.10.2016 by hanging in the petitioner's house.The allegations against the petitioner, as emerging from the statement of Mathribai - mother of the deceased; and Tarabai - sister of the deceased, who have been interrogated during investigation, are that he used to frequently beat his wife after consuming liquor and that, he repeatedly pressurised her to bring money from her mother.Per contra, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the material available on record clearly indicates that the deceased was being repeatedly subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner and he further used to demand money from her.It is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner created a situation where the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide and, therefore, it can be said that he instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide.5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
12,003,016 | Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials on record.Office is directed to communicate this order to the opposite party No. 2 at her address mentioned in the cause title of this application as well as to the court below at once.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 3 4 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
120,036,579 | Item No. 09And In the matter of: Rajendra Nath Bapari & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioners Mr. Navanil De For the State Leave to amend the cause title.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat P.S. Case No. 129 of 2013 dated 4.4.2013 under Sections 420/34 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 other relevant material.All the Petitioners have been directly implicated along with one Rabindra Nath Bapari.Therefore, none of them deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.However, keeping in mind the age of the Petitioner No.1, Rajendra Nath Bapari, who is 72 years old, while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Prasanta Bapari, Pradip Kumar Bapari and Ratan Kumar Bapari, we grant him anticipatory bail on the following conditions:Iii) He shall report to the Investigating Officer of this case once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,187,532 | They are heard.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. filed on behalf of applicant- Surendra for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 224/2011 registered against him at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC, 3(1)(2) (4) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sarankshan Adhiniyam, 2000, Sections 45S, 58B (5-A) of RBI Act and Sections 4, 5, 6 of Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)As per order passed by the trial Court, the applicant is a share-holder.Looking to the nature of offence and the allegations against the applicant and period of detention of the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is hereby allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Gwalior, for his regular appearance during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the trial 2 M. Cr. C. No. 4701/2014 Court during trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P. C.2 M. Cr.C. No. 4701/2014M. Cr. C. stands disposed of accordingly.Certified copy. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
178,192,681 | ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 04:30:54 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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. |
178,193,215 | Criminal Original Petitions filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore.The present petitions have been filed for the quashment of the the case on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chennai, which have been taken pursuant to the complaints lodged by the respondent in the wake of the Government 1/18http://www.judis.nic.in ___________________ Crl.O.P. Nos.20321 & 20322/2014In the result, the criminal original petitions are allowed. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,781,943 | ORDER Narain Singh "Azad", J.On 8th October, 2001, Mr. P.K. Verma, ASJ Jabalpur, framed charge for offences punishable Under Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 494, IPC against petitioner Suryabhan Singh and a charge for offence punishable Under Sections 306 and 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC against Mithlesh @ Mona, giving rise to this petition.It is found stated in police statement of Saheb Singh and Yashoda, the parents of deceased Sandhya that when the fact of marriage between Suryabhan Singh and Mona @ Mithlesh came to the Knowledge of Sandhya, she could not tolerate and committed suicide.Mr. Singh has pointed out that on the basis of affidavit alone, which purports to have been sworn in by petitioner Mithlesh on 30.7.1999, the fact of marriage between the petitioners cannot be prima facie taken to have been proved and hence the learned ASJ was not justified in framing the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 494, IPC.It is also submitted that there is no evidence about the demand of dowry and hence, charge for offence punishable Under Section 304B, IPC, could not have been framed against Suryabhan Singh.The law on framing the charge is settled.Even on the basis of grave suspicion about commission of offence, the charge may be framed. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,196,411 | (DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)The same shall be retained with the records.The petitioner shall be at liberty to deal with such affidavit by filing a reply within ten days.Put up this writ petition on August 11, 2015 ACO under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.Pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the investigating officer to conduct and complete investigation of Joynagar Police Station F.I.R. No.572 of 2015 dated June 16, 2015 under sections 147/447/427/ 323/354B/380/365/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code in accordance with law. | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,781,968 | JUDGMENT S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.The appellants have been convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to nine months R.I. by the High Court, which set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial magistrate on appeal to it by the State.The judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court, contain a detailed narrative of the prosecution case.On the day of occurrence the complainant Raghia Surji was assaulted by Raman Kalia and Khalpa Kalia in front of the house of Lallu Ram who was also assaulted.It was also alleged that the two accused assaulted Mohan Raghia, the son of the complainant also.The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no sufficient evidence was led before the Court.In acquitting the appellant Khalpa Kalia the Magistrate was swayed by the circumstance that his name was not at all mentioned in the F.I.R. although P. I. R. was lodged by Raghia Surji who had seen the entire occurrence and still he never indicated in the F.I.R. that the second appellant Khalpa had assaulted anybody.Even the fact that Lallu Ram was assaulted by the appellants was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Furthermore, while the complainant mentioned the presence of his son Mohan Raghia in the F.I.R. he did not mention that Mohan Raghia was also beaten.In his statement in the Court the complainant had categorically stated that the Police had recorded the complaint according to what he stated and it was read over to him and signed by him.He also admitted that he had lodged complaint only against Raman Kalia and not against Khalpa Kalia.The High Court appears to have completely overlooked this important circumstance, which was sufficient to throw serious doubt on the truth of prosecution case, by a bare statement that it was impressed with the evidence given by Lallu Ram and others.At any rate, the very fact that the presence of Lallu Ram or Mohan Surji as persons who had been injured during the occurrence was not mentioned by the complainant who was a full-fledged eye witness is sufficient to raise a doubt regarding the complicity of the accused Khalpa Kalia or even Raman Kalia so far as these two persons are concerned and this doubt could not be displaced by the oral evidence of witnesses examined long after the occurrence at the trial.The only comment against the witnesses was that they were inimical to the accused but that by itself was not a sufficient ground for rejecting their testimony.Having however, regard to the injuries sustained by the complainant which were simple in nature and more or less superficial we think that a sentence of nine months imposed by the High Court errs on the side of severity.We would, therefore, while upholding the conviction of Raman Kalia under Section 323, I.P.C. reduce the sentence to the period already served, which we understand is about a month and a half.The appellant Raman Kalia will now be discharged from his bail bonds.The appeal of Khalpa Kalia is allowed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,819,986 | taking any coercive steps against the petitioners.The said order 2 has thereafter been extended till disposal of the revisional application.Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appears for the State.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,201,014 | 2 CRA. No.868/2001The prosecution story in short is that after the marriage of deceased-Radhabai she was being harrassed by her husand and in-laws for dowry.She was left at her parental house and later on, deceased was brought back by her in- laws on their own responsibility on 03.05.2000, the appellant has poured kerosene over her and burnt her.Dr. O. P. Gupta (PW-4) was the Medical Officer in District Hospital, Ratlam.(Delivered on 25th day of November 2019) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.This appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC') has been preferred by the appellant against the order of conviction pronounced by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in ST No.128/2000 vide judgment dated 31.07.2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-and in default, to suffer three months of Simple Imprisonment.It is also admitted that Radhabai died on 03.05.2000 due to burning.She was admitted in hospital where her dying declarations were recorded, however, she succumbed to her injuries on the same day.Inquest was performed, statement of witnesses were recorded, post-mortem was performed and thereafter FIR was got registered.After investigation, spot-map was prepared and seizure etc. Recording of statement of deceased under-Section 161 of Cr.PC was done and chargesheet was filed under-Section 302 and 498-A of IPC against the appellant and his parents namely; Savitribai and Gordhanlal.Charges were framed against all the three accused persons under Section 302 IPC in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC, as well as Section 498-A IPC.The accused abjured their guilt and were put to trial.The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses which includes near relatives of the deceased, attending Doctors, Patwari prepared spot-maps and police witnesses.No defence witness was examined by appellants.The trial Court in his judgment delivered on 31.07.2001 acquitted Savitribai and Gordhanlal and convicted the appellant-Shekhar unde Section 302 IPC and sentenced, as described earlier.The appellant, in his appeal, has submitted that the lower Court's judgment is contrary to law and facts on record 3 CRA.No.868/2001 and the same is neither legal nor proper and that the lower Court was wrong in believing the prosecution witnesses and discarded the defence version and unwarranted inferences were drawn wrongly, material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence were over-looked.3 CRA. No.868/2001The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in all which include mother of the deceased Bhagwantabai (PW-9), brothers of the deceased Gangaram (PW-8) and Mohanlal (PW-6) and sister-in-law of the deceased Shardabai (PW-10), Other relatives are Ramlal (PW-1) and Dilip (PW-2), neighbours of the parental house of the deceased Yunus (PW-7) and Gulab Khan (PW-11), medical experts are Dr. Mamta Sharma (PW-3), Dr. O. P. Gupta (PW-4), Dr. S. S. Bhushan (PW-12) and Dr. Sunil Rathore (PW-18), Investigating Officer is Vinod Kumar Singh (PW-17) and other witnesses are seizure and police witnesses.The allegation against the appellant was that he used to harass his wife Radhabai for dowry.However, the Trial 4 CRA.No.868/2001 Court in its judgement did not find dowry as the reason for harassment and therefore acquitted the appellant from the alternative charges framed under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and only charge under Section 302 of IPC has been proved against the appellant i.e. committing murder of deceased Radhabai.4 CRA. No.868/2001The prosecution story is based on dying declarations and other circumstantial evidence.It would be first appropriate to consider the impact of dying declarations which are Exhibit-P/10 and Exhibit-P/11 respectively.The dying declaration Exhibit-P/11 is the first one, it was recorded on the date of incident i.e. on 03.05.2000 at 7.30 PM and this dying declaration was exculpatory in nature i.e. no allegations were made against the appellant in this dying declaration by the deceased whereas, the second dying declaration which is Exhibit-P/10 dated 06.05.2000 recorded at 06.05 PM and this is inculpatory dying declaration i.e. specific averment has been made in this dying declaration that appellant had set the deceased on fire.At first both the dying declarations shall be considered.The first dying declaration i.e. Exhibit-P/11 has been recorded by the SDO Gopalchand (PW-13).He states that deceased was brought to the hospital on 03.05.2000 in burnt state.Perusal of Exhibit-P/5 shows that she was brought at 3.20 PM.MLC 5 CRA.No.868/2001 report shows that portion above waist was mostly affected with burns.5 CRA. No.868/2001Babulal Chouhan (PW-14) is the Tehsildar, who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 03.05.2000 at 7.30 PM.In the dying declaration, it has been stated by the deceased that she was cleaning the utensils and had swept the house and went to latrine and poured kerosene oil over herself and set herself on fire and on crying, her husband (appellant) came and poured water over her.She was asked whether she was set on fire by any person from the house, she answered in negative.She further states that she was married for 11 to 12 years but was not having any issues and that no quarrel had taken place.The gist of Exhibit-P/11 shows that she was married for 11 to 12 years and unable to have child and therefore, deceased set herself ablaze.However, such submissions appear to be exaggerated.In Exhibit-P/11, there is no remark of any physician to the effect that patient was in conscious state of mind and was in a position to give her statement.As already stated, patient was brought in completely unconscious state with no pulse and blood pressure recordable at 3.20 PM and she was shown to be giving her 6 CRA.No.868/2001 detailed dying declaration at 7.00 PM creates suspicion regarding submissions of Babulal Chouhan (PW-14) specifically when there is no prior remark of any physician showing that deceased was in a fit state of mind.As the statement favours the appellant, the witness has not been cross-examined.It should have been the duty of the Presiding Officer to seek recourse to Section 165 of the Evidence Act and asked the pointed questions as to the fitness of the deceased to give statements.6 CRA. No.868/2001This witness states that on 06.05.2000 while he was posted as Medical Officer in Ratlam District Hospital, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) came to record statements of Radhabai who was found to be in conscious estate and was in fit condition to give statements.He identified his signatures on Ex.P/10 from "A to A" and "B to B" portion.Gopalchand (PW-13) states that he had recorded the statements of Radhabai in question - answer form.A perusal of Ex.P/10 shows that when asked as to how she was burnt, 7 CRA.No.868/2001 Radhabai states that she was burnt by her husband.Then she was asked that where she was burnt, she answered that she was burnt in latrine.She then was asked as to why she was burnt, to this Radhabai states that it was because of some quarrel that she was burnt.Then she says that he was burnt by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and immediately thereafter she states that her mother-in-law had gone somewhere and father-in-law was made to go to some other village.This dying declaration was recorded 3 days after the incident.As already seen, inconsistent statements have been made by the deceased who first names mother-in-law and father-in-law and immediately thereafter exculpates them stating that they were not at home and she implicates the appellant.7 CRA. No.868/2001It is to be seen whether the second dying declaration, apart from the inconsistencies referred to above, was a tutored statement as well ?Yunus (PW-7), neighbour of accused Shekhar, states in fact in favour of Shekhar but has not been declared hostile.As per this witness he had over heard that Mohan, the brother of Radhabai, had been telling Radhabai that she should give such statements to police that she was set on fire by Shekhar only.Incidentally, his such statements find support from the relatives of Radhabai that Shardabai (PW-10), who in para 3 states that she came to know that Radhabai has given statement under duress exculpating appellant Shekhar.This witness states that she, her husband and her brother-in-law were of opinion that the earlier statement by Radhabai were wrong and her dying 8 CRA.No.868/2001 declaration would have to be recorded again.She further admits that thereafter she and other witnesses, such as Mohan, mother-in-law etc. met Shekhar in jail and Mohan told Radhabai that a report has been lodged and that her statements would be recorded again.This witness clearly points out that before recording second dying declaration at Ex.P/10, Radhabai was influenced by her relatives in making such statements.Thus, the second dying declaration (Ex.P/10) runs the threat of being tutored statements.It is clear that Mohan had recorded Ex.P/7 report after the first dying declarations of Radhabai were recorded and the second dying declaration on 06.05.2000 were recorded subsequently.It has already been found that there is an admission on the part of prosecution witness Shardabai (PW-10) that Radhabai was constantly contacted by her parental relatives before she gave her second dying declaration (Ex.P/10).Thus, the dying declaration of Radhabai (Ex.P/10) appears to be influenced by her immediate relatives.8 CRA. No.868/2001The Supreme Court in the case Umakant and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 405, considering the impact of tutoring of a dying person has observed as under:"In spite of all the importance attached and the sanctity given to the piece of dying declaration, the Courts have to be very careful while analysing the truthfulness, genuineness of the dying declaration and should come to a proper conclusion that the dying declaration is not a product of prompting or tutoring."9 CRA. No.868/2001If the inculpating dying declaration would not have suffered from the above deficiencies, then the same, corroborated with other circumstantial evidence could have clinched the issue in favour of prosecution.10 CRA.Apart from the above two contradictory dying declarations, evidence of some witnesses are also in the nature of dying declarations as they have stated that deceased had narrated to them the cause of her burning.These statements would now be considered.These witnesses are Mohanlal (PW-6), Gangaram (PW-8), Mamtabai (PW-9) and Shardabai (PW-10) who have stated that the deceased had told them that it was the appellant who had set her on fire.Mohanlal (PW-6), Gangaram (PW-8), Mamtabai (PW-9) and Shardabai (PW-10) have stated that deceased in the hospital had told that it was the appellant who dowsed her in kerosene oil when she had gone to the latrine and threw burning match-stick upon her setting her ablaze.When she tried to come out of the latrine, its door was locked by the appellant.It has to be seen whether such statements can be relied upon or not.30. Mohanlal (PW-6) states that after getting to know about the incident, he went to the hospital at Ratlam and found the deceased unconscious but then also states that deceased told him that she went to the latrine and had barely stated that then the appellant came from behind and poured kerosene oil over her and threw a burning match-stick upon her and closed the door and when she cried, no one opened the door.11 CRA. No.868/200112 CRA. No.868/2001Apart from this, the High Court basing on the same dying declaration, ought not to have convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC, when they were acquitted under Section 304- B and 498-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the High Court."The incident occurred immediately after she was brought to her matimonial home by appellant.The possibility cannot be denied that she may have committed suicide out of frustration arising from being brought back to her matrimonial home.13 CRA. No.868/2001Considering all the evidence on record, benefit of doubt needs to be accorded to the appellant, who already has been acquitted under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC by trial Court, but convicted under Section 302 of IPC.Consequently, the appellant is acquitted under Section 302 IPC as well.The appeal stands allowed.14 CRA. No.868/2001 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,205,281 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Lakhanlal, Vinay, Deendayal and Baddri in crime no. 100/2017 registered by P.S.- Rithi, District- Katni (M.P.) under Sections 323, 294, 324, 341, 506, 325, 326 and 34 of I.P.C..As per the prosecution case, at about 11:45 P.M. on 14/03/2017, four petitioners and other co-accused persons had assaulted the victim with pick-axe and shovels, as a result, the victim Manoj Kumar suffered the fracture on his foot and Kusum Bai suffered the fracture on a thumb.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from Lakhan Bihari who is said to have assaulted the victim RamKaran with a shovel, there are no specific allegations against the other petitioners.-in the opinion of this Court, petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Lakhanlal, Vinay, Deendayal and Baddri is allowed.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Vy/ | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,782,095 | P.W.2 Shanthi isher sister aged about 12 years.Allof them were residing in 4th Street, Subbiah Mudaliarpuram, Tuticorin,along with their parents.On 12.4.1990 at about 8.00 P.M., P.W.3 Raj andhis sisters P.Ws.1 and 2 along with his friends went to PalayamkottaiRoad to participate in the Kodai Vizha function in the Esakiamman temple.(b) AT 2.00 A.M. midnight, both P.Ws.1 and 2 felt sleepy.Therefore,they left the place without informing P.W.3 as he was sitting in theGents side and were proceeding towards their house.When they were walking along the road near Noon Meal Centre, Chidambara Nagar, they heard the sound from rear side.When they turned back, they saw sixpersons were coming towards them in three cy cles and four other persons were following the cycles.They asked P.Ws.1 and 2 shouting When P.Ws.1 and 2 tried to run away from the place, all the10 persons surrounded them.Then, both A5 Stanley and A6 Maneksha put the cloth into the mouth of P.W.1 and forcibly took her in the cycle and broughther to Kattabomman Nagar.(c) In the meantime, P.W.1 was taken to southern corner of the Kattabomman Nagar.There, a newly constructed house without completing construction was situated and nobody was inside.P.W.1 was forcibly taken inside the room of the house and was made to lie down on the sand.Then, A4 John Britto and A5 Stanley caught hold of her hands; A2 Muthukumar and A3 Ponraj caught hold of her legs and A6 Maneksha put the cloth into her mouth to prevent her from shouting.Thereafter, A1Arokiyasamy committed rape on her by removing her saree.Then, all the other accused one after another committed a gang rape.(d) In the meantime, P.W.3 on getting information from P.W.2 came to thescene.He found that 10 persons came out and took the cycles and fledaway.He went inside the room and saw P.W.1 lying down with injuries.She was unable to get up.Then, P.W.3 took her to the house.Thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 along with their mother came to the Police Station.Then, he sent her to the Doctor.(e) P.W.4 Dr.Gomathi attached to the Government Hospital examined P. W.1 and found injuries on the breast and the right hand and also found hymenruptured.She issued Ex.P2 giving opinion that she was subjected tosexual intercourse.(f) P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police took up investigation, came to thescene at 6.30 A.M. and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P4 and recovered the clothes M.O.5, M.O.6 and M.O.7 under mahazar Ex.P5 attested by P.W.6 Thalayari.P.W.10, the Inspector of Police arrested the accused on15.4.1990 at about 5.30 P.M. and recovered their clothes.They weresent for the Potency test.Then, his successor P.W.11 took up furtherinvestigation and examined the witnesses and filed a charge sheet for theoffences under Sections 366, 376 and 323 I.P.C.It must be remembered that a rapist not only violatesthe victim's privacy and personal integrity, but also inevitably causesserious psychological as well as physical harm in the process.With the above observation, these revisions are disposed of.4-03-2002 Index: Yes (I)mam Sd/-Assistant Registrar.M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J.4-03-2002 : COMMON ORDER On 13.4.1990 mid night at 2.00 A.M., the victim girl KalaiselviP.W.1 aged about 19 years along with her sister P.W.2 aged about 12 years was proceeding towards home after attending the Thiruvizha function at Esakiamman temple.The accused 1 to 10 who came in three cycles waylaid them and forcibly kidnapped P.W.1 by putting in the cycle and took her toa place where a new construction was being done and made her to lie downon the sand portion of the new built up house and all of them committed gang rape.All the 10 accused were facing trial in S.C.No.332 of 1991 inrespect of the above accusation.After trial, all were convicted for theoffences under Sections 366 and 376(g) of I.P.C. and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each count and thesentences were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the same, A1 Arokiyasamy, A4 John Britto, A5 Stanley, A6 Maneksha and A3 Ponraj filed a separate revision in Crl.R.C.No.206 of 2000 and A8Rajendran filed a separate revision in Crl.These matters were admitted by this Court, but however, thebail was refused pending revision.Edmund that the petitioners have already sent a letter tothe Registry seeking permission for withdrawal of the revision.However,when it was pointed out by this Court to the counsel for the petitionersthat since already suo motu notice has been issued to the petitioners, itmay not be proper to give such permission for withdrawal, the counsel forthe petitioners would submit that they are prepared to argue on merits.Accordingly, the matter was posted for several hearings.Both the counsel Mr.Edmund and Mr.Venkatachalam appearing in these two revisions were heard at length both on merits in the revisionsas well as in the suo motu proceedings for enhancement of sentence.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P.1 toP22 were filed and M.O.1 to M.O.27 were marked.When the accused were questioned, they pleaded innocence.Ultimately, the trial Court though acquitted the petitioners in respectof the offence under Section 323 I.P.C., convicted them for the offencesunder Sections 366 and 376(g) I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I.for five years for each of the offences and the same was confirmed in theappeal.The contentions in brief urged by the counsel Mr.Edmund appearingfor the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.206 of 2000 are as follows:When P.W.1 victim girl admitted that she did not know the name of thevillage and names of the parents of the accused, she would not have giventhe names of the accused in Ex.P1, the complaint.P.W.2 admitted thatthe police enquired all the accused at the Police Station and noted downtheir names and addresses.P.W.1 also stated that police brought all theaccused to the Police Station.Therefore, F.I.R. must have been prepared only after arrest of the accused and these accused were identified in Court without any identification parade.There is also adelay in the F.I.R. reaching the Court.The submission made by Mr.O.Venkatachalam, appearing for A8, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2000 is as follows:There is a variation in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 with reference tothe place.The accused were present in the Police Station on 13.4 .1990itself when P.W.1 gave the complaint.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.10that he arrested the accused on 15.4.1990 is false.When there is nomaterial to show that P.W.1 knew the accused earlier, the identity of theaccused cannot be said to be established in the absence of the identification parade.P.W.2 stated that only after the return fromthe hospital, P.W.1 gave complaint to the police.This shows that thecomplaint given at 5.00 A.M. has been suppressed.Furthermore, when a girl is rapped on the sand for one hour, more injuries would have beenfound on the body of the victim, but strangely no injuries were found onthe back.P.W.7 would admit that only it would be five minutes walk toreach the Court.Therefore, there is no reason as to why the F.I.R.reached the Court only at 1.50 P.M.I have carefully considered the above oral submissions as well aswritten submission and also gone through the typed set containing thedeposition of witnesses.She would clearly state that she was forcibly taken in a cycleto a corner of Kattabomman Nagar and she was raped by all the accused one after another.P.Ws.2 and 3 are not the eye witnesses for the rape.But, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would make it clear that all of themwent to Esakiamman temple function and P.Ws.1 and 2 alone came back home at midnight, as they felt sleepy and in the meantime, the occurrence hadtaken place.16. P.W.2 would speak that they were surrounded by the 10 accused and P.W.1 was attacked with aruval by one of the accused and she was taken in a cycle to some other place.Then, P.W.3 came to the scene and found that 10 persons came out of the building and took the cycle and went away fromthe scene.Thereafter, P.W.3 entered inside the new incomplete built uphouse and found that P.W.1 lying down on the sand.Then, she was takento house from where P.W.1, mother and P.W.2 went to the Police Stationand gave a complaint to P.W.7 Head Constable at 5.00 A.M.It is to be pointed out that all the accused persons belong to sameplace, namely Tuticorin.Therefore, there is no reason for P.W.1 to speak falsehood against all the accused, especially in a case of gang rape.Curiously,it was suggested to P.W.1 that she voluntarily went to V.O.C. Nagar and had sexual intercourse with some person.For this suggestion, there isno basis.On the other hand, it would amount to admitting the case ofprosecution that on the date of occurrence, she was subjected to sexualintercourse.According to the prosecution, she was wearing the blouse atthat time and also the occurrence took place on sand.The blouse wasseized by the police and the same was marked.As per theobservation mahazar and the evidence of P.W.3, who rescued P.W.1 from the place of occurrence, the scene place is a newly built up corner house atBriand Nagar.The parents of the victim would be reluctant to come to police to give a complaint of rape, since they may think that the victim's future will be spoiled.Regarding the identity, it was argued that P.W.1 could not havegiven the names of the accused in the F.I.R. and the names of theaccused were written by P.W.7 only after the arrest of the accused onthat day.It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that she knew the names of theaccused even though she may not know the parents of all the accused.Itis true that P.W.2 would admit that the accused were found at the PoliceStation on the same day and they were interrogated by the police.This Court, while dismissing the application for bailin Crl./True Copy/ Sub Asst.1) The Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.3) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai.4) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,214,141 | Respondent No.2-Ms.Inder Chikara [complaint for FIR No.164/2015], present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Compromise Deed and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties.Respondent No.2-Ms.of IPC [Crl.M.C.No.3545/2015] & FIR No.158/2015 under Section 323/379/34 IPC [Crl.M.C.No.3543/2015] both registered at Police Station Binda Pur, Delhi is sought on the ground that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties vide Memorandum of Understanding of 4th August, 2015 (Annexure-P-8).Inder Chikara further submits that she was not assaulted with any intent to disrobe her and she affirms the contents of her affidavit of 10th August, 2015 supporting the petition and submits that to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Likewise, respondent No.2-Shalabh Saxena [complainant of FIR Crl.M.C.Nos.3545 & 3543 of 2015 Page 2 No.158/2015], present in the Court, affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure-P-8) and his affidavit of 7th August, 2015 to seek quashing of the FIR.In Gian Singh Vs. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,215,854 | Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the objector.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.638/2013 registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur for the offence under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated at the subsequent stage of investigation on the basis of statement of wife of the deceased recorded on 14.9.2014 i.e. after more than one year of the recovery of dead body of the deceased.In the first information report lodged by her, she named only Pawan Patel and had stated that the deceased went with Pawan Patel on his motorcycle; whereas, on 14.9.2014 in her case diary statement, she implicated applicant Manoj Choudhary to also with the deceased for the first time.He submits that except this and the memorandum of Manoj Choudhary, there is no reliable evidence against the applicant.On the other hand, Shri R. S. Shukla and Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State and the objector respectively have opposed the application.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence collected in the case diary, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur for securing his presence before that Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicant Manoj Choudhary be released on bail The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,782,190 | (4) The case of the prosecution was set up in the Fir (Ex. PW7/A) and Ruqqa (Ex. PW7/B) is that Shri Shakti Singh (since deceased) had had an information that appellant No. 1 who was a resident of J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, was dialing in smack.He developed the said information and came to the conclusion that in case someone was sent as a decoy customer then he was likely to sell the smack.Shri Shakti Singh deceased contacted ACP Crime Brands and formed a raiding party on 29/07/1987 on his instructions which consisted of Inspector Shakti Singh (Crime Branch), SI Mohinder Singh.Si Manmohan, Si Bal Kishan, Asi Prithvi Singh, who was armed with a revolver, (later on promoted as Sub Inspector), Hc Jagdish,Constable Ramesh, Constable Surinder Singh and PW3 Rajbir Singh, a pistalemployee.Shri Rajbir Singh (PW3) was assigned the role of a decoy customer.He was apprised of the facts of the present case.He was handed over a sum of Rs. 6000.00 vide entrustment memo Ex. PW3/ A. The above raiding party set out for the house of appellant No. 1 situated as alluded to above.Efforts were made to include some other members of the public in the raidingparty.In this connection, Shri Shakti Singh asked five or seven passers by to join the raiding party, but none of them agreed and left without even disclosing their names and addresses.Meanwhile, Si Bhup Singh, Asi Ram Kumar of Ps Ashok Vihar who were on their usual patrol duty of the area of PS Ashok Vihar also met the raiding party.They were also requested to join the raiding party and they acceded to the request.Asi Prithvi Singh (PW8)was instructed to act as a shadow witness to hear the proposed talks in between the appellant No. 1 and .the decoy customer PW3 Rajbir Singh and to give the appointed signal.J.J. Colony.Wazirpur, Delhi.PW3 Rajbir Singh andPW8 Si Prithvi Singh were sent to the second floor of the above said house as the same was in occupation of the appellant No. 2- The other members of the raiding party took positions at different places near the said house on theroad.The raiding party heard a din and uproar from the side of the residence alluded to above.They also heard the sound of firing emanating from the said house.On hearing the same to entire raiding party got alert and rushed to the place of occurrence.Meanwhile, PW3 Rajbir Singh i.e. the decoy customer jumped from the second floor of the house adverted to above in the lane by the said of the said house and handed over a packet of smack to Inspector Shakti Singh.All the members of the raiding party reached the second floor.They saw PW8 Si Prithvi Singh with a revolver in one of his hands and he was holding the appellant No. 1 in the other hand with a plaster on his right foot.The raiding party further saw two or three persons running away from the place of occurrence through the nearby roofs.SI Prithi Singh showed the money to convict Gurcharan Singh alias Channi.He immediately took out a packet from underneath his bedding and handed over the same to PW3 Rajbir Singh.When PW3 Rajbir Singh tenderedRs.6000.00 to Gureharan Singh appellant.He demanded further money fromhim.It was at this juncture that Si Prithvi Singh (PW8) disclosed his identity and showed the appellant No. 1 his identity card.On hearing this Gureharan Singh raised an alarm "Catch bold, catch hold" whereupon two or three persons who were very sturdy and stout appeared at the scene from the adjoining house.One of them was aimed with a pistol like thing.The other one was armed with a knife.The third one was empty handed.They wanted to assault Si Prithvi Singh whereupon he put appellant No. 1 in front of him and in between him and the assailants.Si Prithvi Singh fired thrice in his selfdefense.He gave a signal to PW3 Rajbir Singh that he should jump down along with the packet of smack and the money and join other members of the raiding party.resident of J.lll/89, J.J. Colony,Wazirpur, Delhi.The other persons i.e. Rajinder Singh alias Tarvinder Singh and Mahinder Singh could not be apprehended as they made good theirescape.On receipt of the information Si Raghbir Singh, Acp, Crime Branch,arrived at the spot.The smack which was seized was weighed whereupon it was found to be I Kg.It was seized vide Ex. PW3/C. 10 gram of smack was separated and taken out for the purposes of sample.The sample smack and the remaining smack were sealed in two separate packets.Both the packets were sealed with the seal of 'SSD'.Form CFSL was filled up.The seal after use was handed over to Si Mahender Singh.Meanwhile, Sho, Vihar known as Ram Prashad (PW6) also reached there.The entire facts with regard to the present case were narrated to him and after having satisfied himself with regard to the correctness of the said facts put his seal with the impression of 'RP' on the said two packets.He is reported to have offered the said amount to the appellant No. 1 who accepted the same without any bargain and handed over a packet of smack which contained I Kg. of heroin.It is in the statement ofPW8, Si Prithvi Singh during the course of cross-examination that the smack in those days was being sold at Rs. 40,000.00 per Kg.JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/05/1992 passed by Shri R.L. Chugh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he found the accused Gurcharan Singh alias Channi (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 1 for the sake of convenience).guilty under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act), and under Section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac under Section 21 of the Act. Incase of his failure to clear the fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. one thousand under Section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for ore month.Accused Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 2 for the sake ofbrevity) was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5.000.00 with one.Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and order the.appellants have approached this Court.(2) Lbn Khaldun an eminent historian who lived and trod this terra firma like an ordinary mortal amongst the homosapiens, yet left his footprints on the sand uftime,has observed."The rule of distinguishing what is true from what is false in history is based on its possibility or impossibility" in a given situation.The above principle mutates mutants is also applicable to the cases which the Courts are called upon to deal with, with the only distinction that a historian 16 concerned with unearthing the truth in regard to the events which took place in the hoary past, while the Judges have to as certain and cull the truth from facts and events in presenti.(3) With the above exordium let us now see and try to find out as to whether the case of the prosecution as unfolded through the report under Section 173 Cr. P.O., F.I.R. (Ex. PW7/A), Ruqqa (Ex. PW7/B) and various other documents is plausible or probable and appeals to a reasonable prudent as a true narration of facts and could have happened in the way and manner as it is alleged to have taken place.Appellant No. 1 handed over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6000.00and two or three packets of smack to the above said persons who came to his rescue on hearing his alarm.However, all of them succeeded in making good their escape.Inspector Shakti Singh and other members of the raiding party chased the above said persons.Later on it transpired that a boy and a lady i.e. Pwi Sanjay and PW2 Smt. Vidyawati sustained injuries during the course of the aforesaid firing.Both the above named appellants were arrested at the spot.A report was sent to the Police Station for registration of a formal Fir whereupon the formal Fir was recorded vide Ex. PW5/A. The sample was sent to CFSL for Chemical analysis.The result of the analysis is Ex. PW7/A. The Chemical Examiner was of the view that the alleged sample smack gave positive test for heroin.(5) Now, the most polemical question which comes to the tip of the tongue is as to whether the occurrence as narrated above can be said to be a probable and plausible version of the case of the prosecution.Thus, no reasonable and prudent man or for that matter an alleged dealer in smack would have parted with I Kg.of heroin for a paltry sum of Rs. 6,000.00 which could have fetched only 150 gms.of smack.(6) Furthermore, there is no mention of the talks which are alleged to have ensued in between PW3 Rajbir Singh and appellant No. 1, GurcharanSingh.It appears from the report Ex. PW7/B as' if Gurcharan Singh alias Channi held himself in readiness to hand over a packet of I Kg.of heroin whosoever approached him.Thus, the prosecution version to say the least,appears to be a ludicrous one.(8) There is another aspect of the matter.There is a recital inEx. PW7/B that PW3 Rajbir Singh on receipt of signal from PW8, Si Prithvi Singh jumped from the second floor of the above said house Along with the money and the smack.According to him, the police called him later on i.e. the next day after the occurrence and asked him to sign three or four papers."55.Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station.""57.Report of arrest and seizure.Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate officialsuperior."(13) The learned Counsel on the basis of the above has contended that there is no compliance with the above said mandatory provisions of law inasmuch as the presence of Inspector Ram Prashad, PW6, is very muchdoubtful.Furthermore, there is nothing in his statement even remotely to suggest that he seized the said articles and kept them in his custody at the police station.(14) There is another side of the picture.It is manifest from the documents adverted to above that none of them bears the signatures of Inspector Ram Prashad, PW6 which casts doubt with regard to his presence at the spot.A duty, as is evident from above, has been cast on the shoulders of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, to seize the articles recovered under the Act and to keep them in safe custody till the orders of theMagistrate.Thus, the perfunctory manner in which he dealt with the said articles can hardly be commended.He must have put his signatures on each and every memo which were prepared at the spot.The above view was given vent to in Shah Ashu Jaiwani v. The State of Maharashtra, 1951-75, Cr.119 of 1971, Head Note B......."Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954-Section 10(7)-lack of signatures of witness on relevant documents prepared at the time of taking sample-violation, of statutory provision of Section 10(7)- effect of."The signatures of witness are absent on all those documents on which they would have been present if Section 10(7) of the Act had been strictly complied with.It is more likely that the witness was not there at all to witness the occurrence.P.C. is that the appellant No. 1 was sitting in a park at about6.00 p.m. with a plaster on his leg Along with appellant No. 2 Avtar Singh.Some police officers tried to forcibly lift the appellant No. 1 from the park and on hearing the commotion a good number of members of the public collected there.However, the impugned statement must inspire, confidence to be relied upon in a particular case, I have already observed above that the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case does not inspire any confidence.Thus, it is liable to be discarded and ignored.(19) In the circumstances stated above the appellants are entitled tosucceed.The appeal is allowed.The judgment and order dated 26/05/1992whereby the appellants were convicted are hereby set aside. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,219,044 | pk CRM No. 17075 of 2014 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 2.12.14 in connection with Khanakul P.S. Case No. 472/14 dated 26.7.14 under Sections 477/448/323/354/379/504/506(2)/452 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Gour Mohan Mukherjee @ Gour Mukherjee & Ors.477/448/323/354/379/504/506(2)/452 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.