id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
178,224,315 | Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No.37/2017 registered at Police Station Nasrullaganj of Sehore district against him and co-accused persons namely Sunita and Pooja for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r.w. 34 of the IPC.The prosecution case is that co-accused Sunita got co-accused Pooja married off to deceased Brajesh taking 30000 (thirty thousand) rupees from him and causing him to give 40000 (forty thousand) rupees to co- accused Pooja.In this regard, the deceased had taken a loan of 70000 (seventy thousand) rupees from the applicant.Co-accused Pooja remained with the deceased for a week as his wife and thereafter she refused to live with him.The applicant used to pressurize the deceased to repay the loan.In the circumstances, the deceased committed suicide on 08.01.2017 by consuming the pills of sulphas leaving behind him a suicide note mentioning the aforesaid facts therein.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the demand of repayment of loan by the applicant from the deceased is not an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.In support of the said contention, he has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs.State of M.P. (1994 JLJ 758=1995 MPLJ 458), Ramesh Vs.State of M.P. (2004 (5) MPHT 39 (NOC), Rajesh Shivhare Vs.State of M.P. (2004 (4) MPHT 7 (NOC), Ajay Patodiya Vs.State of M.P. (2003 (3) MPHT 443=200) and Ramnaresh and another Vs.State of M.P. (2002 (2) MPLJ360).He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Sehore district and that he has no criminal antecedents.He submits that this is the first ever criminal case registered against the applicant.He submits that the applicant would co-operate with the police in the investigation of the case, if he is granted the anticipatory bail and that he will abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this court.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ac/- | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,307,788 | NSELcame into being to fulfill a vision of Government to createcommon Indian market for trading of commodities.It cameinto existence as one of the several subsidiaries of FTIL whichholds 99.99% of its shares.It is aNational Level Institutionalised and demutualized ElectronicSpot Exchange aimed at creating an unified common Indianmarket for various commodities.The object of NSEL is toenhance farmers price realization and reduce consumer paidprice by reducing cost of intermediation and improving marketefficiency.It thus aimed to provide a delivery based platform toachieve price efficiency.It operated in 24 commodities with itsmost active contracts being Castor seeds, Cotton seed, cotton,barley and maize.Another key feature, being CounterTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 34 WP 1181-18 judgment.docParty Guarantee, where all the trades were made subject tomargin/security payable in advance and the NSEL beingmonitoring the positions based on automated risk managementsystem, the NSEL provided counter party guarantee.Theremote market access was also a key feature of the mechanismalong with the assurance of quality specification.TheGovernment of India, therefore, granted permission to NSELalong with two other spot exchanges to start its operation and itissued a government notification on 5th June 2007, therebygranting general exemption under Section 27 of the ForwardContracts Regulations Act (FCRA).(iv) All information or returns relating to the trade as and when asked for shall be provided to the Central Government or its designated agency.(v) The Central Government reserves the right to impose additional conditions from time to time as it may deem necessary; and(vi) In case of exigencies, the exemption will be withdrawn without assigning any reason in public interest"The NSEL commenced its operations by providingan electronic trading platform in October 2008 andsimultaneously six State Governments issued licences under themodel Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC Act) tothe NSEL.The Forward Market Commission was appointed asa designated agency to regulate the Spot Exchanges.In the year 2012, the designated agency forimplementation of the notification came to be replaced byForward Markets Commission, Mumbai".14 NSEL was granted conditional exemption fromapplicability of the Forward Contract Regulations Act, 1952and this exemption was in respect of contracts of one dayduration for sale and purchase of commodities traded on theSpot Exchange established by NSEL.The conditions placed anabsolute bar on short sales and stipulated that all outstandingpositions at the end of the day must result in delivery ofcommodities.15 The NSEL continued to enjoy the exemption until itwas served with a show cause notice on 27 th April 2012 by theCentral Government, alleging contravention of the specificcondition imposed while granting exemption from theprovisions of the FCRA and the Central Government by its letterdated 12th July 2013, directed the National Spot Exchange notto launch any fresh contracts till further instructions from theauthority and it settled all the existing contracts on due dates.In furtherance of the said directives, the NSEL on 31st July2013, suspended trading in all contracts except 'E' seriescontracts until further notice and it decided to merge thedelivery and settlement of all pending contracts with effectfrom 31st July 2013 and to defer it for a period of 15 days.On6th August 2013, the Government of India issued a notificationin partial modification of its earlier notification dated 5 th JulyTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 38 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc2007 and imposed additional condition on the NSEL to protectthe interest of the commodity market participants which readthus :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::I No trading in existing 'E' series contracts and no further or fresh one day forward contracts in any commodity shall be undertaken on NSEL without prior approval to Central Government.II Settlement of all outstanding one day forward contract under the supervision of Forward Market Commission.16 Ultimately, on 19th September 2014, the CentralGovernment withdrew the exemption conferred in favour of theNSEL since it was of the opinion that on the basis of theexperience gained, the entities which were granted exemptionunder Section 27 of the Act, facilitated unregulated forwardtrading on the platform have failed to serve the purpose forwhich they were created and the Government after expressingits opinion to that effect, in view of the various risk associatedwith trading in such unregulated entities, concluded thatforward trading is not in public interest.The Ministry ofFinance, therefore, rescinded notification dated 5 th June 2007with immediate effect.The bye-laws governed its functioning in addition to the provisions ofbusiness rules and regulations framed by NSEL.The bye-lawsTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 46 WP 1181-18 judgment.doccontained and introduced certain terminology with reference tothe transactions taking place on the platform of NSEL and wewould make a reference to certain relevant terms.It definedAutomated Trading System or the Trading System of Exchangeto the following effect :The Automated Trading System shall hereafter be referred to as "NEST".2.61 Pay-in Date means the date and time prescribed by the Exchange or its clearing house for each settlement by which date and time, exchange members are required to perform their obligations by way of payment of funds or commodities as applicable, to the clearing house.2.62 Pay - out in respect of transactions done on the Exchange means release of funds by the clearing house to the exchange members who become entitled to receive them to the extent of and upon their fulfilling their pay -in obligations into the clearing house, in accordance withTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 49 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc the applicable settlement schedule notified by the Exchange or clearing house from time to time.2.63 Pay-out Date means the date and time prescribed by the Exchange or clearing house for each settlement on which date and time, the clearing house shall be required to release funds to the respective accounts of the exchange members and/or clients.The Clearing House shall clear, register and settle the trades entered into on the exchange.Members shall not issue contract note for any transaction, which has not been executed through the trading system of the Exchange.4.10 In respect of all trades executed by the members of the Exchange, it shall be the responsibility of the respective members to pay all applicable statutory fee, APMC cess, VAT, stamp duty, service tax, taxes and levies in respect of all deliveries directly to the concerned Government Departments, unless otherwise specified by the Exchange.4.11 All transactions in commodities permitted on the exchange shall be settled through the Clearing House;Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 53 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc Clearing Members shall alone be eligible and qualified to obtain directly the clearing, settlement and guaranteeing services of the Clearing House.Clearing Members who clear trades shall pay the prescribed security, margin deposits and variation margins for their respective outstanding transactions to remain valid.Members of the Exchange and registered non-members whose trades are cleared by Clearing Members shall pay the prescribed margin deposits and variation margins for their respective outstanding transactions to remain valid.4.19 The Exchange shall have the right to specify and charge transaction fee, clearing fee or any other fee from the member of the exchange.The Exchange may specify the maximum and minimum fees a clearing member may charge from other members of the Exchange and an exchange member from their clients.21 The mechanism of trading on the exchange was setout by bye-law no.5 and it contemplate the members of theexchange or their authorized representatives or approved userstrade through the Traders Work Station (TWS) connected tothe Nest or any other trading system of the exchange and 5.6set out that the members of the exchange shall be solelyresponsible for all the transactions done by or through theirrespective TWS on the exchange.The trading facility enabledthe use of nest only subject to compliance with the terms andconditions as set out in the bye-laws which may includepayment of such deposits and/or charges provided by thebusiness rules and regulations from time to time.The bye-lawNo.5.13.3 also set out that no exchange member shall have anyright, title or interest in Nest or other trading system toTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 55 WP 1181-18 judgment.docexchange, its facilitation and software information.Theautomated trading system provided by the exchange alsoknown as Nest was available for facilitating trading incommodities permitted by the exchange for trading from timeto time.The exchange provided the necessary architecture andinfrastructure related to facilitate members of the exchange toestablish connectivity with Nest and it was authorized toprescribe the specifications/descriptions of hardware, softwareand equipment and to carry out the required testing in suchmanner and time as may be prescribed by the exchange.Theclearing house of the exchange by virtue of bye-law no.7managed by the Clearing House Committee and all thetransactions in the exchange are to be cleared and settled byclearing house of the exchange.Bye-law no.7 set out theprocedure to be followed and clause no. 7.9 reads thus :-The clearing and settlement is set out by bye-law no.9 and anorder to buy or sell would become a match transaction onlywhen it is matched in the trading system and the procedure setout in the bye-laws is to the following effect :9.1 The Clearing House of the Exchange shall function in respect of trading in commodities permitted on the exchange so as to provide clearing and settlement services for the transactions.9.2 In order to facilitate smooth clearing and settlement, all members of the Exchange participating in trading shall be required to open such number of bank accounts with designated Clearing Banks as may be advised by the Exchange.All such members shall be required to strictly follow instructions of the Exchange in respect of operation of such bank accounts, minimum balance, segregation of clients‟ fund and own fund, etc. as may be required by the Exchange.They shall also submit an irrevocable mandate in writing enabling the Exchange to debit and credit their account electronically.They shall be required to keep the accounts adequately funded, so as to enable the Exchange to recover its dues by debiting their respective bank accounts.9.8.1 Each trading day shall be a settlement day, unless it is declared otherwise by the Relevant Authority at its discretion;9.8.2 All transactions in commodities permitted on the Exchange shall be subject to marking to market and settlement through the Clearing House, at intervals specified by the Relevant Authority under the Business Rules and Regulations of the Exchange, except on holidays when there is no trading and clearing.Similarly, the bye-law also contain a detailed procedure fordelivery.It also stipulate a settlement guarantee fund by bye-law no.12 to be maintained by the exchange in respect ofdifferent commodity segments and the minimum corpus of theSettlement Guarantee Fund to be ensured before thecommencement of the trading was fixed at Rs.24 The trading mechanism involved the followingsalient features based on the Bye laws and Rules of NSEL.(i) All contracts with single day duration(ii) Positions outstanding at the end of the day result into compulsory delivery(iii) Fully automated screen Based trading system with national reach.MS/D/3143/366 MUMBAI Pincode:400023 INDIA Date : 19/07/2013 Pan # AAACV3561CDear Sir/MadamI/We have this day done by your order and on your account the following transactions:The Forensic Reports deal with themembers of the National Spot Exchange Limited and we arereally surprised to note that the EOW has not focused itself onthe said forensic reports of the Companies which have tradedon the platform of NSEL and have huge outstanding amountspertaining to its trade obligation as on the date on which thetransactions on NSEL were stopped and the audit reports havefixed the liability on these companies based on the pendingbuying contracts.These calculations are based on the basis ofwithdrawal and deposits in NSEL settlement accounts and thereport is indicative of the diversion of funds by the saidcompanies by transferring it and being utilized by some othercompanies or the individual family members.D N. K. Proteins Ltd, a group company after becoming member of National Spot Exchange Ltd. Fabricated and forged the commodity receipts and traded in the national platform of National Spot Exchange Ltd. All the defaulters have caused the total loss of 5600 crores rupees to 13000 depositors out of which the group company 'N. K. Proteins Ltd.' has rupees approximately. 'N. K. Proteins Ltd. Is the biggest defaulter among all the defaulters.H That the aforesaid act of the 'N. K. group has caused ruination, miseries and bankruptcy and insolvency and hardships to large number of persons.These legal entities are used by family members to subserve their won personal interest at the cost of large number of depositors.That 13000 investors have suffered to the extent of Rs. 5600 crores, out of which, petitioners' group of Companies have been liable to the extent of more than Rs. 900 crores.A perusal of the said affidavit by the State Government beforethe Gujarat High Court put forth a completely different caseand it is alleged that the N.K. Proteins Limited who hadobtained licence membership for trading on NSEL's platformhad fraudulently created the stock receipts and in the saidaffidavit, the transaction is explained in the following manner."14 That it is submitted that the activities of National Spot Exchange were on electronic system.RESERVED ON : 3rd MAY 2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 22nd August 2019Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 ::: 5 WP 1181-18 judgment.docJUDGMENT :- (Per Bharati Dangre, J)1 A significant and axial issue involved in the two writpetitions before us revolve around the National Spot ExchangeLimited (NSEL) and the parties are diversificated on the issueas to whether the said establishment is a FinancialEstablishment or not, and whether it has accepted the deposits.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 :::Both the Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner whichis a listed Company registered under the Companies Act,engaged in the business of developing and selling technologyproducts of facilitating trading on exchanges such as stockexchange and commodity exchange and it claims to have morethan 63,000 shareholders and more than 800 employees.Thepetitioner claims to be a leader in Financial Technologiesmarket and has developed a software by name "ODIN" and it isclaimed that this software has provided a platform for onlinetrading and it is claimed by the petitioner that it has become amarket leader due to its effort and determination.2 The petitioner has posed a challenge to theConstitutional validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the MaharashtraTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 ::: 6 WP 1181-18 judgment.docProtection of Interests of Depositors in Financial EstablishmentsAct, 1999 (for short 'MPID Act') being violative of Article 14, 19and Article 300A of the Constitution and also to the levy ofattachment on the petitioner's assets by six notifications issuedby the respondent no.1 by invoking the powers conferred onthe authority under the said enactment.Writ Petition No.1181of 2018 assails several notifications issued by the State and italso sought several interim reliefs and the said reliefs came tobe granted in favour of the petitioner by passing several interimorder from time to time.Writ Petition No. 508 of 2017 assailsthe validity of the relevant provisions of the MaharashtraProtection of Interest of Depositors Act (for short 'MPID') to theextent which affects the petitioner as a promoter of the allegedFinancial Establishment.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 :::The petition proceeds to state that one of themany subsidiaries of the petitioner is the National SpotExchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'NSEL') and theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 ::: 7 WP 1181-18 judgment.docpetitioner holds 99.99% shares of NSEL.The NSEL hadlaunched contracts for buying and selling of commodities on itstrading platform with different settlement periods ranging fromT+0 days to T+36 days.In the aforesaid contracts, the word'T' denotes the Trade date i.e. the day on which the trade tookplace and '+0' or '+36' is referred to as number of businessdays after which the delivery of commodity and payment ofprice therefor, was to be effected by the Buying TradingMember and Selling Trading Member, as the case may be.Under these contracts, according to the petitioner, a quantity ofparticular commodity would be brought and sold on theexchange of T+2 basis and at the same time, the buying tradingmember and the selling trading member would resell thecommodity on T+25 basis.This, in short, is the transactionwhich is referred to in the petition and it is stated that NSELprovided an electronic trading platform for spot contracts invarious commodities on a compulsory delivery basis.It isstated that NSEL commenced its operation in October 2008 inaccordance with the Notification dated 5th June 2007 issued bythe Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of IndiaTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 ::: 8 WP 1181-18 judgment.docunder the FCRA, 1952, by which "All forward contracts of oneday duration for the sale and purchase of commodities tradedon" NSEL were exempted from the purview of ForwardContract Regulations Act, 1952 (for short 'FCRA').It is the caseof the petitioner that the NSEL operated an Exchange inaccordance with the Rules, Regulations and bye-laws and in itsterms, the brokers became the members of the exchange andtraded in commodities on the exchange platform on their ownaccount and on behalf of their clients and the brokers werealso bound by the bye-laws and Rules of Exchange.Thepetition further proceeds to state that these T+2 and T+25contracts which were traded together, were also referred to as'paired contracts' where the buyer/investors would enter into acontract to buy a commodity with T+2 delivery cycle andsimultaneously buyer/investor would also enter into a contractto sell the commodity with T+25 delivery cycle with the sameparties as the first contract.However, NSEL was charged withviolation of terms and conditions of the Exemption Notificationdated 5th June 2007 since complaints were received from anumber of depositors against NSEL and it was alleged that as aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 ::: 9 WP 1181-18 judgment.docFinancial Establishment, it had collected money by promisingattractive returns to depositors, but there was a failure to returnthe deposits when the time for repayment came.On acomplaint filed by one Pankaj Ramnaresh Saraf on 30thSeptember 2014, an FIR came to be registered under Section120-B read with Sections 409, 465, 467, 471, 474 and 477(A)of the IPC.It was alleged that by unilaterally closing down theExchange, the NSEL defaulted in repayment of approximatelyRs.5600 crore which was due to be paid to approximately13,000 investors.The petitioner was roped in as its subsidiarycompany, since NSEL did not have sufficient money or propertyto return the deposits or make payment of interest or renderservices against which the deposits were received in terms ofSection 4 of the MPID Act, 1999, the properties of its promotersi.e.petitioners were also held liable for attachment.In the factsof the present case, the said challenge is found in the petitionbroadly on the following parameters :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:05 :::(c) The withdrawal of exemption under the FCRA cannot make NSEL and consequently its promoter liable under MPID as there are separate penal consequences prescribed in FCRA itself for violation of its provisions and in fact, the EOW Mumbai has already registered a separate FIR under the FCRA against NSEL and the brokers for acting in breach of the provisions of the Act.(d) The definition of 'Financial Establishment' must by necessary implications exclude an Exchange/futureTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 11 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc market to avoid conflict with the legislative powers of the Parliament under Entry 48 of List I of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(e) Admittedly, the petitioner has not received any part of the sum of Rs.5600 crores alleged to have been received by NSEL as the alleged 'deposits' and the properties of the petitioner are not acquired out of the alleged deposit purportedly collected by NSEL.(f) The assets/property is already attached by the respondent are sufficient to cover the amount currently outstanding which is about 4822 crore.4 The petition, has in detail, highlighted the tradingprocess on NSEL's exchange platform and the petitioner hasalso tendered a compilation of sample documents generated inthe course of transactions on NSEL's trading platform.Tosupport the submission that NSEL was only an online platformwhere willing buyers and willing sellers purchased and soldvarious commodities and earned its profits due to difference ofthe prices of commodities in short and longer durationcontracts, the thrust of the petition is on the fact that thebusiness model of NSEL was operative only as a platform orTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 12 WP 1181-18 judgment.docpipeline and NSEL never accepted any Deposits and, therefore,it is asserted that it was not a Financial Establishment asdefined under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, thereby attractingthe provisions of the said enactment.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::5 The petition further proceeds to state that theEconomic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police (EOW) who wassubsequently investigating C.R.No.89 of 2013 has filed threecharge-sheets but in those charge-sheets, not a single rupee hasbeen traced by money trail to the petitioner as a promoter northe petitioner was named as an accused.The petitionercompany was, however, served with notices alleging that thecompany has received an amount of Rs.84 crore from NSEL andthe petitioner was restrained from disposing, alienating orcreating any third party rights in relation to its assets.Thepetitioner challenged the said notice and the said writ petitionis pending for adjudication before this Court.The notice cameto be stayed by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount ofRs. 84 crore in the Court and this direction, according to thepetitioner, was complied.The challenge to the subsequentnotifications is introduced by way of an amendment since therespondent had issued a corrigendum dated 17 th April 2018 andthe notifications which were earlier issued by the DeputySecretary, came to be replaced by the notification issued in thename of the Secretary of the Department.Apart fromquestioning the said notifications on the ground of wrongfuland excessive attachment of accrued income and thepermissibility to attach its software "Odin" and the attachmentof receivables from Odin, the petitioner has raised a challengethat in terms of Section 4 of the MPID Act, the GovernmentTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 14 WP 1181-18 judgment.docought to have first attached and liquidated the assets acquiredout of the deposits and it is only after liquidating such assets, ifthere was a short fall in repaying the alleged investors, then theassets of any other person, including the petitioner, would havebeen attached.The petitions therefore seeks a relief of quashing of theimpugned notifications (i) (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) apartfrom seeking a declaration to the effect that section 4 and 5 ofthe MPID Act are violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and Article300-A of the Constitution.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::6 In support of the petitioner, we have heard thelearned senior counsel Shri Vikram Nankani.He would reiteratethat NSEL was an electronic platform for trading of forwardcontracts of one day duration in commodity between willingbuyers and sellers acting through their respective brokers.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::He would submit that the NSEL started trading inpaired contracts and it is alleged in the complaint on the basisof which the FIR was registered against the NSEL that therewas a default in the payment of about Rs.5600 crore toapproximately 13,000 investors who had lost their money dueto them and what are popularly referred to as 'paired contracts'covering trading in commodity in forward contracts mainlyunder T+2 and T+25 contracts.Nankani would submitthat these 13000 investors were the traders in commodity whobrought Commodity under T+2 contract and sold the sameunder T+25 contracts and these traders (investors) transactedthrough the registered members of NSEL who acted as brokerson their behalf.Nankani would invite our attention to themechanism in place with NSEL which included the differentelements i.e. the brokers (registered members) and the client orTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 17 WP 1181-18 judgment.doctraders (so-called investors/buyers).According to him, thebrokers and the clients or traders had an independentagreement between them and the clients originally entered intoT+2 contracts and thereafter, in T+25 contracts reversed thetrade so as to receive monies from the seller in T+2 contractswhich expired on 25th day under the T+25 contract, meaningthereby that the seller under the original contract of T+2 wasbuyer under the T+25 contract.Nankani, in all 24 such original sellers whoreceived or collect monies under T+ 25 contract but defaultedin payment on an aggregate sum of Rs.5600 crore under theT+ 25 contracts.He would submit that all the transactions arescreen based and takes place on real time basis where theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 18 WP 1181-18 judgment.docbrokers on both sides place their orders for trade and acceptorders for trade on their respective computer terminal and asituation emerged on 31st July 2013 when the 24 sellers andtheir brokers who had entered into reverse trades on T+2 dateand received monies thereunder failed to honor theircommitment of squaring off their position by buying back thecommodities on T+25 date.As a result, 148 buyers andbrokers could not receive monies on their open positions due todefault committed by 24 sellers and their brokers.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Mr.Nankani would submit that in this transaction,there was no question of any deposit being accepted by NSELand therefore, it cannot be termed as 'Financial Establishment'which would attract the provisions of MPID Act. He wouldsubmit that all trades entered into NSEL exchange weregoverned by its bye-laws which were available in public domainand these bye-laws clearly spelt out the rights and obligationsof the parties and all the brokers who sought to trade on behalfof the clients were required to register with NSEL and becometrading members and they agreed to abide by the Rules,regulations and bye-laws of the NSEL.He has placed on recordTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 19 WP 1181-18 judgment.doca sample client registration form and a sample client memberagreement.He would further submit that the NSEL has alsomaintained the Settlement Guarantee Fund (SGF) where thecontributions are made by the members and this is exclusivelyused to pay off in case of default by one of the members, in theevent, the shortfall is also made up by further contributionsfrom members themselves.Based on this nature oftransactions, Shri Nankani would submit that the trade cyclemade it clear that the NSEL did not receive any deposit whichwas the condition precedent for invocation of Section 4(1) ofMPID Act and in the present case, according to him, NSEL hasreceived money from buyers at T+2 date.Such money wasimmediately paid to the sellers at T+2 date.However, onT+25 date, the parties who were sellers on T+2 date and whowere under an obligation to make payment on T+25 failed todo so and it is not the NSEL, but such sellers who receivemonies from buyers on T+2 date with an obligation to makepayment on T+25 date who had defaulted and, therefore, theywould become the financial establishment well nigh and hewould submit that the notification issued on 31st March 2017Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 20 WP 1181-18 judgment.docissued by the respondent has characterized most of the sellersas Financial Establishment.Union of India deliveredon 30th April 2019 and he would rely upon certain portions ofthe said judgment and its concluding paragraphs.In a nutshell,Shri Nankani has submitted that the six impugned notificationsissued by the respondent attaching immovable and movableproperties of the petitioner deserve to be quashed, afterdeclaring that NSEL is not a financial establishment under theMPID Act and rather declaring that each of the 24 defaultersare the financial establishments.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::8 Mr.Nankani has invited our attention to themethodology adopted by the NSEL and he submits that there isno deposit accepted by the NSEL nor it had promised anysecured return but NSEL only facilitated the parties to enterinto transactions and settlement of their accounts andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 22 WP 1181-18 judgment.docremuneration payable to the NSEL by the buyers and sellerswas a fixed fee based on turnover of transactions.He would also1 2007(8) SCC 559Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 23 WP 1181-18 judgment.docplace heavy reliance on the report of the auditor appointed bythe Economic Offences Wing to trace out the trail of moneywhich has been deposited by the 24 sellers and their brokersand he submits that the auditor in his report dated 24 thFebruary 2018 has clearly reported the names and amounts duefrom the 24 defaulters to whom the complete fraud amount ofRs.5600 crore can be traced.He would submit that the reportof the auditor supports the submission of the petitioner thatNSEL is a pass-through and did not receive any money in itsaccount.In this background and surrounding circumstances,Mr.Nankani would urge to grant the relief as prayed in thepetition.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::9 As against the said submission advanced by thepetitioner, we have before us the affidavit in reply filed by theState Government and also the submission advanced by learnedsenior counsel Shri Dada in support of the State Government.The said affidavit,Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 24 WP 1181-18 judgment.docaccording to him, deals exhaustively with the challenge of theconstitutional validity of the said Enactment in question andalso set out in detail the modus operandi of the NSEL, justifyinginvocation of provisions of the Enactment against NSEL and thepetitioner who is its promoter.Based on the affidavit, thelearned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is thepromoter of NSEL and holds 99.99% total share capital.Hewould submit that the NSEL had indulged in large scalefinancial transactions whereby investors were promised heavyreturns and Shri Dada would rely upon following circumstancesto establish that NSEL is a Financial Establishment acceptingdeposits and he would highlight the said circumstances asfollows :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(i) All the parties trading on the NSEL platform were forced to execute paired contracts of T+2 and T+25 simultaneously.(ii) None of the parties were given a choice to make any singular trades and the trades had to be in paired contracts.(iii) The price for the paired contracts, at the stage of buy and sell i.e. for T+2 and T+25 was fixed before hand and simultaneous contracts were executed at the same time.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 25 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(iv) This allowed NSEL to represent to the investors that it was giving fixed returns and the price difference between T+2 and T+25 was ranging between 14% to 16% per annum.Shri Dada would submit that a person who wantedto buy a product was compelled to buy it at a particular rate bya contract 'T+2' and compelled to sell at the same time by anagreement at a particular rate on the basis of the contract styledas 'T+25'.He would also submit that the amount which thebuyer paid was received by NSEL and thereafter disbursed to apurported seller who was really a borrower and who got anunsecured loan from the exchange and this buyer was promiseda rate of return of 14% to 16% and the purported seller whowas really a borrower from exchange availed this unsecuredloan.Hewould further submit that the investigation has also concludedthat the physical delivery of the commodities has not beenchecked and there was no control over the stock lying inwarehouses and in fact, the entire financial mishap hasoccurred due to the collusion between NSEL, its owners,Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 27 WP 1181-18 judgment.docDirectors, management, sellers, borrowers and others and it is aclear-cut case of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach oftrust where innocent people were duped of their investment onaccount of the financial jugglery and fraudulent entries in thebooks of accounts.Thus, according to Mr.Dada, the NSEL is afinancial establishment and he would rely on the observationsmade of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1403 of 2015wherein it was held that NSEL had accepted the deposits asdefined under the MPID Act and hence, it is covered within thedefinition of 'Financial Establishment' and therefore, accordingto him, the issues stand foreclosed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::He would painstakingly invite our attention to thepurpose of enacting the MPID Act and would submit that it is afit case where the petitioner who is a promoter of NSEL hasrightly been pinned down by taking assistance to the provisionsof the enactment since the NSEL did not own any property andabout 13000 investors have been duped to the tune of Rs.5600crore.According to him, this provision enables tofasten the liability on the persons who are in control andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 30 WP 1181-18 judgment.docmanagement and it is they who must bear the responsibility ofreturning the money taken by way of deposits.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::We would deal with the submissions advanced bylearned Senior counsel Shri Seervai a little later.10 With the assistance of the learned counselappearing on both sides, we have perused the Writ Petitionalong with its annexures and also the affidavits tendered onbehalf of the respondent.On hearing the learned counsel forthe parties and on perusal of the writ petition, in order toeffectively adjudicate the issues raised before us, we would dealwith the issues under the following particular heads : I The nature of transaction entered into by the NSEL.II The FIR filed and the subsequent invocation and application of provisions of MPID Act against NSEL.IV The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 31 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc Shri Nankani has raised the jurisdictional issue andhe has submitted that the entire initiation of action against thepetitioner as the promoter of NSEL is erroneous, since theauthorities have proceeded on a wrong presumption that NSELis a financial establishment and it has accepted deposits fromthe investors.In light of the said averment, it would benecessary to refer to the affairs of the NSEL which is asubsidiary of FTIL, which is now known as '63 MoonsTechnologies".::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::11 Before we proceed to deal with the petitions, itwould be appropriate for us to inter-relate the petitioner to theNSEL who is termed to be the Financial Establishment.The saidCompany claims to offer technology in intellectual property tocreate and trade in financial market.The said Company startedits operation in the year 1988 by developing technologyTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 32 WP 1181-18 judgment.docproducts for connecting the financial markets.It introduced itsfirst commodities derivatives trading platform, Multi-Commodity Exchange (MCX) in the year 2007 and thereafter itestablished similar such exchanges.The National SpotExchange Limited is one of the subsidiary of the petitioner.I The nature of transaction entered into by the NSEL.12 We also briefly delve into the events which led tothe foundation and formation of NSEL.The Tenth Five YearPlan (2002-2007) conceptualized the idea of an Indiancommon market and it was an outcome of a policy decision tocreate a common nation wide market for commodities.Apart from the NSEL, the NCDEXLimited and National APMC were also established for fulfillingthe dream project of an Indian Common Market.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::first electronic commodity spot exchange that was establishedwith a vision to create a 'single market' across the country forboth the manufactured and agricultural produce.The Cotton Corporation of India becamemember of NSEL to sell cotton bales on NSEL platform.Similarly, the Food Corporation of India also became a memberof NSEL in March 2010 and commenced sale of wheat throughNational Spot Exchange.The key features of the National SpotExchange included a Centralized Trading Platform on whichnumerous buyers and sellers interfaced with one another tocarry out transactions.The said notificationstipulated the following conditions :-::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(i) No short sale by members of the Exchange shall be allowed.(ii) All outstanding positions of the trade at the end of the day shall result in delivery.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 35 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::The SpotExchange was mainly regulated by the three main regulatorsi.e.(i)the State Agriculture Marketing Board, (SAMB)regulating the transaction involving the farmers sale ofagricultural commodities on electronic platform, (ii) ForwardTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 36 WP 1181-18 judgment.docMarket Commission (FMC) which regulated all the trade wherenetting of intra-day transaction in the commodities contract isfollowed by Exchange and (iii) Warehouse DevelopmentRegulatory Authority (WDRA) which covers the aspect ofnegotiability of warehouse receipts.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::The NSEL started its activity in the year 2008and it started trading in T+2 and T+25 based contracts whichwere traded together and were called as 'paired contracts'where the buyer/investor would enter into a contract to buy theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 37 WP 1181-18 judgment.doccommodity with T+2 delivery cycle and simultaneously, thebuyer/investor would also enter into a contract to sell thecommodity with a T+25 delivery cycle with the same parties asthe first contract.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::application of provisions of MPID Act against NSEL.17 On 30th September 2013, one Mr.Pankaj R. Saraflodged an FIR (C.R.No.216 of 2013) with the MRA Marg PoliceStation.In his statement, he stated that he was an investor inTraders contract offered by the NSEL through its broker and hewas regularly trading in T+2 and T+25 contracts and on 20 thJuly 2013, he was informed by his broker that NSEL had issuedpress release on 25th July 2013 based on a circular issued by theDepartment of Consumer Affairs requiring NSEL to submit anundertaking that new contracts will not be launched untilfurther instructions and that the existing contract should besettled on due date.He also stated that he was informed by hisbroker that NSEL had issued a Press Release proposing asettlement cycle in consultation with the planters on paymentin a staggered manner and he placed on record the said pressrelease.However, since he was to receive payments undervarious trades of commodities, under various contracts enteredby him, he apprehended that the settlement terms worked outTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 40 WP 1181-18 judgment.docby NSEL would not be implemented and since he did notreceive the amounts of the payments due to him, he lodged theFIR.He alleged that he was cheated by NSEL, the defaultersand there was practically very little hope for recovery of theamount due and outstanding on the contract, which he hadinvested in NSEL.He also alleged that NSEL has cheated himby creating a false impression of being a proper spot exchangewith correct risk management systems in order to induce himinto the trade on the spot exchange and deliberately misled himthat the trades were backed up by genuine warehouse receiptsand in fact, the loss could not be recovered since the funds fromthe settlement guarantee fund of the exchange wasmisappropriated, leaving no security to ensure payment of hisoutstanding amount.In the FIR, he categorically stated that hewas operating through his two brokers i.e. Capital FirstCommodities Limited and Way 2 Wealth Programme Pvt.Ltdand he was to receive Rs.137 lakhs from the first broker andRs.65 lakhs from the second broker.The FIR gave a detailednarration of the working of the NSEL and its relationship withthe FTIL i..e the petitioner.A statement is made in the saidTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 41 WP 1181-18 judgment.doccomplaint that after discussion with various investors and fromthe reports published in the newspaper, he had gathered thatthe accused persons named in the FIR had defrauded 13000investors to the tune of Rs.5600 crores or may be more.Along with the statement, the complainant also placedbefore the EOW the various circulars issued by NSEL, as well asthe NSEL brochure - NSEL presentation and various pressarticles along with the copy of contract notes and warehousedelivery allocation reports.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::18 The core issue involved and which has been broughtbefore us is whether the NSEL is a financial establishmentwithin the meaning of Section 2(d) of MPID Act. The saidquestion can be answered provided it is established that NSELwas accepting deposit as covered by Section 2(c)of the MPIDAct under any arrangement or in any other manner.Before we proceed to answer the said question, itwould be expedient to make a reference to the enactment ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 42 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc1999 which is an act to protect the interest of depositors of thefinancial establishment and known as Maharashtra Protectionof Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999.The MPID Act 1999 was brought into force from 21 st January2000 and the said enactment was necessitated in the backdropof the fact that there was a mushroom growth of financialestablishments in the State and these establishments were inthe process of grabbing money received as deposits from publicand thereby attracted the middle class and poor on the promiseof unprecedented high attractive interest rate or rewards andwithout any obligation to refund the deposit to the investors onmaturity failed to do so.Many of such financial Establishmentdefaulted to return the deposits to the investors and at times,the deposits ran into crore of rupees causing great publicresentment and uproar and creating law and order problem inthe State and in particular, city like Mumbai.The said enactmentdefine 'financial establishment' in Section 2(d) as follows :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::The Exchange shall then be entitled to recover dues of any defaulting member from his security deposit and other funds, if any lying with the Exchange, as also from his debtor members and appropriate the amount so recovered for distribution amongst his creditor members on pro rata basis.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::7.9.3 The Exchange shall not be deemed to guarantee the financial obligations of a defaulting clearing member to other members, who are doing clearing and settlement through him.7.9.4 The Exchange shall not be deemed to guarantee the financial obligations of any member of the Exchange to his/its clients; and 7.9.5 The Exchange shall not be deemed to guarantee the delivery, the title, genuineness, quality or validity of any goods or any documents passing through the Clearing House of the Exchange.22 The margins are then set out in bye-law no.8 and inrespect of the transactions taking place in the exchange, it isimperative for the buyers and sellers to deposit an amount asinitial margin and margin accounts are marked to market dailyby clearing members and it is open for the exchange member toTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 57 WP 1181-18 judgment.docclose out upon position of a client, when the call for furthermargin or any other payment due is not complied by the client.9.3 Each clearing member shall submit or cause to be submitted all trades executed by constituent members or clients with whom he has an agreement to provide clearing and settlement services for their transactions and assist the Clearing House in the form and manner that is specified and prescribed by the Clearing House Committee to enable the Clearing House to provide clearing facility to the clearing members.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 58 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc 9.4 The Clearing House shall process all transactions submitted to the Clearing House and shall accept for substitution of the Exchange only the net liability of the Clearing member to the Clearing House.The Relevant Authority shall have the right to effect marking to market and settlements through the Clearing House more thanTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 59 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc once during the course of a working day, if deemed fit on account of the market risk and other parameters; and 9.8.3 Settlement of differences due on outstanding transactions shall be made by clearing members through the Clearing House.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::9.9.1 Settlement price shall be determined by the Relevant Authority based on price quotations of transactions executed in accordance with the Bye-Laws, Rules, Business Rules and Regulations of the Exchange and other information available on the daily official list or in such other manner, as may be determined by the Relevant Authority.9.9.2 All transactions, after a mark-to-market and settlement, cleared by the Clearing House shall be included in the succeeding delivery marking procedure for creation of compulsory delivery obligation.9.10 In case of commodities coming under settlement through delivery and payment, the difference shall be calculated between the contract rate and the closing price of that day.This difference shall be receivable/payable on the next working day of the date of transaction.One crore.EveryTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 60 WP 1181-18 judgment.docmember was required to contribute and provide a minimumsecurity deposit in the SGF and the money in the SGF would beutilized in terms of the bye-laws.Clause 12.6 provide foradministration and utilization of the SGF which includediffering the expenses of creation and maintenance of SGF, tomeet the shortfalls and deficiencies arising out of clearing andsettlement obligations of clearing members, meeting any loss orliability of the exchange arising out of the transactions, etc.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::23 Apart from the bye-laws, the National SpotExchange Ltd has also framed the rules of National SpotExchange Limited, Mumbai which set out the manner in whichthe exchange would be managed and the functions of variouscommittees constituted under the bye-laws of the exchange,including the Membership Committee, Trading Committee,Clearing House Committee, Vigilance Committee etc. Thequalifications and disqualifications of the member of theexchange along with the procedure to obtain the membershipTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 61 WP 1181-18 judgment.docare also set out in the said rules.It also provides for the dutiescast on the members and the power of the Board to cancel,suspend, expel a member from the exchange.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(i) It was the broker or member of the NSEL who hadaccess to the online trading system set up by NSEL on hiscomputer terminal and this access could be gained by thebroker upon registration as a member.(ii) The broker / member placed an order either to buyor sell any commodity which is being traded on the exchangeand he can also put an order for buying or selling of the sameTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 62 WP 1181-18 judgment.doccommodity or any other commodity on the same date or anyother date.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Whentwo orders are placed by two different brokers/members fortwo separate clients match each other, a contract for buyingand selling of a commodity comes into existence.The onlinetransaction can be watched by any person on the electronicplatform provided by the NSEL.(iv) On the due date, the buyer through its broker paysin the amount of the price for purchase of the commodityagainst the transfer of document of title and on the same date,the amount is 'paid out' to the seller through its broker.(v) The pay-in and pay-out mechanism takes placethrough the clearing house of NSEL where the net receivedfrom each broker is adjusted against the net amount to be paidTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 63 WP 1181-18 judgment.docto each broker/member.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(vi) In this transaction, the NSEL receives transactionfee.Identity of the participants undisclosed.and flexibility for placing order.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::operations for every clearing member and every member wasrequired to open their clearing and settlement account with theexchange, and 9 clearing banks were appointed by theexchange for transfer of funds between clearing members andthe exchange.Every member was to have a designated bankaccount with electronic fund transfer facility and the memberswere permitted to operate the settlement account for thepurpose of settlement of deals entered through the exchangefor payment of margin money or any other purpose as specifiedin the exchange.It contemplated the delivery procedure atNSEL warehouse where the seller desirous to sell/buy throughNSEL had to compulsorily deliver the commodity in the NSELdesignated warehouse of a particular location.The quality andthe weight of the commodity was monitored and certified bythe warehouse supervisor.The commodity inward document isto be issued by the depositor for depositing the commodity inthe exchange warehouse.The quality certificate and thecommodity inward document are issued on deposit of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 65 WP 1181-18 judgment.doccommodity and the warehouse receipt to be issued to thedepositor the next day.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::The Commodity came to be traded on the platformof NSEL in the following manner :-A Trading Member of the NSEL, who possessed and wished to trade in a particular commodity, was required to place that quantity of the particular commodity in an NSEL accredited warehouse.Buying Trading Members acting either for themselves, or their nonmember trading clients, would input Buy Orders for a particular commodity on the NSEL online Trading Platform.On the Sale & the Buy orders for a commodity matching, there would be on Onscreen Trade Confirmation stipulating the commodity, the price and the quantity agreed upon.At the end of the day, all trades (buy/sell) effected would be communicated by the Exchange to the Trading Member.On the next day, an end of day Obligation Report, recording the Pay-in obligations (netted off) & theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 66 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc Delivery Obligations (netted off only re same commodity trades), would be forwarded by NSEL / made accessible to the Trading Members (through the FTP : File Transfer Protocol).::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::On the Settlement date, NSEL would debit the Trading Member's designated Settlement Account for the amount of the Buying Member's Pay in Obligations and the same would be credited to NSEL's Exchange Settlement Account.NSEL's Operations Department would inform NSEL's Delivery Department of the particular Selling Member's delivery obligations.Based on that intimation, NSEL's Delivery Department would confirm to the Operations Department that the requisite quantity of the particular commodity sold was available as per the Warehouse Receipts generated by the Warehouse Department.On the basis of the said confirmation, the Operations Department would (i) release the purchase price amount to the selling broker's designated bank account; and (ii) would issue a Delivery Allocation Report to the Buying Broker / member informing him that the bought quantity of the commodity was allocated to him, from the particular warehouse receipt.NSEL would then send the Buyer's details to the selling Trading Member & the selling Trading Member would arrange for the non-member client/seller to generate a VAT paid sale invoice in the Buyer's name for the particular quantity of the particular commodity sold.On application of the Buyer, and on the basis of the said Delivery Allocation Report & the VAT Paid Invoice, NSEL would issue a Delivery Note authorizing the Buyer to take delivery of the purchased commodity from the stipulated warehouse.In the event the buyer trading member opted not to remove the commodity from the Exchange designated warehouse, such trading member would be put in constructive possession of the commodity and could further trade therein and he was entitled to take physical possession thereof at anyTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 67 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc time in the manner provided by the Rules and Bye- Laws of the NSEL Exchange."::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::26 Perusal of the mechanism clearly divulge that NSELwas an electronic trading platform for purchase and sale ofcommodities by registered trading members (and their clientnon-trading members) and the settlement of such contracts bypayment from the buyer and seller through the exchange andthe sell/delivery of the commodity by the seller to the buyer.Itaimed at facilitating the transaction between buyer and sellerthrough its electronic platform in accordance with the rules,regulations and bye-laws of the exchange.The bye-laws andrules of the exchange were in existence since its inception andwere within the public domain.The nature of transaction to becarried out on the NSEL platform was also therefore, in publicdomain since the trading on this electronic platformcommenced.The business/transaction which operated throughNSEL, do not disclose any pay-in amount received by NSEL inits own right but it was only received in the process ofsettlement of the commodity trade and only for the purpose ofpassing it on to the selling trading member on the same day.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::This amount cannot be said to be received as a deposit withinthe meaning of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act whichcontemplates a 'deposit' to be a receipt of money or acceptanceof a valuable commodity on the promise that such money orvaluable commodity would be returned / repaid by thefinancial establishment after a specified period or otherwise.The commodities contracts entered on the platform of theexchange were against the payment of the purchase price/pay-in amount who received a VAT paid sales contract from theseller for the commodity sold and purchased.The buyer wasaccordingly aware of the seller to whom the price amount hadbeen paid through the exchange settlement mechanism and infact, the NSEL performed the same role qua commodity tradingas the Bombay Stock Exchange and NSE performed quastock/equity trading by facilitating trading in equities and byeffecting settlement of trades through payment and delivery.The Stock exchange did not accept the money or valuablecommodity with the promise of its return with some surplus.The trading on the platform of NSEL did not involve it in thecapacity of recipient of the traders money with an obligation toTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 69 WP 1181-18 judgment.docreturn on maturity.The features of the transaction whichinvolved the VAT being collected by the selling members fromthe buying members and no deduction of TDS by NSEL againstthe monies of the buyer which the exchange passed on to theultimate seller is clearly indicative that NSEL was a mere pass-through platform between seller and buyer and no amount wasreceived by NSEL as a deposit.The nature of transaction whichwas clearly available to those who were trading on the platformwere conscious of their act of trading on the platform and nomaterial has been placed on record by the State to disclose thatthe money came to be deposited with the NSEL.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Shri Nankani has placed on record the tradingprocess on the NSEL exchange platform and he has explainedthe said process through the contract notes which have beenplaced on record in form of convenience compilation and alsothe illustrative copy of the summary of trades entered into byone of the trader i.e. Dani Commodities Pvt Ltd. He has alsoexplained the NSEL trading mechanism through screen shots.We have carefully perused the same and attempted tocomprehend the same in the backdrop of the bye-::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::From the said documents, wewould decipher that NSEL was operating through its registeredtrading member who was a medium/conduit for thesale/purchase of the commodities.A registered tradingmember who had placed the requisite commodity stock in thewarehouse on the basis of the standard/proforma contractissued by NSEL for that commodity would place the sell orderfor sell of the commodity online through the exchange platformhighlighting the price and quantity offered.The buying tradingmembers acting either for themselves or their non-membertrading clients would place 'buy orders' for a particularcommodity and contract note placed on record which is signedby the broker reflect the commodity to be offered for sale andat the same time, it recorded the purchase of the commodityafter including VAT, warehouse charges, CNF charges, servicetax, trade charges, stamp charges on the next trading date i.e.T+30, T+33 etc. The contract notes disclose the trading andunique client code being allotted to the trading member and italso include the brokerage/service tax/transaction charge andclarified that the contract entered into is subject to the termsTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 71 WP 1181-18 judgment.docand conditions contained in the rules, bye-laws, business tournotices and directions of NSEL Ltd. Several such trade noticesbelonging to different clients have been placed on record and itincludes the contract notes for the complainant Mr.Pankaj Sarafwho has entered into T+@ and T+25 trades.It varies from product to product depending on the period forwhich the second contract is scheduled whether 3 days, 30days, 35 days etc. There was no promised or assured returnsince it was at variance with the prices of the commodity.ShriTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 72 WP 1181-18 judgment.docNankani has also placed on record the transaction recorded bythe broker in favour of a particular trader on a particular dateand by a letter signed by the broker, he is intimating the traderdirectly that he has carried out the buying and selling as per hisinstructions in form of transactions and we would like toreproduce one such specimen :-::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::In all other matters where Exchange is not a party, courtshaving jurisdiction to try and dispose off such dispute shall have jurisdiction.27 Bare reading of the said document would divulgethat what was contemplated through the platform of NSEL waspurchase and sell transaction which was also accompanied withother statutory levies in respect of buy/sell transactions and thiscontract was deemed to constitute an agreement between theclient and a member and was governed by the regulations andthe bye-laws.Shri Nankani has also demonstrated before usthe summary of trades entered by a particular trader and he hasdemonstrated the details of the transactions which generated adelivery obligation report and a fund settlement date pursuantto which the entries are taken in the ledger of a particular tradeshowing debit of obligation.The ledger of the respectivetraders reflect the delivery obligation and records thecredit/debit pursuant to the said obligation on the respectivedates.Not only this, the entries are further reflected in theNSEL settlement bank account showing amount received from aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 75 WP 1181-18 judgment.docparticular trader with the entries of the respective pay-in andpay-out and this matches with the individual ledger accounts ofthe respective traders.Anyone who wants to trade inthe commodities will have to place an order through his brokerand a buy order entry when clicked by a broker, the quantityand price would be decided by the buyer.Once such buy orderis entered, the market watch window displays the quantity andprice for the commodity.On seeing the price of the commodity,if any trader wishes to sell a particular commodity, he entersthe sell order through his broker.The price and quantity isdecided by the trader and the details are entered through hisbroker.Post the sell order, a trade is executed between a buyerand a seller for contract of a particular commodity at the priceTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 76 WP 1181-18 judgment.docdisplayed.The screen would then reflect the balance quantity.A VAT paid Sale Invoice would be issued inthe buyers name for a particular quantity of a particularcommodity being sold and on the basis of the deliveryallocation report, NSEL would issue a delivery note authorizingthe buyer to take delivery of purchase commodity and if thebuyer/ trading member opted not to remove the commodity, hewould be put in constructive possession.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::28 It would be also relevant for us to refer to the FIRlodged by Pankaj Saraf on which basis the provisions of MPIDhas been invoked against the promoter of NSEL.We haveperused the statement of the complainant and on perusal of thesame, we have noted that even he has not stated that he haddeposited money with the NSEL, on the other hand, he hasstated that the trading which he was carrying on the platformof NSEL was successful till the time when the embargo wasimposed upon the NSEL not to trade further.We have carefullyperused the contract notes for T+2 and T+25 contracts of thecomplainant Shri Pankaj Saraf placed on record by ShriTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 78 WP 1181-18 judgment.docNankani.Perusal of the said notes disclose that a contract noteexecuted on the platform of NSEL recorded the trading date,trade number, quantity bought/quantity sold and thebrokerage.It also corresponded with the entry of buying andselling with the addition of the warehouse charges, CNFcharges, service tax, trading charges, etc. for a further T+30contract.We have taken note of various such contract notesplaced on record for various commodities and have alsoperused the market watch screen placed on record in thecompilation submitted by Shri Nankani which depicts thetransaction entered into in respect of a particular commodity.We have also taken note of the confirmation receipts generatedon the electronic platform and our attention was also invited tothe amount deposited in the respective accounts known as'settlement account'.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::29 This leaves no doubt in our mind that thetransaction was between two persons i.e. buyer and sellerthrough medium of NSEL.No doubt something has gonewrong somewhere in these transactions and at the end, when aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 79 WP 1181-18 judgment.docshow cause notice came to be issued to the NSEL by the CentralGovernment, it was on the basis that the squaring off did nottake place on the same day and all outstanding positions of thetrade at the end of the day did not result into delivery.After31st July 2013, 24 sellers and their brokers who had enteredinto reverse trades on T+2 date and received moniesthereunder failed to honor their commitment of squaring offtheir position by buying back the commodities on T+25 date.As a result, 148 buyers and brokers could not receive monies ontheir open positions due to defaults committed by 24 sellersand their brokers.This was noted as a violation of theexemption conferred on the NSEL and the exemption fromforward contracts of one day duration for sell and purchase ofcommodities traded on the NSEL came to be withdrawn.Resultantly, the NSEL was not in a position to settle theaccounts and was required to dwindle on its activity.30 The FCRA, 1952 is an enactment to provide forregulation to certain matters relating to forward contracts, theprohibition of options in goods and for the matters connectedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 80 WP 1181-18 judgment.doctherewith.Forward contract is defined under the said Act tomean a contract for delivery of goods and which is not readydelivery contract.Section 2(i) defines 'ready delivery contract'to be a contract which provides for delivery of goods andpayment of price therefor, either immediately or within suchperiod not exceeding 11 days after the date of the contract andsubject to such conditions as specified by notification in theofficial gazette.The said enactment also contains the power toexempt any contract or class of contracts from operation of allor any of the provisions of the Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::The said Act contains a provision for imposingpenalty for certain acts mentioned in Section 20 and make suchacts punishable.Thus, any violation of the provision of FCRAis punishable by taking recourse to the said enactment.It is notin dispute that the NSEL was granted exemption from theoperation of FCRA Act. It is also to be noted that the EOW,Mumbai has already registered a separate FIR under the FCRAagainst the NSEL brokers and others.However, the withdrawalof exemption on violation of certain conditions subject to whichTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 81 WP 1181-18 judgment.docthe exemption was granted would entail the consequencesunder the FCRA Act, 1952 and there are separate consequenceswhich could then fall upon the NSEL.However, the presentoffence which has been registered against the NSEL is under theprovisions of IPC and the provisions of MPID have been invokedand applied.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::We have also perused the FIR filed by Mr.PankajSaraf on 30th September 2013 and on careful perusal of the FIR,it disclose that the complainant through his broker has tradedon the platform of NSEL and he did not ever 'deposit anyamount' with NSEL.The NSEL is alleged even on the complaintto be a medium through which the complainant entered intotransaction through his broker.In the statement of Shri Saraf,the complainant before the EOW disclose that he had certainsurplus funds and he was interested in investigating in thecommodities market.Prior to his investment, he had visited thewebsite of NSEL and he had carefully reviewed thepresentations displayed on his website where NSEL had claimedthat it monitors the positions on automated risk managementsystem and offers counter party guarantee in respect of allTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 82 WP 1181-18 judgment.doctrades.He also further make a reference to the undertaking inthe presentation that the quality of the underlying commoditiesis guaranteed by NSEL and goods have to be compulsorilyweighed at the designated weigh bridge and it will bemonitored and certified by the warehouse supervisor.He wasalso aware and conscious of the notification dated 5 th June2007 where the Forward Market Commission was appointed asdesignated agency.It is relevant to note that his statementcontains the following averment.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::"Other presentations which are available on the website of NSEL also reiterate representations that the NSEL seeks to provide a market for buying and selling of commodities without any counter-party and quality risk.The marketing material available on the website of NSEL also categorically specifies that the end it is for this purpose that the exchange maintains the SGF.After reading the information available on the official website of NSEL,, I was convinced that investing in the products offered by NSEL was completely risk free.Further, since there was sufficient collateral for the contracts and that the exchange itself was standing behind these contracts.I had no reason to believe that there could be any defaults and even if there were defaults I was assured that the exchange as the guarantor would ensure settlement of the contract".Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 83 WP 1181-18 judgment.docHe also makes the following averment:-::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::From the presentations and other information available on the website of NSEL.I understood that warehouses were an integral feature of NSEL as the commodities were required to be deposited int e exchange designated and certified warehouses as part of the pay-in obligations.It was then that I came to know that as per the NSEL Bye-laws, a certified warehouse means a warehouse approved and designated by the exchange for making deliveries to and taking deliveries from for fulfilling contractual obligations resulting from transaction in commodities.Further, as per the NSEL Bye laws, a certified warehouse receipt means "a receipt issued under the authority of the exchange or any agency approved by the exchange as a certified warehouse, evidencing proof of ownership of a stated quantity of commodities of a stated grade and quality by the beneficial owner or the holder of the certified warehouse receipt.Such certified warehouse receipt may either be in physical form or in materialized /electronic from as may be permitted."As per Regulation 4.20 (a) of the NSEL Bye-laws, all outstanding transactions in commodities is generallyTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 84 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc required to be for compulsory delivery at any one or more delivery points, and/ or warehouses approved, certified and designated by NSEL.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Further under Regulation 7.11 of the NSEL Bye laws the clearing house of the exchange has the responsibility of receiving and maintaining margin payments, monitoring open positions and margins, and transmission of documents, payments, payments and certified warehouse receipts amongst the trading cum-clearing members and institutional clearing members of the exchange.Based on the above, it was clear that it was the exchange which was responsible for approving and designing the warehouse for making and receiving deliveries.Further, a review of the Bye laws also confirmed that the certified warehouse receipt which is issued by the exchange is an actual proof of ownership of the underlying commodities.He thus alleged that the NSEL had misled him by making himbelieve that the exchange which is the counter party to thetrades manages and supervises the quality and quantity ofunderlying commodity and the SGF is maintained for thepurpose of ensuring settlement of trades even when the counterparty defaulted.He therefore, alleges that there was a criminalbreach of trust and he was defrauded by the false claims madeby the exchange since the NSEL allowed trading on commodityby sellers without ensuring goods of appropriate quality andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 85 WP 1181-18 judgment.docquantity being stores in the exchange, controlled warehouseswhich resulted in thousands of investors trading in non-existentgoods.Reading the entire statement as it is, the complainantalleges NSEL of not highlighting certain deficiencies in theunderlying stocks and he attributes it as a large conspiracy andallege serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.Takingthe FIR at its face value and accompanied by the brochure aswell as the NSEL presentation which included the actual pay-out settlement, the members who have paid-in and woulddisclose that the electronic platform of NSEL was used by thetraders.In no way, the complainant in the FIR allege apromised return in form of any interest, bonus, profit, but bythe very nature of transaction, the yield - the difference in theprice of a commodity between the two trading dates i.e.T+2and T+30/33/25 was calculated as a yield but this, in ourview, would not fall within the purview of deposit since neitherthe NSEL received the commodities to be retained by itself nordid it receive any amount to be deposited in its account.On theother hand, the nature of transaction which we have referred toabove, involved bringing in the commodity and selling of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 86 WP 1181-18 judgment.doccommodity by depositing the amount of pay-in and pay-out inthe respective accounts of the traders.Nonetheless, the NSELhad its chunk of charges in form of transaction charges and thecharges of warehousing.The purchase and sell of thecommodity is apparent since the VAT was paid on suchtransaction.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::31 We have also perused the charge-sheet which isfiled in pursuant to an investigation in the FIR lodged by PankajSaraf.The charge-sheet is filed by the EOW on 4 th August 2014and is placed on record of the Writ Petition.In the charge-sheet, NSEL is referred to as a 'Spot Exchange' designed to helpthe activity of buying and selling of a commodity, paying cashfor and receiving goods on the spot.In the charge-sheet, it isstated that the important feature of any such exchange is that ithas to stand guarantee subject to its bye-laws to either partythat it will ensure that the contract is settled and if the buyercannot bring the money for any reason, the Exchange wouldthen sell the goods to someone else and recover the money andsimilar exercise if the seller defaults.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Aftermaking a reference to the operations of the NSEL, theallegation against NSEL in the charge-sheet is to the followingextent :"Not only did NSEL permit investors to participate in these contracts but in fact NSEL actively encouraged and induced investors to enter into such dual transactions.This active inducement was not just by highlighting the possible benefits available due to the price differential but also by providing economic rationale to investors by waiving storage charges for those members and their constituents who sell the product on the larger duration contract out of delivery receivable against the purchase position of the shorter contract.Accordingly, many Members also actively marketed these contract.Moreover, NSEL retained the warehouse receipts issued by it which were to be used to discharge margin obligations on the trades"The members were required to register the client prior to executing trades on their behalf.For this purpose, the members required their clients to submit the duly filled in prescribed 'Know Your Customer' form and execute the member - client agreement with the members.Thereafter, the members would upload the relevant details in the Exchange software in order to generate the Unique Client Code (UCC).Once the UCC was generated, the client was permitted to execute trades through the members.There are around 13,000 clients of the above Members of the NSEL"Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 88 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc After referring to the transaction, the charge-sheetfurther records thus :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Suddenly, NSEL informed the public, for the first time, by way of the Press Note issued on July 15, 2013 that NSEL had received a directive from the Department of Consumer Affairs on July 2012, 2013 ("DCA Directive") to submit certain undertakings to the effect that (a) new contracts would not be launched until further instructions from the concerned authority; and (b) existing contracts should be settled on the due date.However, in the said Press Note, NSEL clarified that the existing business in the running contract traded on the spot exchanges will continue without any disruption and further stated that since spot exchanges do not have concepts like 'due date' (unlike futures contracts), NSEL was seeking further clarifications on the same.Effectively, the complainants were led to believe that the trades on NSEL would continue without disruption and would continue to remain safe and risk free.It then makes a reference to the various circulars issued by theNSEL and proceeds to narrate the contents of the letter dated16th August 2013 sent by the FMC to the NSEL published on thewebsite of FMC.The entire letter is reproduced in the charge-sheet.After making a reference to the said letter, charge-sheetcontains the following statement :-"It is alleged in the FIR that during the period from Oct, 2008 to July, 2013, NSEL allowed 25 Members, named as accused, to trade on the exchange as sellers.It is further alleged that during the relevantTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 89 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc period these 25 Members (Sellers) in connivance with NSEL traded fictitious stocks on the exchange for which they raised fake documents.During the initial contracts between these Member Companies as sellers & buyers, the companies squared off the contracts on the date of maturity, but later on when the investments in these companies grew substantially, they did not honour their commitment and thereby caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.2.2 crores to the complainant and approximately around 5600 crores to the other investors numbering more than 13000".::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Further, the details of accused person/defaulters identified andamount secured by attachment also finds place along with thecharge-sheet and this includes the 18 defaulters.Perusal of the charge-sheet disclose that oninvestigation into the affairs of NSEL, even the EOW has nodoubt in its mind that NSEL was operating as an exchange andfrom the reading of the charge-sheet at the most what is allegedto the Exchange, is failure on its part to abide by the rules andbye-laws and it ought to have closed down their position anddeclare them defaulter and initiate default proceedings againstthem.A reference to the letter dated 16th August 2013 from theFMC to the NSEL makes reference to several bye-laws of theExchange and direct NSEL to submit details of all members whohad failed to discharge their pay-in obligations and rather theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 90 WP 1181-18 judgment.docNSEL was called upon to explain as to who did not meet theirpay-in obligations in time and why their position is not closeddown in auction and why default proceedings are not initiatedagainst them.NSEL, in fact, had responded to the said noticeand a reference of the same finds place in the charge-sheet.Charge as contained in the charge-sheet is to the effect that on1st August 2013, the exchange had SGF of 738.55 crores.However, during the interaction with the Board of NSEL, it wasinformed that the SGF had only 62 crores.Thus, the NSEL ischarged with providing misleading information and seriousdoubt is raised about its authenticity.The direction was alsoissued to appoint a recruited forensic auditors firm to establishthe credibility of books of accounts, record maintained by theexchange.It is in this backdrop, we would be required todetermine the question whether NSEL had accepted deposits.As far as the role of the accused persons in the said charge-sheet is concerned, the charge-sheet deals with the defaultersi.e. 25 defaulting companies of NSEL and assessed amount ofdefault on part of by each of them.For instance, as far asMSPD Agricultural Process P.Ltd is concerned, the charge-sheetTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 91 WP 1181-18 judgment.docmentions that the outstanding amount against this Company is633.49 crore and this company was trading on the platform ofNSEL in Paddy rice and from the account of the said company,an amount came to be transferred to its sister concern and thisis how the default company siphoned out the amount.Thecharge is that trading was taking place on the platform of NSELbut the defaulters who were not able to discharge their pay-outobligation and resultantly, the buyers who brought the goodson the platform of exchange were left without the actualcommodities in hand and the squaring of the contracts enteredbetween the buyer and seller did not fructify.We also havebefore us an affidavit filed by the respondent in Writ PetitionNo.508 of 2017 which contain following statements:::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::"f The promoter of NSEL is Financial Technologies (India) Ltd (FTIL) which holds 99.99% of the total share capital of NSEL.The Founder Chairman and Group CEO of FTIL is Jignesh Shah.Jignesh Shah along with Joseph Massey and Anjani Sinha are in charge of the overall management and affairs of NSEL.The key officials of NSEL listed above are very central to the operations of the NSEL.g. There are 25 defaulters i.e. Mohan India Pvt.Ltd, N.K. Proteins Pvt.Ltd, ARK Imports, LOIL Health Foods Ltd, LOIL Overseas Foods Ltd, LOIL Continental Ltd, PD Agro Processors Pvt. Ltd, Lotus Refineries, JuggernautTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 92 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc Projects Ltd, Top Worth Steel & Power Pvt.Ltd, Metkore Alloys & Industries Ltd, White Water Foods Pvt. Ltd, NCS Sugars Ltd, Namdhari Food International Pvt Ltd, Shri Radhey Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Spin Cot Textiles Pvt.Ltd, MSR Food Processing, Sankhya Investment, Yathuri Associates, Aastha Minmet India Pvt.Ltd, Brinda Commodity Pvt.Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::h. During the course of investigation it is revealed that the transactions between the NSEL and borrowers are not fully supported with actual delivery of goods.In many cases the accounts of the NSEL and borrowers are not matching with each other due to unilateral bogus entries made by either of the parties to suit and accommodate each other.The physical delivery of the commodities has not been checked by any of the parties and there was no control over stock lying in the warehouses.Prima facie it is revealed that there are many accommodation entries which caused this financial mishap due to collusion between the NSEL, its owners, directors, management, sellers, borrowers and other.Hence it is clear cut case of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust where money of innocent people to the tune of Rs.5600 Crores have been washed out by financial jugglery and fraudulent entries in the books of accounts."The said statements in the affidavit also leave no doubt in ourmind that the respondents are also conscious of the role playedby the NSEL and merely on the basis of a brochure, which wehave perused, refers to an yield in terms of thecommodities/produce, it is attempted to canvass that there wasan assurance to the clients with fixed return @ 14 to 16% perannum.The affidavit also proceeds to state that the transactionTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 93 WP 1181-18 judgment.docof the petitioners and the traders/suppliers of the goods are notsupported by actual delivery of goods and in many cases, theaccounts of the petitioner and the suppliers of the goods are nottallying with each other due to bogus entries and the physicaldelivery of the commodities have not been verified and therewas no control over the stock lying in the warehouse.According to us, this may amount to an offence under section465, 467 of IPC and we are not, in any case, absolving theNSEL or the petitioner if it has any role to play as a promoterfrom any of these liabilities and it would be imperative on themto be subjected to the regime of the penal laws.However, whatis assailed before us is the invocation of the provisions of theMPID on the very basis that NSEL is a Financial Establishmentand that it had accepted 'deposit'.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::33 In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts placed beforeus, we are satisfied that the NSEL has not accepted any depositand if it has not accepted any deposit, then it would not fallwithin the definition of 'financial establishment'.The NSEL hasreceived money from the buyers at T+2 date and it wasTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 94 WP 1181-18 judgment.docimmediately paid to the sellers at T+2 date.However, onT+25 date, the parties who were sellers on T+2 date, and whowere under obligation to make payment on T+25 date, failedto do so and it is not the NSEL but the sellers who receive themoney from the buyers on T+2 date with an underlyingobligation to make the payment of T+25 date but failed to doso and therefore, at the most, they could be referred to as'financial establishment'.The Forensic Audit of EOW hasrevealed the complete trail of diversion of funds by the 24defaulters to their associated persons and entities and it is anallegation of the learned Senior counsel Shri Nankani that therespondents have not attached the properties of each of thebeneficiaries equivalent to the monies that have been traced tothem and without exhausting the said properties of the personsto whom the alleged deposits have been traced, therespondents have straight way approached the petitioner in thecapacity as promoter.Dada has strenuously urged before usthat the NSEL had received the commodities and issued awarehouse receipt which was an evidence of a deposit ofvaluable commodity.However, in the course of investigation, itTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 95 WP 1181-18 judgment.dochas transpired that many of the warehouse receipts werefictitious and it was merely a ploy to disguise the real nature oftransaction.If we accept this argument in totality, in any case,this receipt do not provide an answer to the nature oftransaction that took place on the platform of NSEL and thoughit is no doubt that the commodity came to be accepted as adeposit, but it should be accepted with an assured return and inthe present case, the commodity which was accepted wasbecause it was to be sold to a purchaser and it is not the case ofthe State that it was a pure transaction where commodities areaccepted as deposit.Dada has pegged his argument andsubmitted that NSEL on one hand, was accepting deposits bypromising fixed returns of 14 to 16% and was furtheradvancing unsecured loans to the defaulting companies andthis is corroborated by the fact that it did not bother to verifythe stock in its designated warehouses and in some cases, theprosecution had established that there was no stock at all, yethuge amounts were loaned out to the traders by NSEL.In thewake of this argument, the provisions of MPID would not be inany case, attracted on consideration of the submission of ShriTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 96 WP 1181-18 judgment.docDada.It is the case of the State Government that the amountfrom the investors was initially deposited in the accounts ofNSEL and thereafter, they were transferred at the end of thetrading season i.e. end of the day to the respective trades afterdeducting the charges of the NSEL.The petitioner has admitted that theamount used to come to NSEL to be paid to the respectivetraders on the T+25 settlement date and the NSEL was entitledto charge its transaction charges.This would clearly dispel thecase of the respondent State that the NSEL was acceptingdeposit and therefore, it was a financial establishment.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::34 Now we come to the notifications which areimpugned in the present writ petition which are issued by theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 99 WP 1181-18 judgment.docrespondent State under Section 4 of the MPID Act. Thepetitioner has assailed in the writ petition several notificationsissued under sub-clause(1) of Section 4 and Section 5 of theMPID Act, thereby attaching the properties of the petitioner inthe capacity of promoter of NSEL.The impugned notificationsafter making reference to the complaint filed by one Mr.Thenotification proceeds on a premise that complaints werereceived from a number of depositors against NSEL (referred toas 'financial establishment') that it had collected money bypromising attractive returns to depositors but failed to returnthe deposits when the time for repayment came.Thenotification makes reference o the NSEL as a registeredcompany providing an electronic platform for spot trading andcommodities and operating in 16 States across the State.It alsomentioned that it is promoted by FTIL (now known as 63 MoonTechnologies).After making a reference to the nature oftransactions taking place on the platform of NSEL, it also makesTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 100 WP 1181-18 judgment.doca reference to the notification dated 12th July 2013 issued bythe Department of Consumer Affairs directing the NSEL tosubmit certain undertakings in light of the alleged violation ofthe exemption notification.It then alleges that by unilaterallyclosing down the financial establishment, it defaulted intorepayment of approximately 5600 crores which was due to bepaid to 13000 investors and since the financial establishmenthad collected deposit, the provisions of the MPID Act areinvoked.The notification then proceeds to state that as to whythe properties of the petitioner are required to be attached andit states as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::By unilaterally closing down the exchange the said Financial Establishment defaulted in repayment of approximately Rs.5600 crores which was due to be paid to approximately 13000 investors.Since the money collected by the said Financial Establishment from the investors falls under the definition of 'deposit' as per Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, the provisions of MPID Act are applicable to the present case.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Since, as per section 4(1) (i) of the MPID Act, the Government has received complaints form the depositors and is satisfied that the said Financial Establishment has failed and is not likely to return the deposits and that the attached properties of the said Financial Establishment are not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, the properties of the promoter of the said Financial Establishment i.e. M/s 63 Moons Technologies Ltd, are liable to be attached and utilized under the provisions of section 7 of the MPID Act. The said Financial Establishment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of M/s 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. [(previously known as Financial Technologies (India) Limited (FTIL)].63 Moons' shareholding in the said Financial establishment is 99.99/ and it is alos the promoter of the said Financial Establishment.As the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that the attached properties of the Financial Establishment are not sufficient for repayment and that the said Financial Establishment does not have sufficient properties which can be attached for the purpose of repayment of the deposits, as per section 4 (1) of the MPID Act the properties of the promoter of the said Financial Establishment i.e. M/s 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Are liable to be attached and utilized under the provisions of section 7 of the MPID Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Reference is then made to seven notifications issued earlier inrespect of whom the allegation has been made that they are notsigned by a person atleast of a rank of a Secretary to theGovernment of Maharashtra and therefore, as a measure ofabundant caution, the Government ratified the saidnotifications and issued the impugned notification, therebyattaching the properties, including properties in addition tothose already stand attached along with receivables likeinterest, dividends, and linked bank account into whichreceivables are deposited from the properties of M/s.63 MoonTechnologies as per the schedule.It is this notification whichis challenged by the petitioner apart from the ground that NSELis not a financial establishment since it has not accepted thedeposit also on one another ground i.e. that the powerexercised by the State is malafide since the audit conducted byEOW do not trace any money trail to the petitioner.Anotherground for assailing the said notification is that the EOW hadalready attached the properties worth Rs.8,548 crore and thoseproperties have been sufficiently secured to deal with thealleged defaulted amount and the further attachments of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 103 WP 1181-18 judgment.docproperty is in excess since the alleged payment crisis is ofRs.5600 crore.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::We have dealt with the said argument in ourinterim order dated 24th October 2018 on a Notice of Motionbeing moved by the petitioner and we have granted stay to theimpugned notifications only on the limited ground that theamount sought to be attached by said notification is in excess ofthe requirement of the amount alleged to be defaulted.However, dealing with the ground that no money trail is tracedto the petitioner, they are supported by the audit report whichhas been placed on record.We have perused the Forensic Report of the 17defaulters and the said report in great detail has computed theoutstanding trade obligation based on pending buying deliveryobligation report and has worked out their respective liability.It has calculated the same on the basis of the withdrawals anddeposits in the NSEL Settlement Account.Perusal of the saidreport in detail in respect of the defaulter companies wouldreveal as to how these Companies have utilized the funds andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 104 WP 1181-18 judgment.doctransferred it to some other sister companies and failed todischarge their pay-out obligations and which has caused theloss to the investors.The audit reportplaced on record at Exhibit-EE contains a statement in respectof 17 defaulters including the big defaulters like N.K. ProteinsLimited, Astha Group, Ark Importers Pvt.Ltd, Loil Group, LotusRefinery Pvt. Ltd, Metkore Alloys and Industries Limited.It alsogives the figures of the amount not attached as per EOW moneyTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 105 WP 1181-18 judgment.doctrail and the amount attached and disclose that 1,720.63 croreis not yet attached.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Our attention was also invited to the affidavit filedby the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government ofMaharashtra in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in theSpecial Civil Application No.18637 of 2015 in case of AshitaNilesh Patel, where the application was filed by one Ashita,daughter of Chairman of NSEL and married to one Nilesh Patel,Chairman of N.K. Group who is a defaulter member of NSEL.The said affidavit proceeds to state as under :-Total 13000 persons have suffered and they have lost their monies to the tune of Rs. 5600 Crores.J This is a case wherein, the family members have acted as a group and partners in getting monetary benefits and in the process have defrauded thousandsTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 106 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc of depositors to the tune of more than 900 crores of rupees.It seems that these persons have prospered at the cost of thousands of innocent depositors.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::National Spot Exchange had its godowns.Any person who was the owner of or in possession of the commodities as listed by National Spot Exchange Ltd., would approach the National Stock Exchange through agent or himself.If that person wants to sell his commodity, he will physically place his commodity into the registered approved warehouses of National Spot Exchange Ltd. National Spot Exchange Ltd. Would thereafter issue acknowledgment receipt evidencing the quantity of the commodity and its quality.The receipt issued by National Spot Exchange is a tradable document.The receipt issued by National Stock Exchange would be placed online by the person who has placed his commodities in the approved warehouses of National Spot Exchange Ltd.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 107 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc It is the case of the Investigation agency that the 'N. K. Proteins Ltd, and its office bearers, in collusion with the official of National Spot Exchange Ltd., created fabricated and forged documents.For example take a case that on a given day N. K. Proteins Ltd, and its office bearers, in collusion with the officials of National Spot Exchange Ltd., crated fabricated and forged documents.For example take a case that on a given day N. K. Proteins Ltd, has placed goods of 100 MT commodities.A receipt is given of 100 MT, evidencing the goods having placed.Say for example, the value of the goods which is Rs.1 crore.But as a matter of fact, commodity is not placed at all in the godown.Based on this receipt generated and obtained, N. K. Proteins will display this receipt online for sale of goods by entering in to sale transaction on the platform of National Spot Exchange, it gets Rs. 1,10,00,000/-.In fact there are no goods at all.Then, the N. K. Group have created other commodities in second transactions by paying out the margin money.The company would, not suffer any loss and would have the money on hand of Rs. 1 crore without nay security for these many number of days.The instances of the fraudulent activities are manifold and multifold and the same would be further presented in details at the time of hearing of the present Writ petition.For these reasons, the present Writ Petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::35 The Gujarat High Court by its order dated 29thMarch 2017 refused to intervene on the ground of jurisdictionand redirected the petitioner to the appropriate Court inMaharashtra without touching the merits of the matter bykeeping all the contentions open.However, what is to be worthnoted is the stand of the respondents where it had referred tothe trading member as defaulter before the Gujarat High Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::If we discern the said affidavit, it becomes apparent and clearthat the State has construed the trading members as thedefaulters and has also highlighted the act on part of thedefaulters which attract the provisions under Section 409, 465,467, 468, 471, 474 of the IPC.The orders passed on theremand application by the Economic Offences Wing alsodisclose the role of the 25 members named as accused whotrade on the exchange as sellers.The allegation against NSELis that in authenticating these companies, due diligence was notfollowed and they traded fictitious stocks on the exchange forwhich they raised fake documents.The role attributedto the trading companies was set out in the remand applicationand it is alleged that the Company siphoned off the amount andcertain discrepancies are also attributed to NSEL in not properlysupervising the receipt of stock in its warehouse.TheTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 109 WP 1181-18 judgment.docindication in the said application is that the trading membershave received the funds from NSEL and the investigation wasfocused on whether the amounts have been divested.In such ascenario when the respondent State has itself alleged certainmisdeeds to the NSEL only to a limited extent that thetransaction between NSEL and borrowers were not fullysupported with actual delivery of goods which emerged into afinancial mishap due to collusion between the NSEL, borrowersand their clients and this is a clear cut case of criminalconspiracy and criminal breach of trust where the innocent'smoney to the tune of Rs.5600 crore have been washed out.Ifthis is the case of the prosecution, then we are fully justified intaking a view that the transaction entered on the platform ofNSEL was not the one of deposit of the amount or commodityand if it is not so within the meaning of Section 2(c) of theMPID Act, then NSEL cannot be charged of being a financialestablishment and proceeded against under the provisions ofthe MPID Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::The power conferred under Section 3 on the authority to pass ad interim order of attachment of money or any other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the financial establishments or in the name of any other person, from and out of the deposits collected by the financial establishments or if it transpires that if such money or other property is not available for attachment or not sufficient for repayment of deposits, such other property of the said financial establishments or the promoter, partner, director, member of the said financial establishments or a person who has borrowed money from the financial establishments to the extent of his default or, such other properties of that person in whose name properties were purchased from and out of the deposits collected by the financial establishments, in our considered opinion, is nothing but a power conferred on the competent authority required to be exercised in an emergent situation, where the financial establishmentTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 117 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc or any person mentioned in section 3 of the Act attempts clandestinely to siphon of or divert the funds of the depositors by mala fide transfers.Therefore, the question of giving an opportunity before passing such order of ad interim attachment does not arise.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation or reluctance in exercise of such power of attachment without affording an opportunity to the financial establishments as the Act provides a post-decision opportunity and also permits the innocent third parties to approach the Special Court for variation and modification, and we find sufficient justification in this regard.Wide option was also provided under the Act for settling the amount without payment of interest, thus giving a fair play in the joints.That apart, during the course of making the ad interim order of attachment absolute, by contemplating notice to the interested parties and permitting them to file their objections and also hearing the third parties, who have not even been served with notice, but filed their objections, requiring the Special Court to pass appropriate orders within 6 months from the date of filing the application under Section 4(3) of the Act, and then requiring theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 118 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc Special Court to pass appropriate orders on merits under section 7(4) of the Act, by which it may make the ad interim order of attachment absolute, vary it or cancel it and also by providing the Special Court to release the excess amount of property attached, which is more than the amount required for repayment to the depositors and then empower the Competent authority to bring the property to auction sale and then distribute the sale proceeds equitably, satisfies the principles of natural justice.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::28 In the case of the Tamil Nadu Act, the attachment of properties is intended to provide an effective and speedy remedy to the aggrieved depositors for the realization of their dues.The offences dealt with in the impugned Act are unique and have been enacted to deal with the economic and social disorder in society, caused by the fraudulent activities of such financial establishments.Article 145, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution.The Act is a salutary measure to remedy a great social evil.A systematic conspiracy was effected by certain fraudulent financial establishments which not only committed fraud on the depositor, but also siphoned off or diverted the depositor's funds mala fide.We are of the opinion that the act of the financers in exploiting the depositors is a notorious abuse of faith of the depositors who innocently deposited their money with the former for higher rate of interest.These depositors were often given a small pass book as a token of acknowledgment of their deposit, which they considered as a passport of their children for higher education or wedding of their daughters or as a policy of medical insurance in the case of most of the aged depositors, but in reality in all cases it was anTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 121 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc unsecured promise executed on a waste paper.The senior citizens above 80 years, senior citizens between 60 and 80 years, widows, handicapped, driven out by wards, retired government servants and pensioners, and persons living below the poverty line constituted the bulk of the depositors.These collections were diverted in the name of third parties and finally one day the fraudulent financers closed their financial establishments leaving the innocent depositors in the lurch.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::Shri Dada has vehemently submitted before us thatthe issue has now been put to rest by K.K. Baskaran (supra) andeven the MPID Act was tested on the parameters of Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and it has been held thatthe Madras Act do not violate any of the provisions andaccording to Shri Dada, the provisions of the Madras Act aresimilar to the one contained in the MPID Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::In Baskaran (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court hasnoted that there is a little variance in the provisions of theTamil Nadu Enactment and the MPID Act but on a largerplatform, the Apex Court had observed that a systematicconspiracy was effected by certain fraudulent financialestablishment which have not only committed fraud on thedepositors but also siphoned off or diverted the depositor'sfunds malafide would amount to abuse of faith of thedepositors who have innocently deposited their money with theformer for higher rate of interest.The Apex court refused totake note of the submission that the provisions of theenactment enacted by the State legislature for protection ofinterest of the depositors is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) orTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 124 WP 1181-18 judgment.doc21 of the Constitution since the said enactment was looked atas salutary measures to remedy the great social evil.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::This order was assailed before the Hon'ble ApexCourt and the Apex Court refused to interfere in the said order.The petition is then taken up by us for hearing on the mainissue about applicability of the provisions of the MPID Act tothe petitioner and on the ground that NSEL itself is not afinancial establishment and therefore, the properties of thepetitioner in capacity as promoter by the impugned notificationissued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the MPIDAct is also not sustainable and by this judgment, we have dealtwith the same.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::We have dealt with the submission on the ground ofthe inapplicability of the provisions to the subsidiary of thepetitioner i.e. NSEL and have also dealt with the submission asfar as constitutionality of the provisions of the MPID Act areconcerned.Criminal Writ Petition was filedby NSEL and the NSEL aggrieved recovery association and theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 128 WP 1181-18 judgment.docNSEL investor action group intervened in the same.CriminalWrit Petition came to be filed under Article 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India read with Section 482 seeking quashmentof the C.R registered with the EOW and later on, renumberedas case no.1 of 2014 after filing charge-sheet.In such circumstances, the judgment reliedupon by the state to advance its submission that the issue aboutthe applicability of the provisions of the MPID Act to the NSELis foreclosed, cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::41 The petitioner has posed a challenge to the variousnotifications issued by the Home Department of the State ofMaharashtra in exercise of power under Section 4 of the MPIDAct, thereby attaching the properties of the petitioner in thecapacity as promoter.It is the specific contention raised in thepetitions that the EOW has also attached the properties ofvarious defaulters.The impugned notifications which haveTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 130 WP 1181-18 judgment.docbeen assailed before us relate to the action of attachment of theproperty of the petitioner to the FIR being lodged by Mr.PankajSaraf on the basis of which the provisions of MPID Act wereinvoked and applied.The notification proceeds on a footingthat the NSEL is a Company which provides an electronicplatform in Spot Trading in commodities and it is promoted byM/s.FTIL (now known as 63 Moons Technologies Limited)which holds 99.99% of the share capital and the NationalAgricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited(NAFED) holds 0.1% of the total share capital of the company.The notifications further proceeds on the footing that NSEL is afinancial establishment and it proceeds to state that byunilaterally closing down the exchange, the financialestablishment defaulted in payment of approximately Rs.5600crore to be paid to approximately 13000 investors.It furtherproceeds on the basis that the money collected by the saidfinancial establishment from the investors falls within thedefinition of deposit as per section 2(c) of the MPID Act.Considering this as a promise, the State Government thenrecorded a conclusion that the Financial Establishment i.e.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 131 WP 1181-18 judgment.docNSEL does not have sufficient properties which can be attachedfor the purpose of repayment of deposits and therefore, itinvoked the provisions of Section 4(1)(ii) of the MPID Act,which enables the attachment of property of the promoter andthen, by issuing several notification, the properties of thepetitioner are proceeds to be attached.As far as the sufficiencyof attachment is concerned, by our interim order, we havealready noted that the properties of the petitioner more thanRs.2200 crore were attached.A submission came to beadvanced that the outstanding default amount is Rs.4822.53crore whereas the authorities have attached the propertiesworth Rs.8548 crore including the properties of the petitioner.It was not disputed that the EOW has thus attachedproperties worth Rs.8583.04 crore of the alleged defaulters.Inview of the undisputed fact that the properties attached wereworth Rs.8548 crore, we had granted stay to the impugnedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 132 WP 1181-18 judgment.docnotification dated 7th April 2018 relating to Odin and itsreceivables and we stayed the notification dated 11 th April2018, 17/4/2018, 19/4/2018, 15/5/2018 which purported toattach the properties in the form of accrued benefits on theinvestment of the petitioner and we also granted stay to thenotification dated 19th September 2018 to the extend ofattaching the Odin and its receivables and attachment ofaccrued benefits on the ground that the said attachments are inexcess of the defaulted amounts.The State proceeded underthe MPID Act and properties of the petition came to be attachedon the gospel belief that NSEL is a financial establishment andthe petitioner being its promoter and therefore, when the assetsof NSEL are not sufficient to meet the demands of the investors,the Government turned its nelson eye to the petitioner.Theentire exercise was carried out on foreclosed premise that NSELis a financial establishment.The perusal of the FIR by ShriSaraf as well as the charge-sheet filed in the relevant C.R on thecontrary, depicts a different scenario.The audit reportconducted is a part of investigation clearly point out a finger tothe sellers/defaulters and disclose that it is these defaultersTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 133 WP 1181-18 judgment.docwho have utilized the amount received by them for some otherbusiness purpose and the audit reports fix the liabilitypertaining to trade obligation on the said defaulters.Theunstarred question raised before the Lok Sabha in relation tothe NSEL scam, was answered by the Minister of State, in theMinistry of Finance on 5th August 2016 and it mentioned thatthe Government of Maharashtra had appointed two ForensicAuditors in order to assist the Economic Offences Wing ofMumbai Police in the investigation of NSEL payment andsettlement crisis.In an answer given to the said unstarredquestion, accusations were made against the key managementpersons of NSEL, brokers and borrowers.The Ministry of Statehas also answered as to why the properties of the brokers werenot attached by stating that no money trail was found in theirbank account The auditor M/S. U.S. Gandhi and Co. hassubmitted the Forensic Report and has clearly traced the tradeobligation of the said defaulters and fixed their liability on thisdefaulters on the basis of the details extracted from NSELledger account provided by the Economic Offences Wing Office.The audit report also include the flow chart diagram of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 134 WP 1181-18 judgment.docfunds transfer into settlement account of the individualdefaulters and as to how and when the funds came to betransferred to its subsidiary companies or its distinct accountsresulting into a default in discharge of their trade obligations.In this background, merely because the brochure made a faintreference to 14% to 16% of yield and on this very presumptionthat the NSEL has accepted deposits and since the petitioner isa promoter of NSEL, the axe of the Government agencies byattaching the properties has necessarily fallen on the petitioner,which we see is highly illegal and unsustainable.42 On examination of the contentions raised by therespective counsel, we are of the view that the clients tradingon the NSEL platform did not invest with the NSEL in form ofFixed Deposits, equity or debentures of NSEL but they tradedcommodities on the platform of NSEL.The NSEL has alwaysvoiced its stand by stating that it is not a FinancialEstablishment and in response o the notices issued to it, it pinpointed towards the defaulters who are responsible for the lossto the investors and the said contention of the NSEL was foundTilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: 135 WP 1181-18 judgment.docto be substantiated by the audit reports.The NSEL has eveninstituted recovery suits against the defaulters.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::and further notification dated 21/05/2019.2 As far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, we are notinclined to enter into the said arena of challenge and keep thesaid challenge open.ORDER IN WP NO.508 OF 20174 The impugned notification dated 21st September2016 is quashed and set aside and prayer clause (b) is madeabsolute.5 As far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, we leavethe said challenge open.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) After we pronounced the judgment, learned seniorcounsel Shri Dada prays for grant of stay to the effect andoperation of the said Judgment.He raise an apprehension thatif the attachments are lifted, the properties would beimmediately disposed of by the petitioner who is the promoterof NSEL.This prayer is opposed by the learned Senior counselShri Rohatgi as well learned Senior counsel Shri Seervai bymaking a categorical submission that all this while on a pretextthat NSEL is a Financial Establishment, they had alreadysuffered the brunt and since now the Court, on merits, has heldthat NSEL is not a Financial Establishment, the petitioner whois a promoter should not be made to suffer further.The prayerfor grant of stay to the Judgment is therefore vehementlyopposed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::We have considered the arguments of the learnedsenior counsel appearing on both sides and we are of theexpress view that on exhaustive discussion, we have alreadyconcluded that NSEL is not an Financial Establishment withinthe purview of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests ofDepositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999, and in suchcircumstances, we decline the prayer made by the learnedsenior counsel Shri Dada.(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 02:54:06 ::: | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 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. |
17,831 | The State Government accepted the recommendation and by order dated 1-7-2000 appointed Shri Deep Narain Pathak, respondent No. 3, as the Special Public Prosecutor.It is urged in the writ petition that the appointment of respondent No. 3 is unjust and improper and suffers from the vice of non-ascribing of reason.It is also put forth that the complainant is entitiled to engage a private advocate of his choice as per the provisions enshrined under Section 301(2) of the Code but at his instance the State Government without special reasons could not have appointed respondent No. 3 to conduct the sessions trial.ORDER Dipak Misra, J.The fact as have been depicted are that the petitioner along with some other family members was charge sheeted in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C) in Crime No. 81/2000 pending before the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol.It is averred in the writ petition that the deceased Jyotsna was married to the son of the petitioner and she expired on 28-1-2000 under unnatural circumstances.The further allegation of the prosecution is that said Jyotsna was illtreated for demand of dowry and death had occurred due to asphyxia caused by strangulation.On the basis of the said allegations criminal law was set in motion by the parents and brother of the deceased.The petitioner along with his family members were arrested.When the matter stood thus the brother of the deceased submitted an application on 2-2-2000 before the District Magistrate, Shahdol, the respondent No. 2 herein, for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case and expressed his willingness to pay the fees of such Special Public Prosecutor.On the basis of the aforesaid application the District Magistrate vide Annexure P.2 appointed the respondent No. 3 as the Special Public Prosecutor.It is further averred that on the basis of the aforesaid order the respondent No. 3 appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the State and vehemently opposed the bail application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') filed by the co-accused Kumari Sonal Jain, an unmarried girl.was a fit case where an appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was warranted and accordingly appointed respondent No. 3 who is an experienced lawyer.A return has been filed by the respondent No. 3 contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as there has been a considerable length of delay in assailing the order of appointment.The District Magistrate has also stated that the accused persons are influential and rich people.He also mentioned that the parental house of the deceased is in the State of Bihar.It has further been mentioned that the brother of the deceased had made a request for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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. |
178,311,040 | Agency filed chargesheet under Sections 147/323/324/326 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.Learned trial court after compliance with the relevant provisions of law framed charges under Sections 148/324/326/337 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.The charge was thereafter read over to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 11 witnesses and a number of documents.The defence surprisingly relied upon one witness who is the same Dr. Dipak Kr.The same Dr. Dipak Kumar Basak happens to be witness no. 9 on behalf of the prosecution.The documents so relied upon by the prosecution are Ext.1 FIR, Ext. 2 Seizure List, Ext.3 Seizure List, two material Exhibits being material Ext.1 and Ext.2 which refers to two sale deeds and were brought in evidence at the instance of the prosecution.The defence on the other hand got the charge sheet of Barabazar Police Station Case no.4 dated 10.04.85 under Sections 147/323/324/326 of the Indian Penal Code admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.-A.I have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution 4 as well as the defence.I have also taken into consideration the finding of facts which have been arrived at by the learned trial court after being considered by the learned appellate court has been affirmed it.The exhibit file do not reflect the injury report, however it reflects the B.H.T. of Jiban Mondal, Haradhan Mondal, Manoranjan Mondal and Jaladhar Mondal being seized by the Investigating Officer of the case in course of investigation from the Medical Record Section of the Purulia Sadar Hospital.In such circumstances it is very difficult to appreciate the evidence of P. W. 9 Dr. Dipak Kr.Basak whose evidence was recorded on 18.12.89 after four years of the incident and more particularly as to how he described the injuries before the court.The evidence of P. W. 9 Dr. Dipak Kr.Basak also do not reflect that in any manner there was any attempt to get the injury report/medical papers being admitted in evidence.This part of the evidence is very disturbing in view of the fact that most of the charges were framed for offences falling within Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code - "Of 5 Offences Affecting The Human Body." The offences under which the petitioners have been convicted are Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code for which medical report, I think, is required for coming to a just and proper conclusion.I could have stopped here but for the other part of the evidence this court thinks that there is certain admitted position which cannot be ignored.It is defence who by way of the evidence has brought on record as Ext.The doctor being brought by way of defence witness also goes to show that both parties were injured.Accordingly, CRR 1997 of 2006 is partly allowed.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,311,457 | sa396-13cOn or about 16th June, 2002 the marriage was performed between the appellant and the respondent as per Hindu Rites and Rituals.It was alleged by the respondent that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial house along with her sisters by the appellant.It was the case of the respondent that on 30 th June, 2002, the respondent and her relatives visited the house of the appellant when they were abused and the respondent was driven out of the matrimonial house.On 12th August, 2002, an FIR came to be lodged by the respondent under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his father, mother and brother.The appellant and his family members were arrested by the police pursuant to such complaint by the respondent.RESERVED ON : 5th DECEMBER, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 23RD DECEMBER, 2015 JUDGMENT :-By these two second appeals, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the Lower Appellate Bench granting reliefs in favour of the respondent in two separate civil appeals filed by the respondent.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::Pursuant to the said FIR, a Regular Criminal Case No.378 of 2002 was initiated against the appellant and his family members in the Court of IVth Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli.On 21st December, 2002, the respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.The said order passed in the Regular Criminal Case No.378 of 2002 was not challenged.On 10th March, 2006, the appellant herein filed a Hindu Marriage Petition (49 of 2006) against the respondent in the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli inter-alia praying for annulment of marriage and for divorce.The said marriage petition 2/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 ::: sa396-13c was filed on various grounds including ground of cruelty alleged to have been committed by the respondent.The said Hindu Marriage Petition was resisted by the respondent.Both the proceedings were heard together and were disposed of by a common order.On 29 th February, 2008, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli allowed the said Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the respondent under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and rejected the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the appellant inter-alia praying for annulment of the marriage and for divorce against the respondent.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 29th February, 2008, the appellant herein filed two regular appeals before the learned District Judge, Sangli.By a common judgment and decree dated 18th January, 2012, the learned District Judge dismissed both the regular civil appeals filed by the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::On 17th February, 2015, this Court admitted Second Appeal No.396 of 2013 and formulated following substantial questions of law :-"Whether for the act of filing complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, to amount to mental cruelty on the acquittal of husband and family, it is essential that judgment of acquittal must find that the complaint filed was false and with an intention to defame ? "In so far as Second Appeal No.397 of 2013 is concerned, while admitting the said second appeal, this Court formulated following substantial question of law:-"Whether for the act of filing complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, to amount to mental cruelty on the acquittal of husband and family, it is essential that judgment of acquittal must find that the complaint filed was false and with an intention to defame ? "::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::sa396-13cHe submits that in the said proceedings, various witnesses were examined including the respondent herself by the prosecution.It is submitted that after considering the oral evidence and the documentary evidence, the learned IVth Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant and his family members herein in furtherance of their common intention subjected the complainant to cruelty by demanding dowry or had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant or had intentionally insulted the complainant with intent to make her breach of public peace.Learned Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli also rendered a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant and his family members in furtherance of their common intention criminally intimidated the complainant by threats of injury to her person.He submits that by the said order, the appellant and his family members were acquitted of offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.The said order was not challenged by the State and has attained finality.Learned counsel also invited my attention to the order passed by the learned trial judge allowing the application filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissing the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the appellant inter-alia praying for annulment of marriage and for divorce.The learned IVth Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli has found that the prosecution had failed to prove any offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant and his family members.Such action on the part of the respondent in filing such false and frivolous complaint and getting the appellant and his family members arrested amounted to an act of cruelty by the respondent upon the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the examination in chief filed by the respondent in the proceedings before the trial Court, there were no allegations of dowry made by the respondent against the appellant and his relatives.Only during the course of cross examination of the respondent, she alleged demand of dowry for the first time alleged to have been made by the appellant and her family members.He invited my attention to the findings rendered more particularly in paragraphs 23 to 25 of the order passed by the learned trial judge and the issues framed in the 6/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 ::: sa396-13c said proceedings.He submits that the appellant had already given up grounds of nullity of the marriage before the lower appellate Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::He submits that the appellant had filed false and frivolous Hindu Marriage Petition inter-alia praying for annulment of the marriage and divorce only after four years of acquittal of the appellant and his family members.He submits that the appellant and his family members have not been acquitted on the ground of false complaint but have been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution had not proved his case.He submits that there was no finding rendered in the order passed by the Criminal Court that the complaint against the appellant and his family members was false and was filed with an intention to defame the appellant and his family members.He submits that there was no finding rendered by the learned trial judge on the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.There was no cross examination of the respondent on the issue that the said complaint made by the respondent was false or was filed with an intention to defame the appellant and his family members.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::Since it was found that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence against the appellant and the appellant was acquitted in such complaint, that itself proved the cruelty on the part of the respondent upon the petitioner under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.Learned counsel once again invited my attention to various findings rendered by the Criminal Court on this issue.He submits that the appellant had given up his allegation of fraud against the respondent before the lower appellate Court and did not press that allegation.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::sa396-13cInsofar as submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application for restitution of conjugal rights was independent proceeding and could be considered even if any cruelty was committed by the respondent upon the appellant is concerned, it is submitted that the person who had committed cruelty cannot seek restitution of conjugal rights at the same time.REASONS & CONCLUSIONS :-This Court shall first decide whether filing of the complaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the wife against the husband amounted to mental cruelty on the acquittal of the husband and his family members or whether any specific finding by the Criminal Court while acquitting the husband and his family members was essential that the complaint filed by the wife was false and was with an intention to defame the husband and his family members.Since 21st June, 2002 the respondent was alleged to have been forced by the appellant to leave the matrimonial home.It is not in dispute that pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent, FIR came to be lodged under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC against the appellant, his father, mother and brother.Pursuant to such FIR, the husband and his family members were arrested by the the police.There is no dispute that by an order and judgment dated 5th September, 2005, the learned IVth Joint J.M.F.C., Sangli has acquitted the appellant and his family members of an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of 9/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 ::: sa396-13c IPC.The said order dated 5th September, 2005 has not been challenged and has attained finality.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::A perusal of the said order dated 5th September, 2005 clearly indicates that the prosecution had examined six witnesses, including the respondent - wife, who was the complainant.The learned IVth Joint J.M.F.C. in the said order dated 5th September, 2005 after considering the evidence of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution has acquitted the appellant and his family members of various offences.Insofar as the evidence of PW-1 is concerned, it is held in the said order that the said witness did not know about the marriage of the appellant with the respondent.The witness (PW-2) also deposed that he did not know about the marriage of the appellant with the respondent.It is held that their testimony was thus of no use to prove the case of the prosecution.Insofar as the witness (PW-4) was concerned, it is held that the said witness had deposed that the complainant herself did not tell him about ill-treatment or harassment meet out to her and thus his testimony did not help the prosecution.Insofar as the evidence of the respondent herein (PW-3) is concerned, the learned Magistrate has held that in her cross- examination she admitted that on 21 st June, 2002 while being driven 10/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 ::: sa396-13c out of her house, she was told not to come back unless she brought Rs.2.00 lacs and 10 Tollas gold.It is held that no such deposition was made in the examination in chief.There was variation in the cross-::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::It is held that the said deposition in the cross- examination for the first time about the alleged demand of dowry was an after thought.It is held that it appeared to be improbable that on 21st June, 2002 after Pooja was performed, she was suddenly and forcibly asked to leave the matrimonial home.The respondent herself had admitted that her father-in-law had come to leave her on the bus stand.She further admitted that gifts were given to her sister Kalika and also to her niece Teja after Pooja.The learned Magistrate accordingly held that in this sequence of events the alleged demand of dowry or forcing her out of the matrimonial home appeared to be totally improbable.The FIR was lodged more than one month after the alleged demand of dowry.The learned Magistrate totally disbelieved the explanation given by the respondent about the delay in lodging FIR.It is held that the case of the respondent was not believable in view of the appellant and his family members giving gifts to the relatives of the respondent and in view of the delay on her part in lodging a complaint against the appellant and his family members.The respondent had not given adequate reasons for the delay of more than one month in filing the FIR.The aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate thereby acquitting the appellant and his family members of the offence under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC has attained finality.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::sa396-13cA perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the lower appellate Court indicates that both the Courts have held that the appellant husband had not proved that the respondent had committed any cruelty on him and further held that the respondent was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.It is held that the appellant was thus not entitled for a decree of nullity or marriage or in the alternative the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::examination that she did not mention of the incidents on which her complaint was predicated, in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was also not her case that she had actually narrated all those facts to the Investigating Officer but he had neglected to mention them.The Criminal Court while acquitting the appellant and his family members, after considering the evidence of six witnesses had rendered a positive finding that the complaint filed by the respondent was an after thought.The Criminal Court has rejected the complaint on merits after evaluating the evidence of six witnesses.In my view, it was thus clear that the said complaint filed by the respondent wife after five days of marriage against the appellant and his family members was a false complaint and was filed as and by way of after thought and with an intention to defame the appellant and his family members.It depends on the manner in which the complaint was filed and prosecuted.In this case also the appellant and his family members have been acquitted since the allegations made in the complaint filed by the respondent and in the proceedings filed by the prosecution were not proved on merits.The said judgment of the 15/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 ::: sa396-13c learned Magistrate First class has admittedly not been assailed before the higher forum.The appellant husband had filed the proceedings for divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(i-The finding rendered by the learned Magistrate First Class acquitting the appellant and his family members has attained finality.There was a complete irretrievable break down of the marriage of the appellant and the respondent within a short span of time.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that even if this Court comes to a conclusion that any cruelty was committed by the respondent upon the appellant, the respondent was still entitled to the relief of restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, a perusal of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act clearly indicates that the application for restitution of conjugal rights can be filed under that provision only if when either husband or wife has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party, may apply for restitution of conjugal rights and the Court after being satisfied of the truth of the statement made in such petition and that there was no legal ground as to why such application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.It is provided that the burden of proving the reasonable excuse shall be on the person, who has withdrawn from the society.In this case the respondent wife had filed a complaint under section 498-A and other relevant provisions of IPC.The respondent after filing such complaint and after arrest of the appellant and his family members had filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 21st December, 2002 inter-alia praying for restitution of conjugal rights.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::In my view, since the appellant husband and his family members were wrongly implicated in a false case filed by the respondent alleging the offence under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and were arrested by the police and the said complaint was subsequently prosecuted rigorously by the respondent till it was brought to its logical conclusion and the appellant and his family members having been exonerated of all such charges and were acquitted, in my view, the appellant had withdrawn from the society of the respondent with a reasonable excuse.The husband, who had suffered mentally in view of such false criminal case filed by the wife and admittedly in which he and his family members were acquitted, cannot be compelled by the Court by passing an order of restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and to co-habit with the wife.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::In my view, the appellant husband had proved before both the Courts below that he had withdrawn from the society of the respondent due to the respondent having committed cruelty upon the appellant and such withdrawal from the society of the respondent was not without a reasonable excuse.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::Insofar as substantial questions of law made in Second Appeal Nos.396 of 2013 and 397 of 2013 are concerned, the said questions are answered in the negative.In my view there is no positive finding required to be rendered in the judgment of acquittal that the complaint filed was false and was with an intention to defame the other party.b).::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 :::c).Hindu Marriage Petition No.179 of 2002 filed by the respondent under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:44 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,313,686 | During the pendency of the Trial, the parties, filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking permission to compound the offence.The Trial Court by order dated 19-1-2017, partially allowed the application and the offence under Section 506 Part II of I.P.C. was compounded, however, the application in relation to offence under Section 498-A of I.P.c.and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was rejected on the ground that the said offences are not compoundable.This Court by order dated 21-8-2017, directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar, of this Court for the verification of factum of compromise.The Principal Registrar, after recording the statements of the parties, has given the following report : Statements of Complainant/Respondent No.2 Smt. Soni Godyale and Accused/Petitioners No. 1 Vinod Chauhan, No.2 Suraj Prasad Chauhan & No. 3 Smt. Rajrani are recorded, matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying from parties present before me that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,320,019 | http://www.judis.nic.in 1/12 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14266 of 2015The case of the prosecution is that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 belong to Thituvillai, Kanyakumari District and Accused No.3 belongs to Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.The second respondent / de facto complainant is running a Jewellery shop in the name and style of Shaba Jewellery at Meenakshipuram, Nagercoil.During the period from 17.10.2011 to 01.11.2011, series of transactions have taken place and the jewelleries were handed over to the accused.The contention of the petitioner is that earlier to this complaint, the second respondent / de facto complainant had lodged a complaint beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/12 Crl.The present complaint / fourth complaint was given to the Kottar Police Station.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.174 of 2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.When the second respondent / de facto complainant made a request for repayment of the amount, the accused threatened them with dire consequences.Hence, a case came to be registered before the first respondent Police and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed.The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2014, initiated against her.The aforesaid statements of L.W.1 and L.W.2 reveal that during the course of the commercial transaction between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant had supplied fabrics and the petitioners were making certain payments and ultimately a huge amount was due from the petitioners to the de facto complainant.The petitioner had given an undertaking by way of an affidavit, further, she signed in the receipts acknowledging receipt of jewels.The petitioner has admitted her signatures as could be seen from page No.4 of the petition, wherein, it is alleged that the second respondent / de facto complainant had forcibly obtained the signatures in vouchers, blank papers and blank stamp papers from the petitioner, for which, she had lodged a complaint before the Bhoothapandi Police Station, Kanyakumari District and a case in Crime No.11 of 2014, came to be registered for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C., which is still pending investigation.Further, submitted that there is only a thin line of difference between the civil transaction and the criminal transaction.L.W.8 is the witness to the documents.L.W.10 has spoken about the execution of documents.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,320,669 | This petition has been filed to quash the case in Crime No.105 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2014, the petitioners were conduct a strike in ECR Road without getting prior permission.Due to which, there was a public and traffic nuisance.Hence, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 143, 153 (A) and 188 of IPC, as against the petitioners.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case.When there is no material to proceed with the trial, the petitioners unnecessarily would not have put them an ordeal trial.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings.4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial.Further, he would submit that the petitioners are habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent/State and perused the materials available on record.6.On a perusal of the charge as against the petitioners are concerned, the first respondent levelled the charge under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC, as against the petitioners.It is seen from the charge that on 18.06.2014, the petitioners were conduct a strike in ECR Road without getting prior permission.Due to which, there was a public and traffic nuisance.Except the official witnesses,http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17976 of 2019 no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charge against the petitioner.7.Considering the above, this Court finds that for the simple charge, the petitioners cannot be put into an ordeal trial.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17976 of 2019 Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.8.In view of the above discussions, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.105 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioners herein.29.11.2019 4/4 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No dss1.The Inspector of Police, Sethubavasathiram Police Station, Thanjavur District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17976 of 2019dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17976 of 2019 29.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,330,514 | The appellants Tapan Gaudkar and Akshay @ Appu Bhavsar are on bail.(Delivered on 2/5/2019 ) By this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 24/7/2018 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge Ujjain in ST No. 657/14 convicting the appellants for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them four years RI each with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and default imprisonment of 3 months RI each.2/ The prosecution story is that on 18/8/2014 a quarrel had taken place at 9 pm between complainant Komal Singh and appellants on the issue of barking of his dog.Thereafter complainant was coming back on foot from Sai Mandir when 2 the appellants had stopped him.Appellants Dilip Mahadik and Lokesh Maratha were having knife and other two appellants were having wooden stick and they had attacked the complainant and caused him injuries.Hearing the commotion Satish Yadav, Chandrashekhar Joshi, Bhupendra Morya @ Chintu had come and on account of their intervention the appellants had fled away from the spot.The complainant was taken to the hospital and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 was lodged.Offence was registered against the appellants and after investigation challan was filed.Appellants had abjured the guilt and trial had taken place.3/ Dr. G.S. Dhawan, PW-8, had medically examined the complainant Komal Singh and had found seven cut injuries and had opined that injuries could be caused by means of knife.Complainant PW-1 Komal Singh had given the details of incident and had also disclosed that injuries were caused by appellants Dilip and Lokesh by means of knife and other two appellants Tapan and Akshay by means of wooden sticks.His statement is corroborated by the statement of eye witnesses PW-2 Deepak Yadav, PW-3 Bhupendra Morya and PW-4 Chandrashekhar.Trial court has also noted that Dehati Nalishi Ex P-1 containing the details of the incident was lodged after the incident without any delay.Trial court hence has rightly found that the statement of complainant is duly supported by statement of other eye witnesses as also corroborated with Dehati Nalishi and medical evidence.The seized knife was sent to FSL and in the FSL report blood was found thereon.The appellants were identified in the TI Parade. 4/ Having regard to the aforesaid evidence, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under section 3 307 of IPC.5/ Learned counsel for appellants has not questioned the conviction under Section 307 read with section 34 of IPC but he has submitted that parties have compromised the matter, therefore, by maintaining the conviction sentence be reduced for the period already suffered by them.6/ IA No. 1697/19 has been jointly filed by appellants and complainant stating that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant has voluntarily agreed for compromise without any influence or pressure.7/ This court on 5/3/2019 had permitted the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar for verification of the compromise and the report of Principal Registrar dated 12/3/2019 reveals that compromise has been verified and has been found to be entered into voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.8/ Supreme court in the matter of Ishwar Singh Vs.The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime.It was his first offence.After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody.During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present.Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail.Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already undergone.In default of payment of fine, the appellants concerned shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months.We also refrain from imposing any separate sentence on the other counts of offences.The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.The conviction of the appellants under Section 313 IPC is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which appears to be about ten months.The appellants are on bail.11/ In the present case also the parties have duly entered the compromise and compromise has been verified by this court and has been found to be voluntarily entered into by the complainant.12/ The record reflects that there was no enmity between the complainant and appellants and the fight had taken place on the trivial issue of barking of dog. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,783,339 | Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for theappellants.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is by fourpersons against the order of the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad dismissing their appeal and confirming theirconviction for several offences including one under S. 302read with s. 149, I.P.C., by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.These appellants, along with three other persons, werealleged to have forcibly taken two carts loaded withsugarcane from the field-of Suraj Bhan through the field ofHarphool, in transporting the sugarcane from the field,about a furlong and a half away, to the public passagerunning by the side of Harphool's field, and to have beatenHarphool and others on Harphool's protesting against theconduct of the appellants' party at the damage caused to hiswheat and gram crop.Ram Chandar, one of the appellants,was armed with a hatchet (kulhari) and the others were armedwith lathis.Harphool and others who came to his helpstruck the appellants' party also in self-defence.Harphooldied as a result of the injuries received in this incident.The appellants admitted their taking the carts throughHarphool's field and alleged that at Harphool's protest theyasked to be excused, promised not to take the carts throughthe fields in future and pleaded for the carts being allowedto cross the very small portion of the field which remainedto be covered before reaching the public passage.Theaccused state that in spite of all this meek conduct ontheir part, Harphool and his companions attacked them andthat then they also struck Harphool and others in self-defence.Both the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Judges ofthe High Court arrived at concurrent findings of fact an&held that (i) there was no passage through or along theboundary of Harphool's field; (ii) when the carts were nearthe passage and Harphool protested, the appellants' partybegan the attack; and (iii) the appellants' party had noright of private defence of person but had formed anunlawful assembly with the common object of committingcriminal trespass over Harphool's field and using force tothe extent of causing death, if necessary, in case they wereprevented from taking the carts through the fields.Theyaccordingly convicted the appellants of the variousoffences.Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants, has raisedfour contentions: (i) Any right of private604defence of property which Harphool had against the offenceof criminal trespass committed by the appellants' party, hadceased when the criminal trespass was over or when thetrespassers indicated their intention to cease the criminaltrespass; (ii) If one of the rioters causes injury for whichthe other rioters are to be liable under s. 149, I.P.C., theinjury must have been caused in prosecution of the commonobject; (iii) An assembly ceases to be an unlawful assemblyafter the completion of its common object and only thatmember of the unlawful assembly would be liable for anycriminal act committed later, who has actually committed it;and (iv) The learned Judges of the High Court misdirectedthemselves in raising certain inferences from the factsfound.It is clear, from the first three contentions raised, thatthey are all based on the supposition that the criminaltrespass which the appellants' party was committing had cometo an end when Harphool is said to have prevented them fromcommitting criminal trespass and that it was Harphool whobegan the attack.The two carts had not left Harphool's field andreached the public passage.They were inside the field whenthe incident took place.They were near the boundary ofHarphool's field.They must, in, the circumstances, havebeen several yards inside the field.But it does notfollow that this difficult position in which the party founditself gave them any right for insisting that they mustcontinue the criminal trespass.They had to abide by thedirections of Harphool, whatever be the degree of patiencerequired in case they were not allowed to move in anydirection in order to leave the field.If Harphool hadstarted the attack in the605circumstances alleged by the appellants, there may have beensome scope for saying that he acted unreasonably in takingrecourse to force in preference to taking recourse to publicauthorities or to such action which a less obstinate personwould have taken and had therefore lost any right of privatedefence of property against the offence of criminaltrespass.In so doing,they would have had to cover a shorter distance up to thepublic pathway and would have had the necessity to trespassthrough one field only, and that too, of one of their owncommunity Sandal Rajput.The other fields lying on the waywere of Suraj Bhan himself. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,443,545 | P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1 and the deceased is their child.P.W.1 resides at door No.16 in Asanathpuram, Pedambur, Dindigul.P.W.1 is a coolie by profession and is working in the shop of one Syed Mohammed.P.W.2 is working as a servant maid in a house in the same village.Apart from the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 have two more children by name Mohammed Sulaiman and Ragamathiza, who are working in a shoe company.P.W.1 as usual went for his work and came back to the house at about 12.30 p.m. But however, PW-2 had not come back by that time.Hence, PW-1 went near Madurai Veeran Temple, where some children were sitting.Shortly thereafter, the deceased also came there.The deceased asked PW-1 to give her some money and whereupon, he gave her 50 paise.PW-2 returned home at about 3 P.M. after finishing the work and as she felt tired, she slept.At about 4 P.M., PW-1 went back home and finding PW-2 was asleep, he woke her up and asked her to serve food for him.PW-2 then asked PW-1 about the whereabouts of the deceased, when PW-1 informed about his giving 50 paise to her at about 1.30 P.M. After sometime, the other two children of PWs-1 and 2 returned.When PW-2 asked them, they were not aware about the whereabouts of the deceased.The two children went to the house of one Kuppi and another person, who is running a mutton stall.As the deceased was not there, both PWs-1 and 2 went in search of the deceased and in fact, they searched till mid-night.He first asked for some water with which he washed his hands.Thereafter he took a cup of tea and then left that place.PW-3 is a resident of the area, wherein PWs-1 and 2 reside.He used to leave his house to his shop at 4 A.M. and come back at 1 P.M. in the afternoon.On 3.5.1997, as usual, he left at 4 A.M. and he was about to leave that place in a bicycle, When he noticed somebody lying down at the entrance.With the help of the torch light, he could identify that it was the deceased.Both of them came and saw the deceased and out of grief, they cried aloud and people gathered.PW-12 is a resident of Asanathpuram.On 5.5.1997 at about 8 A.M., he along with his friend were standing in front of a Tea Stall for the purpose of taking tea.The accused then came there and asked PW-12 to come aside.The accused then told PW-12 that he is afraid that the villagers would beat him and requested PW-12 to take him to the police station.PW-12 then took him to the Dindigul Town (South) Police Station at about 9 A.M. in the morning.JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.The investigation done by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, in Cr. No. 346 of 1997 revealed that the appellant/accused had committed rape on the deceased by name Hajaraammal aged seven years and thereafter murdered her.Charges were framed against the appellant/accused under Sections 302 I.P.C.; 366(a) I.P.C.; 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. The appellant faced trial for the abovesaid charges before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment dated 2.3.2001, found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C.. 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment was imposed for conviction under Section 366(a) I.P.C. and again a similar term for conviction under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. The trial Judge sentenced the accused to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. Questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul, the above appeal has been preferred.The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 20 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P24 and produced M.Os.The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence available on record, can be narrated as under:The next day also, PWs-1 and 2 searched for the deceased.As they were not able to trace her, they went and and gave a complaint in the police station.PW-16 is the Head Constable at Dindigul Town (South) Police Station at the relevant time.On the basis of the said complaint, Cr.No. 346/97 was registered.PW-9 is a resident of Asanathpuram in Dindigul.On 2.5.1997 at about 11.30 P.M., he came out of his house to pass urine.At that time, he saw the accused standing in front of his house.PW-9 saw him in a frightened mood.PW.10 is also a resident of the same area.On 2.5.1997, he went to Pithalaipatti and came back at about 11.45 P.M. and he saw the accused coming from the house of one Mohammed Ibrahim, owner of the mutton stall.PW-11 is also a resident of the same area and he is working in a tea stall.On 2.5.1997 at about 1 A.M., the accused came to that tea shop.PW-20, the Inspector of Police, when he was on duty, was informed by the Sub Inspector of Police about this and he proceeded to the police station.The crime was then altered as one under Section 376 IPC and suspicious death.Express Report Ex.P-20 was prepared and sent to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate.Thereafter, the Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence at 6 A.M. and prepared Ex.Assistance of the Finger Print Expert and also the sniffer dog was sought for.Inquest over the body of the deceased was held between 8 and 11 A.M. in the presence of panchayatdars and Ex.At about 11.15 A.M., hair to the length of 5 c.m. that was found in the right hand of the deceased was seized.The Inspector of Police then sent a requisition to the Government Hospital to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased.On the same day, the Inspector examined a number of witnesses.PW-19 is the Doctor in the Government Hospital, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 3.5.1997 in the afternoon.Ex.P-19 is the post mortem certificate issued by her.In the said Certificate, the Doctor made the following notings:-" A decomposed body lying on its back.Thoracic cage.Heart-decomposed.Lungs-decomposed.Hyoid bone intact.Stomach contain 100 gms.Of partially digested food particles and Liver, Spleen decomposed.bladder empty.Uterus - small (childhood uterus) Skull bone - intact.Brain liquified with in the membranes.Small intestines protruding through the vaginal orifice hymen teared and seen with few tiny blood clots.Vagina admits 2 fingers and vaginal wall and bouch of Boughlas.Pelvic floor ruptured - Through this rent intestine protruding outside through the vagina - uterus Normal.Childhood uterus. "The accused confessed his guilt and gave a statement.PW-12 and two others by name Mani and Abu Thahir signed the said statement.PW-20, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and he made a voluntary confession statement.The accused took the police party and witnesses to his house and produced MO-4 towel and MO-5 piece of a gunny bag.The Inspector then made necessary requisition before the Judicial Magistrate to send the accused for necessary medical examination.PW-18 is the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul.The accused was brought for medical examination pursuant to the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul.The Doctor, after examining the accused, issued the certificate Ex.In the said Certificate, the Doctor has stated as under:-" 1. (a) Sparse mustache, sparse axillary hair, public hair, well developed.Voice change present.Both testis well developed.No external injury seen over body of the accused as well as in private parts.(both congenital as well acquired).Anatomically, neurologically - there is no evidence to say that he is impotent.Blood & Hair samples taken & preserved. "Then, the hair sample taken by the Doctor and the one that was seized from the right hand of the deceased viz., MO-2 were sent for analysis.P14 is the report from the Director and Chemical Examiner to Government, Madurai-20, wherein, he has stated that both the hair pieces viz., the one seized from the right hand of the deceased and the sample taken from the accused by the Doctor found to be similar.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having any complicity in the commission of the offence.When an important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.The question is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused.The prosecution has relied on four circumstances, namely, (1) The evidence of P.W.12 by name Mubarak to whom the accused at about 8.00 a.m. on 5.5.1997 confessed having raped and murdered the deceased.(2) The hair that was seized from the right hand of the deceased, on analysis found similar to the samples taken by the Doctor from the accused.(3) Pursuant to the confession statement, a gunny bag M.O.5 was seized from the house of the accused and it was found to contain human blood.(4) P.Ws.9 and 10 found the accused in the very late hours of 2.5.1997 and P.W.11 saw the accused in the early morning of 3.5.1997 and that he appeared frightened.Circumstance No. 1: P.W.12 resides and doing business in Hasanathpuram in Dindigul.On 5.5.1997 at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.12 along with two others by name Mani and Apthagir were standing near the tea stall of one Ibrahim for the purpose of taking tea.At that time, the accused came fully exhausted and called P.W.12 aside.The accused told P.W.12 that he had raped and murdered the deceased.The accused further told this witness that he is afraid of the villagers as they may assault him and requested P.W.12 to take him to the police station.Thereafter P.W.12 and two others took him to the police station where the accused gave a statement and in which P.W.12, Mani and Apthagir signed.P5 is the admissible portion.The accused offered to take the police party and show the place where he originally kept the body of the deceased in his house and the gunny bag used by him to cover the deceased so also the towel he used to strangulate the deceased.This witness has been subjected to cross examination by the defence.But however, nothing has been elicited in favour of the accused or anything for this court to disbelieve the testimony of this witness.In brief, we come to the conclusion that P.W.12 is a witness who has infused confidence in the minds of this court.Circumstance No. 2: P.W.3 is a resident of Hasanathpuram in Dindigul and running a mutton stall.As usual, on 3.5.1997 at about 4.00 a.m. he just started to go to his shop.At that time, he saw near the entrance of his house someone lying.With the help of a torch light he could find that it was none else than the deceased.P.W.3 informed about this to P.Ws.1 and 2 and they in turn informed the police about this.Police arrived at the spot and found some hairs in the right hand of the deceased to a length of 5 cm.The Investigating Officer filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate to subject the accused for medical examination and the same was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Dindigul.P.W.18 is the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul who examined the accused.According to the Doctor, the accused was 19 years old and further opined that both testis well developed and secondary sexual characters also developed.The Doctor also took blood and hair samples.P17 is his report.The hair that was seized from the right hand of the deceased as well as the samples taken from the hair of the accused by Doctor P.W.18 were sent for necessary examination.P14 is the communication dated 20.6.1997 from the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, wherein the examiner, on comparison, found that the hair seized from the right hand of the deceased as well as the samples taken by the Doctor from the accused, were similar.In K.K. Jadav vs. State of Gujarat , the court considered the case of the prosecution which relied on the evidence of an approver and three aspects which connected the appellant with the commission of the offence.In that case, the accused made a voluntary confession statement to the police and pursuant to which a scarf was recovered.In that scarf, there were hairs of both the accused and the deceased.No doubt there is no statement by the approver that the scarf in which the dead body was taken was that of the appellant.But a scarf has been found which the High Court has held as belonging to the appellant and hairs both of the deceased as well as of the appellant were found on that scarf.It was argued that the finding of the hairs was of no consequence and at least the Chemical Examiner was not the proper expert who could depose as to the similarity or otherwise of the hairs.The writers on medical jurisprudence, however, have stated that from the microscopic examination of the hairs it is possible to say whether they are of the same or of different colours or sizes and from the examination it may help in deciding where the hairs come from.In Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (1956 Edn.) Vol.1, at p.122, some cases are given showing that hairs were identified as belonging to particular persons.Thus, we have besides the evidence of the approver three important facts which connect the appellant with the commission of the offence.His pointing out the dead body, his pointing out the silver buttons of the deceased which were stained with human blood and the presence of his hairs on a pania (scarf) on which there were the hairs of the deceased also.She went to the house of the accused on 13.5.1972 and on 14.5.1972 she disappeared.The accused after pretending to make a search for her body in the river and nearabout, went and gave a complaint to the police.A Pranda (cotton headtail) alleged to belong to the deceased Sumitra was recovered from the Jungle of Ghangar.Thus, this important piece of evidence certainly would corroborate the extra judicial confession.Circumstance No. 3: The accused who made an extra judicial confession before P.W.12 was taken to the police station and before P.W.20 the Inspector of Police, he made a confession statement.Accordingly, the accused took them to his house and produced a towel as well as a gunny bag which have been marked as M.Os.4 and 5 respectively.The gunny bag was sent for chemical analysis and it was found to contain human blood.This is yet another corroborative piece of evidence to connect the accused with the murder.From their testimonies, it is clear that the accused was found to be restless and in fact, frightened to some extent.This court carefully examined the evidence of three witnesses P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 and found them to be worthy of acceptance.Though it cannot be said to be a clinching piece of evidence, certainly, it will be a piece of evidence namely, the behaviour/conduct of the accused at the relevant time.Thus, we have the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.12, corroborated by the circumstances 2, 3 and 4 referred and dealt with earlier.The evidence available on record would lead to the only conclusion that it was the accused who should have done away with the deceased and none else.In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant Kanavaipitchai, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C. No. 82 of 2000, are confirmed.The appeal is dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,360,923 | Item no. 15 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6148 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.08.2018 in connection with Karimpur Police Station Case No. 141 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 447/326/354/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Tarapada Halder & ors.... Petitioners Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Apurba Kr.Datta, Advocate Mr. Sekhar Barman, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Karimpur Police Station Case No. 141 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 447/326/354/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that the complaint was lodged as a counter-blast to a civil suit instituted by the petitioners against the defacto complainant and his relatives.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,362,674 | The petitioner has preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the criminal proceeding of criminal case No.1055/2006 State Vs.Laxman Prasad Tiwari pending before the JMFC, Chhindwara, wherein the petitioner is facing trial for offence under Sections 420, 467and 468 of IPC.The petitioner's application for stop the proceeding was dismissed by the learned JMFC on 18/03/2016, therefore, he preferred criminal revision No.2500049/16 before the Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,443,725 | This revision has been filed against the judgment, dated 08.05.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2006 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Court (FTC.No.III), Dharapuram, as against the judgment, dated 10.08.2006, made in C.C.No.89 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharapuram.Petitioner is the accused in the calendar case, which was taken on file on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent, on the strength of dishonour of a cheque, allegedly delivered by the petitioner to the respondent.Under the circumstances, the parties are permitted to enter into a compromise.Accordingly, this revision is allowed, recording the compromise and acquitting the petitioner. | ['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,376,728 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail.T h e applicant was arrested on 10.03.2018 by Police Station Shadora, District Ashok Nagar, in connection with Crime No.54/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Section 304 (B) of IPC and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that marriage of the deceased had taken place more than seven years, therefore, provisions of Section 304-B of IPC is not made out.It has been wrongly mentioned by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar as 340 (B)of IPC in the impugned order.Learned Public Prosecutor admits that there are no dates collected by the Investigating Officer to show that as to on which date the marriage had taken place.It is also an admitted fact that though statements have been given by mother of the deceased mentioned therein that daughter of the deceased Pari informed her that father had killed her mother but no statement of daughter Pari are on record.Looking to the aforesaid facts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.The applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) alongwith two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal 2 MCRC-24627-2018 court concerned, the applicant shall be released on bail, with a direction that he will remain present on each and every date of the trial before the trial court/committal court concerned and shall abide by all the terms and conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.His single non-appearance shall cancel his bail automatically by the trial court concerned, without any further order of this court.CC as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.07.12 12:05:21 +05'30' | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,366,196 | PW-8/A, that at 10.05 PM a wireless information has been received that a guard on duty in a workshop at 235 Okhla Phase-III has been shot by an unknown person.A copy of DD entry Ex.PW-8/A being handed over to him, Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29, accompanied by SI Satish PW- 22, HC Krishan Pal PW-4, Const.Samarpal PW-9 and Const.Khemraj PW-19 proceeded to the workshop where he met Radhey Shyam PW-12, who was injured and informed him that one Krishanveer Rathi, employed in the workshop had Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 2 of 35 fired a shot at him.In the meantime, a PCR van reached the workshop and removed Radhey Shyam to All India Institute of Medical Sciences.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 2 of 35The premises in question was a workshop-cum-showroom from where automobiles manufactured by Ford were sold.On entering the showroom, the police officers saw Rishipal lying dead in the courtyard and Aslam Khan and Muneshwar lying dead in the power room.Leaving behind the constables to guard the place of the crime, Inspector Sunil Kumar went to AIIMS where he submitted an application Ex.PW-29/A to the doctor concerned for recording the statement of Radhey Shyam but could not do so as Radhey Shyam was not fit for statement and hence Inspector Sunil returned to the place of the crime.He made an endorsement Ex.PW-29/B beneath DD entry Ex.PW-8/A and at around 12.30 AM recording the date 19.07.2000 handed over the same to HC Krishan Pal PW-4 for FIR to be registered.At the police station HC Megh Raj PW-2 registered FIR No.401/2000, Ex.PW-2/A.In the meantime, ACP V.K. Malhotra PW-33, reached the spot and took over the investigation.He summoned the crime team.The crime team consisting of, amongst others, Const.Ram Avtar PW-3, a photographer and Chet Ram PW-5, a Finger Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 3 of 35 Print Expert reached the spot.P4/23; negatives whereof are Ex.P3/1 to Ex.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 3 of 35Inside the Ford Ikon car parked near the main gate of the showroom from which Chet Ram PW-5 lifted the chance prints, ACP V.K.Malhotra saw a blood-stained polythene and a plastic bag containing a kurta, a pyjama and a vest were lying and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-10/D. He saw broken blood- stained glass pieces lying scattered on the accountants room on the first floor of the showroom and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-10/P. He saw a blood stained handkerchief lying on the reception table kept in the hall of the showroom and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-10/C. He saw an empty cartridge lying on the coffee counter in the showroom and an empty cartridge lying on the ground near the coffee counter and seized both vide memo Ex.PW-10/E. He saw an empty cartridge and one bullet lead lying in the courtyard where Rishi Pal was lying dead and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW- 10/G. He saw an empty cartridge and a bullet in the power room where Aslam and Muneshwar were lying dead and he Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 4 of 35 seized the same vide memos Ex.PW-10/J and Ex.PW-10/Q respectively.He prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-3/C of the place of occurrence.He seized the dead bodies of Rishipal, Aslam Khan and Muneshwar and sent the same to the mortuary of AIIMS for post-mortem.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 4 of 35On 19.07.2000 Const.Khem Raj PW-14 went to AIIMS and collected the clothes worn by Radhey Shyam at the time of the occurrence and handed over the same to ACP V.K.Malhotra vide memo Ex.PW-14/A.On 20.07.2000 at about 12.25 PM Dr.T.Millo PW-6, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Aslam and prepared his report Ex.PW-6/A which records that a firearm injury was found on the occipital region of skull of Aslam and that the said wound was sufficient to cause death of Aslam in the ordinary course of nature.After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the clothes and the blood sample of Aslam on a gauze, by making separate parcels of the clothes and the blood sample, to Const.Samarpal Singh PW-9, who in turn handed over the same to ACP V.K.Malhotra vide memo Ex.PW- 9/A.On 20.07.2000 at about 12.30 PM Dr.Chitranjan Behra PW-25 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Rishipal and prepared his report Ex.PW-25/A which records Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 5 of 35 that a firearm injury was found on the occipital region of the skull of Rishipal; that the said injury was sufficient to cause death of Rishipal in ordinary course of nature and that bullet and pieces of bullet were found in the body of Rishipal.After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the clothes and the blood sample of Rishipal on a gauze as also the bullet and pieces of bullet found in the body of Rishipal, by making separate parcels of the clothes, the bullet pieces and the blood sample, to Const.Khemraj PW-14, who in turn handed over the same to ACP V.K.Malhotra vide memo Ex.PW-14/B.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 5 of 35On 21.07.2000 at about 12.10 P.M. Dr.Sudhir Gupta PW- 27, conducted the post-mortem of Muneshwar and prepared his report Ex.PW-27/A which records that a firearm injury was found near the right ear of Muneshwar and that the said injury was sufficient to cause death of Muneshwar in the ordinary course of nature.After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the clothes and the blood sample of Muneshwar on a gauze, by making separate parcels of the clothes and the blood sample, to Const.Veer Singh.In view of the fact that Radhey Shyam had told Inspector Sunil Kumar that Krishanveer Rathi who was employed in the showroom had fired, it was apparent that further breakthrough Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 6 of 35 could be achieved only after Krishanveer Rathi was in the police net.On 23.07.2000 a police team consisting of Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29, HC Krishan Pal PW-4 and ASI Vijender PW-21 arrested accused Krishnaveer Singh from village Tikri, Uttar Pradesh as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-21/A. On being interrogated by Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29, in the presence of HC Krishan Pal PW-4 and ASI Vijender PW-21, accused Krishnaveer Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/C wherein he stated that he, Sunil, Harender and Narender hatched a conspiracy to commit robbery in the showroom in question pursuant to which he and his aforesaid associates committed robbery in the showroom in the night of 18.07.2000 and also murdered Aslam, Rishipal and Muneshwar during the course of commission of said robbery; that the hand of Harender got hurt by a broken glass piece during the course of commission of robbery and that Harender used a handkerchief to wipe the blood oozing out of his hand and left the said handkerchief in the showroom in question; that he and the aforesaid persons looted a cash box containing a sum of Rs.75,080/- and a Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.DL-3C- Q-4257 from the showroom in question; that he had handed over a sum of Rs.30,000/- looted by him and his associates to Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 7 of 35 his father Kaliram; that he asked his cousin brother Jogender to take the country made pistol used by him and his associates in the crime from Narender as also sum of Rs.30,000/- lying in the car looted by them and that he can get recovered the country made pistol used by him in the crime and can point out the spot where the cash box looted by him and his associates from the showroom was thrown; that his three associates along with the car were at the bhatta of Sunil and he can get them arrested.Pursuant thereto, accused Krishnaveer Singh got recovered a country made pistol lying hidden in the heap of grass lying in his house which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-21/D.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 7 of 35Thereafter Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29, HC Krishan Pal PW-4 and ASI Vijender PW-21, went to the parking at Ganesh Ghat, Haridwar and found Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.DL-3C-Q-4257 stationed there.(Why they went with accused to Haridwar is not clear for the reason, as noted above, in the disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/C Krishanveer has disclosed that the car was with the three accused and they were at the bhatta [brick kiln] of Sunil.It is not recorded that Krishanveer disclosed that the car was in Haridwar.) After sometime, accused Harender came near the car in question and was arrested by the aforesaid police officers.On being Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 8 of 35 interrogated by Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29, in the presence of HC Krishan Pal PW-4 and ASI Vijender PW-21, accused Harender made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/H3 wherein he admitted his involvement in the crime in question.Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29, seized the car in question vide memo Ex.PW-21/D.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 8 of 35On 24.07.2000 the police took accused Harender to AIIMS Hospital where Dr.Amar Natha examined him and prepared his MLC Ex.PW-20/A which records that a cut injury and abrasions were found on the right palm of accused Harender.After conduct of the medical examination, the doctor handed over the blood sample of accused Harender on a gauze kept inside a bottle to Const.Jai Kumar PW-17, who in turn handed over the same to ASI Rajbala PW-13, vide memo Ex.PW-13/A.On 25.07.2000 accused Krishnaveer Singh led ACP V.K.Malhotra PW-33, Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29 and HC Krishan Pal PW-4, to a bridge at river Krishna and got recovered a cash box from underneath the river and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW-29/E. Thereafter accused Krishnaveer led the aforesaid police officers to his residence wherefrom accused Kaliram was arrested.On being interrogated by ACP V.K.Malhotra PW-33, in the presence of Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29 and HC Krishan Pal PW-4, Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 9 of 35 accused Kaliram made his disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A wherein he stated that he had taken a sum of Rs.30,000/- from his son Krishnaveer Singh despite having clear knowledge of the fact that the said money is the fruit of a crime committed by Krishnaveer Singh and his associates and that he can get recover Rs.22,000/- out of the said sum of Rs.30,000/-.Pursuant thereto, he led the aforesaid persons to a room in his house and got recovered a sum of Rs.22,000/- lying buried in the floor of the said room and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW-4/B.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 9 of 35Thereafter accused Krishnaveer Singh led the aforesaid police officers to the residence of accused Jogender wherefrom accused Jogender was arrested.On being interrogated by ACP V.K.Malhotra PW-33, in the presence of Inspector Sunil Kumar PW-29 and HC Krishan Pal PW-4, accused Jogender made his disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/C wherein he stated that he had taken a country made pistol and a sum of Rs.30,000/- from Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.DL-3C-Q-4257 despite having clear knowledge of the facts that the said pistol was used by accused Krishnaveer Singh and his associates in commission of a crime and that the said money and car are the fruits of the crime committed by them.Pursuant thereto, accused Jogender led the aforesaid police officers to his Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 10 of 35 residence and got recovered a country made pistol, three live cartridges and a sum of Rs.10,000/- kept in an ala in a wall of a room of his house and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW-4/D.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 10 of 35On 12.01.2001 accused Narender was arrested by the police.Upon his arrest, accused Narender made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-29/J wherein he admitted his involvement in the crime in question and stated that he can get recovered a stereo and speakers installed in Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.DL-3C-Q-4257 looted by him and his associates.Pursuant thereto, accused Narender got recovered a car stereo and two speakers from his house and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW-29/K.On 09.07.2003 Inspector Neeraj Kumar PW-32, arrested accused Sunil as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-32/A. We need not note the contents of the confessional statement of accused Sunil as the same is completely inadmissible in evidence as it admits of guilt.We note that neither any recovery was effected nor was a fact discovered pursuant to the confessional statement made by accused Sunil.The seven chance prints found on the Ikon car parked near the main gate of the showroom in question on the day of occurrence and the specimen finger prints of accused Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 11 of 35 Krishnaveer Singh and Harender were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-5/B it was opined that two chance prints detected on the car were smudged and thus cannot be compared with the specimen finger prints of the accused; that two chance prints detected on the car are palm prints and that the specimen of the palm prints of the accused were not sent to the bureau due to which no comparison could be made with respect to said chance prints and that remaining three chance prints detected on the car do not match with the specimen finger prints of the accused.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 11 of 35Four exhibits being sealed paper envelope Ex.14, sealed paper envelope Ex.17, sealed paper envelope Ex.19, sealed bottle Ex.22 contained blood samples.All of them were detected as having human blood.The blood group on Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 13 of 35 the gauze piece Ex.22 i.e. the gauze piece sent in the bottle was of group AB.The maalkhana register Ex.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 13 of 35The two empty cartridges found on/near the coffee counter in the showroom in question; one empty cartridge and bullet lead found in the courtyard of the showroom where dead body of Rishipal was found; one empty cartridge and bullet found in the power room of the showroom in question where Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 14 of 35 dead bodies of Aslam and Muneshwar were found; bullet and bullet pieces found in the body of Rishipal; one country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh and one country made pistol and three live cartridges recovered at the instance of accused Jogender were sent to ballistic division of Forensic Science Laboratory.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-33/F it was opined that the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh is in working order and is designed to fire a standard 8mm/.315" bore cartridge; that the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Jogender is in working order and is designed to fire a standard 7.65 mm cartridge; that the three live cartridges recovered at the instance of accused Jogender are live ones and can be fired through 7.65 mm calibre firearm; that the bullets found in the power room and the body of Rishipal respectively correspond to bullet of 8mm/.315" bore cartridge and has been fired through a country made pistol; that the empty cartridge found on the coffee table and the bullet lead found in the courtyard of the showroom has been fired through the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Jogender; that the empty cartridges found near the coffee table and courtyard of the showroom were not fired through the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh and that no opinion Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 15 of 35 could be given regarding the fact that whether the bullets found in the power room and the body of Rishipal were fired through the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 14 of 35A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 15 of 35Six persons were sent for trial being Sunil, Narender Singh, Krishanveer Singh, Harender Singh, Jogender and Kaliram.Charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307 and 397 and 120-B IPC were framed against accused Krishnaveer Singh, Harender, Narender and Sunil for having hatched a conspiracy to commit a robbery at the showroom in question and having murdered Rishipal, Aslam and Muneshwar; attempted to murder Radhey Shyam and committed robbery by using a deadly weapon in pursuance of the said conspiracy.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 31 of 35 in question at the instance of accused Narender.The only witness who has stated a word about the recovery in question is ASI Vijender PW-21, who has merely deposed that the stereo and speakers in question were recovered from the house of accused Narender at his instance.ASI Vijender PW-21, has not deposed that the stereo and speakers in question were got recovered by accused Narender from his house in his presence.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 35 of 35A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 35 of 35Criminal law was set into motion on 18.07.2000 at about 10.25 PM when Const.Ramji Lal PW-8 recorded DD No.30, Ex.Chet Ram PW-5 inspected the car found parked near the main gate of the showroom and lifted seven chance prints thereon as recorded in his report Ex.PW-5/A. Const.Ram Avtar PW-3, took the photographs Ex.P4/1 to Ex.The seized materials i.e. polythene and plastic bag found in the car parked near the main gate of the showroom on the day of the occurrence as also the kurta, pyjama and the vest contained in the said bag; broken glass pieces found in the accountants room of the showroom in question; handkerchief found on the reception table kept in the showroom; the clothes worn by Radhey Shyam at the time of occurence; the clothes and the blood sample of Aslam, Rishipal and Muneshwar and the blood sample of Harender were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for serological examination.Vide FSL reports dated 31.07.2001 it was opined that human blood of AB group was detected on the handkerchief found on the reception table Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 12 of 35 kept in the showroom; human blood of group A was detected on the polythene lying in the car parked near the main gate of the showroom on the day of the occurrence; that human blood of AB group was detected on the broken glass pieces kept in the accountant room of the showroom; human blood of AB group was detected on the clothes worn by Radhey Shyam at the time of occurrence; that blood group of Aslam was AB; that human blood of AB group was detected on the clothes worn by Aslam at the time of occurrence; that blood group of Rishipal and Muneshwar was A; that human blood of A group was detected on the clothes worn by Rishipal and Muneshwar at the time of the occurrence and that blood group of Harender was A.Since the learned Trial Judge has held that the blood group of Harender is AB and that blood of same group was detected on the handkerchief lifted from the scene of the crime, it needs to be noted that the FSL report shows 22 exhibits being subjected to serological test.PW-24/A consisting of 12 pages shows that whereas three gauze containing blood samples of Aslam, Rishipal and Muneshwar were received in the maalkhana on the 20th and 21st of July 2000 and while making entry in the register it was recorded that they are in an envelope, the blood sample of Harender taken on a gauze and kept in a bottle by Dr.Amarnath on 24.7.2000 was shown received in the maalkhana on 24.7.2000 and the entry clearly records that the blood sample on a gauze received in the maalkhana is in a bottle.It is thus apparent that with reference to the report of the serologist the blood group of Ex.22 was group A and this exhibit pertain to the blood sample of Harender and thus Harenders blood could not be on the handkerchief which was in parcel 1 and was given Ex.1 in the FSL report by describing the same as a dirty handkerchief for human blood of group AB was detected on the said handkerchief.Charges under Section 411 IPC were framed against accused Krishnaveer Singh, Harender, Kali Ram and Jogender for having dishonestly retained stolen property.Charges under Section 27 Arms Act were framed against accused Krishnaveer Singh and Harender for having possessed a firearm in contravention of Section 5 of Arms Act.At the trial, the prosecution examined 33 witnesses.We need not note the testimony of the various police officials who participated in the investigation for they have deposed regarding the respective role played by them in the Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 16 of 35 investigation which has already been stated by us in the preceding paras.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 16 of 35Navin Kohli PW-7, deposed that he is the owner of the showroom in question and the workshop at 235, Okhla Phase- III, Delhi.On 19.07.2000 one police official named Sunil Mittal informed him that a robbery has been committed in his showroom.On reaching the showroom, he was informed that a cash box containing a sum of Rs.72,080/- and a car bearing registration No. DL-3C-Q-4257 has been looted by the dacoits and that three persons are lying dead inside the showroom.It is significant to note here that the cash box, car stereo and two speakers recovered at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh and Sunil respectively were not shown to the witness and thus he did not identify the said exhibits as either stolen from his showroom or removed from his car.Anoop Singh PW-10, deposed that he is running a security agency under the name and style of A+ Security Services.In the intervening night of 18/19.07.2000 he was present in his house when Naveen Kohli, the owner of the showroom in question, rang him up and told him to immediately come to the showroom in question.On reaching the showroom, he saw that Rishipal, Muneshwar and a third person were lying dead in the showroom.Rishipal and Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 17 of 35 Muneshwar were employed as security guards in his agency, that he had deployed them at the showroom in question and that their duty hours were from 10 P.M. to 06.00 A.M. He came to know that the third person who was lying dead was the driver of the owner of the showroom.He was informed by the police that another security guard named Radhey Shyam has also received injuries.Accused Krishnaveer Singh was also employed as a security guard in his agency and was deployed by him at the showroom in question prior to the day of occurrence but he had terminated the services of Krishnaveer Singh as his conduct was not satisfactory.The forms filled by Rishipal, Radhey Shyam, Muneshwar and accused Krishnaveer Singh in connection with their employment in his agency are Ex.PW-10/B-1, Ex.PW-10/B-2, Ex.PW-10/B-3 and Ex.PW-10/B-4 respectively.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 17 of 35Radhey Shyam PW-12, deposed that on 18.07.2000 he was employed as a security guard in A+ Security Services and that his employer had deployed him at the showroom in question on the said day.At about 09.30 P.M. he was present in the showroom in question when suddenly someone fired a shot at him from his back.Thereafter he became unconscious and that someone removed him to AIIMS Hospital.He has no Crl.Relevant would it be to note that Radhey Shyam did not state that accused Krishanveer Singh had shot at him.In their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied virtually everything and pleaded false implication.It may be noted here that accused Harender admitted that he was medically examined by a doctor in AIIMS Hospital on 24.07.2000 and that the MLC Ex.PW-20/A was prepared by the doctor in said regard in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.The other accused did not lead any defence evidence.Vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2008, save and except acquitting accused Sunil, the learned Trial Judge convicted all the accused for the offences they were charged of.With respect to accused Krishnaveer Singh, the circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer his guilt Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 19 of 35 was that the cash box and the car looted from the showroom in question were recovered at his instance.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 19 of 35With respect to accused Harender, following two circumstances have been used by the learned Trial Judge to infer his guilt:- (i) the fact that accused Harender came near the car looted from the showroom in question when the car was recovered at the parking at Ganesh Ghat, Haridwar shows that he was aware about the location of the said car which in turn establishes that he was a party to the conspiracy to commit robbery in the showroom; and (ii) that his MLC Ex.PW- 20/A shows a cut on the right palm and his blood group was AB and the same was the group of the blood found on the handkerchief lifted from the showroom on the day of the crime.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 20 of 35 Rs.22,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were concealed by Kali Ram and Jogender respectively establishes that Kali Ram and Jogender were aware about the fact that said money was looted money.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 20 of 35As already noted hereinabove, the first circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Harender was that accused Harender came near the Ford Ikon car looted from the showroom in question.According to the learned Trial Judge, the said fact shows that accused Harender was aware of the whereabouts of the car in question after it was looted from the showroom in question which in turn establishes that accused Harender was a party to the conspiracy to commit robbery at the showroom in question.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 27 of 35The police officers who have proved the recovery of the car have not deposed that Harender was inside the car or was doing anything to the car.They have simply deposed that when they reached the parking and saw the car they also saw Harender nearby.The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Harender is that human blood of group AB which was the blood group of accused Harender was also detected on the handkerchief lifted from the scene of the crime and the twin fact of Harender having a cut injury on his right palm and blood of his group found on the handkerchief were incriminating evidence.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 28 of 35 simply noted that out of four blood samples sent since one of them had blood of group AB thereon and there from simply concluded, without any analysis, that this was the blood group of Harender.As already noted hereinabove, the circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to convict accused Krishnaveer Singh was that the cash box and Ford Ikon car looted from the showroom in question were recovered at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh.Pertaining to the car being recovered at the instance of Krishanveer Singh, as noted in para 13 herein above, in his Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 29 of 35 disclosure statement Krishanveer Singh has nowhere stated that the car was lying parked at Ganesh Ghat, Haridwar.None of the police officers associated with the recovery i.e. Insp.Sunil Mittal PW-29 and ASI Vijender Singh PW-21 have deposed that Krishanveer led them to the parking and pointed out the car or the spot where it was found.In fact ASI Vijender Singh has spoken not a word about Krishanveers presence when the car was recovered.The aforesaid police officials deposed that accused Krishnaveer Singh got recovered a country made pistol lying hidden in the heap of grass lying in his house.The aforesaid police officials were cross-examined at length but nothing tangible could be elicited therefrom which could cast a doubt on their evidence Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 30 of 35 pertaining to recovery of a country made pistol at the instance of accused Krishnaveer Singh.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 30 of 35It is true that Krishanveer Singh has disclosed that Harender has an injury on his palm, which knowledge of Krishanveer has been found to be correct for indeed Harender had an injury on his palm, but since Krishanveer and Harender are friends it is possible that the source of this knowledge was when the two met.The same are even otherwise ordinary objects and there is no evidence of the same having any distinct identity marks.The same were not even put up for any TIP.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 31 of 35CASE AGAINST ACCUSED KALI RAMThere is no evidence to show that sum of Rs.22,000/- recovered at the instance of Kali Ram was the money which was looted from the showroom in question.The only incriminating circumstance against accused Kali Ram is that the said sum of Rs.22,000/- was found buried in the floor of a room in his house.CASE AGAINST ACCUSED JOGENDERWith respect to recovery of Rs.10,000/- at the instance of accused Jogender, again there is no evidence to show that the said sum was the money which was looted from the showroom in question.With respect to recovery of country made pistol at Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 32 of 35 the instance of accused Jogender, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that the house wherefrom said pistol was recovered was in the exclusive possession of accused Jogender.The pistol was got recovered by accused Jogender from an ala in the wall of his house.But, there is no evidence to show that the house wherefrom the pistol was got recovered by accused Jogender was in his exclusive possession.The evidence against accused Harender, as discussed in paras 49 to 53 above brings out no incriminating evidence against him and that his right palm had a cut being rendered meaningless inasmuch as Harenders blood group is A and blood group detected on the handkerchief recovered from the scene of the crime is AB, the inevitable conclusion is that Harender has to be acquitted.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 33 of 35A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 33 of 35As against accused Krishanveer the only evidence which is incriminating against him pertains to the recovery of the country made pistol at his instance and for which offence his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act has to be sustained.For the reasons noted in paras 54 to 56 above the other link evidence has failed to attain incriminating status and hence Krishanveers Appeal has to succeed save and except his conviction of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.For the reasons stated in paras 59 to 61 above accused Narender and Kali Ram are entitled to the benefit of doubt and for the reasons stated in para 62 above Jogender is entitled to be acquitted.They are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.Sentence imposed upon him for other offences are set aside.In view of the above findings, noting that Kali Ram and Jogender have been admitted to bail pending hearing of their Crl.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 34 of 35 appeals, the bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them are discharged.A.Nos.710/2008, 717/2008, 967/2008 & 995/2008 Page 34 of 35Three copies of the instant decision pertaining to the appeals filed by Harender, Krishanveer and Narender be sent by the Registry to the Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar for compliance.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE MAY 12, 2010 mm / dk Crl. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,369,833 | Shri Kabeer Paul, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Dilip Parihar, Public Prosecutor for the State.Heard finally.This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for recalling of the order of this court dated 15.2.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.6304/2018 whereby the criminal revision pre- ferred against the judgment dated 28.12.2018 passed by 1 st Additional Session Judge, Khandwa in criminal appeal no.153/17 confirming the judgment dated 23.8.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Punasa, District Khandwa in Criminal case no. 680/16, whereby the ap- plicant has been convicted under sections 451, 354 and 354A of the IPC and sentenced to RI for 1 year, RI for 1 year and RI for 1 year with fine amount of Rs.200/- on each count, respectively, with stipulation clause, has been rejected confirming the conviction and sentence as minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.The present petition has been filed on the ground that after pass- ing of the order dated 15.2.2019, the prosecutrix has executed an af- davit and expressed her willingness to forgive the applicant / accused and also expressed her desire to compound the offence and in this re- gard compromise petition has also been filed and on the ground of compromise, prayer is made to recall the order passed by this court and the applicant be acquitted.The appeal filed by the com- plainant was allowed.Both the accused were con- victed Under Section 407 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment and fine both, without giv- ing any opportunity of hearing on the nature and quantum of sentence in violation of Section 248(2) of the Code.Therefore, the sentences passed on them are vitiated.Ac- cordingly I set aside the sentences awarded to both the applicants.3 M.Cr.The counsel for applicants as also the com-plainant and the State were heard on question of sen- tence. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,371,088 | Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.1.2017, passed by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.365/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted non-applicant No.2 Ashok from offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 376 (2) (n) of the IPC.As per prosecution story, on the basis of complaint of the complainant, a FIR has been registered at Rajendra Nagar, Indore on 27.7.2014 against the accused for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.The allegation against the non- applicant No.2 is that he used to commit rape at knife point for the last four years and recorded the same in a mobile and began black-mailing the prosecutrix for money.The prosecutrix in para 12 of her cross-examination has very categorically admitted that fact of the case has not been stated to the police station and therefore, no offence of rape has been registered.The prosecutrix has also admitted that she narrated the incident to her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law and after 10 days thereafter the FIR was lodged (Annexure P/1).She has also admitted in para 21 of her statement that there was an altercation between her husband and non-applicant No.2 and her husband caused injuries to the accused and to this effect FIR was lodged by non-applicant No.2-Ashok.In para 13 of her cross-examination, there are material omissions and contradictions from her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She stated that a mobile was provided to her by non- applicant No.2 and she used to talk with him on the aforesaid mobile.In respect of non-mentioning of rape in FIR, she stated that when she informed her mother-in-law about the incident, mother-in-law warned her not to narrate the incident to police as the matter will defame them.In her cross- examination, she categorically admitted that mobile No.8889572980 was provided to her by the non- applicant No.2 and she used to talk with him without intimating anyone in her family including her husband.She also admitted that she was having relation with the non-applicant No.2 for more than four years and she never disclosed this fact to anybody.We have perused the impugned judgment.At the time of the incident the prosecutrix was major and married woman.The grounds on which order of acquittal is based cannot be said to be unreasonable.No case to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court, as prayed, is made out.The application for grant of leave to appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,372,441 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram District, to expedite the trial in Special CC.No.6/2015 pending on his file and also to complete the trial accordingly within the time to be stipulated by this Court.He would submit that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing Crl.OP.No.11399/2016 seeking to expedite the trial in this Court and this Court, vide order dated 06.06.2016, had directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram District, to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and despite the order being passed as early as on 06.06.2016, there is no progress in the trial, thereby warranting the petitioner to approach this Court once again by filing the above petition.He would furtherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 submit that the respondent is prepared to get along with the trial.However, in between, few petitions have been filed by the petitioner as well as the accused and thereby, there had been a delay.OP.No.11399/2016 dated 06.06.2016, this Court directs the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram District, to expedite and complete the trial in Special CC.No.6/2015 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.6 The petition stands ordered accordingly. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,374,629 | The criminal application is allowed.The criminal proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.91/2017 pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli arising out of the Final Report/Charge-sheet No.125/2017, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed and set aside.(Arun D. Upadhye, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Wadkar, P.S.::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 01:11:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 01:11:48 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,378,089 | They have been blessed with twochildren.The appellant / accused, is a person who is suspicious by nature,had suspicion over the conduct of his wife / deceased and tortured herunnecessarily.When such being the position, that on 14.12.2012, in the lateevening, the deceased had received a phone call and attended the call.Thereafter, the appellant / accused, feeling suspicious over the conversationof his wife / deceased in the phone call, had quarrelled and tortured hertill midnight by scolding in filthy language and also by beating her.On thenext day early morning (i.e., 15.12.2012), when the deceased was cleaning thefront portion of the house, the appellant / accused came behind her with abottle containing two liters of petrol, poured it on her and set her ablaze.Thereafter, she was taken to Srirangam Government Hospital by her parents andbrother, to Srirangam Hospital where she was initially examined by Dr.Latha,Assistant Surgeon who had treated her and since the victim suffered 30% burninjuries, the victim was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital,Trichy, where she was admitted at 9.45 a.m. on 15.12.2012 as in patient inM.S-2 Ward.On receipt of intimation from Trichy Government Hospital, theInspector of Police rushed to the Government Medical College Hospital, Trichyand recorded the statement of the victim Revathi on the same day and returnedto the Police Station at 5.00 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.997 of2012, against the appellant / accused under Section 307 I.P.C., and sent thecopy of the F.I.R. to the Court and the higher officials.However, in spiteof the treatment, the victim Revathi died on 12.02.2013, at about 07.30 a.m.Subsequently, the mother of the deceased had lodged a complaint before therespondent ? Police about the death of her daughter and thereafter, therespondent Police altered the offence from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302I.P.C., and sent the copies of altered F.I.R. to the Court as well as thehigher officials.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.and that they had two children including the deceased.The appellant / accused is their son-in-law.She had further deposed that the marriage between the appellant /accused and the deceased was a love marriage and out of their wedlock, theybegot one daughter and one son.After the marriage, they were living happilyfor two months.Thereafter, the appellant / accused used to come home drunkand tortured the deceased by beating her.The deceased had also informed hermother / P.W.1 of the tortures suffered by her at the hands of the accused.However, P.W.1 had advised her daughter / deceased to bear with it suggestingthat it was her own decision to marry him, as their marriage was a lovemarriage.Further, P.W.1 had deposed that one year prior to the date of herdeposition, her brother's son called the deceased, enquired about her andfamily members and invited the deceased and her family members to his house, for which, the deceased had told him that as her husband / appellant and herson were wearing maala / garland for God Ayyappan, she will come later.Atthat time, the appellant / accused, who was lying down in another room,hearing the phone conversation, had come and asked his wife / deceased as towith whom she was talking and had beaten her severely, due to which, thedeceased had suffered injuries in her face and in the evening she had come tothe house of P.W.1 and told her about the incident.In as much as theinflicting of tortures by the appellant / accused on the deceased had becomeusual and P.W.1 had pacified the deceased saying that she and her husband /P.W.2 would come and enquire the appellant in the next day morning since theaccused / appellant would be drunk at that time.P.W.1 had also informed thesame to her husband / P.W.2 and both of them decided to go to the house ofthe appellant / accused in the next day morning.Accordingly, on the nextday morning, at about 07.00 a.m., when P.W.1 and her husband / P.W.2 were on the way and nearing to the house of their daughter, they had seen theirdaughter / deceased sweeping the doorstep of the house.At that time, theappellant / accused had come behind the deceased with a bottle filled withpetrol and poured on her, when P.W.1 and her husband / P.W.2 rushed to protect their daughter / deceased, the appellant / accused had thrown the litmatch stick on her and set her ablaze, and run away.Before P.Ws.1 and 2could go near their daughter / deceased, the fire had engulfed all over thebody of the deceased.Thereafter, they put off the fire with the help of agunny bag and took their daughter / deceased to Srirangam Government Hospital in an Auto-rickshaw.When their daughter / deceased was under treatment,Police had come there and recorded her statement.Thereafter, the deceasedwas shifted to Tiruchirappalli Government Hospital for further treatment,wherein she took treatment for twenty days.Subsequently, inasmuch as theDoctors had advised P.W.1 that the deceased would not get cured, she took thedeceased to her house and took care of her for two months.After two months,her daughter succumbed to the burn injuries.Therefore, P.W.1 lodged acomplaint to the respondent ? Police.6. P.W.2 ? Muniappan / father of the deceased had corroborated the evidenceof P.W.1 / Maariyayi.P.W.3 ? Selvi / neighbour of P.W.1, in her evidence,had deposed that she knows P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the appellant / accused.Further, she had deposed that on the occurrence day, she went to work andafter she returned back, she heard about the incident.Thereafter, she hadgone to the Hospital, wherein the deceased was admitted with burn injuriesand seen her.In the Hospital, P.W.1 gave the half burnt clothes of herdaughter to P.W.3 and she took the same and handed it over to the respondent? Police, who after receiving the same, had obtained her signature in anunwritten paper.Since P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution,she was treated as a hostile witness.7. P.W.4 ? Vinoth, who is the son of the appellant / accused and thedeceased, had deposed that P.Ws.1 and 2 are his grandparents.That on 14.12.2012, his uncle Murugesan made a phone call to his mother and invitedher as well as her family members to his house, for which the deceased hadreplied that since her husband / appellant and her son / P.W.4 were wearingmaala / garland for God Ayyappan, and that she will come after they returnfrom the Temple.At that time, his father / the appellant who was lying downin the next room, had come and questioned the deceased as to with whom she was talking and beaten her.On seeing the same, P.W.4 restrained andprotected the deceased from the appellant / accused.Subsequently, hismother / deceased was crying all over the day and in the evening she had goneto the house of her parents / P.Ws.1 and 2 and returned at about 09.00 p.m.Thereafter, all of them went to sleep.On the next day morning, when he wasreturning from the river after taking bath, his mother / deceased wassweeping at the doorsteps.At that time, his father / appellant came behindthe deceased, poured something on her and set her ablaze.Though he rushed to protect his mother / deceased, by that time, his grandparents / P.Ws.1 and2 as well as his uncle P.W.5 had come and they set off the fire and took thedeceased to Srirangam Government Hospital for treatment.Thereafter, thedeceased was shifted to Tiruchirappalli Government Hospital, wherein she tooktreatment for one month.The Doctors opined that it was difficult for thevictim to get healed as the burn injuries were caused by petrol.Therefore,they took the deceased to their house.P.W.4 further deposed that due tosuspicion, his father / appellant had set his mother ablaze and thereby, shedied.8. P.W.5 ? Kannusamy @ Kannan, who is the brother of the deceased, had deposed that he is working as a Mason and residing along with his parents atVadakkuvasal in Srirangam.Twenty years back, the appellant / accused used tocome to the Petty Shop run by his parents/ P.Ws.1 and 2 and chat with hissister / deceased and they developed love affair with each other and elopedfrom the house.Thereafter, his parents / P.Ws.1 and 2 had arranged marriageand that they were living separately after marriage.Out of the wedlock, twochildren were born to them.The appellant / accused had the habit ofconsuming alcohol and beating his wife / deceased arrogantly.When P.W.5 had interfered and questioned, the appellant / accused had replied rudely thatnobody could question him beating his wife.Therefore, P.W.5 did notinterfere in his sister's family matter.Subsequently, that on 14.12.2012,his uncle's son, namely, Raja had called his sister / deceased overcellphone and invited her and family members to his house, for which she hadreplied that she would come after her husband / appellant and son / P.W.4returned from Sabarimalai Pilgrimage.Thereafter, suspecting theconversation of the deceased, the appellant / accused, who was sleeping inthe next room, had come and scolded his wife / deceased and had beaten her.P.Ws.1 and 2 had informed P.W.5 about the said incident.Therefore, they had decided toenquire the appellant / accused on the next day morning.On the next daymorning at about 6 ? 7 a.m., his parents had gone to his sister's house.Little later, he had also followed them.Subsequently, theTrial Court had framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C., against theappellant / accused and when the appellant / accused was explained andquestioned about the charges framed against him, he denied the charges framedagainst him and sought for trial to contest the case and accordingly, trialwas conducted.Thereafter, they heard thescreaming of his sister.At that time, the appellant / accused had come frombehind the deceased, poured petrol on her and set her ablaze and ran away.P.W.5, his parents / P.Ws.1 and 2 and neighbours set off the fire and tookthe deceased to Srirangam Government Hospital in an Auto-rickshaw.Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Tiruchirappalli Government Hospitalfor further treatment.Since there was no improvement in the health of thedeceased even after 25 days the Doctor had advised that it is difficult forthe deceased to get cured as the burn injuries were caused by petrol.Therefore, they had taken the deceased to their house and gave treatment.On12.02.2013, she died.His parents had given a complaint to the respondent ?Police.9. P.W.6 ? Murugan had deposed that on 15.12.2012, when he and one Govindaraj / P.W.7 were standing on Kollidakoorai Medu, Police came to the house of thedeceased, conducted investigation and recovered one bottle and matchbox and prepared a mahazar in which he had signed as a witness.P.W.7 ? Govindaraj had also corroborated the evidence of P.W.6 ? Murugan.P.W.8 ? Muruganandham had deposed that he is a driver and he used to leave to work in the morningand return in the late evening.He had signed as a witness in the confession statement of theappellant / accused.However, he had not gone through the contents of theconfession statement.P.W.9 ? Ramarajan had deposed that he is a driver andhe came to know about the incident.He had signed as a second witness in theconfession statement of the appellant / accused.However, he had stated thathe had not gone through the contents of the confession statement.P.W.10 ? Dr.Kayalvizhi had deposed in her evidence about the admission ofthe victim, who was brought to Hospital with burn injuries on 15.12.2012, atabout 09.45 a.m., as in patient in M.S.2 ? Ward for treatment.P.W.11 ?Ravindran had deposed about the examination of viscera of the deceased on13.02.2013 and the issuance of a report / Ex.P10 opining that no alcohol orpoison was found in the viscera.P.W.12 ? Dr.Latha had deposed about herworking at Srirangam Government Hospital as Assistant Surgeon and having examined the victim on 15.12.2012, at about 08.45 a.m., and issuance ofEx.P11 Accident Register and the statement of the victim with regard to theincident and certifying that the victim suffered 30% burn injuries and aboutrecommending to take the victim to the Government Medical College Hospital,Tiruchirappalli for further treatment.P.W.13 ? Dr.R.V.S.Renuka Devi haddeposed about the autopsy conducted by her on the body of the deceased and issuance of postmortem certificate / Ex.P12 and final opinion / Ex.P.W.14 ? K.Balusamy the I.O had deposed about the intimation received from the Government Hospital Srirangam about the admission of the victimRevathi with burn injuries, recording the statement of victim Revathi at M.S-2 Ward of Government Medical College Hospital, Trichy, registration of casein Crime No.997 of 2012 against the appellant/accused for the offence underSection 307 IPC, investigation conducted by him, recording of statements ofwitnesses by him, preparation of mahazars, seizure of Material Objects andsending them for chemical analysis, alteration of offence from 307 IPC to 302IPC after the death of the victim based on the complaint from the mother ofthe victim Revathi, sending the body of the deceased for postmortem, arrestof the accused and recording confession statement of the accused and filingof final report.After completing the examination of witnesses, when the incriminatingmaterials and circumstances were put to the appellant / accused, underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the evidence of the prosecution side as false,however, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.After hearing both sides and perusing the oral and documentary evidenceadduced, the learned Trial Judge, by Judgment dated 23.07.2015, had found theappellant / accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., andsentenced him as stated above.Challenging the said conviction and sentence,the appellant / accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.Heard Mr.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused contended thatamong the fourteen witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1,2, 4 and 5 are stated to be the eye-witnesses.While taking intoconsideration the evidence of all the witnesses, their evidence with regardto their presence at the scene of occurrence and having witnessed theoccurrence cannot be believed as true, because their evidence was embroiledwith inconsistencies, contradictions and exaggerations.Moreover, all thewitnesses are related and interested witnesses and their evidence, withoutbeing corroborated by independent witnesses, cannot be taken to be true.P.W.1 / mother of the deceased had stated during her examination in chiefthat on the day of occurrence, she was doing business in the shop at earlymorning and thereby, her evidence with regard to have come to the place ofoccurrence and having witnessed the incident at 07.00 a.m., cannot bebelieved.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant / accused contended thatP.W.2 / father of the deceased, during his examination, had admitted that thedeceased had committed self-immolation due to dispute between her and the appellant / accused regarding the illicit intimacy with one Sekar.Thefurther contention of the learned counsel for the appellant / accused is thatit was really strange that though P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 were stated to bepresent at the scene of occurrence, none of them had even attempted to make acomplaint to the Police immediately after the occurrence and thereby, makingtheir conduct not natural.Moreover, the witnesses, being in inimical termsagainst the appellant / accused, there is every possibility of having falselyprojected a case of suicide to one of murder and falsely implicating theappellant / accused.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant / accused contended thatit is the categorical admission of P.W.1 that she was not aware of thecontents of the complaint and that the Police obtained her thumb impressionon a blank paper and filled the contents by themselves and that there hadbeen every possibility for the respondent ? Police to project the case withfabricated evidence to secure the conviction of the appellant / accused.The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended thatthe evidence of the eye-witnesses were all unnatural and that their presenceat the same time at the scene of occurrence is unbelievable.P.W.2, who isthe father of the deceased, stated to be the eye-witness, had contradictedhis very own evidence saying that he did not go to the place of occurrenceand he had further deposed that there was no dispute between the appellant /accused and the deceased.Further, the presence of P.W.4 cannot be believed,since P.W.2 had stated that P.W.4 was not present at the time of occurrence.The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended thatP.W.3 ? neighbour, who was stated to be an eye-witness, had turned hostileand moreover the witnesses to the confession, namely, P.Ws.8 and 9 have also turned hostile.When the independent witnesses have turned hostile, it ishighly unsafe to convict the appellant / accused based on the uncorroboratedevidence of the related and interested witnesses, who are inimical towardsthe appellant / accused.The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended thatthe seizure of 25 Ml., petrol bottle and match box at the place of occurrenceafter ten hours of the occurrence cannot be believed and the learned TrialJudge erred in convicting the appellant / accused based on a shoddy andimproper investigation done by P.W.14 / Investigation Officer.Though P.W.12/ Dr.Sudha had deposed about intimating the Police through Ex.P11 immediately after the deceased was brought to the hospital, the Investigation Officer haddenied the receipt of such intimation from the Hospital, thereby creatingsuspicion and doubt regarding the prosecution case.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant / accused contended thatthe Government Doctor had deposed that the victim was brought from Srirangam Hospital to Trichy Hospital at 09.45 a.m., and that intimation was sent tothe Investigation Officer at the same time.However, Ex.P14 / F.I.R., hasbeen registered only at 17.00 hours and the statement of the InvestigationOfficer that he received the information only at 17.00 hours makes the caseof the prosecution and the version of the witnesses highly doubtful andthereby, such delay had given enough rope to falsely implicate the appellant/ accused and tamper with the documents in favour of the prosecution.Theunexplained delay of more than eleven hours makes the case of the prosecutionhighly doubtful and further though the distance between the Police Stationand the place of occurrence was only two kilometers, the conduct of thewitnesses not making any complaint to the Police Station immediately afterthe occurrence makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and thereby,enabled the witnesses to convert a case of attempt to suicide as a case ofmurder to wreck vengeance on the accused.The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended thatthere was a delay of two days in the F.I.R., reaching the Court, therebycreating a doubt on the entire prosecution case, since the lapses andirregularities go to the root of the matter and there is every possibilitythat the prosecution has fabricated materials to suit its convenience.As perthe evidence of P.W.14, on 15.12.2012, at about 11.30 a.m., while he was induty, one Keasavan / S.S.I. had placed the hospital intimation bearingNo.12612/12 before him.However, while concluding the arguments the learned counsel for theappellant / accused in respect of the alternate plea submitted that in thiscase the appellant / accused and the victim are husband and wife and thatthough their marriage was a love marriage, emotions were embroiling over theissue of the appellant / accused suspecting the fidelity of his wife and thaton the day prior to the occurrence there had been a quarrel between theappellant / accused and the deceased over her speaking to somebody over phone and her conduct being questioned by the appellant / accused and that theappellant / accused was drunk and that pursuant to the act of the appellant /accused on 15.12.2012 the deceased had suffered only 30% burn injuries as seen from Ex.P11 / Accident Register and thereafter, she had taken treatmentfor 20 days in the Government Hospital, Trichy and she had been dischargedagainst Medical advice and had breathed her last on 12.02.2013 after twomonths.The learned counsel contended that though the victim had been alivefor about two months, no steps had been taken by the prosecution to record ajudicial dying declaration and further contended that no evidence had beenadduced by the prosecution about the nature of treatment given to thedeceased and no statement being recorded from the doctors who treated her and that the death of the victim having happened after two months and in suchcircumstances submitted that considering the nature of injury and the timegap in the death, the act of the accused / accused would squarely fall underException-3 to Section 300 I.P.C., and thereby the offence would be onepunishable under Section 304(ii) I.P.C., since the act of the appellant /accused had not been the immediate cause for the death and thereby, pleaded that the appellant / accused may be awarded a lesser sentence.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that theprosecution has categorically proved the case by examining the witnesses forproving the motive and also in respect of the occurrence.P.W.1 / mother ofthe deceased, P.W.2 / father of the deceased, P.W.4 / son of the deceased andP.W.5 / brother of the deceased have spoken in detail about their presence atthe place of occurrence and they are natural witnesses and their evidencecannot be disbelieved.The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the deceasedhaving met her on the previous day evening and that she had informed herdaughter that she would come to her house in the next day morning, since herhusband would be drunk at that time was cogent and natural.As stated byP.W.1 that she would come to the house of the deceased in the next day morning, P.W.1 along with her husband / P.W.2 had gone to the house of thedeceased and witnessed the appellant / accused pouring petrol over herdaughter and setting her ablaze.Thereafter, she had also spoken to abouttaking her daughter to Srirangam Hospital and from there on reference toGovernment Hospital, Trichy, for better treatment and thereafter, dischargingher daughter against medical advice after twenty days and about the death ofher daughter later.Further, P.W.2 had also stated about being present alongwith P.W.1 at the scene of occurrence.P.W.4 / son of the deceased and P.W.5 / brother of the deceased have also spoken to about being present at thescene of occurrence and having witnessed the occurrence and no materialcontradiction had been elicited from them during the cross-examination todisbelieve or dispute their presence at the scene of occurrence.Furtherthere is no need for P.W.4, who is the son of the deceased to implicate theappellant / accused who is none other than his own father.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the submission ofthe learned counsel for the appellant / accused regarding admission of P.W.2that his daughter committed suicide due to the dispute because of her husbandsuspicion of illicit intimacy contended that the evidence of P.W.2 has to beread in full and that it was only a minor contradiction elicited whilesubjecting a witness aged 80 years to lengthy cross-examination and suchminor contradiction should not come in the way other strong evidences whichwere pointing the guilt of the appellant / accused.Further, the case of the prosecution has been fortified bythe entry made in Ex.P11 / Accident Register issued at Srirangam Government Hospital, wherein the Medical Officer P.W.12 had recorded the informationgiven by the victim with regard to the nature of injury suffered by her andthe person by whom she suffered the injury.Further, the entry made in theAccident Register Ex.P 11 at the time when the deceased was taken to Srirangam Government Hospital is the very first document which clearly showsthat the victim was brought by P.W.1 / mother and the victim herself hadstated about the manner by which she had suffered burn injuries by the act ofthe accused and the time of occurrence .However, no evidence had been let in by the appellant / accused todiscredit the vital documents Ex.P11 / Accident Register, Ex.P1 / complaintand Ex.P2 / statement of the victim / deceased given to the Police.When their efforts failed and the deceased died they immediately reported the incident to thepolice.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for theappellant / accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for theState and consciously gone through the evidence and material on record.P.W.1 / mother of the deceased had spoken about the marriage between the deceased and the appellant / accused and about the deceased giving birth twochildren and about the domestic violence committed on the deceased by theappellant / accused and about the deceased informing her about the quarrelbetween the deceased and the appellant / accused on the previous day.Furtherthat she had told her daughter / deceased that she would come along with herhusband next day to enquire her son-in-law since he was drunk.Thereafter,on next day morning while P.W.1 was on the way to her daughter's house along with P.W.2 / husband, she had seen the deceased sweeping the front portion ofher house and at that time, the appellant / accused had poured petrol on herand when she had rushed to save her daughter, the appellant / accused hadlighted the match stick and thrown on her and set her ablaze and had run awayfrom the place.Immediately, the deceased had been taken in an auto-rickshawto Srirangam Hospital by her relatives and from there she had been taken toGovernment Hospital, Trichy, for better treatment, wherein she was takingtreatment for twenty days and since the Doctors have told that it was notpossible for them to save her daughter, she was brought back home and shehad breathed her last after two months and after her death, she had given thecomplaint and the case was altered to one under Section 302 IPC.At the timeof admission at Srirangam Government Hospital the deceased had been examined by P.W.12 and the deceased had spoken to P.W.12 about the manner in which she had suffered the injuries which had been entered in Ex.P11 / AccidentRegister and thereafter she had given a statement to the police which wasrecorded (marked as Ex.P2) while she was an inpatient and based on thatstatement the case had been registered.The Accident Register had been marked as Ex.P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.Though there are minorcontradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, they areimmaterial since they have in no way affected the strong evidence regardingthe statement of the deceased Revathi which has to be construed as a dyingdeclaration by virtue of having been covered under Clause (1) of Section167(2) of Cr.P.C.When we come to the evidence of P.W.12 Dr.Latha, she had deposed that on 15.12.2012, while she was on duty at Srirangam Government Hospital asAssistant Medical Officer, P.W.1 had brought her daughter Revathi thedeceased herein for treatment and her daughter had told P.W.12 that about07.00 a.m., her husband had poured petrol on her and set her ablaze and P.W12 had deposed that when she had examined the deceased, the deceased was conscious and replied cogently and she found the pulse and pressure of thevictim was normal and that she had certified that the deceased had suffered30% burn injuries and thereafter, she had referred the deceased to TrichyGovernment Hospital.The defence had elicited nothing worthwhile in thecross-examination of P.W.12 to discredit her evidence.Furthermore, thoughthere are some minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses theycannot be taken seriously against the statements of the victim/deceased inwhich she had spoken to P.W.12 / Dr.Latha about her husband pouring petroland setting her on fire and thereby, the contradictions in the evidence ofeyewitnesses will not materially affect the prosecution case, since thestatement of the deceased pinpointed to the guilt of the accused.Under the above circumstances, though the burn injury causedby the appellant / accused with the intention to murder had resulted in thedeath of the deceased we cannot conclisively hold that the burn injurysuffered by the deceased by the act of the appellant/accused was sufficientin the ordinary course of nature to have caused the death of the deceased.Accordingly, the offence would be one falling under Section 304 Part II IPC.In the result, we set aside the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C.and sentence of life imprisonment, instead convict the appellant / accusedunder Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and impose a sentence of rigorousimprisonment for a period of ten years.The criminal appeal is allowed to theabove extent and the appellant / accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and indefault, to simple imprisonment for three months.The period alreadyundergone by the appellant / accused shall be set off under Section 428Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellant/ accused to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam (L&O) Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District.. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,378,147 | Partly allowed md.Nisith Pramanik and others ... Petitioners Mr. Sujoy Sarkar .. for the petitioners Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No.322 of 2018, dated 14th of August, 2018 under Sections 341/326/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 25(1-A)/27/35 of the Arms Act. The State opposes the prayer of the petitioner nos. 1 and 4 on the ground that the petitioner no.1 has several complaints pending against him and the petitioner no.4 has been named along with the petitioner no.1 in several eye-witnesses statements as being the leader of the violent charge.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
90,382,419 | Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.The applicants assure that they are ready to cooperate in the investigation.Shri P. K. Mishra, counsel for the applicants.Shri Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for the State. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
903,960 | Both the prosecutrix and the appellant were produced before him.He stated that he had referred the child to a Gynecologist.He further deposed that on the same day, appellant confessed before him that he had raped a girl.The Doctor found that there was clotted blood in the glans area and undergarment and pants of the appellant which were blood stained.He ordered that the undergarments of the appellant be seized and sealed.Ex. PW1/B also mentions that the undergarments of the appellant were sealed.There is an endorsement "undergarments and blood samples sealed and handed over to Constable Amrik Singh".JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J.The indictment against the appellant is that he ravished a tiny girl aged about four years and six months after confining her in his house No. 24/33, Trilok Puri.The learned Trial Court awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine in the sum of Rs. 200/- failing which he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 376 IPC, i.e. the minimum sentence prescribed under the law.He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 342 IPC.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.I have heard the counsel for the parties and marshalled the evidence on record.The first submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the facts mentioned by the prosecutrix, her mother, doctors and report of CFSL do not spell out a case of rape.In this connection, my attention was drawn towards the statement of Dr. Shamli Khundu PW 8, who examined the prosecutrix.On local examination, the doctor found that there was no mark of struggle/injury seen on perineum or lower abdomen.She opined that hymen seemed to be torn but not bleeding, vagina admitted tip of finger but she could not notice any vaginal tears.She explained that since the undergarment of the patient was changed, hence blood could not be detected on her underwear etc. She stated that there was evidence to suggest that the child could have been attempted for sexual assault.She stated that rupture on hymen was not possible by any other injury such as fall or alike because there was no other surrounding injury to suggest such an opinion.She clearly, specifically and unequivocally stated that in the instant case, tear of hymen was caused by sexual assault.The learned Counsel for the appellant opined that in view of these facts, at best it is a case of attempt to rape and not that of rape as such.He has cited an authority reported in Guddu @ Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2006 (2) Crimes 209 (SC) where the facts were that the accused put off the chaddi of the prosecutrix, pulled down his trousers, sat upon her and when her grandfather appeared the accused took to his heels.Mother of the accused had seen redness in her private part as also blood coming out there from.FIR was lodged on the next date.Doctor found swelling over her private part which had become reddish.Her hymen was found to be intact but it had also become red.The accused was convicted under Section 376/511 IPC.The second submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant was that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as a child witness may be swayed by what others tell him and child is an easy prey to tutoring.Again, Lal Sahib and Smt. Amrawati who were the material witnesses to tell the truth were given up by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it.He pointed out that as a matter of fact, parents of the prosecutrix wanted to purchase a house owned by the parents of the appellant.Their refusal to do the needful, infuriated the parents of the prosecutrix, which resulted in false involvement of the appellant in this case.The third submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution has failed to prove that as per CFSL report, Ex. P-2, the blood found on the underwear of PW-1 described as panty of the prosecutrix and pants of the appellant Ex. P-2 belongs to whom.Moreover, the statement by the mother of the prosecutrix, Smt. Meera is contradictory.In her examination-in-chief, she stated that there were no clothes on the body of the appellant, but in her cross-examination, she stated that when she dragged the appellant, he was wearing underwear and baniyan.Mahinder Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-13 stated that appellant was wearing his pants at the time of his arrival.Lastly, the appellant has prayed for mercy.It is explained that he remained in jail from 1.2.1998 to 30.9.2001 and there was no complaint against him.His wife is in the family way for the last 8 months.He is the only bread winner of his family, which consists of his old parents as well.At the time of his arrest, he was diploma in Engineering first year in the University of Jamia Milia Islamia.The High Court had imposed a condition that the appellant would not visit the area where the prosecutrix was residing.For this reason, he could not complete his study.These arguments are sans merits.The present case squarely comes within the definition of rape.The statement of the doctor has crystalline clarity.She definitely stated that tear of hymen was caused by sexual assault.She stated that hymen seems to be torn but it was not bleeding.It is, therefore, clear that the statement of the prosecutrix stands corroborated by the statement of the doctor.The authority cited by the counsel for the appellant in Guddu @ Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) does not dovetail with the facts of this case.Moreover, the report of C.F.S.L. to be discussed below, affixes a stamp of truth on the prosecution case.Now I advert to the following statement of the prosecutrix.She was sitting at her house.Tara came to her house, as she resides in the same street where the prosecutrix resides.When she was playing at the house of Tara, her mother reached there.At this stage, the prosecutrix informed the Court that she was scared of the appellant.The witness started weeping.The court ordered, "in order to inculcate confidence in the girl, the accused is sent out while his counsel is in the court to represent him."She deposed that accused did an indecent act with her.She explained that the accused had removed his pants, underwear and did indecent act with her.She clearly, specifically and unequivocally stated that she felt pain and her underwear was stained with blood.Her mother reached there, who, lifted her and took her away.In her cross-examination, she stated that when Rakesh removed her clothes and Rakesh did indecent act with her, Tara was cooking food.The testimony of the prosecutrix is natural, probable and poignant.I also appreciate the steps taken by the Learned Sessions Judge, he was recording the statement of a tiny child and he correctly sent out the accused from the Court in order to enable the prosecutrix to plump out the truth.It fully stands established that presence of human blood was there on the quilt.Amrik Singh, Constable PW10 stated that he took the accused to SDN Hospital, Shahdara for medical examination.He explained that the Doctor gave him underwear and one blood phial.He handed over the same to the IO vide memo Ex. PW 10/A. Mahender Singh, SI PW 13 stated that he arrived at the spot and seized the underwear of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex. PW3/B. He further deposed that Pants of the accused were taken into possession vide Ex. PW12/A. The above said evidence sufficiently establishes that panty belonged to the prosecutrix and underwear and pants belonged to the appellant.The statement of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the statements made by her mother, Smt. Meera and her neighbour Smt. Leelawati.Meera deposed that she went in search of her daughter in the house of Tara which was bolted from outside.She went inside the room and found that appellant was lying on a cot along with her daughter.She also found that appellant had covered himself and her daughter with a quilt.She deposed that she removed the quilt from the body of the appellant and found him in a naked condition.She explained that appellant was lying on the cot along with her daughter.She stated that the appellant did indecent act with her daughter.Prosecutrix was found to be unconscious at that time but her underwear was stained with blood.She explained that her daughter was bleeding from her private parts.She stated that she went to the house of the prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence, at about 6.00 - 7.00 PM.She explained that crowd was beating a boy.Firstly, she stated that she did not see the face of the boy but during her cross-examination by the A.P.P., she admitted that accused present in the Court is the same boy, who, was being beaten by the public.In her cross-examination, she stated that she had not seen the accused while being beaten by the crowd.She stated that crowd was present and she did not know who were those.It is not always advisable to multiply witness after witness on the same point.They were not the eye witnesses.During her cross-examination, Meera denied that her husband and brother-in-law intended to purchase the house belonging to accused Rakesh Kumar.The appellant also failed to produce any witness in whose presence the said negotiations took place.In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that Meera and her husband wanted to purchase his house but his mother and father did not agree to that proposal and thereafter, some quarrel took place and he has been falsely implicated in this case.He neither named the brother-in-law nor said a word or syllable about that bargain story. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,043,706 | 1 The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection withCrime No.251/2020 registered with Nagar Taluka Police Station, Dist.Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 504, 506read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code.2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.S. Ghanekar for the applicant andlearned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for State.3 It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant, thatthe informant is posing as the wife of the applicant, however, the applicant isdenying any such marriage between him and the informant.Many caseshave been registered by the informant against the present applicant, who is apracticing lawyer.In fact, the informant has withdrawn cases after ::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 ::: 2 ABA_535_2020compromise also and she has even levelled the allegations of offencepunishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against him.He hasbeen discharged from that offence earlier also.There was offence underSection 307 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code registered against him but hehas been acquitted.In another case filed for the offence punishable underSection 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the police have filed 'B' summaryreport.Informant is searching for an opportunity to harass the applicant.Informant is also a practicing lawyer at Ahmednagar and knows all theconsequences of her acts.With such background, that the applicant isacquitted or discharged, it was highly improbable that any such, even asnarrated in the FIR, would have taken place.The FIR says, that there wasstock between the informant and the applicant in the Court premises andapplicant had called her to the farm house, which is in fact, about 20-22k.ms.away from Ahmednagar.According to the informant, she went alone atthe said place.Applicant and his father were present.He,therefore, prayed for anticipatory bail to the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 :::submitted, that it is not in dispute that the informant had gone to the farmhouse of the applicant.Even as per the say of the informant, out of thelabourers, who were present at the spot, one person had made videorecording, and therefore, his name is required to be levelled in order to seizethe video clip from him.The car used in the commission of the offence aswell as the iron rod, that has been, used by the applicant deserves to beseized.The statements of the witnesses, especially the other Advocates, whohad heard applicant and informant talking with each other, is supporting theFIR.Advocate Mahesh Tawle has stated that he was present, when informantand applicant talked with each other on the ground floor of AhmednagarCourt building, and at that time, the applicant had told the informant tocome to their farm house in order to compromise the matter.With thisbackground and thereafter, after the incident, she had informed the said factto some Advocates.Further investigation is necessary.The medicalcertificate is also supporting the informant.5 It appears that the dispute between the informant and theapplicant has chequered history.The petition filed by her before Family Court statesthat they had performed the marriage on 30.03.2019, however, the record ::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 ::: 4 ABA_535_2020shows, that since 2014 the informant is making allegations against theapplicant and his family members.At that time the name of theinformant was Sarita Sheshrao Sable.If her marriage date is considered as 30.03.2019, then it is hercontention that she is being harassed since 02.05.2019 i.e. within twomonths, it is stated that, she is being harassed.When there is suchbackground and now the informant is coming with a case that she was calledat the farm house.She says that she went alone on two wheeler.He hasstated, that the applicant while giving blow by means of iron rod she had ::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 ::: 5 ABA_535_2020tried to stop it by her right hand, and at that time, the father-in-law hadtaken branch of a tree and gave blow on her left hand back and leg.Thatmeans, the blow, allegedly tried to be given by means of iron road, never hitat the desired place.Her medical certificate issued by Bhagirathi Hospitalstates, that she had sustained fracture to right elbow and that is only thegrievous injury.Rest three are simple injuries.Under such circumstance,Section 307 less likely to be attracted.Again, at the costs of repetition, it isstated, that with the above said background of the litigation between theparties, the physical custody of the applicant appears to be not required, andtherefore, the ad interim protection granted earlier by this Court deserves tobe confirmed.Hence, following order.::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 :::hereby confirmed and the terms therein are also continued, till the filing ofthe charge sheet.3 The applicant shall attend the Police Station as directed.( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )agd ::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2020 05:21:23 ::: | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,004,501 | She was married to one Ravi.Out of the said wedlock, they had two children, a male andfemale.PW6 is her son.(b) On 13.02.2005 around 07.30 p.m. the first accused wanted thedeceased to serve food to him.But, the deceased did not respond positivelyas she was busily engaged in watching television programme.The first accusedquestioned the deceased as to why she is behaving in such an indifferentmanner.This resulted in a quarrel.In the said quarrel, it is stated thatthe first accused attacked the deceased with a wooden reaper, which was foundlying there.P1 is the complaint.However, the identity of the deadbody was not known, as the body was highly decomposed.(d) The Inspector of Police, Boothapandi Police Station, took up thecase for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared anobservation mahazar and a rough sketch.He conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased and forwarded the same to the hospital for being kept in themortuary.The identity of the deceased could not be ascertained even duringinquest.He took the photographs of the dead body and gave wide publicity ofthe same through newspapers and electronic media.Decomposed maggots seen all over the body.Rigor Morties disappeared in all four limbs.(Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.6 of 2006 on the file ofthe learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.Therewas yet another accused by name Manikandan, who was arrayed as the second accused in the case.The trial Court framed as many as four charges againstthe accused as detailed below:Accused Penal Provisions1A1 U/s.302 IPC 2A1 U/s.302 r/w 201 IPC3A2 U/s.201 r/w 34 IPC4A1 U/s.3(2)(5) SC/ST Act.During the pendency of the trial, the second accused died and therefore, thecharge against him was abated.Thus, the first accused alone faced the trial.By judgment dated 27.08.2015, the trial Court acquitted the firstaccused/appellant from the charge under Sections 302 r/w 201 IPC and Section3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, but convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default toundergo simple imprisonment for three months.Challenging the said convictionand sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal(a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Saraswathi.When the marriage between Mr.Ravi and the deceased was still subsisting, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with theappellant/ first accused.In due course, she deserted her husband andchildren, and started living with the first accused.In fact, the firstaccused married the deceased on 22.10.2003 and the said marriage wasalso registered.Thus, the first accused was living with the deceased,though the marriage was void.It is alleged that there were frequent quarrelsbetween the first accused and the deceased on petty matters.Then, he got hold the head of the deceased and dashed the sameagainst the wall.The deceased fell down, fainted and died instantaneously.It is alleged that thereafter, the first accused / appellant took the help ofthe second accused.Both of them, with a view to screening the evidence, tookthe dead body and concealed the same in the plantain grove.On 14.02.2005,around 10.30 p.m. they covered the dead body with a blanket, carried the sameto Petchiparai Dam and threw the body in the running water underneath thebridge near Petchiparai Dam Bus-stand.Thus, after dropping the dead body,both the accused fled away from the said place.(c) It is further alleged that the deceased belonged to a ScheduledCaste community, whereas the first accused belong to a community other than a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.The death of the deceased was not known to anybody.On 18.02.2005, PW1, a resident of Anandhapuram Village, was proceeding to his field.Around 12.00 noon on the same day, when he wasproceeding on channel bank of a tank known as big tank, a dead body of awoman was found floating.PW1 immediately rushed to the Boothapandi Police Station and made a complaint.On the said complaint, a case in Crime No.88 of2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at 1.00 p.m. on 18.02.2005.Ex.On seeing the said photograph of the dead body in the newspaper, PW6 went to the Police Stationand thereafter, identified the dead body.(e) In the meanwhile, the second accused was arrested in connectionwith a theft case registered on the file of the Kadayalumudu Police Station.In that case, the second accused gave a voluntary confession, disclosing hisinvolvement along with the first accused in the present case also.Based on the confession of the second accused, the case has been renumbered as Crime No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Kadayalumudi PoliceStation.On 03.03.2005 the first accused was arrested in the presence of thewitnesses.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in which hedisclosed the place where he had hidden a wooden reaper.Then, he took thePolice and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the said woodenreaper.PW19 recovered the same under a mahazar.He forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and produced the material objects to the Court.(f) At the request made by the investigating officer, PW12 - Dr.He found the following injuries:Appearance found at the postmortem:Bodies lies on the back.Eyes closed.Tongue protruded.Jaws clenched.Teeth completed.Hands empty.No visible external injury.Internal examination :Heart empty 300 gm c/s congested.Lungs Right 350 gm.Left 300 gm c/s congested.Hyoid bone intact.Stomach wt.250 gm empty c/s congested.Liver 1300 gm c/s congested.Spleen 110 gm c/s congested.Kidney each 100 gm congested.Brain liquched c/s congested.No fractures seen.Uterus normal.?Since the body was highly decomposed, PW12 was unable to give any opinion regarding the cause of death.He has opined that the death would haveoccurred three to five days before the date of postmortem.(g) PW23 collected the Postmortem Certificate, examined the Doctor andother witnesses.On completing the investigation, laid charge sheet againstboth the accused.(h) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed chargesagainst the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Theaccused denied the same.In order to prove the charges, on the side of theprosecution as many as 23 witnesses were examined, 21 documents and 5 material objects were marked.(i) Out of the said witnesses, PW1 and PW2 have stated that they foundthe dead body of the deceased in the Big Tank around 12.00 noon on18.02.2005. PW3 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch at the place of occurrence.PW4 has stated that hefound the dead body of the deceased in the Big Tank at 2.00 p.m. on18.02.2005. PW5, a resident of Zero Point at Petchiparai, has stated that thehouse where the accused was residing with the deceased was situated at a distance of 50 feet from his house.According to him, on 13.02.2005 around7.00 to 8.00 p.m., he heard the alarm raised by the deceased.Thereafter, onthe next day, he found the house of the accused locked.PW6, the son of thedeceased, has spoken about the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and the fact that they were living together.He has further statedthat the deceased was found missing from 14.02.2005 and thereafter, on18.02.2005, he identified the dead body.(j) PW7 has stated that he was the Panchayat President of the saidVillage, where the accused was residing.He has stated that he was informedthat the deceased was missing and later on, he came to know that the deadbody of the deceased was found floating in the Tank.PW8 is the daughter ofthe deceased.PW9 has turned hostile.He has not supported the case of theprosecution in any manner.PW10 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused in connection with the theft case.He has further stated about thearrest of the first accused and the disclosure statement made by him andconsequent upon which, according to him, MO.3 - Reaper was recovered.PW11 has spoken about the marriage between the accused and the deceased on 22.12.2003 to which he was a witness.PW12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted.He has further stated that he was unable to give any opinionregarding the cause of death.PW13 has stated that he examined the blouse and petticoat recovered from the body of the deceased in the forensic lab andfound there was no bloodstains.PW14 has stated that he handed over thematerial objects at the forensic lab for examination.PW16, an official from theTamil Nadu Electricity Board, has stated that on 13.02.2005 between 04.18p.m.48 p.m. there was no electricity in the village.PW17, a Sub-Registrar of the Marriage, has spoken about the marriage between the accusedand the deceased.PW18, a Tahsildar, has stated that he issued community certificate for the first accused to the effect that he did not belong to theSchedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe.PW19 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused in connection with the theft case registered on the file ofthe Kadayalumoodu Police Station.He has also stated about the arrest of thefirst accused, the disclosure statement made by him and the consequentialrecovery of the wooden reaper.PW20, yet another Tahsildar, has stated thathe issued community certificate for the deceased stating that she belong tothe Scheduled Caste.PW21, the Head Clerk of the Court has stated that heforwarded the material objects to the forensic lab for examination, as perthe direction of the learned Magistrate.PW22 has spoken about theregistration of the case and PW23 has spoken about the investigation done andthe final report filed.(l) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false.However,he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on his side.We have also perused the records carefully.Praveen, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased.PW5 has stated that on 13.02.2005 around 7.00 to 8.00 p.m. he heardthe alarm raised from the house of the accused.We cannot convict an accused either on mere surmise or on more assumption.In the instant case, the trial Court had taken much pains to find some groundsto convict the first accused.There is no evidence available on recordagainst the first accused.Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed toprove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Therefore, the appellant/A1 isentitled for acquittal.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the convictionand sentence imposed in S.C.No.6 of 2006 on the appellant/A1 is set aside andhe is acquitted from the charges.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellantshall be refunded.1.The II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Inspector of Police, Kadayalmoodu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,004,905 | Dipak Misra, J.The accused-appellant had entered into wedlock with Nagamani, thedeceased, on 30.4.1998 and for some time, they lived in marital bliss atHindupur.After four months, the needs of life compelled the couple toshift to Srikalahasti where the father of the deceased was working.Theexperience of life not being satisfactory hardly after eight months, at theinsistence of the wife, they shifted back to Hindupur.The shifting toHindupur did not bring satisfaction as expected and hence, eventually, theyshifted to Madanapalle town where the accused was working prior to themarriage.Imamvalliwas staying with his children and his wife was away at Quwait and theproximity of stay, as alleged by the prosecution, gradually developed to anillicit intimacy between him and the deceased.Twelve days prior to theincident, the deceased was found in the company of Imamvalli in an auto-rickshaw by the accused, who dragged him out from the auto-rickshaw andassaulted him.The accused took the deceased to the house and warned her.The differences between the couple grew to bitterness which resulted insevere quarrels during nights.On 16.10.2000, there was a quarrel and, asthe prosecution version proceeds, the accused had expressed his agony andanger before Pavankumar, PW-7, that if the deceased did not discontinue herillicit relationship, he might be compelled to send her back to hermatrimonial home or get rid of her.As the version of the prosecution has been further depicted, on 17.10.2000, about 6.30 a.m., the deceased was found dead in the house and the doors were locked from outside.PW-1, the landlady, lodged an FIR and a crime was registered.During the course of investigation, the lock of the room was opened by PW-13, the Investigating Officer, in the presence of one Babu Naidu, PW-12, and another.The further investigation led to seizure of incriminating material from the scene of the offence.Thereafter, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and it was sent for post mortem.The investigating agency examined number of witnesses and after completing the investigation, placed the charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) against the accused-husband before the competent court which, in turn, committed the matter for trial to the Court of Session.The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence as alleged against the accused, examined as many as 15 witnesses, got 29 documents exhibited and 15 material objects marked.PWs-1 to 5 and 7 turned hostile and they were cross-examined by the prosecution.PW-1 was the landlady who had lodged the FIR, Ext.-1, and PWs-2 to 5 and 7 were the neighbours and all of them resiled from their original version.The learned trial Judge took note of the fact that there was no direct evidence to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime, but taking note of the series of facts, namely, that the death was homicidal and not suicidal; that the deceased was in the house of the husband and her dead body was found in the house; that the house was locked from outside and the husband had absconded; that there was no complaint by the husband with regard to the death of his wife; that the cross-examination of the hostile witnesses would indicate that the deceased and the accused were staying together and the incident occurred as per the FIR, Ex. P-1; that the testimony of PWs-8 to 10 clearly established that the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased and had picked up quarrels alleging illicit intimacy with another person; that the suggestion on behalf of the accused that there was violent intercourse on the deceased was found to be false on the base of the evidence of PW-11, Dr. Paul Ravi Kumar; that from the evidence of PW-1, Dhanalakshmi, it was quite obvious that she was aware of the death of Nagamani before she gave the report; and that during the investigation, Exs. P-21 and P-22 were found in the house of the accused and Ex. P-21 which was disputed to have been written by him was found to be false in view of the evidence of PW-15, K. Vani Prasada Rao, the hand-writing expert who had clearly stated that the writings in Ex. P-21 were that of the accused and that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances did go a long way to show that the chain was complete to establish that it was the accused and the accused alone who had committed the crime and none else, and, accordingly, convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.On appeal being preferred, the Division Bench of the High Court, appreciating the evidence brought on record, concurred with the view of the learned trial Judge, regard being had to the circumstances which had been taken note of by him, especially that the premises was in exclusive possession of the accused; that the accused had lived with the deceased during that night; that the door was locked from outside; that the accused had absconded for a long time and, accordingly, gave the stamp of approval to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Judge.Hence, the present appeal by way of special leave by the accused-appellant.Tongue tip bluish in colour seen in between the upper and lower teeth.Lips blackish in colour with diffuse abrasions over both the lips.Nose bluish discolour tim present over right nostril, ears – bluish black discolour of the left pinna.An abrasion of 4 x 2 cm over left mandibular margin.An abrasion of ½ x ½ cm over left upper lid.An abrasion of 2 x ½ cm over right leg anterior aspect.A linear abrasion of 2 x 1/3 cm over dorsum of right foot.Internal injuries:Neck – Hyoid normal, thyroid, cricoid cartligas normal, larynx – congested.Trache – Bronchi – normal.Lungs – Normal, cut section congested, stomach – normal and they are congested.Intestines distended gases, urinary bladder empty.Uterus – normal.Scalp: A diffuse contusion of 10 x 8 cm over left occipto-partial region.On reflexion of scalp a diffuse hematoma of 8 x 8 cm over left occipto partial region present.Skull, bones, base of the skull-normal.Meninges – normal, brain – normal size congested.Spine bones of the extremities – normal.”On the basis of the said injuries, he has expressed the opinion that the deceased had died of asphyxia as a result of smothering and the time of death was 36 to 40 hours prior to his examination.The aforesaid injuries and the opinion has clearly revealed that the death was homicidal.In examination-in-chief, he has deposed that the external injuries mentioned by him vide Ex. P-8 are possible when a person places a pillow on the face and presses and the result is struggle.In the cross-examination, it has been suggested to him that the injuries recorded by him could be possibly by participating in violent sexual intercourse but the same has been categorically denied.Thus, there can be no iota of doubt that the death was homicidal and not suicidal and further it was not a case of rape and murder.Once it is held that the death was homicidal and the injuries were not the result of any violent sexual intercourse, the circumstances are to be scrutinized to see the complicity of the accused in the crime.First, we shall advert to the issue whether the suspicion relating to the illicit relationship by the accused-appellant has been established.True it is, the neighbours, PWs-1 to 5, who have turned hostile, have stated that the husband and wife had an amicable relationship but the version of the other witnesses project otherwise.From the testimony of PW-8, Triveni, the younger sister of the deceased, it is apparent that on 1.10.2000, the deceased had come to their house at Hindupur and had told her that the accused was harassing her on the pretext that she had developed illicit relationship with someone and was not providing her food.She has deposed that she advised the deceased that quarrels are common in family life and she should adjust herself and, accordingly, she went back to her husband.In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony.12. PW-9, P. Gangappa, another relative of the deceased, has deposed about the deceased agonisedly describing before him the harassment meted out to her by her husband on the excuse that she had developed illicit intimacy with someone.There has been absolutely no cross-examination on this score.In view of the aforesaid, we are disposed to think that the accused, for whatever reason, had garnered suspicion against the attitude and character of his wife.We may hasten to add that PW-7, who in his 161 Statement had stated that the accused has told him about the anguish relating to his wife’s character, though has turned hostile, yet the same would not make any difference to arrive at the conclusion on the basis of the evidence of PWs-8 and 9 that he had a suspicious mind as regards the character of his wife.Presently, we shall proceed to consider certain other circumstances.PW-1 has admitted that she had given the accused a portion of the house on rental basis.PW-5, son of Imamvalli, has admitted that the accused and his wife were residing on rent in the next portion of their house.Thus, they were close neighbours.PW-1 in her evidence has stated that she was not aware if the deceased was alive or not.The learned trial Judge has commented on her conduct which we need not further expatiate.The fact remains that she has deposed that when she got up in the morning, she found that there was some commotion in the portion which she had given on rent and it was informed to her that someone had died.In the cross-examination, she has also admitted that the contents of Ex. P-1 were read over and explained to her before she signed it.PW-5 has deposed that Nagamani, the deceased, had died about 6.30 a.m., when PW-1, the landlady, was shouting.PW-12, N. Babu Naidu, the councillor of 26th Ward, has stated that after coming to know about the death of the deceased, he went to her house and found it locked and the same was opened after the police came and the dead body was found on the ground with a pillow on her face.His testimony has gone undented, for nothing has been put to him in the cross-examination except that he was making efforts to oblige the police.It has come in the evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, that the lock was broke open in the presence of the witnesses and the dead body was found in the room.He has spoken about the seizure of Ex. P-21, the writing of the accused on a book.In the cross-examination, apart from a singular question relating to the Inquest Report, nothing has been asked.examination, has stated that she had gone to Sai Baba Bhajan.The said aspect has not been believed by the learned trial Judge and we are inclined to think correctly.On the contrary, the circumstances have clearly established that she was in her house.The evidence on record clearly shows that there was a commotion in the morning, she had lodged the FIR, the police arrived and found the house locked from outside and it was broke open in the presence of the witnesses.On the contrary, the factum of abscondence has been proven. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,900,503 | On 29.11.1997, one Selvaraj, a Police Constable, who was on bundobustduty, was murdered by some Muslim fundamentalists in Coimbatore.As aconsequence of this murder, there was an utter chaos and confusion prevailedin the City.The accused/Hindus thought that the entire Muslim community wasresponsible for the murder of the said Selvaraj and as an act of revenge, theaccused had the common object of committing murder of Muslim public.Accordingly, on 30.11.1997, A1 to A11 along with A14 at the instigation of A12and A13 murdered four Muslims, viz., Harris, Habib Rahman, Hariff and LiyagathAli at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore.The relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are asfollows:(a) On 29.11.1997 at about 9.00 p.m., one Selvaraj, a Police Constablewas murdered by some Muslim fundamentalists.As a consequence of the said murder, 18 Muslims were murdered in a police firing and some of the personssustained injuries.In the meantime, the body of Selvaraj, Police Constablewas brought and kept in the mortuary of Government Hospital, Coimbatore.Theaccused persons, who are Hindus, assembled at 10.00 a.m. on 30.11.1997 in the Hospital and raised slogans against the Muslim community.(b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 30.11.1997 at about 12.00noon, on noticing the tense situation in the City, P.W.1 Ayub Khan, who is aPlumber by profession, went to Ukkadam in search of his brother Hariff, thethird deceased.Since he was caught in the police firing, he sustained bulletinjury on his right side ear.P.W.1 sat on the spot itself with injury on hisear.At that point of time, Hariff, his brother, the third deceased came tothe spot in a Scooter and found that his brother PW1 sitting on the floor withinjury on his ear.Then, the third deceased took him in the Scooter to AslamHospital to give treatment.There, he found that PW2 Sadique, PW8 SyedMohammed, PW15 Hameed and PW16 Rafique along with Abdul Rahman and Nazir were with injuries sustained in the firing incident standing in front of thehospital awaiting the arrival of the Doctor.(c) All of them waited for some time.Since the Doctor did not turnup, all of them decided to go to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore.Accordingly, they engaged a tourist van driven by PW3 Mohamed Ali.All theinjured persons along with other esses boarded the van and asked P.W.3 toproceed to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore.When the van reached theGovernment Hospital, Coimbatore, P.W1 Ayub Khan quickly got down from the van and ran to the Emergency Ward and informed the staff of the hospital about thecondition of the injured persons, who received bullet injuries, sitting in thevan and requested the staff to bring stretchers to take them to the hospital.Accordingly, the hospital staff brought two stretchers near to the van fortaking the injured persons.One Abdul Rahman, who sustained injuries, waskept laid down in one stretcher.In the very same stretcher, Habib Rahman,the second deceased was seated.In another stretcher, Nazir, the otherinjured was kept laid down and in the very same stretcher, Harris, the firstdeceased was sitting.The first deceased died on the spot.Onseeing the second deceased falling down near a tree from the stretcher, A1Prabhakaran, A5 Umashankar, A8 Gurunathan and A9 Manikandan collected petrol in a coconut dry shell from a motor bike and poured the same on the seconddeceased Habib Rahman.A2 Maheswaran took the match box and lit the fire and threw it on the second deceased.A10 Srinivasan beat on the head of thesecond deceased with the wooden log.At that time, the fourth deceasedLiyagath Ali was coming near the milk booth.A3, A7, A10, A11 and A14attacked Liyagath Ali, the fourth deceased with wooden logs.At the sametime, the third deceased Hariff, who came to the hospital, was also attackedby A2, A3, A5, A6, A7 and A10 and A14 with wooden logs.All the deceased died on the spot.(f) On seeing the attack made on the first deceased Harris, onePalanisamy gave a complaint (Ex.P40) to PW26, Police Constable.He received the same on 30.11.1997 at about 1.30 p.m. and registered a case in CrimeNo.1891/97 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.(g) On seeing the attack on the second deceased Habib Rahman, PW5, aPolice Constable, who was on duty in the Hospital, gave a complaint (Ex.P42)to P.W.26 at about 1.40 p.m. He registered the case in Crime No.1892/97 forthe offence under Section 302 IPC.(h) On seeing the attack on the third deceased Hariff, one David gavea complaint (Ex.P43) at about 1.50 p.m. to PW26 Constable.(i) Similarly, for the attack made on the fourth deceased LiyagathAli, PW4 Mahendran gave a complaint (Ex.P1) at about 4.15 p.m. to PW2 6Constable, who in turn, registered the case in Crime No.1898/97 for theoffences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC.(j) P.W.26 immediately collected all the FIRs.and sent the printedcopies to the Judicial Magistrate and to his superior officers.PW34, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation and arrived at thescene of occurrence.He observed other formalities like preparation ofobservation mahazar and rough sketch.He conducted inquest over the deadbodies.Thereupon, he sent the dead bodies for postmortem.(k) PW17 Doctor conducted post-mortem on 1.12.1997 on the bodies ofHarris, first deceased and Habib Rahman, second deceased.P.W.11, anotherDoctor conducted post-mortem on the bodies of Hariff, third deceased andLiyagath Ali, fourth deceased.The post-mortem certificates in respect of D1to D4 are Exs.P14, P.16, P.12 and P10 are respectively.(l) Since the deceased were not identified by the respectiverelatives, all the bodies were handed over to P.W.25, the District Secretaryof Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam.On 6.1.1998, A5 and A6 werearrested and sent to judicial custody.Both were permitted to file their written submissions.We have given our meticulous consideration to the rivalcontentions urged by both the counsel, considered their written submissionsand also gone through the entire records.There were four murders.The first murder would relate to thedeath of the first deceased Harris.According to the prosecution, P.Ws.1,2,8,15 and 16, the injured persons, who sustained injuries due to thepolice firing, came in a van to Government Hospital.P.W.1 as soon as the vanreached the hospital got down and went inside the Emergency Ward and informed the staff about the condition of the injured persons having bullet injuries.Then, the hospital staff brought two stretchers near to the van for taking theinjured persons inside the Emergency Ward.One Abdul Rahman was kept laid down in one stretcher and Habib Rahman, the second deceased was sitting inthat stretcher.One Nazir was kept laid down in another stretcher and in thesaid stretcher, Harris, the first deceased was sitting.On seeing that theseinjured persons, the Muslims, were being taken in the stretchers for givingtreatment, A2,A3,A5,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10 and A14 attacked them.P.W.1 went inside the Emergency Ward and witnessed the occurrence.P.W.15 Hameed is also another witness.According to him, heaccompanied the injured witnesses who sustained injuries in police firing fromthe Aslam Hospital in the van to CMC Hospital in Coimbatore.He stated thathe along with P.W.16 Rafique was sitting in the van.On this accusation, A1 to A14 were triedfor the offences under Sections 148, 302, 149 read with 302 I.P.C.Ultimately, A4, A12 and A13 were acquitted.The other accused were convicted.Those accused have filed these appeals.On noticing that Muslim persons with injuries being taken from the van insidethe hospital for giving treatment, they came rushing towards those injuredpersons and began to attack them.P.W.1 on seeing the attack feared that theaccused might attack him also and ran towards the Emergency Ward and hid himself there for nearly half-anhour and witnessed the entire occurrencetaking place outside.While the attack was going on, P.W.3 van driverdeparted from the scene of occurrence with his van.(e) The accused persons pushed down the first deceased Harris and thesecond deceased Habib Rahman from the stretcher.A1 Prabhakaran stabbed the first deceased on his neck with knife.A14 Nagaraj beat the first deceasedwith wooden log on his stomach.A2 Maheswaran @ Mahesh and A3 Vivekananthan @ Vivek kicked the first deceased .(n) On 21.7.1998, PW.36, the Inspector of Police, CBCID took upfurther investigation.On 29.8.1998, he arrested A3 and recovered MO6 knife.(o) On 17.11.1998, P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore conductedthe test identification parade.P.W.1 identified all the three accused.PW2identified only A10 and not others.PW1 identified A2, A8 and A9 alone.(q) After completion of the investigation, P.W.36 filed the chargesheet against all the accused for the offences under Sections 148, 14 9 , 302read with 109 I.P.C.(r) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 36 witnesses,filed 62 exhibits and marked 16 material objects.(s) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., theydenied their complicity in the crime in question.On the side of defence, onedocument Ex.D1 was marked.(t) The trial court, after analysing the evidence available on record,convicted A1, A2, A3, A5 to A10 and A11 in respect of murders, i.e. D1 to D4and acquitted other accused, viz. A4, 12 and A13 in respect of all thecharges.(u) There is no appeal as against the acquittal.V.Ayyathurai, the learned counsel for the appellants would takeus through the entire evidence and point out various infirmities in theprosecution case and submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to provethe case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, all the appellants are liable tobe acquitted.He would cite the following authorities:On these aspects, we have heard Mr.P.W.3 Van Driver left thescene with his van.A1 stabbed the first deceased Harris with knife on hisneck.A14 beat the first deceased with wooden log on his stomach.A2 and A3kicked the first deceased.The first deceased died on the spot.The overt acts inrespect of the death of the first deceased are attributed to A1,A2,A3 and A14.In respect of this occurrence which was held at 1.0 0 p.m. on 30.11.1997, onePalanisamy has given a complaint (Ex.P40) to P.W.26 Police Constable, who inturn, registered the case in Crime No.1891/97 for the offence under Section302 I.P.C. This Palanisamy has not been examined.According to P.Ws.1,2 and 8, the first deceased Harris and one Abdul Rahman sat in a stretcher and theywere pulled down by the accused from the said stretcher.According to them, the second deceased was pulled down from the stretcher by the accused.The accused 2,3,6,8,9 and10 collected petrol from the motor-bike and poured the same on the deceasedand set fire and also beat him.With reference to this occurrence held at1.15 p.m., P.W.5, a Police Constable attached to the Out Post Police Stationin the hospital has given a complaint (Ex.P42) through a special report.In respect of the murder of the third deceased Hariff, P.W.15 andP.W.16 would speak about the attack made on the third deceased with wooden logs by A2,A3,A5,A10 and A14 at 1.30 p.m. in the hospital.The said David, the firstinformant has not been examined.In regard to the murder of Liyagath Ali, the fourth deceased,which took place at 1.15 p.m. inside the main gate of the hospital, P.W.2,P.W.4 and P.W.8 attacked the fourth deceased near the milk booth withwooden logs and caused his death.With reference to this occurrence, P.W.4Mahendran gave the complaint Ex.Let us now deal with the appreciation of the evidence of eachwitness.13. P.W.1 Ayub Khan, the brother of the third deceased Hariff, wouldspeak about the murder of Harris, the first deceased and Habib Rahman, thesecond deceased.According to him, he along with the other injured personswho sustained injuries due to police firing went in a van to the GovernmentHospital, Coimbatore.14. P.W.1 is one of the main witnesses in this case.He is thebrother of the third deceased.According to him, on noticing that thedeceased 1 and 2 were attacked, he ran into the Emergency Ward and hid himself and witnessed the occurrence from the Ward.In respect of the two deaths(death of D1 and D2), P.W.1 who saw the occurrence has not chosen to give any complaint.One Palanisamy gave the complaint Ex.P40 to P.W.26 PoliceConstable.The said Palanisamy was not examined.In respect of the death ofHabib Rahman, the second deceased, P. W.5 Police Constable attached to the Out Post Police Station has given the complaint Ex.It is the case of prosecution that in retaliation to the murderof one Selvaraj, Police Constable, there was a police firing in which 18Muslims died and some of them sustained injuries.P.W.1, D1 and D2 alsosustained injuries.Therefore, they came to hospital along with the injuredpersons to take treatment.P.W.1 is the Secretary of Kovai Tamilnadu MuslimMunnetra Kazhagam.The occurrences took place in the day light of 30.11.1997from 1.00 p.m.onwards.According to him, he saw the two occurrences in whichtwo persons died.He would admit that he neither gave any complaint to thepolice in respect of the occurrences in which two deceased were done to deathin his presence nor informed anybody else about the same.Even according tothe prosecution, the dead bodies of four Muslims were handed over to theMuslim Association and the bodies were taken together for burial in aprocession in which P.W.1 also participated.The peculiar feature is that even though P.W.1 came in a vanalong with the injured accompanied by the third deceased Hariff, his brother,to the hospital, he did not care to verify as to what happened to the thirddeceased who was done to death in the hospital premises itself.No evidence was produced by the prosecution that he also sustainedinjuries due to police firing and therefore, he came to the hospital and tooktreatment.18. P.W.1 has specifically stated that on his request, he was allowedto go inside the Emergency Ward and the doctors locked the room from insidefor his safety and accordingly, P.W.1 had hid himself inside the Ward and sawthe occurrence.However, no doctors were examined to speak about this fact.After the Coimbatore Bomb Blast that took place on 14.2.1998, hewas detained under the preventive detention.Before that, JusticeGokulakrishnan Commission was constituted to conduct an enquiry with reference to the murders.P.W.1 was examinedonly on 4.11.1998, nearly after a year.A3 was arrested as early as on 2 9 .8.1998 itself.A2, A8 and A9 were also secured through P.T. Warrants long before the parade.The initial investigation was conducted by P.W.34, the Inspectorof Police.There is no reason as to why P.W.1 kept mum all along without disclosing the occurrence to any person and as to why the policedid not obtain any statement from him with reference to the said occurrence.There is also no material to show as to how the police found out that he wasone of the eye witnesses.So, his presence at the time of occurrence in thehospital is quite doubtful.22. P.W.1 would also speak about the death of the second deceased,another Muslim, who was burnt to death.In respect of this occurrence also,P.W.1 did not whisper anything to any of the police officers who were onbundobust duty in the hospital.According to P.W.5, when he was in the Out Post Station, he was informed that some persons set fire to thesecond deceased and burnt him.Immediately, he came out and saw the deceased with burn injuries.He tried with the help of others gathered there to takehim to the hospital to save him, but he died there itself.In the complaint Ex.P42 given by P.W.5, he did not mention aboutthe attack made on the first deceased or about the accused found near thedeceased causing burn injuries.He did not choose to mention any namesof the accused nor the witnesses in Ex.On the other hand, P.W.5 statedthat at the time of occurrence, a lot of Police Officers and Constables wereon bundobust duty since the body of Selvaraj, Police Constable who was done todeath by some Muslim fundamentalists, was brought to the hospital and kept inthe mortuary.According to him, approximately, more than 100 PoliceConstables were there in uniform.When such being the case, it is quitestrange to state that all these occurrences took place in the presence ofpublic who have gathered there and 100 Police Constables who were on bundobust duty.Furthermore, P.W.5 would state that prior to this occurrence, oneC.P.Dhandapani, M.L.A. came to the hospital to pay homage to Selvaraj.Thepublic who have gathered there attempted to attack him.With reference tothis occurrence, a case was registered.Only thereafter, the occurrences inwhich Muslims were attacked took place.According to him, he accompanied the otherinjured persons in the van to the hospital.He admits that he is a member ofthe Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam.However, he didnot give any details of the identity of the said deceased who is the thirddeceased.He admitted in the cross-examination that he immediately, after theoccurrence was over, he left the place and went home.It is quite strange to see that P.W.2 having accompanied theinjured persons to the hospital in the van, in order to enable them to gettreatment in the Government Hospital and having been a member of a MuslimAssociation and having seen the brutal murder of three persons, had beenkeeping quiet without informing any person or police about the occurrence andabout the involvement of the accused for several months.He knew very wellthat a case has already been registered in respect of the death of thedeceased persons.He admitted in the cross-examination that immediately after theoccurrence, within two weeks, the police group took him to Kerala forinvestigation of this case.He also admitted that subsequent to theCoimbatore Bomb Blast which took place 16.2.1998, within two weeks thereafter,he was examined by CB CID police at B1 Police Station.He never whisperedanything about the details of the occurrence which took place on 30.11.1997inside the hospital either to the police officers or to the MuslimAssociation.On the other hand, he was examined by P.W.36, the Inspector of Police, CB CID only on 4.11.1998, nearly after a year.Similarly, it is quite artificial to see that P.W.2, anotherMuslim, who got down from the van was spared by the accused who attacked the other injured deceased.He deposed that one Abdul Rahman was being carried in a stretcher and in that stretcher, the first deceased Harris was sitting andone Nazir was taken in another stretcher in which the second deceased HabibRahman was sitting.On the other hand, P.W.1 would state that the seconddeceased was sitting in the stretcher along with Abdul Rahman and the firstdeceased was sitting along with Nazir in another stretcher.The very factthat he was examined by p.W.36 after one year and also the inconsistencybetween P.W.1 and P.W.2 would make it clear that P.W.2 would not have been present in the place of occurrence.Further, P.W.2 did not identify A3 andA14 in the parade.He was able to identify A10 alone in the parade which wasconducted belatedly.29. P.W.3 Mohamed Ali is another eye witness who speaks about thedeath of the deceased 1 and 2 who were attacked by the accused.According toP.W.3, two persons who sustained bullet injuries were not carried in twostretchers and all the accused attacked both the injured persons and causedtheir death.This is not the prosecution case.The case of the prosecutionis that the first deceased Harris who accompanied Nazir who kept laid down ina stretcher and Habib Rahman, the second deceased who accompanied Abdul Rahman in another stretcher were pulled down from the stretchers and the firstdeceased was attacked with knife and wooden log by some accused and the second deceased was set on fire by the other accused.The deposition of P.W.3 is completely contradictory to theprosecution case.Further, he did not identify any of the accused in theCourt.During the course of the occurrence, he got into the van and took itaway from the hospital.Even though he being a Muslim, the van driver, whodropped the other Muslim injured in the hospital, saw the brutal occurrence inwhich two Muslim persons died, he had not chosen to give information to thepolice.According to him, he started the van and stopped it at the secondgate of the hospital premises itself and went away.P.W.34, the firstinvestigating officer did not find the said van in the spot.Even though the seconddeceased is said to have burnt to death, P.W.3 did not say anything about thesame.He bluntly said that he saw the occurrence in which the deceased 1 and2 were done to death.When he was confronted with the question that he is notthe van driver and there is no connection between the owner of the van andhimself, he admitted in the cross-examination that he did not know his owner'sname etc. According to P.W.3, he was the driver of the Standard van.But,P.W.15, another eye witness, would state that it is not the Standard van andit is the Metador van. P.W.3 would admit that there was police bundobust andabout 20 Constables were standing there.If that is so, there is no reason asto why P.W.3 did not venture to inform any of the police officers or to takesteps to save the victims by approaching the police who were standing there.At any rate, it is quite doubtful that such an incident had takenplace inside the hospital when there was a heavy police bundobust provided inthe hospital after the firing incident in which 18 Muslims died.All thesethings would make it clear that the presence of P. W.3 in the place ofoccurrence who was examined on 4.8.1998, nearly after 9 months, by P.W.36,even though the occurrence took place on 3 0.11.1997, is doubtful.33. P.W.4 Mahendran is another eye witness.According to him, at about 1.15 p.m., at themain gate of CMC Hospital, 7 or 8 persons came Thadi and Kambu and chased the fourth deceased Liyagath Ali and three persons attacked him.Thereafter, hefell down unconscious.Thereupon, he was taken in a stretcher to the CasualtyWard.Within 5 minutes, he died.According to P.W.4, at about 4.15 p.m., theInspector of Police and Head Constable of B4 Police Station came to the sceneand obtained a complaint (Ex.P45) from him.He did not mention anything aboutthe other witnesses in which the other deceased died.He did not identify anyof the accused in the Court.As such, his evidence is not useful to theprosecution case.34. P.W.8 Syed Mohamed is yet another eye witness.According to him,he saw the occurrence that took place inside the hospital on 30.11.1997 inwhich, the deceased 1 to 3 were done to death.Admittedly, till he wasexamined on 8.11.1998, he did not inform about the details of the occurrencein which the deceased died either to police or to any other person.As a matter of fact, in the police firing, his one of therelatives died.He is also one of the witnesses who accompanied the injuredwitnesses to the hospital in the van.He admits that he knew that the OutPost Police Station is inside the hospital and even then, he did not care toinform the police about the occurrence.According to him, P.W.3, who was thevan driver, took the van and left the hospital.As indicated above, P.W.3would state that he stopped the van at the hospital complex itself and wentaway.So, this makes the presence of both P.Ws.8 and 3 at the spot isdoubtful.At that time, theaccused persons who were sitting in front of the Casualty Ward came andattacked the first deceased Harris and the second deceased Habib Rahman who were taken in the stretchers.He further stated that the third deceased Hariff was attacked bythe accused persons at the entrance.Even though he made arrangements fortaking the injured persons to give treatment in the CMC Hospital, he did notgo to the police station and report about the matter.The said David has notbeen examined.Admittedly, P.W.15 was examined only after one year by the CB CIDpolice.He also admitted in the cross-examination that before the occurrencetook place, there was a heavy crowd inside the hospital and police people werealso standing in uniform.According to him, he was in the hospital for about1 > hours.Though he stated in the evidence that some of the persons weremurdered, he was not able to say as to who were murdered and who murdered them.Therefore, his evidence would not be of any help to the case of theprosecution, especially when he admitted that there was a heavy policebundobust and heavy crowd was inside the hospital and even then, he did notchoose to inform them in relation to the occurrence.The next eye witness is P.W.16 Rafique.He is one of thewitnesses who accompanied the injured persons in the van to the hospital.According to him, nearly 10 accused came to the scene and pushed the deceased 1 and 2 from the stretchers and attacked them with wooden logs.The case ofthe prosecution is that the second deceased was burnt to death.He did notwhisper anything about the act of the accused who is said to have pouredpetrol on the second deceased and caused his death.According to him, thesecond deceased Habib Rahman was left at the Vincent Road itself.On theother hand, now the prosecution case is that the second deceased Habib Rahman also accompanied the other witnesses in the van to the hospital where he wasdone to death.He also admitted that he saw the occurrence along with P.W.15Hameed.As indicated above, both P.Ws.15 and 16 have not cared to inform any person including the police.Even though the occurrence had taken place on30.11.1997, P.W.16 chose to give a statement implicating some accused only on 4.8.1998, nearly after 8 months.The main point which is to be taken note of is as to why thesewitnesses, who have given details about the overt acts attributed to each ofthe accused in relation to the death of the deceased 1 to 4, have not givenany information about the occurrence in which their friends and relatives weredone to death to any one including the police, immediately after theoccurrence.As indicated above, in regard to the murder of four persons, fourseparate complaints were received by the police from four persons who are notconnected with the deceased.Thepolice has not given any explanation as to why Palanisamy was not examined.A complaint which was received from P. W.5 Police Constable in respect of thedeath of Habib Rahman, the second deceased, was registered in CrimeNo.1892/97. P.W.5 in the said complaint did not mention anything about theidentity of the accused nor the presence of the other eye witnesses.Similarly, in respect of the death of Hariff, the third deceased, even thoughP.W.1, the brother of the third deceased was present in the place ofoccurrence, he did not choose to give any complaint to the police.Similarly, in respect of the death of Liyagath Ali, thefourth deceased, a complaint was received from P.W.4 Mahendran.As indicated above, inall the F.I.Rs, no particulars of the witnesses and the accused have beengiven.Similarly, it is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence hadtaken place in the presence of the police officers, who are in the bundobustduty and the staff members of the hospital.The prosecution has not takensteps to examine some of those independent witnesses to show as to how theoccurrence had started and how the occurrence had taken place.The main important material witnesses would be one Abdul Rahmanand Nazir who were taken in the stretchers, who sustained injuries during thepolice firing.They were not examined.None of the eye witnesses speaksabout the presence of P.W.5, the Out Post Police Constable, who has given thecomplaint in respect of the death of the second deceased.Even the Public Prosecutor was unable to say as to how thesewitnesses were traced to fix them as eye witnesses by P.W.36, the Inspector ofPolice, CB CID who took up investigation long after the occurrence and as towhat was the reason for not having given any statement immediately after theoccurrence was over to the police by these witnesses, even though theyhappened to meet the police officers on several occasions with reference tothe enquiry for compensation, etc.It is settled law that the unexplained delay in recording thestatements of the eye witnesses, the non-examination of the material witnessesand unusual behaviour and artificial conduct of the eye witnesses would createa doubt about the genuineness of the case of prosecution, as laid down in thedecisions in 2004 (11) SUPREME COURT CASES 253 (HARJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB), 2003 (10) SUPREME COURT CASES 670 (MARUTI RAMA NAIK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA), 2003 (11) SUPREME COURT CASES 203 (STATE OF PUNJAB v. HARBANS SINGH), 2002 (2) SUPREME COURT CASES 737 (DEEPAK KUMAR v. RAVI VIRMANI) and 2003 CRI.L.J.233 7 (SC) (STATE OF U.P. v. BHAGWANT).The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall standcancelled.1.The II Additional Sessions Judge,Coimbatore.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore.4. -do- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.6.The Inspector of Police, B4 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore.7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8.The District Collector, Cpombatore. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,005,352 | "Accused Krishna, Swarn Kanta, Puran Chand, Chaman and Raj Kumar were put on trial for the allegations against them that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of one Vijay Arora by pouring kerosene oil upon him lighting him on fire and putting him inside the shop and then putting the shutter of the shop down thereby they were charged for offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC.The brief facts arising out of the present case are that on receipt of DD No. 12A dated 16.11.2012, IO Inspector R.K. Ojha alongwith HC Phool Chand and PSI Anoop reached at the spot i.e. Shop No. 147-148, Guru Nanak Market, Khyala where the shutter of the shop was open on the west direction in the corner of the said shop, one person in burnt condition was found dead and inside the shop as well as outside the shop, some oil smelling like kerosene oil was found spiller all over there.One person namely Saurabh Arora s/o the deceased Vijay Arora met them and the IO made enquiries from him and recorded his statement wherein he alleged that his father Vijay Arora was running spare parts shop at Shop No. 147-148, Guru Nanak Market, Khyala and in front of the said shop, Puran @ Karan had placed earthen pots (matke) for sale.His father had complained against it to the MCD and MCD removed his earthen pots.On the night of 15.11.2012, Krishna, Puran, Raj, Chaman and Kanta had again placed the earthen pots in front of the shop.In the morning on 16.11.2012 at about 8.20 am, when his father came there to open his shop, he asked them to remove them.Thereafter, Krishan and Puran caught hold of his father and Chaman and Kanta poured oil over him and Raj lit fire and thereafter, put the shutter of CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 3 of 67 the shop down.The shop also caught fire.When he rushed to the shop, then these people stopped him.Krishna, Puran, Raj, Chaman and Kanta had in a planned manner killed his father by setting him on fire.He also stated that these people had earlier also quarrel with his father.Thereafter, on the basis of this statement, Insp.R.K. Ojha prepared rukka and got the FIR registered U/S 302.34 IPC through HC Phool Chand.During investigation, IO called the Crime Team at the spot which inspected the site and prepared its report CMT/SOC No. 1124 dated 16.11.2012 and submitted to IO.Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan, exhibits were lifted from the spot of the crime and seized.Expert team from FSL Rohini also called at the spot which inspected the site and prepared its report Vide No. 2012/SOC/153/CHEM No. 31/12 dated 28.12.2.102 (sic).The post mortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and thereafter, body was handed over to his relatives.As per the PM report, the cause of death is due to asphyxia cause by inhalation of suffocating/irrespirable gases into respiratory passage subsequent to burning of kerosene, body and other neighbouring objects into place of occurrence (closed space) i.e room/shop as alleged history available.After the post mortem, the exhibits were seized and taken into possession by the IO.The deceased, S.J. Sirgaonkar, was Deputy Personnel Manager of the Bombay Branch of M/s Hindustan Construction Company.He was shot dead by the respondent after he (deceased), along with the other officers of the management, had come out of the Tribunal's office at Meerut after filing their written statements.Thereafter one of the eyewitnesses, S.K. Gui (PW 7) asked someone to CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 16 of 67 give a telephone call to the police station, which was nearby, on receipt of which the police arrived at the spot, seized the pistol and took the accused and some of the witnesses to the police station where a formal FIR was registered.The panchnama was prepared and other formalities were, however, done at the spot."On 16.11.2012, I was posted in PCR Control Room PHQ ITO.On that day, a call was received at 8:24 am in which the caller stated that "Ek Admi Apne Upar Kerosene Ka oil Dal Raha Hain" I had pass on the above said information on power 14, Power 15 and Tiger 48 and it was also passed on the concerned West Distt.The PCR form is Ex PW24/A."Subsequent thereto PW-9 HC Phool Chand received an information at 08:30 am from the Police Control Room, that "a person has poured kerosene oil upon him in Shop No. 147, 148 near the Bus stand of 830 at Chhoti Sabzi Mandi" and the same was registered as DD No. 12A (Ex.PW-9/A) at Police Station Khyala.English Translation of the relevant portion of DD No. 12A (Ex.PW-9/A) registered at Police Station Khyala is reproduced herein below: -"The Duty Officer CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 22 of 67 Information received through PCR Call and departure Time: 08:30 AM At this time, it is entered that W-50 operator has informed through telephonic call to the effect 'that Ct.Devesh No. 3652/PCR has informed that a person has poured Kerosin oil upon him in Shop No. 147, 148 near the Bus Stand of 830 at Chhoti Sabzi MandiCRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 22 of 67-9210848821' The information so received from the PCR, was entered into the Roznamcha and a copy of the report after having being separated was handed over to HC Phool Chand No. 325/W for initiating proper action who alongwith PSI(?) Anoop Kumar left for the spot.Scribed by HC/DO HC Rahbeer Singh No. 442/W"On receipt of DD No. 12A (Ex.PW-9/A), Head Constable Phool Chand along with PW-16 SI Anoop Kumar went to the place of incident and met with PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased).Relevant portion from the testimony of PW-9 HC Phool Chand is reproduced herein below:-"On 16.11.2012, I was posted at PS Khyala and on that day on receipt of call no. 12 A Ex.PW9/A I along with PSI anoop and SHO at about 8.30 am went to shop no. 1470148, near 830 bus stand, Guru Nanak Market, Khyala.On reaching there we found one person was lying dead in burn condition in the shop and there was smell of kerosene oil/ mobil oil.Even the oil was also spotted.One Saurabh Arora met us CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 23 of 67 there who identified the dead body as Vijay Arora.SHO recorded the statement of Saurabh Arora.IO/SHO prepared Rukka and handed over the same to me.Relevant portion from the testimony of PW-16 SI Anoop Kumar is reproduced herein below:-"On 16.11.2012, I was posted at PS Khyala as Probational Sub-Inspector.Some substance like Mobil oil was spread over inside and outside of the said shop and smell of kerosene oil was also there in said mobil oil.One person namely Sh.Saurabh Arora who is complainant in the present case, met us there.R.K. Ojha made inquiry from said person and recorded his statement.Same is already Ex.PW- 10/A. Insp.Saurabh Arora (son of the deceased) stepped into the witness box as PW-10 and deposed that:"I am working as J.E. in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. My father Vijay Arora was running shop of spare parts at Shop No. 147-148 Guru Nanak Market Khayala.Accused Krishna, Puran, Chaman and Raj Kumar had placed Matkas in front of our said shops.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 41 of 67"On 16.11.2012 I was posted as above.On that day I had conducted the post mortem examination on body of deceased Vijay Arora S/o Late K.L. Arora aged 50 years male.The body was sent by Inspector R.K. Ojha for post mortem examination.On examination of the body I had observed that the body was 100 per cent burnt out, superficial to deep in nature.After completion of post mortem examination I had opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by inhalation of suffocating / irreparable gases into the respiratory passage subsequent to burning of kerosene, body and other neighbouring objects into place of occurrence(closes space) i.e. room/shop as alleged history available.My detailed report is Ex PW10/A which bears my signatures at point A on each four running pages."Relevant portion from the Post Mortem Report of the deceased reads as under:-GENERAL EXAMINATION Rigor mortis: Thermal stiffness present all over the body and exhibited state of pugilistic.Post Mortem Staining: Absent due to burn injury.Condition of eyes: Both eyes closed with highly congested conjunctivae and burnt out lashes.Mouth/Tongue: Partially opened with tongue protruded and partly burnt out.All hairs of the body i.e. scalp, eye brow, eye lashes, pubic hair either burnt out or singed out.The smell of kerosene emitted from the body and remnants of clothing.Whole body blackened and charred out.EXTERNAL EXAMINATION: External Injuries 100% deep to superficial thermal burn injury present all over the body with multiple blister formation at different parts containing serous fluid.The right lower limb and trunk part exhibits line of redness at different locations while rest part of the body shows post mortem burn in appearance.The muscle components on the right thigh partly burnt out and exposed.There are multiple thermal rupture of muscles present on the different part of the body with exposed underlined fact tissue.1. TIME SINCE DEATH: is consistent to time of incident (i.e. 08:30 AM dated 16.11.2012)The cause of death is due to asphyxia caused by inhalation of suffocating / irrespirable gases into respiratory passage subsequent to burning of kerosene, body and other neighbouring objects into place of occurrence (closed space) i.e. room / shop as alleged history available.Manner of death shall be concluded after receipt of FSL reports of preserved samples however in this stage there is nothing to suggest that person (deceased) would not has been burnt alive by manner alleged, as the autopsy findings are suggestive of that the few of burn injuries are ante mortem in nature and rest of (maximum parts) burn injuries are appearing post mortem in nature.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 43 of 67The deposition of soot particles into all level of respiratory passage supports that person was alive before setting of fire upon him."After examining the testimony of Dr. B.N. Mishra and the post mortem report (Ex.PW10/A), it is observed that deceased had died subsequent to burning from kerosene oil as various burn injuries were ante-mortem and certain were post-mortem in nature.Moreover, the soot particles detected in the respiratory passage of the deceased corroborated the version of the prosecution that the deceased was alive before he was set on fire by the appellants-accused.Further, it is relevant to highlight that, PW-19 Sh.He had prepared a detailed report (Ex.PW19/A) and had opined "that there was incidence of burning inside Shop No. 147/148, Khyala, Delhi".The relevant portion from his testimony is reproduced as under:-"On 19.11.2012, I was posted as Sr.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JPresent appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 20.05.2019 and order on sentence dated 25.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, West District, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 56627/2016 arising out of FIR No. 280/2012 registered at Police Station Khyala, Delhi under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') whereby the appellants were convicted and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 2 of 67The clothes worn by the deceased were handed over by the complainant which were seized and taken into police possession.Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini.Statement of one Satya Prakash Gupta was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Efforts were made to arrest the accused persons.On 22.11.2012, accused Krishna and Swarn Kanta were apprehended and detailed interrogation was made from them.During interrogation, it was revealed that accused Krishna and deceased were having good relations between them and because of this, deceased had allowed CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 4 of 67 accused Krishna to place earthen pots in front of his shop but gradually, because of their relations, family life of deceased got disturbed, due to which their relationship got bitter and deceased wanted to remove the earthen pots of Krishna and because of this reason, they used to have frequent quarrels.In this regard, police complaint was also lodged.Subsequently, Krishna removed here earthen pots but on 16.11.2012, in a pre planned manner, all the accused persons killed the deceased.On 09.01.2013, accused Puran Prasad, Chaman Lal and Raj Kumar surrendered before the court and after seeking permission, all three accused persons were interrogated, arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded.Their disclosure statements also corroborated the version given by accused Krishna and Swarn Kanta on the same lines.IO obtained one day PC remand of the accused persons in order to recover the clothes worn by them on the date of incident, however, they disclosed that the said clothes were thrown in the drain (ganda Nala) and hence same could not be recovered.Scaled site plan of the crime spot was got prepared by draftsman."CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 3 of 67CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 4 of 67To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses in all.The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the Appellants during their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case and examined one witness in their defence.After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court held all the accused persons guilty and convicted them for the charged offences.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 5 of 67Learned counsel for the Appellants opened their submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2019 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law.They further contended that the learned Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidence and has disregarded the cogent evidence in favour of the appellants and has failed to appreciate the basic issue, as to how the appellants have been held to be the actual perpetrators of the crime even though there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellants were involved in the commission of the alleged offence.Learned counsel for the Appellants further contended that the learned Trial Court erred in relying on the testimony of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the Deceased) who is a planted witness and there are major contradictions and discrepancies in his testimony.Moreover, his evidence cannot be exclusively considered as trustworthy and reliable because he was closely related to the deceased and is an interested witness, with a very strong possibility of him being tutored.Learned Counsel for the Appellants, further contended that initial statement (Ex.PW10/A) made by PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased) is inadmissible as the same is hit by the bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the investigation in the CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 6 of 67 present case had commenced on the basis of the first PCR call made at 8.24.36 am which should have been treated as the primary source for registration of the FIR instead of the initial statement (Ex.PW10/A) of PW-10 Saurabh Arora recorded at 11.35 am.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 6 of 679. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further argued that the police is required to carry out a fair and thorough investigation and collect favorable and unfavorable evidence against a suspect, but in the instant case there are serious discrepancies in the investigation conducted by the police which go to the root of the matter and the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the effect of the defective investigation.Learned counsel while highlighting the lacunae in the investigation pointed out: -That the prosecution has heavily relied on the testimony of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased) for falsely implicating the appellants in the commission of the alleged offence and has completely ignored the version of the DW-1 (Mohd. Salauddin Ansari).The investigating officer has wrongly projected a case of suicide into a case of murder because as per the testimony of the aforesaid Defence Witness the deceased had a suicidal tendency due to the matrimonial discord with his wife.Further, as per the testimony of DW-1 (Mohd. Salauddin Ansari) the deceased had stated to his wife that 'today I will finish all the root cause of the quarrels' right before he immolated himself, however being an important-link witness, the wife of the deceased was not produced as defence witness CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 7 of 67 nor were her call detail records secured by the investigating officer.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 7 of 67Moreover, the Investigating Agency has failed to examine the person who had made the second call from mobile number 9268317784, stating that 'A person is trying to immolate himself by pouring kerosene oil at Shop No. 147-148, Guru Nanak market, Khyala' and for causing prejudice to the appellants the prosecution has deliberately not examined Satya Prakash Gupta (Pradhan of Market).Further, as per the version of the prosecution, the site plan was prepared by the investigating agency at the instance of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased), however the same does not bear his signature and the Investigating Agency has failed to secure the fingerprints and the CCTV footage from the place of incident and no endeavour was made to procure the Call Detail Records and the Cell ID Location of the deceased.As per the version of the prosecution, a large number of people had gathered at the place of the incident and had attempted to set the house of the appellants (Krishna, Puran, Chaman, and Rajkumar) on fire.However, despite a large crowd being present at the place of incident, no independent witness was examined by the investigating agency.Further, the version of the investigating agency had left a glaring loop hole in the investigation as it was not certain whether the deceased was burnt with kerosene or Mobil Oil.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 8 of 67More so, no kerosene oil was detected from the seized exhibits, as per the FSL report.Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that neither does the medical & scientific evidence prove that the alleged incident was homicidal, suicidal or accidental in nature nor does it find support from the testimony of the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased.Learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons shared a common intention or motive to commit the alleged offence and hence they would not fall within the purview of the offence punishable under Section 34 of IPC.It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 9 of 67 failed to appreciate the fact that placing of matkas on a patri in front of the deceased's shop was a trivial reason to commit the murder of the deceased; as such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive for commission of the alleged offence.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 9 of 67Learned Counsel for the Appellants has lastly urged that the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State, on the other hand, strongly refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that as the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the prosecution, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for by this Court; that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the medical/scientific evidence are corroborative in nature and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Ms. Tiwari further submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are corroborating and trustworthy and have established the incident without any iota of doubt, describing the detailed role played by each appellant in the commission of the alleged crime.She further submitted that the testimony of PW-10 Saurabh Arora is consistent and corroborative in nature and minor contradictions and discrepancies which have arisen in his testimony can be ignored, due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the incident.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 10 of 67Learned APP for the State further submitted that the first telephonic message which was made immediately after the alleged incident to the police cannot be treated as the basis of FIR as the same was solely made for the reason to get the police officials at the scene of crime and the aforesaid cryptic telephonic message received by the police agency will not constitute the basis of registration of FIR.I went to PS got lodged the FIR and returned to the spot at about 1.00pm with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SHO."CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 23 of 67On that day at about 8.30 am, a call vide DD no. 12A Ex. PW-9/A was received at PS Khyala and the same was marked to HC Phool Chand who was on emergency duty.SHO Insp.R.K. Ojha was also briefed about the said DD.Thereafter, I alongwith Insp.R.K. Ojha and HC Phool Chand reached at the spot i.e. shop no. 147- 148, Guru Nanak Market, Khayal, Delhi.On reaching over there, we found that shutter of the said shop was opened and one dead body in burnt condition was lying inside the said shop and smell of kerosene oil was also coming out from the dead body.R.K. Ojha also made endorsement on the said statement and thereafter he gave the rukka to HC Phool Chand and sent him to PS for registration of the FIR.After about one hour, HC Phool Chand came from PS after registration of the FIR in the present case and gave the rukka and FIR to Insp.R.K. Ojha whom the investigation was entrusted."CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 24 of 67Corroborating the version of the aforesaid police witnesses, PW-17 ACP RK Ojha has deposed that: -"On 16.11.2012, I was posted as SHO PS khayala.On that day at about 8.30 am, a call was received at PS vide DD no. 12A and the same was marked to HC Phool Chand as he was on emergency duty.On reaching there, I found a male dead body in burnt condition inside the shop near shutter.There was liquid like mobil oil spread inside and outside the shop.A smell like kerosene oil was coming from the said mobil oil like liquid.One Saurabh Arora also met us and told that the deceased was his father namely Sh.Vijay Arora.I recorded his statement and same is already Ex.PW- 10/A, bearing my signatures at point B and signatures of Saurabh at point A. I made an endorsement at point "D to D" on statement Ex.PW- 3/B, bearing my signatures at point 'C'.I gave the rukka to HC Phool Chand and sent him to PS for registration of the FIR.HC Phool Chand returned to the spot after about 1-1 hour and gave me copy of FIR and original rukka."Perusal of the aforesaid testimony reveals that the initial statement of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased) was recorded by PW-17 RK Ojha, subsequent to which the Rukka was prepared and the same was handed over to Head Constable Phool Chand for registration of FIR.Relevant portion from the initial statement (Ex.PW10/A) made CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 25 of 67 by PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased) and Rukka (Ex.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 25 of 67"Saurabh Arora S/o Vijay Arora Age 22 years, R/o T- 137, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi, Ph. 9717360071 made the following statement:"I reside at the above mentioned address and am appointed on the post of JE in the BSES.My father Vijay Arora runs a spare part shop bearing No. 147 - 148 at Khyala, Gurunanak Market.One Pooran alias Karan had hung pitchers in front of our shop.My father had made a complaint to the MCD in the said regard and the MCD had removed the pitchers.On the night of 15.11.12 Krishna, Pooran, Raj, Chaman and Kanta had again hung the pitchers in front of our shop.Today on 16.11.12, at about 8:20 am when my father came over there to open the shop and saw pitchers in front of the shop, he asked them to remove those.Whereupon, Krishna and Pooran secured my father and Chaman and Kanta poured oil on him and Raj set him afire and lowered down the shutter of the shop as a result whereof, the shop was also set afire.When I rushed towards the shop, the said person stopped me.Krishan, Pooran, Chaman, Raj and Kanta have committed the murder of my father in a well planned manner after setting him afire.The aforesaid persons had earlier picked up a quarrel with my father many a times.Legal action may please be initiated against them.I have heard the statement and it is correct."Sd/- Illegible CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 26 of 67 16.11.12 SHO Khyala To The Duty Officer PS Khyala Sir, It is officially submitted that on receipt of DD No. 12 A, I, the Inspector along with the accompanying Head Constable Phool Chand No. 325/W and SI Anoop Kumar reached the place of occurrence i.e. Shop No. 147-148, Gurunanak Market, Khyala where the shutter of the shop was found opened and a person was found lying dead in burnt condition in a corner towards the west direction besides shutter of the shop.Oil like Mobil oil was scattered in and outside the shop from where smell like kerosene oil was emanating.A person who disclosed his name and address as Saurabh Arora S/o Vijay Arora, Aged 22 years, R/o R-137, Vishnu Garden, Khyala met me over there at the spot and whatever he narrated was recorded by me.The circumstances prevailing over the spot and the contents of the aforesaid statement disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.The Crime Team may be deputed at the spot.I, the inspector, am busy commencing investigation at the spot.The information in the said regard may be sent through the special messenger.HC Phool Chand, No. 325/W has been sent to the Police Station for the purpose of registration of case (FIR).CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 26 of 67Date and time of Occurrence: 16.11.12 at about 8:20 AM Place of occurrence: Shop No. 147-1148 Gurunanak Market, Khyala, Delhi Date and time of despatch of Writing: 16.11.12 at 11:15 AM Sd/- Illegible 16.11.12 SHO CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 27 of 67 PS Khyala Case (FIR) No. 280/12 dated 16.11.12 U/Ss. 302/34 IPC PS Khayala vide DD No. 14 A dated 16.11.12 at 11:35 AM PS Khyala Sd /- Rajbeer (In English) HC Rajbir Singh No 442/W PS Khyala PIS No. 28930299 16.11.12"CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 27 of 67From the perusal of the facts of the present case, four PCR calls were made i.e., firstly at 8.24.36 am informing that "Caller Keh raha hain Ek Admi Apne Upar Kerosene Ka Oil Dal Raha Hai", secondly at 8.27.17 am informing that "Aadmi ne apna gate band karke aag lga li hain", thirdly at 8.28.48 am informing that "Caller Keh raha hain Ek Admi Apne Upar Kerosene Ka Oil Dal Raha Hai" and fourthly at 8.32.17 am informing that "Ek Admi ne aag laga li hai".The aforesaid PCR calls were received before the recording of statement of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Ex.PW10/A) and the same were cryptic and anonymous in nature which were not sufficient to form the basis of registration of First Information Report.The statement of PW-10 Saurabh Arora detailing the commission of crime falls under the purview of complete information which cannot be overlooked.The Investigating officer being satisfied with the statement given by PW-10 Saurabh Arora was well within its authority to initiate the investigation against the appellants coupled with the facts that all the four call which were earlier made were cryptic and anonymous.My father had made complaint in this regard with MCD.Officials of MCD got removed Matkas from in front of our shop.On the intervening night of 15/16.11.2012 accused Krishna, Puran, Chaman, Raj Kumar and Kanta had again placed Matkas in front of our said shops.On 16.11.2012 at about 8.00 am when my father reached at our shops in order to open the shops and he asked the accused persons to remove the Matkas from in front of said shops.Accused Krishna and Puran caught hold my father and accused Chaman and Kanta poured oil upon my father and accused Raj lit fire upon my father and shut down the shutter of the shop.My father as well as the shop caught fire due to above said reason.When I rushed towards the shops the accused persons caught hold me and restrained me to reach the shops in order to safe my father.Accused Chaman also tried to pour oil upon me.The above said accused persons caused death of my father by committing the above said act.The accused persons had also quarreled with my father prior to the above said incident.I do CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 31 of 67 not know who informed to the police.My statement is Ex PW10/A was recorded by the police bearing my signatures at point A."CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 31 of 67During his cross-examination PW-10 Saurabh Arora deposed as under:-It is wrong to suggest that accused persons did not pour oil on the person of my deceased father.It is wrong to suggest that the copy of complaint in respect of those Matkas never handed over to the police.It is wrong to suggest that I am not the real son of deceased Vijay.I have joined the BSES about five years back.It is wrong to suggest that the relation between my father and my mother were not cordial.It is wrong to suggest that at the time of incident there was no motor parts in the shops.It is wrong to suggest that shop no. 147-148 was neither used by my father for business or for storage.It is wrong to suggest that due to soured relations with my mother, my father was running in depression.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I reached on the spot at about 8.00AM in the morning.I remained at the spot till 11/11.30AM.I reached at the spot alone.Number of Police officials had reached the spot, however, I cannot tell the exact number of the same.I cannot tell the exact time as to when the police officials have reached the spot.They had reached at the spot after sometime.Police had obtained my signatures on 2-3 papers.It is wrong to suggest that the police got my signatures on blank papers.My statement was recorded on it.It is CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 32 of 67 wrong to suggest that no site plan was prepared by the police in my presence.I have given the basic informations before the same was made.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 32 of 67xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx When I opened the shutter of my shop, at that time my father had expired.I was restraint by the accused persons when I tried to save my father.The distance between me and my father was approximately 7 to 8 ft.It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot at the time of incident.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Two person caught hold of my father and another two poured oil on him and one person namely raj Kumar lit fire.It is correct that my father was burnt in front of my eyes.The shutter was open at that time"From a perusal of the aforesaid testimony, it is evidently established that the testimony of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (son of the deceased) is trustworthy, credible and the witness withstood the test of cross- examination.Perusal of the testimony clearly depicts that he has witnessed the incident and all the accused persons were actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence and had poured oil on the deceased and had set him on fire.Perusal of the aforesaid testimony also reveals that when the deceased had arrived at his shop in the morning of 16.11.2012 at about 8.20 am, various earthen pots were lying in front of his shop and the deceased had asked the CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 33 of 67 appellants-accused to remove them.However, despite his continuous request, the appellants-accused did not remove the earthen pots and thereafter the appellants-accused Krishna and Puran caught hold of the deceased and appellant-accused Chaman and Swarn Kanta poured oil over him and appellant-accused Raj Kumar set him on fire.Perusal of the aforesaid testimony also reveals that the appellants-accused in furtherance of their common intention and preconcert committed the alleged offence as the accused persons had also previously quarrelled with the deceased prior to the above alleged incident.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 33 of 67Learned counsel for the appellants doubting the credibility of PW-10 Saurabh Arora(Son of the deceased) contended that it would be highly improbable that the son of the deceased despite being present at the spot, allowed the appellants to set the deceased on fire without raising an alarm which clearly shows that he is a planted witness.In this regard, the testimony of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased) reveals that "accused Krishna and Puran caught hold my father and accused Chaman and Kanta poured oil upon my father and accused Raj lit fire upon my father and shut down the shutter of the shop.My father as well as the shop caught fire due to above said reason.When I rushed towards the shops the accused persons caught hold me and restrained me to reach the shops in order to safe my father." Further during his cross examination, he deposed that 'when I opened the shutter of my shop, at that time my father had expired.It is wrong to suggest that I did not shout or raise any voice with regard to saving of life of my father'.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 34 of 67In view of the deposition of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (son of the deceased) in relation to the efforts made by him to save his father, we have no reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution.Further the presence of PW-10 Saurabh Arora (Son of the deceased) at the spot was established with the testimony of PW-16 SI Anoop Kumar who deposed that 'One person namely Sh.Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.The Learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment while not relying on the version of the DW-1 (Mohd. Salauddin Ansari) and CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 39 of 67 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC gave its reasoning, which is reproduced herein below: -CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 39 of 67I have carefully scrutinized the testimony of DW-1 Mohd Salauddin Ansari.DW-1 has narrated the entire incident in his testimony in an elaborate manner.He has deposed that deceased Vijay made a call to his wife on mobile phone by saying on mobile "Today I will finish all the root cause of the quarrels, from today onwards you would not come there ( shops)".He opened the shutter of the said shop and went inside the shop and shut down the shutter.After five minutes from the said shop smoke started coming out.Accused Krishna was standing in front of her shop/house.Accused Krishna made a call at 100 number.PCR Van came at the spot."In his cross examination, he has admitted that he had stood surety of accused Krishna and that he was having good relations with the accused persons.He has further admitted that one cannot see anything of shop no. 16-17 while sitting at his shop.From his deposition as well as on perusal of site plan Ex.PW17/A, it becomes doubtful that DW-1 could hear the deceased what he said on mobile phone to his wife before the alleged incident took place.He has admitted that there was a gali in between his shop and the shop of deceased where the incident took place.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 40 of 67Thus, in the present case nothing has been brought on record to prove that the evidence of PW-10 Saurabh Arora(Son of the deceased) cannot be believed and relied upon or they have falsely implicated the Appellants due to some personal vengeance or have implicated the Appellants in the present case at the instance of the prosecution.Hence, the argument of the counsel for the Appellants with regard to PW-10 Saurabh Arora been categorized as interested witnesses with the sole prospective of the prosecution to falsely implicate the appellants in the commission of the alleged offence holds no ground.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 42 of 67Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL Rohini.On that day, I along with Sh.S.S. Badwal, SSO Physics and team of Crime reached at Guru Nanak Market Shop NO. 147-148, Khyala, Delhi and inspected the spot and prepared my detailed report Ex. PW19/A bearing my signatures at point A and opined that there was incidence of burning inside the above mentioned shop adjacent to the metallic shutters."Relevant portion of crime scene visit report No. 2012/SOC-153/CHEM No. 31/12 (Ex."The undersigned along with the team members thoroughly examined the scene of crime at Gurunanak CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 44 of 67 Market, Shop No. 147-148, Khyala, Delhi on Dt. 19.11.2012 and the following observations were made:CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 44 of 671) The above-mentioned shop had two metallic shutters and was found to have metallic spare parts, empty plastic canes, wooden planks, motor vehicle batteries, wooden metallic boxes, a wooden cupboard, metal pipes, folding bed and set of blankets inside the shops.2) Burnt and charred ash debris were found on the floor of the adjacent to the metallic shutters.3) Some plastic canes were found with sign of burning.4) Some motor vehicle batteries were found with the sign of burning.5) There was mobil oil like material found on the floor insides the shop.6) One wooden cupboard was found partially burnt at the bottom.7) One wooden box was found partially burnt and blackened adjacent to the metallic shutters.8) Right side metallic shutter was found with the sign of burning.9) One electric switch box with connecting wire were also found in burnt & melted condition.From the above observations it is opined that there was incidence of burning inside the above mentioned shop adjacent to the metallic shutters.I.O. was advised to collect the exhibit and forward to the laboratory for further chemical analysis for the presence of inflammable substance, if any."A conjoint reading of the aforesaid testimony and the crime scene visit report reveals that the following exhibits were forwarded to the forensic laboratory for chemical analysis:-CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 45 of 67No. of Parcels No. of Seals & seal Description of /Exhibits impression parcels/exhibits Parcel-1 Four seals of "P.C." One sealed cloth parcel stated to be containing 'cloths of complaint Saurabh Arora'.it was found to contain exhibit '1' Exhibit-'1' Some unburnt cloth material (one full sleeved warmer & one light brown coloured knicker).Parcel-2 One seal of 'P.C.' One sealed plastic container stated to be 'oiled piece of cotton'.It was found to contain exhibit'2' kept in a polythene bag.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 46 of 67CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 47 of 67(iii) Ethyl alcohol and carbon monoxide could not be detected in exhibit '10'Perusal of the FSL report evidently establishes the fact that the residue of kerosene was found in Exhibit-1 (Some unburnt cloth material (one full sleeved warmer & one light brown coloured knicker), Exhibit-2 (Some black coloured deposits sticking on a piece of cotton swab), Exhibit-4 (Some black coloured burnt debris (pieces of metal few coins concrete & plastic pieces etc), Exhibit-6 (Some black coloured thick liquid, volume approx.2 lt), Exhibit-7 (Some partially burnt cloth pieces) & Exhibit-8 (Some partially burnt debris(metal pieces.CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 48 of 67CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 66 of 67Accordingly, in the background of such a scenario, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case through oral evidence of the eye witnesses, which were found to be creditworthy and reliable and also consistent with the medical and scientific evidence, that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of the deceased.The prosecution having proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and see no cogent reason to interfere with the same. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,060,748 | Heard on question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition record of the lower court.Heard on I.A. No.7895/2015, which is first application under section 397 r/w section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant-Gajrajsingh S/o Shobharam Rajput.The present applicant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :The present applicant is reported to be under custody.Taking various facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on merit, the application is allowed.(Alok Verma) Judge Kafeel | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,064,356 | The petitioners herein are facing trial in C.C.No.363 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court of Srivaikundam.They are facing charge under Sections 494 r/w 109 of IPC.The marriage itself is not a valid one.It is further pointed out that the marriage between Perumal and Seethalakshmi was not dissolved in the manner known to law.Therefore, the submission of the petitioners' counsel is that the marriage between Arjunan and Seethalakshmi itself is not a valid one and that therefore, the act of Arjunan contracting one more marriage with Umakumari on 01.03.2000 cannot attract the offence under Section 494 of IPC.2.This Court called upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to point out as to how the marriage between 2/4http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.13714 of 2014 Seethalakshmi and Perumal was dissolved.The submission of the respondent's counsel is that the marriage was dissolved in the customary mode.Since the marriage between Perumal and Seethalakshmi was not dissolved in the manner known to law, obviously her marriage with Arjunan itself is not a valid one.3.The petitioner's counsel undertakes that the first petitioner Arjunan would pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid within a period two months and the balance amount will be paid within a period of three months thereafter.He further undertakes that the first petitioner would abide by the maintenance order, which, Seethalakshmi obtained against Arjunan.By the said maintenance order, Seethalakshmi was awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month.Thus, Arjunan will be obliged to pay the said monthly amount of Rs. 5,000/-, apart from making this payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.3/4http://www.judis.nic.in CRL OP(MD).No.13714 of 2014 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J., sji4.Recording the aforesaid undertaking given by the counsel, on instructions from the first petitioner, the impugned proceedings stand quashed.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.17.09.2019 sji To The Judicial Magistrate Court of Srivaikundam.CRL OP(MD).No.13714 of 2014 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,006,642 | The appellant was charged for the offence under Sections 342, 302, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC.The trial Court, in conclusion of the trial, though acquitted him for the offence under Sections 342 & 294(b) IPC, has found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him as under:2/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:It is alleged that on 29.03.2014, at about 04.00 pm, the accused caused a cut injury on the back side of the neck, a stab injury above the naval and left knee of the deceased, using a knife [MO1] and caused the death of his son.It is further alleged that when his seven year old daughter, Sakthikala [PW2] attempted to prevent the attack, the accused abused her with filthy language and caused a cut injury above the left ear using the same weapon.PW1, the wife of the accused, went outside to dumb the waste and when she returned, she witnessed the accused causing cut injuries to the deceased / her son.When she [PW1] and her another son, Rajavel [PW3] attempted to secure the accused, the accused put the knife [MO1] down and took an Aruval [MO2] from the house and intimidated them.He also caused cut injuries in his right side neck and left wrist using the weapon [MO2] and thereafter, flew away from the scene of occurrence.3/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.On hearing the hue and cry, PW4, Kavitha, took PW1 and PW1's sister, namely, one Sarasvathi to Kadayam Police Station in an Auto, belonging to PW6 and PW1 lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] before the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW14], on the same day at about 05.15 pm.On receipt of the complaint, PW14 registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2014, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 342, 307, 302 & 506(ii) IPC.The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex.In the interregnum period, PW3 called 108 Ambulance and took his sister PW2 to Government Hospital, Tenkasi, at about 05.20 pm.Ferozkhan [PW10] of Government Hospital, Tenkasi, attended PW2, gave first aid treatment and referred her to Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, for further treatment.Before the Doctor [PW10], PW2 has stated that at about 04.20 pm, her father attacked her with a knife.He has found a deep lacerated wound of 10 x 5 x 4 cm with muscle and bone exposed.He has also issued a Wound Certificate.According to the Doctor, since PW2 was vomiting and was feeling drowsy, he failed to mention the location of PW2's injury 4/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 in the Wound Certificate.The Accident Register issued by PW10 is marked as Ex.On the same day, at about 05.35 pm, the accused was taken to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi by 108 Ambulance and the Doctor [PW10] attended and gave first aid treatment to the accused.The Doctor has found a lacerated wound of 5 x 2 x 1 cm; 1 x 1 x 1 cm on the right neck back side and a lacerated wound of 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the left forearm.He has also issued a Wound Certificate.Before him, the accused has stated that he attempted to commit suicide and the injuries are self inflicted one.The Doctor [PW10] has referred the accused for Psychiatrist opinion and for arrest.The Accident Register issued by him is marked as Ex.The Inspector of Police [PW15], Kadayam Police Station, namely, Thiru Madasamy, on receipt of the intimation about the case, went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P4] and a rough sketch [Ex.P18].He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, in the presence of the Panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.According to him, he found a cut injury on the back side of neck with bone 5/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 exposed, a stab injury above the naval and in the left knee of the deceased.PW15 has also recovered the knife [MO1], earth with and without bloodstain [MOs.4 & 5 respectively], under a cover of mahazar and has sent the body of the deceased for postmortem.Ilayaraja, Government Hospital, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli [PW12] conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 30.03.2014 at about 12.10 pm.He has found the following external injury on the deceased:“1) Cut injury 11 x 8 x 6 cm over the posterior aspect of neck, muscles, vertabral bone and cervical spinal cord are out.” The Doctor [PW12] gave his final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to the injury on the cervical region of spinal cord, 10 to 12 hours prior to Autopsy.The postmortem certificate issued by him is marked as Ex.Thiru Murugan, Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station [PW16] conducted the further investigation in this case.He recorded the statements of the witnesses 6/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 and sent the material objects for chemical analysis.Ferozkhan, is the Doctor at 8/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.506(ii) IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.On 02.04.2014, at about 05.00 pm, he arrested the accused near Kelaiyapillaiyur water tank railway gate, in the presence of witnesses PW7 and another.Based on the same, PW16 has recovered the Aruval [MO2], under the cover of the Mahazar Ex.In conclusion of the investigation, he laid the final report as against the accused for the offence under Sections 342, 294(b), 307, 302 & 506(ii) IPC.During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were marked, besides 8 material objects.The available evidences from the prosecution witness are as follows:i) PW1, Tmt.Rajakili, is the wife of the accused; PW2, Sakthikala, is the daughter of PW1 & accused; PW3, Rajavel, is the son of PW1 & accused.All of them have witnessed the occurrence and they were examined as eye 7/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 witnesses.PW1 has lodged the complaint [Ex.P1].PW2 is an injured eye witness and she was taken to the Government Hosptial, Tenkasi, for treatment, by her brother [PW3].ii) PW4, Ms.Kavitha, took PW1 and PW1's sister, namely, Saraswathi, to Kadayam Police Station in an Auto belonging to PW6, where PW1 has lodged the complaint [Ex.P1].iii) PW5, Thiru Kasimani, is a neighbour and when he returned from work to his residence at about 04.45 pm, he witnessed the accused with an Aruval [MO2] and injuries in his neck and hand.iv) PW7, Thiru Karupasamy, is examined as witness to the arrest of the accused and recovery of weapon – Aruval [MO2].v) PW8, Thiru Dharmaraj, is examined as witness to the observation mahazar [Ex.P4], rough sketch [Ex.P18], weapon – Knife [MO1].vi) PW9, Thiru Paramasivan, is the Photographer, who took photographs on the scene of occurrence, at about 05.00 pm.vii) PW10, Dr.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 Government Hospital, Tenkasi, who attended both PW2 and the accused, at 04.10 pm and 05.35 pm, respectively.He gave first aid to them and issued Accident Registers in Ex.P7 & Ex.P8, respectively.viii) PW11, Thiru Radhakrishnan, is the then Head Constable of Kadayam Police Station, who handed over the body of the deceased for postmortem.ix) PW12, Dr.Ilayaraja, is the Doctor at Government Hospital, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased.x) PW13, Thiru Balamurugan, is the Scientific Analyst.The chemical analysis report given by him is marked as Ex.xi) PW14, Ms.xii) PW15, Thiru Madasamy, is the then Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, who conducted the preliminary investigation.xiii) PW16, Thiru Murugan, is the then Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, who conducted the 9/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 further investigation, arrested the accused and laid the final report.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the same.Though the accused has stated there are evidences in support of his case, neither oral nor documentary evidences were marked.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellant / accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.As against the same, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / accused and Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / State.R.Alagumani, learned Counsel for the appellant has made his submissions in the following lines: 10/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.PWs 1 to 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence for the reason that the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased [PW12] has noted down only one external injury on the deceased, whereas all the three eye witnesses, in a parrot like version, have stated as if the accused assaulted the deceased Sureshkannan on his back neck, stomach and left leg ankle.The accused sustained injury on the date of occurrence and was also treated at the Government Hospital, Tenkasi, by the Doctor [PW10], who has also issued the Accident Register [Ex.P8].When he was undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him, the subsequent arrest and confession made on 02.04.2014 at about 05.00 pm from a different place would show that the arrest and recovery is a false one.The appellant was in unsound mind, suffering from Paronoid Schizophernia.Even in the Accident Register [Ex.P8], the Doctor [PW10] who attended the appellant on the date of occurrence has referred that the appellant has a psychiatric problem and the Doctor [PW10] in his evidence has also admitted that he recommended for a psychiatric treatment to the appellant.11/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The learned Counsel also relied upon the evidence of PW2 / the son of the appellant that his father often sitting in his house alone and scolding others and he was treated separately by his mother.From 14.05.2014 to 20.06.2014, the appellant undergone treatment for Paronoid Schizophernia in the Psychiatry Ward of Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and was also referred to the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, for further psychiatric treatment from 13.06.2014 to 31.07.2014, based on the recommendations of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.Even now, the appellant is undergoing treatment for Paronoid Schizophernia in Palayamkottai Central Prison Hospital and he also relied upon the medical certificate dated 18.11.2019 issued by the Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Palayamkottai.He also relied upon the psychiatric assessment report submitted by the Department of Psychiatry, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, dated 23.11.2019, wherein, it is stated that the appellant is suffering from Paronoid Schizophernia for about seven years.12/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Since the Counsel who conducted the trial, failed to mark the medical certificates pertaining to the treatment provided to the appellant for Paronoid Schizophernia, the trial Court found him guilty and convicted for life imprisonment and as per the medical records and the available evidence, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.Moreover, the deceased is the son of the appellant and the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for this appellant to cause the fatal injury on his own son.In the absence of any motive, the trial Court ought to have considered the available medical history of the appellant and have extended the benefit to the appellant under Section 84 IPC.He has also relied upon the following decisions of this Court:i) Velan @ Velarasan v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2016) 4 MLJ (Crl.) 364;13/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018A.(MD)No.313 of 2017, decided on 24.10.2019).Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 is the wife of the appellant / accused and PW2 is the daughter of the accused, who is also an injured eye witness and PW3, another son of the accused have categorically stated about the manner of occurrence taken place in this case.The occurrence was taken place in the house of the accused and the close relatives of the accused themselves have come forward to depose against him.The deceased in this case has died due to the injury on his spinal cord on the cervical region and the weapon [MO1] was also recovered at the instance of the accused.The human blood group [O-group] was detected from the weapon [MO1] and therefore, the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond any 14/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 reasonable doubt and in the absence of any concrete evidence that the accused was suffering from Paronoid Schizophernia at the time of occurrence, he is not entitled to have the benefit of exemption under Section 84 IPC and prays for dismissal.This Court has paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the documents placed on record.The witnesses in this case are non-other than the wife, daughter and son of the accused.Though different defence have been taken by the accused that PWs 1 to 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence and that the arrest and recovery on 02.04.2014 is false, since the accused sustained injury and also took treatment in the Government Hospital, Tenkasi, the primordial submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is with regard to the mental illness of the appellant / accused.15/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon the medical certificate issued by the Doctor [PW10] in Ex.P8 and the report dated 23.11.2019 of Dr.B.Bhuvaneshwaran, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Government Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli and submitted that the accused was suffering from Paronoid Schizophernia for around seven years and therefore, without his knowledge, he committed the offence.A general exemption is provided under Chapter 4 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 84, the act of a person of unsound mind is not an offence.For better appreciation, Section 84 IPC is extracted as under:Act of a person of unsound mind — Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”This Court has called for a detailed report from Dr.B.Bhuvaneshwaran, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Government Tirunelveli Medical College 16/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The occurrence was taken place on 29.03.2014, wherein the accused caused the fatal injury on his six years old son Sureshkannan and when his daughter [PW2] Sakthikala, aged about seven years prevented him from causing the injury, he also assaulted her using the knife [MO1] and caused a deep lacerated wound [10 x 5 x 4 cm] with muscle and bone exposed.The occurrence was taken place at about 04.20 pm in their residence and immediately both PW2 and the accused were taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tenkasi.The Doctor [PW10] who treated both PW2 and the accused, issued the Accident Registers in Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, respectively.In the Accident Register [Ex.P7] of Sakthikala [PW2], it is specifically mentioned that 'assaulted by a known person [father] using a knife on 29.03.2014 at about 04.20 pm in her residence'.In the Accident Register [Ex.P8] of the 17/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 accused, the Doctor [PW10] has noted that 'assaulted by himself on 29.03.2014 at about 04.10 pm in his home'.The Doctor [PW10] has specifically noted that the accused was 'conscious and answering the questions' (emphasis supllied).In his evidence, the Doctor [PW10] has stated that since the accused attempted for committing suicide by inflicting injury, he referred him for a Psychiatric opinion.But, it appears the psychiatric opinion was neither collected nor placed before the Court.PW1 in her evidence has denied that her husband was taking any treatment for mental illness.Similarly, PWs.2 & 3 have also denied that their father was taking any treatment for mental illness.No records were placed before this Court that prior to the occurrence, the accused has taken treatment for any mental illness.During the cross examination, PW3 the son of the accused admitted that his father would talk to himself at times.But, based on this stray answer made by PW3 during the cross examination, in the absence of any 18/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 medical records, it cannot be concluded that the accused was suffering with some mental illness at the relevant point of time and therefore, we are of the considered view that the accused is not eligible for the exemption under Section 84 IPC.PWs 1 to 3 have specifically mentioned about the manner of occurrence and immediately after the occurrence, PW2 was taken to the Tenkasi District Headquarters Hospital, where she has stated that she was assaulted by her father using a knife.The knife [MO1] was also recovered on 02.04.2014 from the place of occurrence and the blood group found in the knife [MO1]; drowser of the deceased [MO3] and the earth with blood recovered from the place of occurrence [MO4] and the bloodstain found in the mixie-jar [MO6] tally with the blood group of the deceased [O-group].Since the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are cogent and explicitly refers to the accused for the commission of offence, in the absence of any material that he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophernia on the date of 19/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 occurrence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.157 of 2015, dated 18.01.2016 and the same is accordingly, confirmed.In fine, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1)The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2)The Inspector of Police, Kadaiyam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3)The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4)The Section Officer, E.R. / V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.20/21http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2018 T.RAJA, J., and B.PUGALENDHI, J., gk Pre-Delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.168 of 2018 22.07.2020 | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,066,476 | both the appeals/ ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against thejudgment, dated 12.10.2015, made in S.C.No.406 of 2009, on the file of theIVth Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.Accused Nos.1 to 4(a) The accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are brothers.The 2nd accused is theson of the first accused.PWs.1 and 2 are brothers and they are the sonsof one Mrs.Pushpam, who is the deceased in this case.Mrs.Pushpam and the mother of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were sisters.PWs.1, 2 and the deceased were all residing in the same street.The accused were the neighbours.To beprecise, there is a boundary dispute between the accused and the deceased, inrespect of the respective houses.Similarly, there was yet another propertydispute also between the two families.(b) It is stated that during the relevant time, PW1 was constructing ahouse on his land, which is adjoining the land of the first accused.On26.02.2009 PW1 completed the construction of a pial of the house.It appearsthat it was constructed on the disputed boundary.At that time the accused 1and 2 were not there in the house.After completing the construction, around6.00 p.m., PW1 left for a neighbouring village.The deceased was residing inthe ancestral house situated on the east of the building under construction.(c) It is further alleged that after PW1 had left the village, when thefirst accused came to the village and found the pial constructed on thedisputed boundary, he questioned the deceased as to how PW1 was dare to construct a pial on the disputed boundary, thereby encroaching upon hisproperty.The deceased told him that the construction had been made wellwithin the boundary of PW1's property and there was no such encroachment.She further offered to the first accused that they could measure the propertywith the help of the surveyor.But, the first accused did not heed to thesewords of the deceased and he demolished the newly constructed pial on thedisputed boundary and then, left for his house.When this incident took placeneither PW1 nor PW2 was in their house.(d) Around 9.30 p.m., on the same day, PW1 returned to his house and on noticing that the newly constructed pial had been demolished, he enquired hismother.The deceased narrated as to what had happened in his absence and she told him that it was the first accused, who demolished the pial.It isfurther alleged that at that time, incidentally, the first accused waspassing through the main street, just in front of the house of the deceased.On seeing him, PW1 questioned him as to why he demolished the pial.This resulted in a quarrel between PW1 and the first accused.The accused 3 and 4 with the sticks in their hands attacked him on his rightshoulder and right forearm.The second accused took out an aruval and cut on her neck.She fell down in a pool of blood.The villagersgathered at the place of occurrence.On seeing them, all the four accused ranaway from the scene of occurrence.(e) The deceased died instantaneously.PW1 sent PW2 in an auto to the Government Hospital at Sankarankovil.P1 is the FIR.The case was taken up forinvestigation by PW14, the then Inspector of Police.He went to the placeof occurrence.Since there was commotion, PW14, without conducting inquest on the body of the deceased, forwarded the same to the Government Hospital atSankarankovil for being kept in the mortuary.On 27.02.2009, at 10.00 a.m.he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence ofwitnesses.He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth and a brokenbrick at the place of occurrence.?External injuries:A cut injury of 28 cms length and 5 cms breadth was found from the leftear through the backside of the neck till the right side of artery.Muscles and blood vessels were found cut.On dissecting the body, the liver, spleen, lungs,pancreas and kidneys were found pale.Heart was found pale and was empty.There was about 300 gms of partly digested food particles in the stomach.There was no specific odour.The small intestine and the large intestinewere found empty.On dissection of the uterus, it was found empty.Onbreaking the skull, the brain was found pale and soft.Hyoid bone was notfound broken.There was no other fracture.?P20 is the Postmortem Certificate.He gave opinion that the injuries foundon the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like aruval.He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock andhaemorrhage due to the injuries found on the body of the deceased.(g) On the same day, at 12.30 p.m., PW14 arrested the accused 1, 2 and 4 and on such arrest, all the three accused gave voluntary confessions oneafter the other in the presence of witnesses.He recorded the same.Inpursuance of the said confession, the first accused took the Police andwitnesses to the place of hide out and produced a bloodstained aruval.Herecovered the same under Ex.P13 mahazar.As per the disclosure statement made by the second accused, he took the police and witnesses to the place of hideout and produced another aruval.PW14 recovered the same under Ex.P7 - mahazar.As per the disclosure statement made by the fourth accused, he tookthe Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced a stick.PW14recovered the same under Ex.On returning to the Police Station, heforwarded all the three accused to the Court for judicial remand and producedthe material objects also to the Court.(h) On 28.02.2009 at 7.30 p.m. he arrested the third accused in thepresence of witnesses.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession inwhich he disclosed the place where he had hidden a stick.In pursuance ofthe same, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out andproduced the stick.PW14 recovered the same under mahazar.Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and also produced thematerial objects to the Court.PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against thejudgment, dated 12.10.2015, made in S.C.No.406 of 2009, on the file of theIVth Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.(Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal (MD).Nos.300 of 2015 and 304 of2015 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in S.C.No.406 of 2009 on thefile of the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.There weretwo other accused arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4, who are respondents 4 and 5 in Crl.The trial Court framed as many as sevencharges against all the accused as detailed below:Charge No. Accused Offence U/s.A1 U/s.294(b) IPC2A1 U/s.307 IPC 3A2, A3 and A4 U/s.307 r/w 34 IPC4A3 and A4 U/s.324 IPC 5A1 U/s.324 r/w 109 IPC6A2 U/s.302 IPC 7A1, A3 and A4 U/s.302 r/w 34 IPCBy judgment dated 12.08.2014, the trial Court acquitted the accused 3 and 4from all the charges, however, convicted the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.300of 2015 / A1 under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorousimprisonemnt for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and convicted the appellant inCrl.A.(MD).No.304 of 2015 / A2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The trial Court acquitted A1and A2 from all the other charges.Challenging the said conviction andsentence, A1 has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.300 of 2015 and A2 has come up with Crl.Challenging the acquittal of the accused 3and 4 from all the charges and challenging the acquittal of the accused 1 and2 from the other charges, as detailed above, the defacto complainant has comeup with Crl.That is how all these three appeals arebefore us for disposal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;On hearing thecommotion, the deceased and PW2 came out of their house and reached the place of occurrence.Similarly, on hearing the commotion, A2 to A4 also came outof their house and reached the place of occurrence.All these accused tookout one wooden log each which were lying near the building underconstruction.PW2 tried to persuade the first accused.The accused were notin a mood to heed to these persuasive words.Suddenly, the first accusedtook out an aruval and attacked PW2 on his head.PW1 tried to intervene.On the said complaint, a case wasregistered in Crime No.45 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 323, 307 and 302 IPCagainst the accused.On the same day, between 07.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem.(f) PW13 ? Dr.Senthilsekar conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased on 27.02.2009 at 10.15 a.m. He found the following injuries on thebody of the deceased:As per the request of PW14, the materialobjects were sent for chemical examination.The report from the Forensic Labrevealed that there was bloodstains on all the material objects including theweapon recovered from the accused.On completing the investigation, he laidcharge sheet against all the accused.(i) Based on the above materials the trial Court framed as many asfive as charges against the accused as under:Charge No. Accused Offence U/s.A1 U/s.294(b) IPC2A1 U/s.307 IPC 3A1 U/s.325 r/w 109 IPC4A3 and A4 U/s.325 IPC 5A2 U/s.302 IPC By judgment dated 22.03.2011, the trial Court convicted the first accusedunder Section 324 IPC and the second accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them accordingly.The trial Court acquitted the accused 1 and 2from the other charges and acquitted the accused 3 and 4 from all thecharges.(j) The second accused filed an appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.165 of 2011before this Court, challenging the conviction and sentence passed againsthim.The first accused did not prefer any appeal.PW1 filed an appeal inCrl.By a common judgment, dated 01.07.2015, a Division Bench of thisCourt allowed both the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentenceimposed on the accused 1 and 2 and set aside the acquittal of the accused 1and 2 from other charges and also set aside the acquittal of the accused 3 &4 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for altering the charges soas to include a charge against the accused by` invoking Section 34 IPC.(k) On such remand, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed inthe first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In orderto prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesseswere examined and 30 documents and 13 material objects were marked.(l) Out of the said witnesses, PW1, the son of the deceased, hasspoken about the previous motive between the two families and theconstruction of pial on the disputed property by him.He has further statedthat on returning to the home in the evening, when he enquired his mother asto who had damaged the newly constructed pial, she told that it was the firstaccused.When he came out of the house, he saw the first accused goingalong the street and he questioned him.This resulted in a quarrel.Hefurther stated that on hearing the commotion, A2 to A4 came out of theirhouse.He has also stated that PW2 and his mother also came out of theirhouse.He has also stated about the complaint made by him to the Police.PW2 is yet another son of the deceased.PW3 is a neighbourof the deceased.He has also spoken about the occurrence as eyewitness.PW4 has spoken about the arrest of the accused 1, 2 and 4 and the confession madeby them and the consequential recoveries of the material objects based ontheir disclosure statements.After the case was remanded back, he wasrecalled and further examined.Since he did not support the case of theprosecution, at that stage, he was treated as hostile.(m) PW5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and a rough sketch and recovery of the bloodstained earth and sample earth fromthe place of occurrence.PW6 is yet another neighbour and he has stated aboutthe entire occurrence as eyewitness.After the case was remanded back, hewas recalled for further examination by the accused.PW7 has spoken about thearrest of the third accused and the confession made by him and theconsequential recovery of a wooden log on his disclosure statement.According to him, on 26.02.2009 at11.00 p.m. PW2 came to him for treatment.He told that he was attacked byfour known persons with aruval.P14 is the wound certificate.According to him, the injuries are simple in nature.PW1 complained of pain on his right shoulder, right hand and chest.PW9, an official from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has statedthat on the date of occurrence, at the place of occurrence, there was noelectricity failure and the light was burning.(n) PW10 has spoken about the fact that he took the FIR and handed overthe same to the learned Magistrate at Shengottai at 11.30 a.m. on 27.02.2009.He has stated that the FIR was given to him at 5.30 a.m. and he went toTenkasi and since he came to know that the learned Magistrate at Tenkasi, whois the jurisdictional Magistrate, was out of station, he returned toShengottai and handed over the FIR to the Incharge Magistrate at 11.30 a.m.PW11 is another constable.He has stated that he took the dead body of thedeceased and handed over the same to the doctor for postmortem, as directedby the investigating officer.PW13 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW14 has spoken aboutthe investigation done and the final report filed.(o) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.DW1 is the then Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, where the accused 1, 3 and 4were lodged after arrest.He has stated that when the first accused wasbrought for being kept in prison, he found number of injuries on him.Hemade entry about the same in the relevant registers.Since he had alreadybeen taken to the Doctor for treatment, he perused the medical records of thefirst accused and admitted him in prison.D1 is the relevant recordsshowing such entries.DW2 is a neighbour of the deceased.He has statedthat he witnessed the entire occurrence.According to him, he found thatthere was a wordy quarrel between PW1 and his family members on one side and the accused on the other side.In the said quarrel, it is stated that PW1and others started pelting bricks which were lying for the purpose ofconstruction, against the accused party.The first accused sustained injuryon such stone pelting and he fell down.PW1 was armed with aruval and PW2 was armed with crowbar.According to him, in that commotion, the deceasedsustained injuries, fell down and died.He has further stated that becausethere was a commotion, it could not be seen as to how the deceased sustained injuries.(p) Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted theaccused 1 and 2 alone as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.That is how they are before this Court with Crl.Aggrieved over the acquittal of the accused 1 and 2 from the othercharges and the accused 3 and 4 from all the charges, PW1 has come up with the separate appeal in Crl.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and wehave also perused the records carefully.4.Admittedly, there was a long standing enmity between the family ofthe accused and that of the deceased over a property.It isalso admitted that PW1 was constructing a house on his property.There isalso no controversy that as a part of the said construction, on the date ofthe occurrence, PW1 had constructed a pial.According to the accused party,the said pial was constructed by encroaching upon the property belonging tothe first accused.In the evening around 6.00 p.m., after PW1 had left, A1had returned to home and found the construction.A1 removed the same which was witnessed by the deceased.At that time, PWs.1 and 2 were not present.It is the positive case of the prosecution itself that at the time ofoccurrence, the first accused was found incidentally passing through the roadand PW1, immediately, went near him and questioned him as to why he damaged the pial.This resulted in a quarrel.On hearing the commotion, the accused 2 to 4 came from theirrespective houses.At that time, none of the accused was armed with anyweapon.On the side of the prosecution party, on hearing the commotion, PW2,PW3 and the deceased came to the place of occurrence.As spoken by DW2, there was a quarrel, commotion and then, scuffle between the parties.It isfurther stated by DW2 that in the commotion from the side of the prosecutionparty, brick stones lying there were pelted against the accused party.Wefind support for this evidence from the recovery of the bloodstained stonesscattered near the place of occurrence.From this evidence, it is crystal clear that in the commotion betweenthe two groups, there was a scuffle.It is also crystal clear from theevidence available that all these accused did not come together to the placeof occurrence with any common on unlawful object.The accused 2 to 4 rushedto the place of occurrence only on hearing the commotion.Similarly, thedeceased and PW2 also come to the place of occurrence only on hearing the commotion.Thus, on the part of the accused, absolutely, there was no chancefor any premeditation and premeeting of mind.It is the case that the second accused attacked the deceased witharuval and killed him.Though it is stated by DW2 that in the commotion thedeceased had sustained injury and died, the evidences of PWs.1 and 2 and other eyewitness would go to show that it was the second accused who attacked the deceased.The second accused would not have had any intention to killthe deceased at all.In the commotion, in the pell-mell and in the suddenfight, the second accused had taken the weapon lying there and attacked thedeceased.This would also indicate that the prosecution party were the aggressors.But, at the same time, they should have exercised the said rightonly within the limits and they should not have exceeded.The fact that thesecond accused had caused the death of the deceased, who was a woman and not armed with weapon, would go to show that they had exceeded their right ofprivate defence.Similarly, though the second accused had caused the deathof the deceased and though his act would squarely fall within the third limbof Section 300 IPC, since his act would fall within the second exception toSection 300 IPC, he is liable to be punished for the offence under Section304(i) IPC.Similarly, the first accused is liable to be punished underSection 324 IPC.The learned counsel for the appellant would next contend that therewas enormous delay in handing over the FIR to the Court.This argument alsodoes not persuade us because PW10, who took the FIR has explained the delay by stating that he went to the house of the learned Magistrate at Tenkasi andsince the Magistrate was on leave, he went to Shengotta and handed over thesame.It istrue.From these evidences let in by the prosecution and by consideringthe evidences of DWs.1 to 3 also, we have every reason to hold that theprosecution party were the aggressors and A1 and A2 had exercised their rightof private defence.But, they exceeded their right.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, for the offence underSection 324 IPC, we are informed that the first accused was in prison forabout 3 months.In our considered view, reducing the sentence to the periodof sentence already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- would meet the endsof justice.So far as the second accused is concerned, having regard to hisage; family circumstances; economic status; the fact that there was nopremeditation; and he had only exceeded in his right of private defence, inour considered view, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- will meet the ends of justice.In the result, (i) the Criminal Appeal (MD) No.300 of 2015 ispartly allowed.Fineamount, if any, already paid shall be adjusted.(ii) the Criminal Appeal (MD) No.304 of 2015 is partly allowed.Theconviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / A2 by the trial Court isset aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304(i) IPC and sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine ofRs.20,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.Theperiod of sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off underSection 428 Cr.P.C. Fine amount, if any, already paid shall be adjusted.(iii) the Criminal Appeal (MD).No.49 of 2016 is dismissed.On realising the said fine amount, it is directed that the entireamount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of thedeceased.If the legal heirs of the deceased decline or fail to receive theamount within a period of six months from the date of intimation, the saidamount shall be added to the Government Exchequer.1.The IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Inspector of Police, Sernthamaram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
189,129,056 | Muthuraman PW.1 is the father ofthe deceased.The first accused is the husband of the second accused and thejuvenile accused are their children.The houses of the accused and that of thedeceased are situated side by side.The first accused opened a new entranceon the western wall of his house.This was objected to by the villagers.Thefirst accused believed that the villagers prevented him from opening theentrance only at the instance of the deceased.This is projected as motiveagainst the deceased.(ii) On 5.4.2001 at about 7.30 a.m., PW.1, PW.3 and others were standingin a common place in the village.At that time, the deceased had just gone tothe shop of PW.4 for taking tea.The shop was situated by the side of the saidcommon place.At that time, all the four accused were standing in front of theshop.The first accused, on seeing the deceased shouted at him and cried thatif only the deceased was killed, his father, namely, PW.1 would come to terms.So saying, the first accused attacked the deceased with aruval.The juvenileaccused Jeya Murugan was armed with aruval and the juvenile accused Ganesh Babuwas armed with knife.The second accused was armed with the wooden log.Thefirst accused attacked the deceased with aruval repeatedly and the secondaccused attacked him with the wooden log.The juvenile accused also attackedhim with knife and aruval.PW.2 attempted to prevent further attack.However, he was attacked by the juvenile accused Jeya Murugan with knife whichresulted in injury to his neck and finger.The deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot."Sliced wound Rt Index Finger and loss of skin of 1 x 1cm x + cm"P3 is the Accident Register Copy.On returning to thePolice Station, at 10.00 a.m., he registered a case in crime No.73 of 2010 underSection 302 IPC.(v)In the same occurrence, the first accused had also sustained injuries.He went to the Government Hospital at Melur.One Dr.D3 is the wound certificate.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.314 of 2002 on the file of thelearned Additional District Sessions Judge, Madurai.They stood charged forthe offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.Totally, there were 4 accused inthis case.Accused Nos.3 and 4 were juveniles at the time of commission of thecrime.By judgment dated 9.6.2004, thetrial Court found the appellants guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC andsentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and each of them to pay a fineof Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of sixmonths.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are beforethis Court with this appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-(i) The deceased in this case was one Mr.(iii) PW.1 went to the hospital for treatment.PW.7 Dr. Hemanth Kumar wasthe Assistant Surgeon, attached to Melur Government Hospital.He examined PW.2at 2.15 p.m, and found the following injuries:-S.Kumar examined him at7.45 p.m., on 5.4.2001 at Melur Government Hospital.He told the Doctor thathe was assaulted by a known person on 5.4.2001 near his house at Keelaiyur.The Doctor noticed the following injuries on the first accused.External Injuries:(1)A large cut injury aboe Rt knee of size 6 xm x 3 cm x 2 cm through whichfresh bleeding present.(2)A cut injury over Left Palm of size 5 xm x 3 cm x2cm - bleeding present.(3)Bleeding cut injury present on Rt palm of size5 cm x 3 cm x 2cm.The said Dr.S.Kumar was examined as DW.1.According to DW.1, the injuries are grievous in nature.(vi) PW.9 obtained the statement of the first accused and registered acase in Crime No.74 of 2001 on 5.4.2001 at 3.00 p.m. under Section 324 IPC.The deceased Muthuraman has been shown as the accused in the said case.Heproceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and aRough Sketch.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and thenhe forwarded the body for post-mortem.PW.7 - Dr Hemanth Kumar conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased on 5.4.2001 at 1.05 p.m.,.He found thefollowing injuries:-External Injuries:(1)Incised injury Lt side of neck 6x1cmx1cm(2)Contusion Lt side 3 cm Diameter bluish in colour.(3)Abrasion Lt side Fore Head 2x2x1/2cm(4)Puntured wound interscapular region of size 3xm x 3cm x 10 cm depth.Bloodoozing out.(5)Linear Abrasion of size 10x1x1/2cm Rt side to wound (4)(6)Incised wound of size 10cmx1cmx1cm above wound No.4.(7)Abrasion of size 10x1/2x1/2cm above wound No.6.(8)Incised wound Rt thigh front upper region of size 10x2cm, muscles and vesselstorn.(9)Lacerated injury Rt side scizhotom 4x2cm ? Rt Testes exposed and hangingoutside(10)Incised wound Rt.CCY ? Door like Fcop present of size 6cmx6cmxbone exposed(11)Abrasion Rt elbow 1/2x1/2x1/2cmEx.P2 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.He opined that the deceased would appearto have died of haemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries on vital organs.(viii) PW.13 arrested the juvenile accused in the presence of PW.8 andrecovered MOs.1 to 4 on his confession.On completing the investigation, helaid charge sheet in the present case and referred the case in Crime No.74 of2001 as a "mistake of fact".Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charge againstthese two accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The accused pleaded innocenceand therefore, they were put on trial.In order to prove the charges, on theside of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined and 15 documents wereexhibited besides 8 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 6are the eye-witnesses.More precisely, PW.2 is an injured eye-witness.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, theydenied them as false.On their side two witnesses, namely, Dr. S.Kumar andDr.Thulasiram were examined to speak about the injuries caused on the firstaccused.D1 to D5 were marked.D2 is the petition filedseeking custody of the first accused.D3 is the wound certificate of thefirst accused.D5 is the treatment record.According to the accused, thedeceased was the aggressor who came to the house of the accused with aruval andattacked the first accused and caused grievous hurt.Having considered the above submissions, the trial Court found theaccused guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, punished them.That is how the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appering for the appellants and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.We have alsoperused the records carefully.Admittedly, in one and the same occurrence, the deceased and PW.2 onone side and accused No.1 on the other side sustained injuries.Insofar as the injury sustained by the first accused is concerned, thecase in Crime No.74 of 2001 was registered and the same was investigated.PWs.1 to 6 claim to be the eye-witnesses.They are either family members ofthe deceased or close relatives or friends of the deceased.Thus, they arepartisan witnesses.Three is no independent witnesses examined in the case.It isultimately for the Court to evaluate all such materials to find out as to whowas the aggressor.But, in this case, the case in crimeNo.74 of 2001 was referred to as a "mistake of fact", but no evidence was let inby the prosecution as to why the same was referred as a "mistake of fact".PW.13 has not explained to the Court as to why he was prepared to accept theversion of the prosecution rather than the version put forward by the firstaccused.This, in our considered opinion, is a serious flaw which will go toindicate that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of theoccurrence.No effort has been made by PW.13 to find out the true version ofthe occurrence.As a matter of fact, bone wascut.As has been held by theSupreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar [(1976) 4 SupremeCourt Cases 394], the non-explanation of the injuries on A.1 will affect thecase of the prosecution.The prosecution has not come forward with the trueversion of the prosecution.From this, we have to necessarily come to the conclusion thatthe prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence andthere is no evidence available on record to hold that the accused party were theaggressors.In such view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the convictionand sentence imposed on the appellants by the lower Court.Hence, the CriminalAppeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on theappellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges.Bail Bondsstand discharged.Fine amount, if already paid, shall be refunded to theappellants.1.The Additional District Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.Melur Police Station, Madurai District.(Crime No.73 of 2001 on the file of Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Circle, Madurai District.)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High court, Madurai. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,891,330 | This was done at Gandhi Samadhi, Raj Ghat, Delhi, just after the prayer meeting.It is further alleged that by raising those slogans, the appellant brought into contempt the lawfully constituted Government of India and incited disaffection towards it by acting in a manner as to cause fear or alarm to the public in general.ORDER F.S. Gill, J.This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Shri K. B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he had maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Rule 43 of the defense and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also Under Section 188 of the I.P.C. He had, of course, affirmed the sentence of imprisonment under the latter charge, but had reduced the one under the former.The action of the appellant was considered to be violative of Order No. F. 1 (10)/75/Judl/Part 5 III 21498-547 dated 3-9-1975 issued by the District Magistrate, Delhi.A case was registered by the police.The petitioner and his companions were consequently arrested and challaned under Rule 43 of the Rules and Section 188 of the I.P.C, It is further alleged that when the room of the petitioner in Park View Hotel, Fatehpuri, Delhi was searched, certain papers and other material containing prejudicial reports were recovered and he was also challaned under Rule 46 of the Rules.The trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner and his companions for the various charges.An appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Delhi.The same was heard by Shri K. B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned judgment, as already described in para (1) ibid.It is submitted that under the said provision, it was imperative for the trial Magistrate to hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass the final order.A revision application filed against the order in the High Court of Bombay was summarily dismissed.The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court with special leave against the order of the High Court.The controversy had narrowed down to the consideration of the two reports regarding the specimen of blood taken from the body of the appellant at two different times for finding out the concentration of alcohol.The additional evidence may be taken by the Sessions Judge himself or may be ordered to be recorded in the trial Court.The accused shall be examined Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, if he so desired. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
189,134,077 | (109)C. R. M. 11961 of 2014 In the matter of : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.09.2014 in connection with Ashoknagar Police Station Case No. 124 of 2014 dated 03.03.2014 under Sections 302/201 of the IPC.And In re : Choton Saha........................petitioner Mr. Anindya Ghosh.............for petitioner Mr. Arun Maity .................for the State The petitioner herein is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections of the 302/201 IPC.The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is in the custody for last 238 days and charge-sheet has also been submitted.Heard the learned Advocate for the State.Saha be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only, with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., 24 Parganas (North).The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
189,134,149 | The Revision Petitioner herein is shown as sole accused inS.C.No.403 of 2005, on the file of 3rd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,Madurai, by whom the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo 3 monthsS.I., for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.The trial Court has framed a charge against the accusedstating that due to pervious motive between the injured witness viz.,Senthilkumar and the accused in respect of a criminal case registered againstthe said injured, by the younger sister of the accused, the accused attackedthe witness Senthilkumar on 19.11.2003, at about 8.00 am.,with a pattakathi,near the second bus stop and caused injuries over the face, neck, rightshoulder, right hand and left leg of the said injured by uttering words, ?ePcapWld; ,Ue;jhy; vdf;F mtkhdk; ,j;njhL brj;J bjhiye;Jnghlh? and whereby, theaccused is punishable under Section 307 IPC.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.The said statement wasrecorded at 10.00 Hrs on 19.11.2003, by P.W.11, from P.W.1, since the injured/ P.W.3 was in an unconscious state in the hospital.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 10 to prove the charge against the accused herein.There is noevidence on the side of the accused.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial Court, the accusedpreferred a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.61 of 2006, on the file of thePrincipal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, which made over the appealto the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2) Maduraiand the said appeal was heard and dismissed confirming the judgment of thetrial Court and also directed the accused / appellant to appear before thetrial Court to undergo the remaining sentence by cancellation of bonds in itsJudgment, dated 30.11.2006, the accused preferred this Criminal Revision Casebefore this Court.The Criminal Law was set in motion against the revisionpetitioner / accused, on the basis of a statement recorded by P.W.11 fromP.W.1, who admitted P.W.3 / injured in the Government Rajajai Hospital,Madurai, on the date of occurrence, for treatment.P.W.11 / Sub-Inspector of Police registered FIR No.843 of 2003, dated 19.11.2003, at about10.30 a.m., on the basis of the statement / Ex.P1 recorded from P.W.1, whoalso signed in it, against one named person, who is the present accused, andone unnamed and identifiable person by the respondent police, for theoffences punishable under Sections 307 &d 506(ii) IPC., The Original FIR /Ex.After completing the investigation, P.W.12 / InvestigatingOfficer filed the charge sheet / final report on 15.04.2004, before theJudicial Magistrate Court No.5, Madurai, against the present accused /revision petitioner and another accused viz., juvenile Muthu @ Muthukrishnan,for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 307 r/w 109 IPC., but citingthe present accused alone in the charge sheet.As per the charge sheet, the present accused said to haveattacked with pattakathi and caused cut injuries upon the right and left sidecheek along with respective ears, neck and right hand wrist of the injuredand also said to have induced the juvenile accused viz., Muthu @Muthukrishnan, who attacked the said Senthilkumar / injured with knife andcaused stab injuries upon the left forearm and left foot of the injured.P.Ws.1, 3 & 12 did not speak about the presence of thejuvenile accused viz., Muthu @ Muthukrishnan, who said to be accompanied with the present accused on the date of occurrence and also about his attack withknife and caused stab injuries to P.W.3, as mentioned in the charge sheet andalso in Ex.P1 / Complaint and Ex.P5 / FIR during their evidence.P.W.1 didnot speak about the injuries found upon P.W.3 / injured, after the allegedoccurrence.P.W.1 has categorically admitted during his evidence that he hasnot seen the occurrence and he did not know as to who attacked P.W.3 and he only deposed that he found P.W.3 lying with injuries in the second bus stop.On perusal of evidence of P.W.1 would reveal the fact that heis not an eyewitness and his evidence is only in the nature of hearsay.Hecame to know the attack from P.W.3 / injured on the date of occurrence.Hefurther deposed that he left the injured person / P.W.3 in the occurrenceplace after occurrence and he went to Ponmeni through bicycle and informedthe occurrence to the brother of P.W.3 viz.,Murugan (P.W.4) and came back tothe occurrence place with P.W.4 by an auto and took the injured in the saidauto and admitted him in the hospital.As per the evidence of P.W.1, theinjured was accompanying with P.Ws.1, 4, & Police in the auto from theoccurrence place to the Hospital.Such facts are not corroborated by P.W.3 / injured and P.W.4during their evidence.10. P.W.3 / injured deposed that while he was standing with P.W.1in Madakulam second bus stop, the accused came behind P.W.3 and attacked with pattakathi on the left hand and also on the neck of P.W.3 and while P.W.3prevented such attack with his right hand, his right hand from the wrist wascut and fell down on the ground and again the accused took Sooriknife fromhis waist and attacked P.W.3 again and caused stab injuries upon left ribover the hip and backside of the right shoulder of P.W.3 and P.W.3 fell downand became unconscious and he came to conscious state only after one week from the date of admission in the hospital.In Ex.P2 / Accident Register also itis not mentioned that the injured was admitted in an unconscious stage.P.W.9 / Doctor, who has first treated the injured, has stated in Ex.P2 anddeposed that the injured was assaulted by more than a known persons on 19.11.2003 at 8.00 a.m., with pattakathi and the above fact was informed byone Ranjithkumar / P.W.1, brother of the injured, who brought the injured fortreatment.But P.W.3 / injured has categorically stated that he was attackedonly by the present accused on the date of occurrence with pattakathi andsubsequently with soorikathi and identified those weapons used by the accusedin the open Court itself during examination and marked as M.Os.2 & 3respectively.All the injuries found upon P.W.3 / injured at the time ofexamination by P.W.9, on 19.11.2003 at 8.45 a.m., are shown as cut injuries.P2 / A.R.copy, as spoken by P.W.3 during hisevidence.P.W.9 also deposed during his evidence that the injuries found onthe injured / P.W.3 are only cut injuries.P.W.2, who took M.O.1 series X-ray on 19.11.2003 and examined the injured, deposed that he found two bonefractures on the forearm and left hand of the injured and also a cut injuryon the right hand forearm disconnecting fully from the wrist of the righthand.P.W.9 deposed that right hand was cut from the wrist and washanging, on his examination.P.W.9 deposed during his evidence about thenature of the injuries found on the injured on the date of admission asfollows:-?1. tyJg[wk; fd;dj;jpy; fhJld; nrhe;J xU btl;Lf;fhak; 7 x 2 br.kPvYk;g[ MHk; tiu ,Ue;jJ.2. ,lJg[wk; fd;dj;jpy; fhJld; nrh;j;J; 6 x 2 br.kP vYk;g[ mst[MHk; cs;s xU btl;Lf;fhak;.3. 4 x 3 br.kP vYk;g[ MHk; cs;s xU btl;Lf;fhak; tyJnjhs;gl;ilapy; fhzg;gl;lJ.Kd;g[w fHj;jpy; 6 x 2 x 2 br.kP cs;s xU btl;Lf;fhak;fhzg;gl;lJ.5. 6 x 3 br.kP MHk; tiu cs;s xU btl;Lf;fhak; ,lJ Kd;d;q;ifapyfhzg;gl;lJ.5 x 2 br.kP vYk;g[ MHk; tiu xU btl;Lf;fhak; tyJKd;d;q;ifapy fhzg;gl;lJ.7. 4 x 3 br.kP vYk;g[ MHk; cs;s xU btl;Lf;fhak; tyJKd;d;q;ifapy; fhzg;gl;lJ. ,e;jf;fhak; 6tJ fhaj;jpw;F mUfpy; fhzg;gl;lJ.tyJ kzpf;fl;oy; ,Ue;J if btl;lg;gl;L bjhq;fpf; bfhz;oUe;jJ.njhy; kl;Lk; xl;of;bfhz;oUe;jJ. Ghpnrhjidapd;njhJ fhak; mile;j bre;jpy;Fkhh;kaf;f epiyapy; ,Ue;jhh;. ,lJif kw;Wk; ,lJ fhypy; btl;Lf;fhak; Vjk;fhzg;gltpy;iy.M.O.1 series X-ray on left hand and right forearm were takenon 19.11.2003 by P.W.2 / Government Doctor.He deposed about the fractures found on the injured as follows:-?,lJ Kd;ifapy; ,uz;L vYk;g[ Kwpt[ fhzg;gl;lJ; tyJ Kd;ifapykzpf;fl;oy;ypUe;J btl;lg;gl;l fhak; fhzg;gl;lJ tyJ kzpf;fl;oy; ,Ue;J KGJz;og;g[ld; ,Ue;jJ?15. P.W.2 did not say that the injured was unconscious at thetime of taking x-rays on his examination.Hence, the nature of injuriesnarrated by P.Ws.2 & 9 are not corroborated by P.W3 during his evidence.P.W.3 has deposed as follows:? khlf;Fsk; 2tJ ];lhg;gpy; epd;W bfhd;oUe;jnghJ vjphp Iadhh;jpobud;W vd; gpd;dhy; te;J jd; ,Lg;gpy; kiwj;J itj;jpUe;j gl;lh fj;jpia vLj;JvdJ ,lJifapy; 2 btl;Lfs; btl;odhd; vd;Wk; ehd; jLjbjd;. kWgoa[k; Xq;fpfGj;ijnehf;fp btl;odhd;. ehd; tyJ ifahy; jLj;njd;;.tyJif kzpf;fl;oypUe;JJz;lhf fPnH tpGe;Jtpl;ljJ. nkYk; vjphp jd; ,Lg;gpy; kiwj;J itj;jpUe;jR{iyfj;jpia vLj;J vd; tpyhtpy; xq;fp Fj;j te;jhd; ehd; jLj;Jbfhz;nld;;mJrkak; vd; ,lJ tpyhtpy; ,Lg;gpw;F nky; gFjpapy; Fj;J tpGe;jJ tyJ gpd;njhy;gl;ilapYk; fj;jpFj;J tpGe;jjJ ehd; uj;jbts;sj;jpy; mnj ,lj;jpy; kaq;fptpGe;Jtpln;ld;.In Ex.P2 does not reveal the fact that the injured was admitted in an unconscious stage on 19.11.2003at 8.25 p.m., Hence, P.W.9 / Doctor's evidence is not corroborated with theevidence of P.W.3 / injured.As per Exs.P1 & P5, P.W.1 and neighbours were present at the time of occurrence, in the scene of occurrence.P.W.1, who had accompanied with P.W.3, had deposed that though he was present on the date of occurrence,but he did not witness the occurrence.Neighbours, who were alleged to bepresent, are not examined by the prosecution or P.W.12 / InvestigatingOfficer in this case.P.Ws.1, 4, 6, 7 & 10 are the close relatives of P.W.3 /injured; P.Ws.4 & 7 are brother and father of P.W.3 respectively; P.W.10 isshown as one of the mahazar witnesses signed in Ex.P4 / Observation Mahazar; Ex.P7 is the Seizure Mahazar in respect of M.Os.8 and 9; Ex.P9 is theConfessions Statement of the accused Ayyanar; Ex.P10 is seizure of M.O.10 /cycle and Ex.P3 us Seizure of M.Os.2 & 3 weapons.P.W.12 / I.O. Deposed that the above mahazars were prepared in the respective places mentionedthere and P.W.10 also signed in those mahazars, as witness.P.W.10 has only spoken about Exs.P3 & P4 and categorically stated that those mahazars were signed by him in the Police Station.Hence,recording of confession statement, preparation of observation mahazar andseizure of M.Os.2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, in the presence of P.W.10, as stated byP.W.12 / I.O., are not proved by the prosecution during trial of the case.P.W.12 further deposed that M.Os.4 to 7 were handed over to the Police andseized from P.W.7, but P.W.7 categorically denied the above facts during hisevidence.P.W.11 also did not speak about the seizure of M.Os.4 to 7 eitherfrom P.W.3 or P.W.7 in the hospital in which the injured was admitted fortreatment.Hence, the seizure of the alleged bloodstained M.Os.4 to 7 of theinjured / P.W.3 are not proved, as stated by P.W.12, by the prosecution.The alleged occurrence took place in the north-south lanepassage, as per Ex.P.W.1 deposed that P.W.3 was found lying in the bus stop with cut injuries.P.W.3 deposed in his chief examination that while he was standing with P.W.1in the Madakulam second bus stop, the accused came behind P.W.3 and suddenly attacked P.W.3 with pattakathi and subsequently with soorikathi.P1 / Complaint said to be recorded from P.W.1 by P.W.11 in the Government Hospital, where the injured was admitted on 19.11.2003.P.W.1 has stated that P.Ws.1 & 4 took the injured to the Hospital by auto.P.W.7 also came to the hospital on the date itself.Either P.W.4 or 7 signedas witness in Ex.P1 / Complaint, which bears the signature of P.W.1 alone.The prosecution evidence is not in accordance with the contents of Ex.P1 /Complaint, based on which the FIR was registered.The prosecutiondid not take any steps to prove Exs.P11 and 12 / Reports by examining thepersons concerned.M.Os.2 and 3 / Weapons were not shown to P.W.9 during his evidence for proving the possibility of causing such injuries found uponP.W.3 / injured.The medical evidence is not supported by the injuredwitness during his evidence.The entire prosecution case is in contra ofP.W.3's evidence.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case andalso the fact that the charge against the accused is not proved beyondreasonable doubts, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Revision bysetting aside the conviction and findings of the Courts below and acquit theaccused from this case.The trial Court is directed to refundthe fine amount paid by the accused, if any, on application.Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.II, Madurai.The III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, B-9, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5.The Record Keeper, Criminal Record Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
189,135,588 | This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the First Information Report filed in Crime No.396 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police pending investigation.The petitioner's wife committed suicide on 23.04.2018, pursuant to which, on the complaint given by Arvi Balraj, the first respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.396 of 2018 on 23.04.2018 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. and investigation is in progress.While so, the petitioner is before this Court for quashing the prosecution.Sambamoorthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the case was further altered into 306 IPC and the petitioner was arrested and released on bail.He further contended that there are no ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC inasmuch as there are no materials to show that the petitioner abetted suicide of his wife.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted his contentions.On a reading of the FIR, this Court finds that there are no materials as such to infer that the petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide of his wife.However, investigation is in progress and therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold.Hence, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermenpet, Chennai, to monitor the investigation in Washermenpet Police Station in Crime No.396 of 2018 and if during the investigation, it is found that the petitioner has not abetted the suicide of his wife, it is needless to state that further action against the petitioner should be dropped.With the above said observation, this petition is closed.21.08.2018kal/mknToThe Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermenpet, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.O.P.No.20385 of 201821.08.2018 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
189,141,711 | 13.01.2021 Item No.114 Ct.No.28 s.d.Allowed C.R.M. 95 of 2021 (Via Video Conference) In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.And In the matter of : Pannalal Manna ... Petitioner.Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Mr. Sayan Datta Mr. Atanu Basu Mr. Udatta Ganguly ... For the Petitioner.Ms. Kum Kum Mitra ... For the State.Apprehending arrest in connection with Sinthee Police Station/Amherst Street Women Police Station Case No. 37 of 2020 dated 25-05-2020 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with amended and added Sections 406/411 of the Indian Penal Code, the present petitioner has filed the present application.The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal proceedings and that the petitioner has complied with Section 41A notice.The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 95 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,249,066 | as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2020.06.18 12:17:24 +05'30'v/s.STATE OF M.P.) Indore, Dated 17.06.2020 Mr. Vikas Rathi, Advocate for the applicants is present in person through Video Conferencing.Mr. Amit Raj, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State is present in person through Video Conferencing.Submissions were made on bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants are being implicated in crime No.65/2020, registered at police station - Dharampuri, Distt.As per prosecution story, one co-accused namely Pappu had entered the house of prosecutrix and outraged her modesty and thereafter caused injury to the prosecutrix with a sharp edged weapon called 'Daranta'.Subsequently, when prosecutrix along with her family members proceeded to lodge an FIR, the present applicants Vikram and Kalu trespassed into house of the complainant, abused them and slapped them and thereafter they along with Sarpanch Pathan theft the motorcycle of the brother of the prosecutrix, ablazed and went away after threatening them.Learned counsel further submits that charge sheet has also been filed and bail has been sought on these grounds.Mr. Amit Raj, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.5. Considered.... 2 ...It is ordered that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for their regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)However, looking to the fact that the applicants are brothers of main accused Pappu and the manner in which they have created a sense of fright in the minds of the prosecutrix and her family members, the applicants shall be required to mark their presence before the concerned police station between 10.00 AM to 12.00 PM on first Monday of every month till the prosecutrix is examined.The applicants shall not threaten or influence the witness in any manner.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for its compliance. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,249,489 | C.R.M. 12284 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on August 11, 2010 And In re.: Tarak Nath Porel Mr. Niladri Shekhar Ghosh ...For the petitioner Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Goghat P.S. Case No. 101/2010 dated 26.6.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/333/353/427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 / 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
312,513 | House-No. 8, Barbers Bridge, second lane belonged to the accused who had mortgaged it to the complainant.The bank brought the property to sale and itself purchased it in auction.Execution was taken for delivery of possession of the property.On 23-8-1947, bailiff came and delivered vacant possession of the property to the complainant.Subsequently on the same day the accused broke open the lock and occupied the house.A criminal complaint was laid and the accused was convicted on 14-6-1948 for trespass and sentenced to a fine of its.The accused paid off the fine and continued to remain in possession.On 26-6-1948 and 27-6-1948, an attempt was made by the complainant to get possession but it failed as the accused prevented the complainant party from taking possession.On these facts the lower Court convicted the petitioner for house trespass, on the ground that there was a fresh cause of action on 26th and 27th June 1948 when the attempt by the owner was resisted by the accused and what was criminal at its inception does not cease to be so by successful continuance. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,125,164 | The prosecution story in short is that, on 5.5.2017 the prosecutrix along with her younger sister was sleeping in her house.At 2.30 in the night accused Gajendra @ Golu S/o Rampal Balmik came in her room from the roof of the house and molested her.(Passed on 13th February, 2020) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of IPC, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.5.2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions-( 2 )- CRA No. 5003/2018 Gajendra @ Golu vs. State of MP Judge, Gwalior in Special Case No. 106/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-On protest by the prosecutrix, the accused gave slaps on her cheek.When the prosecutrix screamed, her mother awoke then accused ran away from the spot.After investigation and completing formalities, the charge sheet was filed.The trial Court framed the charges against the appellant under the aforesaid Sections.The appellant abjured his guilt .It was defence of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated.-( 3 )- CRA No. 5003/2018 Gajendra @ Golu vs. State of MP The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record held the appellant/accused guilty for the offence and sentenced him as stated herein above.Feeling aggrieved by which the appellant has preferred this appeal.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Court below has failed to consider material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.The prosecutrix has herself stated in her statement that the appellant had not molested her except giving slaps.Hence, no case under Section 354-D(2) of IPC is made out against the appellant.Naresh (PW3), who is father of prosecutrix, has clearly averred in para 5 of his statement the FIR (Ex.P/2) has not been written by her daughter.The prosecution story is not supported by the evidence of Poonam Bai (PW-4), mother of the prosecutrix.However, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is challenging only the sentence-( 4 )- CRA No. 5003/2018 Gajendra @ Golu vs. State of MP part of the impugned judgment.He submits that the appellant has remained in custody for a total period of 23 months, hence the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and looking to the gravity of the offence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.The allegations made against the present appellant are for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354-D(2), 354 IPC read with Sections 7, 8 of POCSO Act. The allegation is that the appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and molested her.In the present case, the prosecution evidence available before the trial Court proves the prosecution case beyond doubt.It is proved that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was around 15 years of age.The appellant intentionally showed his one sided love to the minor girl by entering into her house and on denial of the prosecutrix the appellant had beaten her, thereafter on various dates when the prosecution witnesses were present before the trial Court, the appellant tried to win over the witnesses to get changed-( 5 )- CRA No. 5003/2018 Gajendra @ Golu vs. State of MP their version.The statement of the prosecutrix is supported by Naresh (PW-3) father of the prosecutrix and her mother Poonam (PW-4).It is also proved that at the time of commission of offence there was no dark at the place of incident, rather sufficient light was available and the prosecutrix was able to identify the accused/ appellant. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,251,958 | In Re:- Sk.Golam Rasul & Ors. . .. Petitioners Mrr.Abhishek Banerjee .. for the petitioners.Debabrata Dasgupta .. for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with.Bagnan P.S. No.197 of 2015 dated 24.05.2015 under sections 341/323/325/354B/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,252,782 | DATED : 04th JANUARY, 2019 PER COURT:-For the reasons stated in the application, the applicant is permitted to assist the APP.The criminal application no. 27 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with crime no. 619 of 2018 registered with Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 ::: 921-ABA-1406-18 -2- 452, 354, 324, 427, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.His application with similar prayer bearing Criminal (Bail) Misc.::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in respect of the incident that has occurred on the same date, time and place, the applicant has lodged a complaint against the husband of the informant herein and two others and on the basis of his complaint, crime no. 612 of 2018 came to be registered in the same police station on 20.11.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 392, 323, 504, 506, 452 r/s 34 of IPC.It has been alleged in the said complaint that the husband of the present informant assaulted the applicant herein on account of the previous enmity and in the said assault, the husband of the informant herein tried to inflict a blow on the head of the applicant with the help of an iron rod, however, the applicant has tried to save himself and accordingly, said blow of iron rod landed on the nose-portion below the left eye.Learned counsel submits that it is also brought on record that immediately on 17.11.2018, after the said incident, the applicant Sudam was taken to the District hospital,::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 ::: 921-ABA-1406-18 -3- Ahmednagar and from there he was referred to Anand Rushiji Hospital, Ahmednagar, where he was subjected to CT scan etc. Learned Counsel submits that the applicant herein has sustained minimally depressed fracture on the interior wall of the nasal cavity and the said injury is grievous in nature.Learned counsel submits that in order to counter this complaint, on 23.11.2018 i.e. after a gap of near about six days, the informant Rekha has lodged the complaint against the applicant.Learned counsel submits that the present applicant has instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 294 of 2018 before the Civil Court at Shrigonda against the husband of the informant and two others for a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land.The said suit is instituted in the month of October 2018 and still it is pending.The antecedents of the applicant are clear.There is no criminal history and the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::921-ABA-1406-18 -4-The learned APP has strongly resisted the application.He submits that the previous enmity is the double edged weapon.There is a trauma on her abdomen and that resulted into causing miscarriage.Learned APP submits that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the present applicant has extended beating on her abdomen with the help of kick blows.Learned APP submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the independent person viz. Dr. Shankar Bhosale, who has supported the allegations made in the complaint.Prima facie, there is strong case against the applicant.He may not be released on anticipatory bail.On perusal of the investigation papers and also the contents of the complaint lodged by the present applicant, it appears that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the present applicant, crime no 612 of 2018 came to be registered in the same police station on 20.11.2018 against the husband of the informant and two others::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 ::: 921-ABA-1406-18 -5- for having committed offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 392 etc. of IPC.There are specific allegations in the said complaint that the husband of the present informant has tried to inflict blows of iron rod on the head of the applicant and when he has tried to save himself, the blow of the said iron rod landed on his nasal cavity.It is also part of record that the applicant was immediately taken to the hospital and he was treated in the hospital for the injury sustained by him.He was also thereafter taken to a private hospital where he was subjected to CT-scan of brain and the Doctor of the said private hospital has recorded the minimally depressed fractures of the anterior wall of the nasal cavity of the applicant.It also appears that there is a civil dispute pending between the applicant and the husband of the informant in respect of an agricultural land and the civil suit bearing RCS No.294 of 2018 is pending before the Civil Court at Shrigonda.However, she has lodged the complaint on 23.11.2018 without explaining the delay in lodging the complaint.Her husband, who is also shown to have witnessed the incident and also sustained injuries, did not lodge complaint immediately on the date of incident or thereafter.As per the allegations made in the::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 ::: 921-ABA-1406-18 -6- complaint, the husband of the informant has sustained only abrasions on his hands.It has been alleged in the complaint that the present applicant, by using a knife, caused abrasions on his both hands and further also caused abrasions with the help of his nails.It would not be appropriate to comment on the said allegations at this stage.However, the same appear to be too technical and after thought.It is for the trial court to consider during the trial whether Section 313 of IPC stands applicable in the given set of allegations.I am thus inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.Hence, the following order:::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::ORDER I. The anticipatory bail application no.1406 of 2018 is hereby allowed.In the event of arrest of the applicant SUDAM BHAGWAN GIRAMKAR in connection with crime no.619 of 2018 (FIR No. 1161 dated 23.11.2018)registered with Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednager for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 324, 427, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 ::: 921-ABA-1406-18 -7- surety of the like amount on the following conditions;::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::a. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a week on every Sunday between 7.00 am to 11.00 am till filing of charge sheet..The anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 01:59:33 ::: | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,254,573 | This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bina in Criminal Case No. 418/2019, whereby charges under Section 452, 294, 323 (2 counts) and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of incident, the applicant was present at his own house as bhajan keertan and bhandara was organized by his family at their house.He has been falsely implicated in the case by the in-laws of his sister.His sister was being harassed by her in- laws due to which she filed an FIR against them and crime was registered under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The present case is a counter-blast of the aforesaid case.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be discharged from the charges levelled against him.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.Thus, at this stage, the evidence produced by the applicant cannot be accepted to prove his presence at another place.However, he is at liberty to raise his plea of defence at an appropriate stage during trial or he may cross-examine the witnesses who have stated against him.Accordingly, this present revision is dismissed at motion stage.(SMT.ANJULI PALO) JUDGE vidya Digitally signed by SREEVIDYA Date: 2020.08.29 14:07:40 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,254,825 | CWC has separate area where the playschool is being conducted.In respect of visitation rights, CWC has submitted that allnilegaonkar 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:48 ::: 905-wp-4783.2019.odtsix parents coming at same time disturbs the atmosphere.Petitioners agree to accept the wish of the CWC.AccordinglyPetitioners in WP No. 4848 of 2019, 4850 of 2019 and 4851 of2019 shall meet their respective wards in the evening afterschool hours.The petitioners have filedaffidavits giving their status.Those affidavits are received by thelearned APP and counsel for the CWC in the Court only.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:48 :::2. Learned APP has invited our attention to the fact thatagainst the petitioner Abhinav (WP No. 4783 of 2019) there weretwo crimes registered.We find that Crime No. 231 of 2019 wasregistered at Model Town Police Station, New Delhi under section341 and 506 read with 34 IPC and it has been quashed by thecompetent court.Similarly Crime No. 85 of 2017 under section341, 323, 509 and 343 IPC registered in the same police stationhas been compounded.We are satisfied that there was no chargefor any offence which may have bearing on the safety or welfareof the child.In other matters there are no criminal antecedents againstany of the petitioners.Two children to be taken to New Delhi as per the said orderare still in Mumbai as after passing of the formal orders, thearrangement of appropriate escort machinery is being made.In the meanwhile, children in WP No. 4851 of 2019, WP no.4850 of 2019 and 4848 of 2019 are attending the municipalschool at Chembur and taking lessons.Other three children arestill not of the age to enable them to take admission and hencecontinue with CWC.In so far as other three children are concerned, thevisitation rights shall be exercised between 12.00 noon till 4.00pm.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:48 :::Petitioners have already initiated the proceedings foradoption and as the child is with CWC, the concerned CWC isjoined as respondent therein.It is brought to our notice thatthose proceedings cannot continue till specialized adoptionagency under the CWC declares the child free for adoption afterfollowing appropriate procedure.We direct the CWC to appear before the City Civil Court,Mumbai and assist that court in the matter.The Court shallwithin one week from today, make appropriate reference to theSpecialized Adoption Agency under the CWC for this purpose.The specialized adoption agency shall complete thenecessary exercise of obtaining Social investigation Report (SIR)in relation to parents from the respective areas at the earliestand preferably within six weeks from today.In case of petitioners who hail from Delhi, the CWC havingnilegaonkar 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:48 ::: 905-wp-4783.2019.odtjurisdiction there shall assist the CWC, Mumbai in obtaining thatreport within the same time.Petitioner shall also assist the CWCand specialized adoption agency in the matter of obtaining theSIR.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:48 :::Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:48 ::: | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,257,542 | ad Heard on the question of admission.M Appeal is admitted for final hearing.of Record be requisitioned.Heard on I.A. No. 22978/2017 filed by the appellants/accused rt under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail ou sentence and grant of bail.C The appellants/accused have filed this appeal against the h conviction and sentence dated 8.11.2017 passed by the ig Additional Sessions Judge, Niwadi district Tikamgarh in S. T. H No. 225/2014 convicting the appellant no. 1 under Section 294 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one month, under Section 336 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one month, under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation, under Section 323/149 of I.P.C. (2 count) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months (2 count) and fine of Rs. 1000/- (2 count) with default stipulations, under Section 506B of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations, under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and sh fine of Rs. 500 with default stipulation and under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year with fine e ad of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations and convicting the appellant nos. 2 to 5 under Section 294 of I.P.C. and sentencing Pr them to undergo S.I. for one month each, under Section 336 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for one month each, a hy under Section 325/149 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for three years each with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default ad stipulations, under Section 323/149 of I.P.C. (2 count) and M sentencing them to undergo R.I. for six months (2 count) with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (2 count) with default stipulations, under of Section 506-B of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for rt two years each with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default ou stipulations, under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year each with fine of Rs. 500/- each with C default stipulations and under Section 148 of I.P.C. and h ig sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year each with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulations.H Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during trial.The final hearing of this Appeal will take time.If the appellants are not released on bail, their purpose of filing this appeal will be frustrated.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of appellants be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence be suspended and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.sh After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, e ad without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to them and grant bail to the appellants.Appellants-Nittu, Lachchhu Ram ad @ Lachhua, Kaushal, Karan @ Kalyan and Munni Bai be M released from custody subject to each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty of Thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the rt satisfaction of Trial Court for their appearance before the ou Registry of this Court on 2.04.2018 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during C pendency of the matter.h ig List the appeal for final hearing in due course of time at its own turn.H Certified copy as per rules.SINGH) JUDGE vy Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR VAIBHAV DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5d417c5e2cdb0fdfcea7271b912989fff YEOLEKAR d7a8d3dbf63db4ebdc42355e64abf7c, 2.5.4.45=0321007752E925403D6A9CA64C0AF 28688DDCEFD19008152D550BB9E37BE4DAFF E2DB9, cn=VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2017.11.27 18:32:11 +05'30' H ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
312,584 | Section 260 Cr.P.C. provides for a summary trial of certain cases.ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J.As common questions of law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this judgment.Thereafter the petitioner sent a statutory notice.The main grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the entire purpose of filing the complaint is defeated, if the trial court gives an 11 months long date for recording of the complainant's evidence.I. Filing of complaints with CMM/ACMM.Fixing a date for hearing of the complaint by the concerned M.M.Recording of the statement of the complainant and other witnesses.V. Adjourning the case for arguments on the recorded statements.Adjourning the case for orders for summoning of accused.Appearance of accused and releasing him on bail.Hearing of application generally moved for recalling the summoning orders.Announcing the order/judgment or the compromise at this or earlier stage.The stages 1 to VI can be completed within a week by insisting on the presence of the complainant with the dishonoured cheque/cheques, bank return memo and the legal notice with the proof of service on the accused.Stages VII to XI must also be completed at the earliest.It is submitted that the complainant should be orally examined with reference to the written complaint with a view to satisfy that the cheque was presented within 6 months, the notice was served in time and no payment was made within 15 days of the demand notice.The Magistrate should issue process on this oral examination by passing a short order that he has examined the complainant on oath with reference to the averments in the complaint and on the basis of the documents relied, he is satisfied that by not paying the amount despite demand (stage after dishonour of the cheque), the accused deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 N.I.Act and he should be summoned to explain why he should not be penalised? The officials of the bank to prove the accounts need not be examined orally as there is, at this stage.The Courts can accept their affidavits by way of evidence and on the request of the accused they can be directed to appear for the cross examination:e) Serious endeavor must be made to dispose of the pending complaints expeditiously to avoid multiciplity of proceedings before various courts.f) Looking to the fact that a large number of complaints are pending in Delhi courts, particularly in Patiala House Courts and Tis Hazari Courts, it has become imperative to direct the concerned District & Sessions Judge and the Judge in charge, Patiala House to assign the work pertaining to Sections 138 to 142 Negotiable Instruments Act exclusively to the six judicial officers in Patiala House courts and four officers in Tis Hazari courts at least for a period of two years.This arrangements be worked out within four weeks.Ordinarily, this Court would have assigned exclusive work to the larger number of officers particularly in Patiala House courts but looking to the available number of judicial officers and infrastructure, it would be difficult to assign the work of these complaints to larger number of officers for the time being to exclusively handle the complaints.Before I part with these cases, I would like to place on record my deep sense of appreciation for the able assistance provided by Mr.A.K.Singla, Mr.Anil Arora, Mr.Rajiv Awasthi, Ms.A copy this judgment be sent to the learned District Judge and the Judge in charge, Patiala House through a special messenger.These petitions are accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,213,758 | Heard on the point of admission.After perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses, this appeal is having an arguable point.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Also, heard on I.A.No.15789/2019 an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant Dhanesh Jhariya stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine amount of Rs.500/-, under Section 354-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine amount of Rs.500/- and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the bail application.Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court and further extended by this Court.List this case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2019.09.24 10:43:43 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,217,554 | The petitioner who is an accused for the offences under Sections307, 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST POV Act, 1989, is before thisCourt seeking a direction to consider his bail petition on surrender.The matter relates tomurder of one Manthiram, S/o.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contendthat based on the confession of the co-accused only, the petitioner has beensought to be arrested.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would oppose thebail petition.5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.It is seen that it is a retaliation murder and many murders aretaking place in the Southern District in the name of the Community andone such murder is the present one.Though the petitioner would submit thatbased on the confession statement given by one co-accused, he has been soughtto be implicated.Only during the investigation, the role of the petitionerwould reveal.It is only under the investigation stage.The offencecommitted is murder and therefore, the incident cannot be taken veryleniently.Even according to the confession statement, the petitioner hadalso involved in the Meeting wherein a decision was taken to murder the saidperson.In view of that, the direction as sought for by the petitioner,cannot be granted and the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.05.09.2014To1.The Inspector of Police, Munneer Pallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.2.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'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,021,993 | This repeat (fourth) application under Section 439 of Cr.After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32913/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn, however the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.Certified copy, as per Rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 19/08/2019 18:11:42 | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,226,346 | It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was a dispute over the activities of a tantrik and over such issue there was commotion in the village.The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner and accused persons had obstructed the police force from recovering individuals who had been wrongfully detained by the local villagers.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.2 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,229,939 | And In Re:- Soumya Mallick & Ors.The petitioners are the husband and parents-in-law of the defacto complainant.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the complainant.Considering the material against the petitioners, there may not be any need to detain them.However, since the defacto complaiant may have been driven out of the matrimonial home or at any rate she is living at her father's place at the moment, the first petitioner-husband is required to provide her maintenance.1 2 It is submitted by the petitioners that the defacto complainant has also filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Code and matrimonial proceedings are also pending.The first petitioner-husband should pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.Such maintenance should be paid from the month of October, 2018 by the 15th day of each month.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
402,340 | G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.Whether the appellant, who was named as one of the accused in thecomplaint lodged by respondent No.2, Smt. Anita alleging harassment andtorture at the hands of her husband and in-laws but qua whom the policefiled negative final report, could be summoned under Section 319 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.') and whether Judicial 2Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as `theJudicial Magistrate') was justified in taking cognizance against theappellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') arethe questions which arise for determination in this appeal filed againstorder dated 10.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of theRajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc.The appellant's brother Pramod Kumar was married to respondentNo.2 on 7.12.2000 at Sri Ganganagar.After one year and four months,respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate allegingthat due to her failure to bring sufficient dowry and meet the demand ofher in-laws, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty andharassment in different ways.The learned Judicial Magistrate forwardedthe complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation.Thereupon, FIR No.150/2002 was registered at police station JawaharNagar, District Sri Ganganagar for offences under Sections 406, 498A, 354,377 and 323 IPC.During investigation, the police recorded the statementsof respondent No.2 - Smt. Anita, her father Shri Jaipal, mother Smt.Savitri Devi and four other persons, namely, Shri Premnath, ShriHanuman Chautala, Shri Brijlal, Shri Kripal Singh and filed charge sheet on4.1.2003 against Pramod Kumar - husband of respondent No.2, Rukmani 3Devi - mother-in-law and Ram Kumar @ Rampratap - father-in-law.Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the Investigating Officer opined thatshe was innocent because she was living at Bikaner with her husband andhad not caused harassment to respondent No.2 or made demand fordowry.By an order dated 5.8.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrateframed charges against three accused and adjourned the case forprosecution evidence.On 16.6.2006, the statement of respondent No.2was recorded.Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf ofrespondent No.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for issuing process against theappellant.The learned Judicial Magistrate adverted to the contents of thecomplaint filed by respondent No.2, the statements recorded underSection 161 Cr.P.C. as also the statement made by respondent No.2 beforethe court and held that prima facie case was made out for takingcognizance against the appellant for offence under Section 498-A IPC.Heaccordingly passed order dated 2.9.2006 and directed that the appellantbe summoned through bailable warrant.The revision filed by theappellant against that order was allowed by Sessions Judge, SriGanganagar who held that in view of the bar contained in Section 468Cr.I have also perused the file.Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orderand argued that the High Court did not commit any error by refusing toexercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the learned JudicialMagistrate and the learned Sessions Judge concurrently found that primafacie there was sufficient material for taking cognizance against theappellant.We have considered the respective submissions.Duringinvestigation police found Joginder Singh and Ram Singh to be innocentand, therefore, charge-sheet was submitted only against the remainingaccused.The learned magistrate committed the three accused to the 1Sessions Court.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana framedcharges against the three accused for offences under Sections 452, 308and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.In their evidence, Mohinder Singhand Ajaib Singh implicated both the appellants.Thereupon, the PublicProsecutor filed an application for summoning the appellants.On behalf ofthe appellants, it was argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judgehad no jurisdiction or power to summon the appellants and array them asaccused because they had neither been charge-sheeted nor committed tostand trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived thecontention of the appellants and directed that they be impleaded asaccused.The High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellants.The appellant was one of the 15 persons mentionedas the assailants in the first information report.During theinvestigation the police accepted the appellant's plea of alibiand filed a charge-sheet against the others for offences underSections 302, 201 and 149 IPC, before the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate.During investigation, the appellant claimed that he wasserving in a school at the time of the death of Saroj.During trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.By an order dated 6.9.2002, the learned Sessions Judge rejected theapplication.That order was reversed by the High Court and a directionwas given to the trial court to proceed against the appellant bysummoning him.sheet against her.The HighCourt quashed the order but left it open to the Metropolitan Magistrate totake necessary action under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage.Thereafter, the trial commenced against the four accused and as many as49 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Till that stage, learnedMetropolitan Magistrate did not consider it necessary to implead theappellants as accused.However, when statements of the remaining threewitnesses were recorded, he passed a brief order summoning theappellants.The High Court upheld the order of the MetropolitanMagistrate.This Court quashed the summoning order by observing thatthough evidence of last 3 witnesses may create some suspicion against the 2appellants but that was not sufficient for convicting the appellants for theoffence of conspiracy.The Court also felt that there was no warrant forwasting the massive evidence collected by the trial Court against the 4accused.In the course of judgment, the Court made the followingobservation: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,240,804 | pk CRM No. 2093 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 3.3.15 in connection with Goghat P.S. Case No. 86/15 dated 5.2.15 under Sections 341/379/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Shyamsundar Sahana & Anr.341/379/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.2 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 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,166,443 | Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.I.A. No. 3033/2020, an application for exemption from filing the affidavit, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the applicant is exempted from filing the affidavit.This is the first bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Police Station Gauraghat, District Datia (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506, 34, 147 and 148 of the IPC.Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed to reject the bail application of the applicant looking to the nature of offence.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the available record.The applicant will not move in the vicinity of complainant party and applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,171,687 | She says she knew the accused who has his own lands 3 fields away from her fields.The appellant was cultivating his land.On the 5th day of June, 1968, she went to graze cattle on the morning as usual.At about 5 p.m. the appellant came from the east.He questioned her if she snatched a sugarcane.He pulled her by hand.She tried to extricate herself.He lifted her and took her into the sugarcane field, laid her on the ground removed her saree and pavadai and laid himself on her.He removed his dhoti, pressed his male organ on her female organ and pressed it inside.The male organ did not go inside.At that juncture P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and Rangaswami Chettiar (not examined) came.They have lands next to her land.At that crucial time the accused was still lying on her.Seeing them, he attempted to run.The accused was caught by them.She did not see what happened to her private parts.She felt pain in her private parts.JUDGMENT K.N. Mudaliyar, J.The appellant Myilsami alias Mylan appeals against his conviction for an offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.P.W. 1 deposes that on or about the 5th day of June, 1968, at about 5 p.m. in the sugarcane field of Raju Chettiar the appellant committed rape on her.She is a minor girl who is more than 13 years and less than 14 years.It went only a little.She did not bear the pain.He did all that he could do.P.W. 1 raised a cry.He caught hold of her throat and pressed.The accused caught hold of her breast and squeezed the same.There are nail marks on her breast.He forcibly had committed intercourse.P.W. 1 attempted to extricate herself but could not.There were nail marks on her breast and hands.Her father and mother came and asked her.She told them what happened.Her mother took her home.The other persons held the accused.Then her father, P.W. 5, and other witnesses took the accused to the police station.She was taken to the doctor, P.W. 2 who examined her.It is suggested in the course of the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that it was usual for her to climb on the bull and ride it at the time of grazing.A faint attempt has been made in developing this alternative theory for explaining the injury on her private parts by the defence.But the suggestion itself lacks substance.It is also suggested to P.W. 1 that because the appellant charged her with having stolen sugarcane, her father P.W. 5 after consultation with P.Ws. 3, 4 etc., has given a belated complaint.P.W. 2 examines P.W. 1 on 6th June, 1968, at 3-30 p.m. She mentions the following injuries.Axillary and pubic hair well formed.Four nail marks with small linear abrasions 1/2" subcutaneous deep 1/2" close to each other over the upper part of the right side of the neck.A linear nail mark of 1/2" subcutaneous deep over the middle of the chest (body of sternum).Two linear nail marks close to each other over the left side of the breast close to the nipple.A linear nail mark of 1/4" subcutaneous deep over the Middle 1/3rd of the right fore-arm.Hymen is reptured in an irregular manner with reddish tint around the orifice of the hymen.Slight blood and white discharge present, extensive tenderness over the hymen on the labia minora region.No nail marks over the region of vulva.Vagina smear taken and preserved for analysis of spermatozoa.She sent the vaginal smear to the Chemical Examiner.But the report from the Chemical Examiner disclosed neither the presence of spermatozoa or inococci.She expressed her final opinion in Exhibit P-2 that there is no evidence of recent intercourse as the vagional smear does not show she presence of spermatozoa.Exhibit P-3 is the wound certificate.I am afraid P.W. 2 seems to be suffering from a certain amount of confusion about the completed sexual act and rape in the legal sense of the term.She says that the rupture will be due to the penetration of the male organ in the vaginal orifice for the first time.She further says that spermatozoa could not be washed by a mere bath.It must be brush washed.She admits shat the rupture of she hymen is one of the conclusive proofs.For constituting the offence of rape, the emission need not be inside the vagina.But, P.W. 2 wanted to satisfy herself whether the emission was inside the vagina.P.Ws. 3 and 4 speak to the facts of the evidence that P.W. 1 was lying on her back and that the accused was lying on her after shifting her clothes.They heard the cry of P.W. 1 and ran there.The accused rose up, tied his veshti picked up his drawer and began to run.Both of them caught the accused.P.W. 1 rose up and told them that the accused had committed rape on her.P.Ws. 3 and 4 tied the accused.P.W. 1's mother and later her father (P.W. 5) came.Then they took the accused to the police station.P.W. 1 informed her father P.W. 5 what happened.These witnesses say that they reached the police station by about 9 or 10 p.m. A suggestion has been made to these two witnesses that because the accused abused, P.W. 1, they have all colluded together and given a false' complaint.Nothing useful has been elicited to help the case of the accused.This fact has not been controverted by the accused nor the fact that she has not yet attained puberty.P.W. 1 was lying weeping and exhausted.P.W. 1 told P.W. 5 that the accused lifted her into the sugarcane field and raped her.P.W. 5 cursed the accused for having committed this dishonour.P.Ws. 3 and 4 stated what they saw.Then P.W. 5 sat down hanging his head with shame.He sent P.W. 1 with his wife.Then P.W. 5, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and Rangaswamy took the accused to the police station.The accused said that he had done by mistake and wanted P.W. 5 (the father) to pardon him.P.W. 5 gave Exhibit P-5 a complaint which was recorded on 5th June, 1968, at 11-30 p.m.P.W. 5 was subjected to cross-examination. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,172,250 | -2 - Cr.A. No.2906/2014 sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.The prosecution story in short is that the prosecutrix on 11.05.2013 made a written complaint at police station Mahila Thana, Bhopal to the effect that the appellant comes in her distant relation.Appellant developed intimacy with her on promise to marry.It was also known to their families that they like each other.On 23.01.2012 appellant took the prosecutrix to Panchmani on a pleasure toure and established physical relationship with her by assuring her to marry.He promised her that after returning home he would talk to her parents and thereafter, perform marriage with her.Later on, on request of appellant, the sister of prosecutrix took a proposal of marriage of prosecutrix with appellant to the parents of appellant, but they refused to accept the proposal.Thereafter, again the appellant assured the prosecutrix that he would perform court marriage with her and committed sexual intercourse with her.It is alleged by the prosecutrix that till 17.12.2012, the appellant had continuously committed sexual intercourse with her on promise of marriage and when she insisted him to perform marriage, he refused to marry her and broke down the relationship.Knowing this fact, the appellant again promised the prosecutrix telling her that he would obtain the consent of his parents for marriage and he continued to make physical relations with the prosecutrix.Lastly, on 17.12.2012 the appellant told her that he would not perform marriage with her and stopped keeping relations with her.Then, prosecutrix made a written complaint Ex.P-1 at police station Mahila Thana, Bhopal.( 08.08.2017) Per Anurag Shrivastava, J.This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been directed by the appellant/accused against the judgment dated 07.10.2014, passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), in S.T. No.183/2014, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC andIt is further alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant had committed rape on her on false pretext of marriage.The police recorded FIR Ex.P-2 on complaint of prosecutrix and registered the offense.Prosecutrix was medically examined, the statements of witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation, a charge has been filed against the appellant.-3 - Cr. A. No.2906/2014The trial Court has framed the charge of offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC.The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in its support whereas the appellant has not given any evidence in his defence.Learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has committed rape on the prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage, which is punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above.In the appeal, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix is a major woman.The entire evidence indicates that she is a consenting party.The report of incident has been lodged after a considerable delay of one year four months.She had entered into physical relationship with the appellant voluntarily.There is no reliable evidence to establish that the appellant has obtained consent of prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage.It is further argued by the learned counsel that at present, prosecutrix and appellant have performed marriage and they have a child aged about 6 months.They have filed compromise before this Court and also filed certificate of marriage.They are living peacefully as husband and wife.Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that the-4 - Cr.A. No.2906/2014 statement of prosecutrix clearly establishes the fact that she was subjected to sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage by appellant.The trial Court has rightly convicted him.Considering the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix (PW-1) is a major woman aged about 28 years.The prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that she got acquainted with appellant in August, 2011, thereafter their relations became more intimate and appellant had promised her to marry.She went to Pachmari with appellant where he made physical relation with her.Thereafter, appellant used to perform sexual intercourse with her and he always promises her to marry.On the request of appellant, the sister of prosecutrix went to meet the parents of appellant with marriage proposal, but they refused to marry appellant with prosecutrix.In cross-examination, the prosecutrix (PW-1) had admitted that she was in love with the appellant and she also wanted to marry with him.She had admitted that every time whenever appellant had physical relation with her, he had assured her to marry.The sister of prosecutrix went to meet the parents of appellant with marriage proposal on behest of appellant.-5 - Cr. A. No.2906/2014Other prosecution witnesses Sofiya Khan (PW-3) also deposed in her statement about the love affair and relationship of appellant and prosecutrix.She had admitted that every time appellant gave assurance that he would marry with the prosecutrix.When his parents refused for marriage, he promised to perform Court marriage with the prosecutrix.Another prosecution witness Nirmala Saxena (PW-5) is elder sister of prosecutrix.She deposed that the appellant told the prosecutrix that he wants to marry her and asked her to send her family members with marriage proposal to his parents.On the request of appellant, this witness went to meet the parents of appellant with marriage proposal, but they refused to accept it.When appellant came to know about this refusal, he asked the prosecutrix that he would certainly marry her.Thus, from above evidence, it is established that the appellant had love relations with the prosecutrix.He wanted to marry her and he had sexual relations with the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix did not say that the appellant had love affair with any other woman.He has sent the sister of prosecutrix to meet his parents with marriage proposal.This shows the real intention of appellant to marry the prosecutrix otherwise he would have not asked the prosecutrix to send marriage proposal.It can not be believed that appellant had refused to marry her.At the most it could be a breach of promise to marry rather than false promise to marry and there is nothing on record to indicate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implication of the act of the accused for which she consented to it.Now the appellant finally kept his promise and married the prosectrix.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed rape of prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,174,408 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in SC.No.307 of 2019 pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Cuddalore having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 426 of IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment 2015 in respect of Crime No.405 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.Page 2 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020Page 2 of 10On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered case in Crime No.405 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 426 of IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment 2015 alleging that the petitioners in drunken mood on 29.06.2019, at about 8 p.m. went to the second accused house and abused her with filthy languages and also insulted her caste and also tried to misbehave with her.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is a previous enmity between the first petitioner and the husband of the second respondent herein.On 29.06.2019, the first petitioner went to the second respondent’s area for collecting monthly subscription charge for the cable TV, and at that time the husband of the second respondent abused the first petitioner in filthy languages and also threatened him with dire consequences.Therefore, the first petitioner Page 3 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020 lodged the complaint on 29.06.2019 and the same was registered in crime No.385 of 2019 as against the husband of the second respondent herein, namely Moorthy.Thereafter as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner as against the husband of the second respondent, the second respondent lodged complaint on 10.07.2019 for the occurrence took place on 29.06.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., that too after a period of 11 days with the above said allegations.Therefore, the first respondent also mechanically received the complaint and registered case as against the petitioners.Page 3 of 10He further submitted that on the date of alleged occurrence on 29.06.2019 at about 08.00 p.m., the petitioners were at the police station and the first petitioner lodged the complaint as against the husband of the second respondent and on receipt of the same, the first petitioner was issued CSR No.448 of 2019, and on 30.06.2019 FIR was registered for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC as against the husband of the second respondent herein.The CSR categorically revealed that the first petitioner was present before the first respondent at Page 4 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The petitioners never involved in the crime and the alleged complaint was lodged only to the counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners, that too lodged after 11 days.Therefore, he sought for quashment of entire proceedings.Page 4 of 10They were charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 426 of IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment 2015 and the same has been taken for cognizance in SC.No.307 of 2019 pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Cuddalore.On 29.06.2019, the first petitioner also lodged complaint alleging that the husband of the second respondent abused him with filthy languages.The same was registered in crime No.385 of 2019 and the husband of the second respondent admitted his guilt and also paid a sum of Rs.250/- as fine in Page 5 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020 STC.No.1080 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam.Page 5 of 10S.Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.Though notice was served to the second respondent and printed the name in the cause list, no one represented on behalf of the second respondent by person or through pleader.The case of the prosecution is that when the second respondent was in her house, the first petitioner went to her house and abused her with filthy languages and also threatened her with dire consequences and also called her caste and abused her.Page 6 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020Page 6 of 10In CSR, the first respondent categorically mentioned that the complaint was received from the first petitioner at about 8.00 p.m. on 29.06.2019 from the first petitioner herein for the occurrence took place on 29.06.2019 at about 6.00 p.m. Therefore, at the time of alleged occurrence took place, in the case on hand, the first petitioner was very much present in the first respondent Police Station.Further, the next day, namely 30.06.2019, FIR was registered in Crime No.385 of 2019 for the offences under Section Page 7 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020 294(b) IPC against the husband of the second respondent herein.In fact, the husband of the second respondent also admitted his guilt.Page 10 of 10On perusal of the records, the occurrence took place on 29.06.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged by the second respondent only on 10.07.2019 after a period of 11 days from the date of occurrence alleged to have taken place.Absolutely there is no explanation from the prosecution to explain the delay caused in lodgement of complaint.The husband of the second respondent also pleaded guilty and paid a sum of Rs.250/- fine.Therefore, the petitioners were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence in the house of the second respondent.The entire proceedings initiated by the second respondent is nothing but counter blast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner as against the husband of the second respondent herein.There is also no explanation for the delay in lodgement of the complaint by the second respondent herein.Therefore, in the case on hand, the SC ST Act has been clearly misused by the second respondent as such it cannot be sustained further.Be that as it may, the pendency of the proceedings in SC.No.307 of 2019 would not serve any purpose since it is a clear abuse of process of Court.Page 7 of 10Page 8 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020Page 8 of 10In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the entire proceedings in SC.No.307 of 2019 pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Cuddalore is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.30.07.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order lok Page 9 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.413 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Page 9 of 10The Sub Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore DistrictThe learned District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, CuddaloreThe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.OP.No.413 of 2020 30.07.2020 Page 10 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,178,941 | According to the petitioner, he was charged under sections 417, 420, 509, 506(i) IPC r/w 34 IPC in CC No.76 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.Vide judgement datedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 13.07.2018, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 509 and 506(i) IPC; and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 417 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in CA.No.42 of 2018 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.Pending the same, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.28 of 2019 seeking an order of interim stay in respect of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2019, which is impugned herein.3.The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) appearing for the respondent has no objection in granting such relief to the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 34.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions now made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry to expedite the trial and dispose of the appeal in CA.No.42/2018 pending on his file, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5.With the above direction, this criminal revision is disposed of.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 R.MAHADEVAN, J. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
11,718,042 | "1. DD No.8A(Ex.PW-11/A) was received in Police Station Vasant Kunj on 08.01.2009 conveying the information that a dead body is lying near Spinal Hospital, Vasant Kunj Enclave, New Delhi.The said DD was entrusted to Sub Inspector Sukram Pal(PW-11) who rushed to the spot.Information was also conveyed to Inspector Randhir Singh(Ist Crl. A. 788/2017 Page 1 of 9 Investigating Officer) who also rushed to Nangal Dewat Road, Vasant Kunj.The deceased was wearing cream & black colour sweater, white shirt, vest, sky blue colour jeans pant, blue underwear.Deceased was also wearing a metallic chain having locket of 786 and black thread around his neck.Dog squad and Crime Team also reached the spot.Passersby were shown the dead body to identify the same but identity of dead body could not be established.Thereafter, Inspector Randhir Singh (Ist Investigating Officer) prepared the ruqqua and sent the same through HC Thawar to the Police Station and got the case registered under section 302/201 of The Indian Penal Code.As discussed above, PW-16 Dr. Upender Kishore in his post-mortem report Ex.PW-16/A has opined that firearm injuries as mentioned in his report to the heart and lungs were collectively and independently sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case no.40/2014 FIR no.08/2009 P.S. Vasant Kunj, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code.The spot from where dead body was found was photographed.Site plan was prepared and inquest proceedings were undertaken.Dead body was sent to the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital.As photographs of deceased were being pasted near Mahipalpur Chowk, PW-3 Subhash Chand Yadav, after seeing the photograph identified the photograph as that of his driver Nadeem.Police with the assistance of PW-3 Subhash Chand Yadav and other persons reached the house of Md. Saleem, brother of deceased, who also identified the body.A. 788/2017 Page 1 of 9Wearing clothes and metallic chain with 787 locket and black thread worn by deceased, were seized by Autopsy Surgeon.The Doctor who prepared the post-mortem report opined that the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of antimortem injury to the heart and right lung produced by projectile of rifle fire arm.3. Statement of Subhash Chand Yadav, employer of deceased, was recorded wherein Subhash Chand Yadav stated that his driver Nadeem was working on his taxi Tavera no.Md. Saleem, brother of deceased, stated that his brother Nadeem was carrying black purse, golden chain, voter identity card, cash, watch, etc. During the course of investigation of FIR No.481/08, Police Station Vasant Kunj, accused Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay @ Bhenga, disclosed that they have murdered the driver of Tavera vehicle no.HR55HT 7278 in the intervening night of 07- 08.01.2009 in the jungle of Airport Authority of India.Accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay @ Bhenga, Crl. A. 788/2017 Page 2 of 9 further disclosed that driver of Tavera vehicle was looted before the murder.Accused Ravi Kapoor and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay @ Bhenga, further disclosed that golden chain of deceased was kept by accused Ravi Kapoor while watch and purse with documents were kept by accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay @ Bhenga.Accused Ravi Kapoor disclosed that Tavera vehicle was sold to co-accused Ajay Sethi informing him that driver of the said vehicle was killed before the loot.A. 788/2017 Page 2 of 9Accused Ajay Sethi who was in custody of Anti Theft Squad in a vehicle theft case bearing FIR No.64/09, under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Vasant Kunj, disclosed that he has sold Tavera vehicle to accused Md. Arif."We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.PW-26 HC Bishambar Dayal brought the record of case FIR No.643/01, Police Station Rajouri Garden, under section 379/420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and proved the copy of FIR as Ex.SPW-26/A. PW-26 HC Bishambar Dayal further deposed that as per record, accused Ajay Sethi, son of Shri Tara Chand Sethi, was arrested in the said case.PW-27 HC Mukesh Kumar brought the record of case FIR No.184/97, Police Station Connaught Place, under section 420/465/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-27/A and deposed that as per the record, three persons namely J.B. Goyal, Mrs. Rajni Goyal, and A.K. Sethi sons of Tara Chand, were arrested in the said case.Similarly, Crl. A. 788/2017 Page 4 of 9 PW-28 HC Bhupinder brought the record of case FIR No.43/90, Police Station Defence Colony, under section 392/397/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code and proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-28 HC Bhupinder deposed that as per record accused Gurdeep Singh, Hafiza, Ajay Sethi and Gullu @ Jafar Hanif, were arrested in this case.A. 788/2017 Page 4 of 9PW-29 Ct.Rahul brought the record of FIR No.281/02, Police Statin Vasant Kunj (North), under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered against five accused persons namely Md. Arif, Jasim, Ajay Sethi, Ajay and Ravi Kapoor.PW- 29 Ct.Rahul proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-29/A.Similarly, PW-35 Ct.Sunil brought the summoned record pertaining to FIR No.278/09, under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and deposed that name of accused in this case is Arif and the said FIR was registered for theft of Santro car bearing no.PW-35 Ct.It is clear from the above discussion that all the circumstances mentioned in para 16 have been proved on record.The chain of circumstances is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it has been proved from the chain of evidence that in all human probability, accused Ravi Kapoor, Ajay Kumar @ Bhenga, Ajay Sethi and Md. Arif, committed the crime with which they have been charged with."(underline added)A. 788/2017 Page 5 of 9 the record in the case FIR no.643/2001, P.S. Rajouri Garden under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.A. 788/2017 Page 5 of 9The testimony of PW-26 also shows that the appellant was arrested in the aforesaid matter.A. 788/2017 Page 8 of 9 | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,181,979 | However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that there is no previous cases pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and 506 (1)http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.OP.No.12695 of 2020 of IPC, in Crime No.185 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.While giving change, there was a wordy quarrel between A2 and the defacto complainant, the petitioner and the A1 arrived at the place, attacked the defacto complainant, pushed him and thereby the defacto complainant sustained simple injury in face.Hence, the complaint.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant abused the A2 in filthy languages and due to which, wordy quarrel happened between them, the petitioner and other accused arrived at the spot only to compromise them.Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and A2, the petitioner arrived at the spot to compromise them and thereafter, he had attacked the defactohttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.OP.No.12695 of 2020 complainant and pushed him and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained simple injury in face.OP.No.12695 of 2020 [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.7.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.26.08.2020 bri Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.OP.No.12695 of 2020The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The The Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.OP.No.12695 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J bri Crl.OP.No.12695 of 2020 26.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,186,828 | The baby was born in his house.Fulbanti came to his house while she was carrying for 8 months.Although he informed Jagadish about the birth of the baby he did not turn up.In the month of June, 1993 he went to the house of Jagadish and requested him to take back his wife and baby.He informed the matter to the neighbours in the village on 11th or 12th of June.In presence of local people the appellants assured that he would take his wife along with baby within 1/ 2 days.He sent back his sister and her daughter with the appellant along with several gifts according to customs.On 20.06.1993 he received a letter from 'Swamiji Sangha'.He came to know that the dead body of the baby was found in the bank of river Kulik in Bamuhaghat.He met the members of the club and found that the dead body was that of his niece Chameli.Prafulla Biswas was also there.He found other articles, namely, frock of Chameli, sarees and other wearing apparels of his sister at the spot.He went to Raiganj Police Station with one Prafulla and narrated the incident to the police officer.On 25.06.1993 he got information about his sister.Thereafter, he proceeded towards Tithi village beside Kulki river.He found the dead body of his sister buried under the earth beside Kulki river with Hematabad Police Station.Officers of Raiganj and Hematabad P.S. came to the place of occurrence.Dead body of his sister was recovered by police upon his identification.Dead body was brought to Raiganj for postmortem examination.His sister was peacefully living with her husband in her matrimonial home prior to coming to his home.The written complaint lodged at Raiganj P.S. was written by Niranjan Malakar.He proved his signature on the written complaint.The dead body of Chameli was recovered by the police and he signed on the inquest report dated 21.06.1993 (Exbt.2).The wearing apparels were seized under the seizure list.He signed the seizure list (Exbt.3).He handed over the letter of Swamiji Sangha to police which was seized under the seizure list and signed on the seizure list (Ext.4).P.W.3 Prafulla Biswas is a resident of village Kokra.He deposed that on 21.06.1993 in the night he came to know that a dead body of a baby was found in river Kulik and it was initially noted by the children of the locality who were playing at the spot.On 22.06.1993 the villagers were thinking of proceeding to the spot when P.W.1 Dawna Chowdhury and P.W.5 Lokesh Chandra Das, Secretary of local club, met them.All of them went to the bank of the river and P.W.2 identified the body as that of his niece Chameli.Then they went to Raiganj Police Station and thereafter returned to the bank of the river with police.Police recovered the body along with wearing apparels.He signed on the inquest report.P.W.5 Lokesh Chandra Das is a resident of Tithi village.He knew the appellant and his family members.He sent a letter in 1993 to Matilal Chowhdury through Amar Chowdhury (P.W.9).He identified the photocopy of the letter.Matilal went there and identified the dead body.Fulbanti was untraceable when the dead body of Chameli was found.He was declared hostile and in cross-examination, he stated that the letter produced in Court is not the original letter written by him.He had not prepared any duplicate of the said letter.P.W.9 Amar Chowdhury is another member of Swamiji Club.He stated that he carried the letter to Matilal Chowhdury 10/12 years ago.Lokesh Chandra Das, Secretary of the Club, had given him the letter.He identified his signature in the letter (Ext. 4/2).Five days prior to the delivery of the letter, he had gone to Batliopara to visit his daughter when he was proceeding towards his daughter's house, he met Jagadish, his wife and baby on the way.P.W.8 Suresh Chowdhury deposed that occurrence took place 12 years ago in the last part of the month of Jaistha.She gave birth to a female baby.Thereafter, Fulbanti was staying at her parent's house and her husband did not take her back to his house for a long period.A salish took place in the village of accused and it was settled that the latter would bring brought back from her parental home.Thereafter, on the next date, the appellant took her back along with the child.Six to seven days later one aged person claiming to a member of Swamiji Sangha Club informed that a dead body of a female baby was found on the bank of a river.On 24.06.1993 they went towards the village Mukundapur and met the club members.On the next day, they went to the bank of the river to search and during search they detected the dead body of Fulbanti in a jungle.Dead body of Fulbanti was recovered after digging the earth with the assistance of police and it was identified by Matilal Chowdhury.P.W.10, Niranjan Malakar is the scribe of the first information report.He deposed that the dead body of the baby was recovered from Kulik River on the selfsame date of submission of F.I.R. The dead body of the mother was recovered two to three days later.P.W.11, Pran Gobinda Das was a home guard now attached to Raiganj Police Station.On 22.06.1993 he along with S.I. Subhash Pradhan recovered the dead body of a baby which was lying on the river bed of Kulik River at Bamuaghat.He took the dead body to Raiganj Hospital Morgue.P.W. 12, Birendra Nath Roy is a constable who was attached to Hemtabad Police Station.On 25.06.1993 he along with the then O.C. of Hemtabad Police Station went to the side of Kulik river and recovered the dead body of a female person from a jungle.The dead body was under the earth.He took the dead body of the victim to Raiganj District Hospital Morgue for post mortem examination.He was informed that on 13.06.1993 the appellant had taken his wife and daughter from her parental home and since then they had been missing.On 22.06.1993 dead body of the daughter had been recovered from the river bank and a bad smell was coming from the spot.He suspected the dead body of the wife of the appellant may be found there.He communicated the information to I.C. Raiganj and requisitioned deputing of an Executive Magistrate for brining out the dead body.He accompanied Subhash Pradhan (P.W.15) and B.D.O. Hemtabad to the spot.Dead body of Chameli was found in decomposed state.Wound was found on the right side of chest of Chameli.P.W.s 15 and 16 are the investigating officers.He took charge of investigation.He visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch map with index.He held inquest over the dead body of Chameli (Ext.-2).B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his family members.On 25th June, 1993 dead body of Fulbanti was recovered and inquest was held over her body.Postmortem was held over the dead bodies of Fulbanti and her daughter Chameli.In conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Raigunj, Uttar Dinajpur.Charges were framed under sections 364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.In conclusion of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances relied upon to bring home the guilt of the appellant.Evidence of P.W.2 that the appellant had taken his wife along with their daughter from her parental home to his residence is not corroborated by other evidence.P.W.8 does not speak of the date when he saw the appellant taking his wife and daughter.In view of such consistencies, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court ought not to have come to a finding that the appellant had taken his wife and daughter back to the matrimonial home prior to the incident.Even the discovery of the body of Chameli is shrouded in mystery.P.W.5, the author of the letter written to P.W.2, in cross-examination disowned the letter produced in Court.It is unclear when P.W.2 had received the letter and there is no explanation as to why he waited for 1/ 2 days thereafter to go to the spot for enquiry.Judicial confession was recorded by the Magistrate on the day the appellant was produced from police custody without remanding him to judicial custody and without giving him sufficient time for reflection.Judicial Magistrate did not assure the appellant that he would not be remanded to police custody if he declined to make confession.The contents of the confession with regard to the manner of commission of offence are not corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.13, the postmortem doctor.He relied on Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 1957 (SC) 637, in support of his contention.The appellant had inimical relationship with the victim and had left her at matrimonial home.He did not keep contact with her even after the birth of the girl child and there were talks of his second marriage.A salish was held on 12.06.1993 and on the very next day, the appellant took his wife to the matrimonial home along with their child.Thereafter, the dead bodies of the victims were found and medical evidence shows that they suffered homicidal death.The appellant made judicial confession after caution was duly administered to him and had retracted the confession belatedly during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.He relied on Shankaria vs State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1978(3) SCC 435 and Devi Singh vs State of Rajasthan 2005(10) SCC 453 in support of his submission that no fixed time frame for reflection is necessary for recording judicial confession if the Magistrate is satisfied that the confession was made after compliance of legal formalities and mind of the confessor was free from any influence.Hence, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.Let me examine the evidence on record in the light of the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the parties.He signed on the inquest report after recovery of the dead body of his sister.In cross-examination, he deposed that he was mentally depressed when the written complaint was drafted.Matilal met him after receipt of the letter.Matilal found that his sister and child were not in the house.They got information from Bamuhaghat that a dead body of a baby was found there.They proceeded towards Bamuhaghat and found the dead body of the child on the bank of river Kulik.On that date he had gone to attend the marriage ceremony in the house of Badan Rajbhar and when he was returning home he met Jagadish, his wife and baby.On query, he stated that he was coming from his in-laws house when he came to know that a dead body of a baby had been recovered.Subsequently, dead body of the wife of the appellant was also recovered.He was a member of the club and he identified his signature of the said letter.P.W. 7, Ramchandra Chowdhury deposed that Fulbanti was brought to her parent's house when she was carrying.Dead body of a female was brought out and was identified as Fulbanti.Executive Magistrate prepared the inquest report and he signed on the report.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination.P.W. 13, Rash Behari Ghosh, held post mortem examination on the dead body of Chameli Chowdhury and noted as follows:-"I found the body was in decomposed state, skull bone was separated, right leg was also separated from the body, one incised wound 4/1" into cavity right side of chest attached to sternum."He opined that death was due to shock as a result of wounds stated above ante mortem and homicidal in nature.He held post mortem over the dead body aged about 25 years and found multiple ecchymosis on the back of Fulbanti and noted sand particles in the lumen of trachea.He opined death was due to shock and asphyxia as a result of wounds of drowning in muddy water, ante mortem and homicidal death.In cross examination, he did not mention on which side ecchymosis were found.He opined if a body is in water then it may be decomposed after two to three days.He seized a red coloured cotton sari with black border, one red coloured printed sari containing rice, one yellow coloured blouse, one black frock, one jangia, one white coloured old saya under a seizure list.Inquest was done by police of Hemtabad P.S. and the inquest report was prepared by them.Appellant was arrested.He was produced with a prayer for recording his confessional statement.He collected confessional statement.He collected post mortem report of Chameli.In cross-examination, he stated that on 17.07.1993 he forwarded the accused Jagadish Chowdhury for recording confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.W. 16, Sukumar Misra, deposed that he arrested Rampujan Chowdhury, whose name was mentioned in the confessional statement of principal accused Jagadish Chowdhury.He recorded statements of other witnesses and submitted chargesheet against the appellant alone.It is evident from the materials on record that the prosecution has essentially relied on these two circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant:-(a) Appellant had taken his wife and daughter to his home on 13.06.1993 and since then they were missing.(b) Judicial confession of the appellant recorded on 17.07.1993 immediately after his arrest.That apart, it has also come on record that on 22.06.1993 the dead body of Chameli, daughter of the appellant was recovered from the bank of the river Kulik and on 25.06.1993 dead body of Fulbanti, wife of the appellant was recovered buried in a jungle at Fasidanga under Hemtabad Police Station.Post mortem of Chameli showed that she died due to an incised wound on the right side of her chest while Fulbanti had died due to shock and asphyxia as a result of ante mortem and homicidal drowning.Ecchymosis on the back of Fulbanti was also noted.Hence, there is no doubt that both Fulbanti and Chameli had suffered homicidal death.In the course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant had retracted the confessional statement by denying that he had not made any such statement before the learned Magistrate at all.It is settled law that a judicial confession which is voluntary and truthful and recorded upon compliance of all legal formalities can be the sole basis of conviction.I have, therefore, sought to examine the judicial confession from the aforesaid premise.Learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellant had challenged the confession on the ground that the same was recorded on the day the appellant had been arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate from police custody.On the other hand, in a hurried manner after posing some routine questions to the appellant the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and mechanically endorsed his satisfaction thereto in terms of section 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Cross-examination of I.O., P.W.15 shows that the appellant was interrogated between 5.30 to 9.10 a.m. on that date.Immediately, thereafter he was produced from police custody before the learned Magistrate with a prayer for recording his confessional statement.In this backdrop, the appellant was kept segregated for merely 30 minutes and thereafter his confessional statement was recorded after the learned Magistrate.Question which falls for decision is whether in the aforesaid factual matrix it can be safely concluded that the appellant had been given sufficient time for reflection and his mind had been cleansed of any threat or influence which may have existed prior to recording of such confession.No doubt the Magistrate after recording the confession certified that he had explained to the appellant that he was not bound to confess and if he did so, it would be used against him.The learned Magistrate also recorded his satisfaction that the confession was being voluntarily made.Failure to apprise the appellant of such fact was most vital as he was making the confession upon being produced from police custody and there was every likelihood of his remand to the selfsame custody to his utter prejudice.Although the accused was produced from police custody for the first time before the Magistrate, the latter however, did not consider it prudent to remand him to judicial custody for a day prior to recording of confessional statement.He also did not inform the accused that he would not be remanded to police custody if he had declined to make confession.Thereafter, his wife was also throttled to death.Hence, I choose not to give any credence to the confession of the appellant.Apart from the confession, the prosecution has strongly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, brother of the victim to prove that the appellant had taken his wife and daughter to his house on 13th June, 1993 and thereafter they went missing and was finally found dead.Firstly, a photocopy of the said document was produced.Though P.W.s 9 & 10 admitted their signatures thereon, P.W.5, the author of the said document doubted the copy produced in court and stated no duplicate had been prepared from the original document.For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the conclusion of guilt of the appellant in the aforesaid factual matrix would essentially hinge on a number of surmises and conjectures which needless to mention cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.Accordingly, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) AB/RP/sdas/akd | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,190,422 | applicants, permission is granted to make amendment in theproceeding and to add the relief of quashing of chargesheet itself.The amendment is to be carried out immediately.2) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heardboth the sides for final disposal.4) During arguments, the learned counsels for both the Cri.988/18 3sides have submitted that parties have settled the dispute.Theaffidavit of the first informant is already produced on the record.Today the affidavit of other injured persons Suraj Jadhav came to befiled.The contents show that parties have settled the dispute andcomplainant is not intending to give evidence against the applicants. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
807,965 | Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :On 11.6.1991 Mandip Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')suffered homicidal death.The incident took place at about 5.30 a.m. on theaforesaid date.During the night between 10th and 11th of June, 1991irrigation of certain lands under the cultivation of complainant GurmailSingh (PW2) and others was being carried.During that night, deceasedMandip Singh who is the nephew of the complainant Gurmail Singh, wassleeping near the tubewell in the adjacent land belonging to Sukhdev Singh.Deceased Mandip Singh was to get up in the morning in order to undertakethe agricultural work in the land which was being cultivated by GurmailSingh (PW2) and others.Gurmail Singh (PW2), therefore, went towards theplace where deceased was sleeping.Pal Singh (PW3) was then irrigating hisland near the place of occurrence.When Gurmail Singh (PW2) came near theplace where deceased was sleeping, he noticed that the two accused-respondents and acquitted accused Goga Singh armed with a 'Ghop' neardeceased, Accused-Pohla Singh then shouted to teach lesson to deceased forhaving developed illicit relations with Amar Kaur who is sister of accused-Pohla Singh.Thereupon deceased was dealt with by these accused with theirrespective weapons.Deceased sustained 13 injuries.On seeing that deceasedwas being, thus attacked; Gurmail Singh (PW2) and Pal Singh (PW3) raisedalarm.Thereupon these assailants fled away with their respective weapons.Deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot itself.Thereupon, GurmailSingh (PW2) initially proceeded to the village in order to inform hisbrother Baldev Singh.Thereafter, he proceeded towards police station.Onway, he happened to meet the police patrolling party at Jalal bus stand.His report was recorded at about 10.00 a.m. The said report was dulyregistered at the police station, Dialpura at 10.45 a.m. The special reportregarding the registration of the said offence was sent to Magistrate.Phulwho received it at 2.40 p.m. on the same date.The police arrived at thescene of occurrence and prepared the inquest report on the dead body.Thedead body was duly sent for autopsy.The doctor found in all 13 injuries.JUDGMENT2003 Supp(3) SCR 993The Judgment of the Court was delivered byARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Questioning correctness of judgment directingacquittal of the respondents as passed by the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal.Respondents were chargedfor commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').Originally, there werefour accused persons.The learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide hisjudgment dated 29.9.1994 held that the present two respondents Phola Singhand Balkaur Singh were guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 IPC and were sentenced for imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs. 2,000 each with default stipulation.Other two accused i.e.Raja Singh and Goga Singh were given the benefit of doubt.While theconvicted accused questioned the legality of their conviction, a revisionwas filed to seek conviction of the acquitted accused and enhancement ofthe sentence passed against the convicted accused.The cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage on the vitalorgans such as brain.Accused persons pleaded innocence and falseimplication.Their specific case as revealed in the examination undersection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'was that they were falsely implicated at the instance of one Balkar Singhwho is a close relative of Gurmail Singh (PW2).They claimed that accusedGoga Singh was formerly a partner in the cultivation with Balkar Singh andthere was a dispute between them on the issue of sharing the money.Deceased was associated with terrorists and robbers and he was in allprobability murdered by rival gang and they were falsely involved onsuspicion.The trial Court found that material was not sufficient tofashion guilt of two accused.But two accused were held guilty.They werein appeal before the High Court.It was submitted that there was inordinatedelay in reporting the matter to the police and further delay in sendingthe special report to the Magistrate.The incident took place at 5.30 a.m.as per Gurmail Singh (PW2).He stated that after the incident he rushed tothe village to inform his brother Baldev Singh who is the father of thedeceased.The evidence does not indicate as to what steps Baldev Singh tookon getting the information to set law into motion.According to GurmailSingh (PW2), he and Baldev Singh proceeded towards the police station buton the way they happened to meet the patrolling police party at the Jalalbut stand.It was expected that Baldev Singh was to rush to the field wherehis son was killed, and ascertain the situation there.It is also inevidence that Gurmail Singh (PW2) owned a tractor.It was not explained whyhe and Baldev Singh did not try to cover the distance up to the policestation by tractor.It has also been accepted that in a village there was apolice post.The distance between the village wherethe incident took place and the police station is 9 K.M. only.Thisdistance could have been covered by using a tractor.The evidence of so called eye-witnesses PWs 2 and 5 was attacked on theground of improvements and relationship with the deceased.The explanation offered is plausible and shouldhave been accepted.A plea was also taken that evidence of PW 5 GurnamSingh has been wrongly discarded and the extra judicial confession shouldhave been relied upon for convicting the accused who were acquitted.According to the High Court, there was unusual delay in lodging the FIR.The incident took place around 5.30 in the morning.The FIR was lodged atabout 10.45 a.m. The special report reached the Ilaqa magistrate at 2.40p.m.on the same day.The High Court appears to have acted more on surmises than on legalevidence.Merely because the informant and the father of the deceased didnot choose to use a tractor to go to the police station, that cannot be asuspicious circumstance.Even if it was in usable condition the frame ofmind of one who had lost his son and other close relative using a tractorto cover a distance of 9 K.M. at a point of time, has been lost sight of bythe High Court.It is not unusual for a person to avail public transportfacility to go to a police station.Much has been made of not lodging thecase at the police post.An explanation has been offered as to why it hasnot been done.The High Court very lightly brushed it aside.Unfortunately,the High Court came to conclude on surmises and conjectures that the FIRwas lodged after deliberation.There was no material to support such aconclusion.The distance between the police post and the Ilaqa Magistrateis about 20 K.M. The special report reached the Magistrate within a fewhours.The HighCourt has raised a question of conjecture as to why somebody would choose aday break time to commit a murder.The eye-witnesses have described the incident with graphic detail and except minordiscrepancies which do not in any way corrode the prosecution version,their testimony has remained unshaken in spite of incisive crossexamination.The Trial Court had carefully scrutinized their evidence andacted on it.On the contrary, the High Court without even indicating anyplausible reason as to why the evidence was not acceptable, has chosen toignore it and characterize it as unreliable.The appeal isallowed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
807,983 | (1) The appellant (Jai Chand) has been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for having been in possession of a rifle the license in respect of which only his brother Hari Chand had, with the intention of using it unlawfully.(2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that he along with his two (3) The appellant along with his brother Hukam Chand went to the shop of Chhote Lal in the bazar in village Mahipal Pur at about 4 p.m. on 9-1-1972 when Chhote Lal was shot with a rifle and also hit with Pharsha.Jai Chand took the rifle from his brother Bishan Chand, who had fired a shot earlier at Chhote Lal; Jai Chand also fired from it.Subsequently Jai Chand and Hukam Chand are said to have proceeded towards the house of Jagdish Chander and in the street near the house of Mukhtiar master, Hukam Chand dealt Pharsha blows on Jagdish Chander's wife Smt. Laxmi Devi and his young son Anil Kumar, whereas Jai Chand hit both of them with the butt end of the gun.Pieces of the butt are said to have fallen down at the place where Smt. Laxmi Devi and Anil Kumar had fallen down.Jai Chand is also said to have made a disclosure statement on 13-1-1972, soon after he was arrested, that he had thrown the rifle and some cartridges, packed in a gunny bag, into a well near village Mahipal Pur and that he would point out the well after he was taken there Jai Chand took Public Witness 30 and pointed out the well.On 16-1-1972 the rifle along with some cartridges were recovered from the well with the aid of divers even after pumping out water.The Ballistic Expert, Dr. O. P. Chub (not examined in this case) was said to have been present for the purpose of testing the rifle as soon as it was taken out of the water for the purpose of finding out the time of discharge from the said rifle.(4) The above appellant as well as Hukam Chand were separately tried for murder of the above-said four persons but were not charged under section 27 of the Arms Act even though it could have been done.A separate trial, of a truncated kind, has been held subsequently against Jai Chand alone under section 27 of the Arms Act. No evidence was adduced in this case concerning Jai Chand either shooting at Chhote Lal or hitting Smt. Laxmi Devi and Anil Kumar with the butt end of the rifle.Only the two attestors to the recovery memo.Radha Krishan (P.W. 1) and Suraj Parkash (P.W. 2) and the Police Officer concerned, Shri B. K. Mehta (P.W. 3) were examined in this case.Public Witness I became hostile.Acting on the evidence of Public Witness s. 2 and 3 pertaining to the disclosure statement and recovery of the rifle the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the appellant was in possession of it with intent to use the same for an unlawful purpose.(5) A preliminary objection was taken that the sanction (copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 3/A) given for prosecuting the appellant under section 27 of the Arms Act was itself not valid because it had been given only by the A.D.M. (Shri P. P. Chauhan) and not by the District Magistrate.Public Witness 4 (B. D. Kaushik) of the office of Deputy Commissioner was examined to prove the said sanction and he was not cross-examined at all.When this objection was taken in this Court the Standing Counsel for the State was directed to produce the Notification, if any, under which the A.D.M. (Shri P. P. Chauhan) had been empowered to function as an Executive Magistrate of the 1st Class for the Union Territory of Delhi under section 12(1) Cr.P. C. and also as an Additional District Magistrate for the said territory under section 10(2) Criminal Procedure Code .The said Notification dated 1-9-1970 published in Part Iv of the Delhi Gazette was produced for our perusal.We took judicial notice of it; the objection itself not having been raised before the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press the question of sanction.(6) He, however, argued that there being no evidence let in in this case against Jai Chand having used the gun either for the purpose of firing at Chhote Lal or for the purpose of hitting Smt. Laxmi Devi and Anil Kumar with the butt end of it, there could not be any conviction of the appellant Jai Chand under the Arms Act when even the record of the alleged disclosure statement said to have made by him has not been exhibited in this case.While the prosecution has not let in evidence about the alleged use of the fire-arm by the appellant and has not even placed on the record of this case the disclosure statement said to have been made by appellant resulting in the discovery of the fire-arm the appellant has not brought in cross-examination the various infirmities-to which our attention was drawn in detail when we heard the murder reference.In this situation we considered the question of ordering a retrial under the Arms Act after setting aside the conviction and sentence under the Arms Act. On further consideration, however, it seems to us that the ends of justice in this case may not be furthered by ordering a retrial.We have confirmed today the sentence of death passed on the appellant in the murder case.We do not wish that the appellant should be made to undergo yet another trial under the Arms Act for which under section 235(1) Criminal Procedure Code .a separate charge could have been framed under the Arms Act but was not done.The bar of section 403 Criminal Procedure Code no doubt does not apply to a subsequent trial; section 403(a) specifically provides that a person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge could have been framed in the previous trial but was not framed.The more convenient course to have followed would have been to frame in the murder case itself an additional but separate charge under the Fire Arms Act also as permitted by section 235(1) Cr.This appeal is accepted accordingly. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,800,523 | The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A-29 along with others, assembled in a mango grove owned by one of the accused Murugesan in Salajokipatti of Krishnagiri District on 23.11.2002 for taking arms training.While so, on the next day viz., 24.11.2002, based on a tip off, the police party searched the house of one of the accused Gurusamy and arrested Martin, Tamilselvan, Prabhakaran and Murugesan.Further, the police party on hearing that some of the Naxalites are taking armed training in Salajokipatti, proceeded to the mango grove and surrounded those assembled in the mango grove.At that time, there was exchange of fire, which resulted in the death of one Siva @ Parthiban due to gun shot injury.The appellant and other accused have however escaped from the spot and assembled at another mango grove near Gurugapatti Village, Kallavi Police Limit.On the next day i.e.,http://www.judis.nic.in 2/19 Crl.A. No.426 of 2019 24.11.2002, during a search, the police saw the petitioner and other accused hiding in the mango groove at Gurugapatti Village, where also, there was exchange of fire.Similarly, the brother of the appellant by name Manivasagam was also an accused and arrayed as A-30 in this case.After his release, the appellant's brother Manivasagam violated the bail conditions and absconded.But, he was once again granted bail on 05.12.2012 and after such release, the appellant's brother absconded and continued to indulge himself in terrorist activities at the Tri-junction area of the Western Ghats and he is an important Commander of the Western Ghats Special Zonal Committee of the banned CPI (Maoist) Organisation.The order reads as follows:-"....(e) Immediately after the completion of the final rites, the detenues shall return back to the house of Lakshmi and they shall be escorted by the policeHowever, the Police party apprehended one of the accused Balan/A-21, but others escaped from the scene and absconded.After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the said case against 31 accused and it was taken as Special C.C. No. 5 of 2003 on the file of the trial Court.In the charge sheet, the appellant herein was shown as A-29 but as an absconding accused.Subsequently, one Poothipatti Ramachandran/A-25, Sundaramurthy/A-26 and Bharathi/A-27 were apprehended and therefore, charges were framed against them.Further, one Reena Joyce Mary/A-28 was also apprehended.In fact, as against the appellant herein, an order of proclamation under Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure was passed and thereafter, with great difficulty, the appellant was arrested on 21.07.2016 inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/19 Crl.A. No.426 of 2019 Karur along with another accused Kala.According to the prosecution, even during the period when the appellant went underground, she continued her Maoist activities along with the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation.Thus, nearly after 14 years of registration of the case in Crime No. Crime No. 434 of 2002, the appellant was arrested.It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant, along with other accused, had entered into a criminal conspiracy and indulged in acts of terrorism.Earlier, the appellant filed a Petition in Crl.M.P. No. 540 of 2017 for discharge before the trial court under Section 227 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.The trial Court dismissed the Petition and refused to discharge the appellant from the criminal prosecution.Challenging the same, the appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2018 before this Court and it was dismissed by this Court on 18.02.2019 with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh Petition seeking bail before the trial Court.Pursuant to the said orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/19 Crl.A. No.426 of 2019 dated 18.02.2019, the appellant has filed the present petition seeking bail before the trial Court and upon its dismissal on 24.06.2019 , she has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court.When the appeal is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is under incarceration for the past more than three years.There was no substantial progress in the trial and the delay in concluding the trial has prejudiced the appellant.Accordingly, this Court passed an order dated 14.11.2019 subject to certain conditions.(f) The detenues shall stay in the house of Lakshmi and whatever ceremony has to be performed, it will be performed only in the house of Lakshmi and they shall not be permitted to move out of the house(g) No outsider shall be permitted to meet the detenues when they are staying at the residence of Lakshmi and the police shall ensure that the detenues do not have access to mobile phones or to any other social media;(h) No person, namely the detenues or any other family members of the detenues, shall be permitted to give interviews to any media or news channel; and(i) The detenues namely Kala and Chandra shallhttp://www.judis.nic.in surrender before the Superintendent of Prisons, Trichy on 9/19 Crl.A. No.426 of 2019 17.11.2019 (Sunday) by 5.30 pm and they shall be escorted back to the jail by the police.By referring to the aforesaid order, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that notwithstanding the above direction, on 15.11.2019 at about 00.15 am when the dead body of Manivasagam was brought to the burial ground, the appellant and the other co-detenue Kala, one Lakshmi, Wife of Salivaganam, Salivaganam, Son of Kuppusamy and their son Sudhakar have formed an unlawful assembly and raised slogans against the Government.Even though the Revenue Inspector by name Kannan requested the appellant and others not to raise any such slogan against the Government, they refused to give any heed.Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that the appellant failed to adhere to the parole conditions imposed by this Court and therefore, if the appellant is let on bail, she will abscond and she could not be secured again.It is also submitted that the appellant is nothttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/19 Crl.A. No.426 of 2019 residing in the address as stated in the appeal and that she had left the address shown in the appeal 20 years back.Further, the appellant has no ration card, Voter Identity Card or any other proof to show her address and therefore, there is every likelihood of the appellant absconding, besides indulging in unlawful activities along with the banned terrorist organisation - CPI (Maoist) and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor would pray for dismissal of this appeal.We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.The above said Crime numbers relate to an alleged incident that took place on 24.11.2002 in which the appellant and others are alleged to have taken arms training in a mango grove.On 24.11.2002, there was also an exchange of fire when the police party attempted to apprehend the appellant and others.However, only few of the accused could be nabbed on 24.11.2002 and the appellant and others escaped.It is also stated that the Government issued G.O. (Ms) No.21 dated 06.01.2005 announcing cash reward of Rs.2 lakhs to those who may provide useful information or clue leading to the arrest of the absconding arrest in the case.Ultimately, on 21.07.2016, the appellant was arrested in Karur along with one another accused by name Kala.Thus, in connection with the case registered in the year 2002, after fourteen years, the appellant was secured and from 21.07.2016, she is undergoing incarceration.In the result, we confirm the order dated 24.06.2019 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 153 of 2019 in Special C.C. No. 5 of 2003 on the file of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 17/19 Crl.A. No.426 of 2019 Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai at Poonamallee. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,803,687 | M.C. 744/2019 Page 3 of 4Accordingly, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of 20,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within two weeks from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No. 37/2017, under Sections 354D/354/294/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, registered at police station Sagarpur, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.This petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY 11, 2019 p'ma CRL.M.C. 744/2019 Page 4 of 4 | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,805,162 | Balla and Gangabai are also dead.Jatanbai is the daughter of Gangabai from his first husband.The applicants have filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 11/05/2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Session Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial no. 311/2012, by which the Court has allowed the application filed by the Prosecution under section 319 of Cr.P.C and taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 474, 120-B of IPC against the petitioner and has also issued non- bailable warrant to secure their presence before the Court.2 The short fact leading to filing of the present petition is that on 14/06/2012, the complainant Mangilal made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh alleging that the land about 26.23 hectors situated in Village - Rakhliya, Tehsil & District - Rajgarh is belonging to his joint family property.The joint holder of the property, Shaligram and her wife Radhibai are already dead and they have no issue.Other co-owner of the property was Balla and Gangabai is the second wife of Balla.The aforesaid land was in the possession of the complainant Mangilal and his family.It is alleged that Mangilal inquired the status of the aforesaid land, then it came to his knowledge that Jatanbai fraduently impersonated herselve as Radhibai and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Page no 2 executed the sale deed in favour of the present petitioners.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered at Crime no. 295/2012 dated 29/06/2012 against Jatanbai, Sorambai, lalsingh, Dhuliji Tawar, Pappu Tawar, Prem Singh and Jagdish Tawar.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the aforesaid persons.3 The trial Court has framed the charges against the aforesaid accused persons and recorded the statements of the ten prosecution witnesses.Thereafter, Additional Public Prosecutor moved an application dated 28/01/2017 under section 319 of Cr.P.C, since the aggrieved person has remedy under the law, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled for hearing at the stage of invoking the jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners for trying together with the other co- accused persons.In light of this contention, and from perusal of the record, it is evident that though the petitioners were named in the FIR, but there is no allegation made against the petitioners that they have fraudulently impersonated Sorambai as Radhibai for execution of the sale deed of the disputed land in their favour.There is no evidence on record, which indicates that the petitioners were having any knowledge that there was any dispute in respect of the aforesaid land.In these circumstances, it appears that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the land and by purchasing the aforesaid land, they have not prepared any forged documents or committed any cheating with the complainant Mangilal.In the statement of the Mangilal, nowhere it has come that the petitioners fraudulently impersonated Sorambai as Radhibai and got the sale deed executed in their favour.. 11 In the case of Anil Mahajan Vs.Bhor Industries Ltd and others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228, it is held that for making out the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention, must be shown to be existing from the very beginning of the transaction.In the present case, there is no dishonest intention reflected on the part of the petitioners / purchaser from the initial stage itself.None of the witnesses were examined by the trial Court making any allegation against the petitioners about the role played by them in the offences.There is no evidence that the petitioners have made any misrepresentation for gaining themselves.On the contrary, they have purchased the aforesaid land for valuable consideration. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,813,266 | Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and wants to argue on merit.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Learned A.G.A 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 nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Sanjay Kharwar, involved in case crime no.0015 of 2019, under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station-Manchi, District-Sonbhadra be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,081,439 | In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.6.2010 in connection with Tarakeswar P.S Case No. 84/10 dated 18.05.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/325/333/427/186 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Lokenath Mahanto & Ors. .. Petitioners.They, accordingly, be granted bail of Rs.10,000/-each with two sureties of Rs.5000/- each, of whom one must be local.Such bail bonds are to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore, Hooghly, to whom a copy of this order be sent at once.If on bail, the petitioners must meet the Investigating Officer twice a week until further order.The case diary be returned.( Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.) ( Asim Kumar Ray, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,818,296 | (The judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused Nos. 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 41 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri District.Including the appellants, there were totally four accused in the present case in Cr.(i) The deceased in this case was one Muniappa.P.Ws.1 to 3, viz., Murugesan, Subramani and Amutha respectively, are his family members.There was a long standing enmity between the family of the accused and that of the deceased in respect of a pathway dispute.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.(ii) It is alleged that on 11.10.2009, P.W.1-Murugesan, who is the brother's son of the deceased, had brought sand in a tractor and unloaded the same by the side of the house of the deceased.This was not to the liking of the deceased.Thereafter, on the same day, around 9.00 p.m., when P.Ws. 1 to 3 were nearing the house of the deceased, at that time, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the house of the deceased.It is further alleged that the 1st accused was in possession of an iron rod.The accused Nos.2 and 3 had wooden logs.The accused No.4 did not have any weapon in her hands.On reaching the place of occurrence, it is alleged that the 1st accused had attacked the deceased with the iron rod on his head and the 3rd accused attacked him with wooden log.The deceased sustained injuries on his head and fell down in a pool of blood.(iii) The 1st accused again attacked P.W.1-Murugesan with the iron rod on his head and caused injuries.The 1st accused in the course of the same transaction, attacked P.W.2-Subramani with the iron rod on his head and caused injuries.The 3rd accused attacked P.W.10-Muniraj and caused injuries on him.In the same occurrence, P.W.4-Mukundha also sustained injuries at the hands of the 3rd accused.Thus, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 10 sustained injuries.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Hosur, for treatment.P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 10 were taken to the Government Hospital at Hosur, where they were treated and later on, they were discharged.P.7 is the Accident Register.The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.10 are simple in nature.(ix) Thereafter, P.W.11-Dr.Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report.P.1 is the complaint.He forwarded both the documents to Court.(x) P.W.14-Mr.Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.On the next day, i.e., on 12.10.2009, at 6.30 a.m., he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2 ) and he also prepared Rough Sketch (Ex.P.15) showing the place of occurrence.Then, P.W.14 went to the hospital, he examined all the injured witnesses.He arrested the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 viz., Chandiran, Gopal and Radha respectively, on 12.10.2009, at 11.00 a.m. near Anchettipalli Bus Stand.On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the iron rod and wooden logs.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the said place.He recovered M.O.1-iron rod and M.Os.2 and 3-wooden logs under a Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court.(xi) On 25.10.2009, at about 11.30 a.m., the victim Muniappa, who was taking treatment in the hospital died.Therefore, P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police, altered the offence into one under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the Alteration Report under Ex.P.16 to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.The Trial Court framed charges against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 as detailed below:-Charge No.Rank of Accused Charged for the Offence1Charge No.1 Accused Nos.1 to 3U/s.307 IPC 2Charge No.2 Accused No. 4U/s.307 r/w.34 IPC3Charge No.3 Accused No.1 U/s.The Trial Court convicted the 1st appellant/1st accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and convicted the 2nd appellant/3rd accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 27.11.2012, the appellants/ accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court with this appeal.Accused Nos.1 to 3Accused No. 4(iv) On 11.10.2009, at about 9.40 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh, Government Hospital at Hosur, examined P.W.1-Murugesan and he found the following injuries on him:-"Injuries:1.Laceration parietal area of scalp 7 x 3 x 1 cm with bleeding.2.Laceration left knee for 3 x 2 cm.3.Complaint of pain in left shoulder.4.Contusion right thigh 2 x 1 cm".The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature.(v) On the same day, at about 9.45 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.2-Subramani, and he found the following injuries on him:-(vi) On the same day, at about 10.05 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.3-Amutha and he found the following injuries on her:-1. Abrasion on left wrist 3 x 2 cmComplaint of pain on right shoulder"P.9 is the Accident Register.The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.3 are simple in nature.(vii) On the same day, at about 11.20 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.4-Mukundha and he found the following injuries on him:-"Injuries:1.Laceration occipital area of scalp 4 x 3 x 1 cm.2.Contusion left forearm 4 x 3 cm.3.Abrasion right forearm 4 x 2 cm".P.5 is the Accident Register.The Doctor gave opinion that the injury No.2 alone is grievous in nature, while the other injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple in nature.(viii) On the same day, at about 10.45 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.10-Muniraj and he found the following injuries on him:-1. Abrasion on right hand dorso 3 x 2 cmTenderness on left knee joint3. Abrasion on left wrist 2 x 1 cm"Mahesh gave an intimation to the police in respect of the occurrence.P.W.14-Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the intimation from the hospital, rushed to the hospital, and recorded the statement of P.W.1-Murugesan.On returning to the Police Station, on 11.10.2009, at 11.00 p.m., he registered a case in Crime No.262 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC.(xii) P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.263 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC on the complaint of the 4th accused/Radha against the deceased party.(xiii) P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police took up the case of investigation.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for postmortem.Dhamayandhi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 25.10.2009 at 3.00 p.m., and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-"Appearances found at the post-mortem:- Body of male lying on its back with both eyes absent (eye donated) Mount closed, Tongue inside the mouth.White colour froth discharge from mouth.No evidence of external injuries.Internal Examination:- Hyoid bone intact Ribs- Intact Heart Weight 190 gramsLungs Weight - Right 410 grams, Left 390 grams.C/s.congested liver weight 1400 gms C/s.congested stomach contain black colour food particles about 100 ml.Kidney weight 130 c/s.CongestedSpleen weight 140 grams C/s.CongestedBladder fullScalp subdural hematoma on right frontal temporal bone.Brain subdural hematoma on right side of non-temporal bone 800 grams C/s.CongestedBase of skull Intact."Ex.P.12 is the Postmortem Certificate.The Doctor gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to the vital organ brain.(xiv)P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police made a request to the Court to forward the Material Objects for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were bloodstains on all Material Objects including the iron rod.On completing the investigation, finally, he laid chargesheet against the accused.(xv) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the paragraph No.1 of this judgment.All the accused denied the same as false.During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 24 documents and 8 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the injured eye witnesses.P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have stated about the entire occurrence.P.W. 2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.Ws.5 and 6 are also eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.7 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.15) prepared on the spot.P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the accused Nos.1,2 and 4 and consequential recovery of the iron rod and wooden logs.P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the 3rd accused.P.W.10 is an yet another injured witness, but, he has turned hostile.Mahesh has spoken about the treatment given to the injured witnesses and the deceased.Damayandhi has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.14-Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of case.P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done and final report filed.(xvi) When the accused Nos.1 to 4 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false.According to the accused Nos.1 to 4, the deceased party were the aggressors and they attacked the prosecution party and caused injuries.According to the accused Nos.1 to 4, a counter case registered on the complaint of the 4th accused/Radha was not investigated properly.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court found the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty and convicted them accordingly.He would fruther submit that the records pertaining to Crime No.263 of 2009 have been completely suppressed.Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.We have considered the above submissions. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,861,389 | However, nocase has been made out for convicting the appellant for an offencepunishable Section 449 (house trespass in order to commit offencepunishable with death) of the IPC.The facts:Thereupon he caught hold of her neck, threatened to kill her and thenrobbed her of her gold chain and two gold ear studs.Thereafter, he entered one bed room in the house and attempted to robLidiya’s grandmother Annamma, aged about 90 years of her ornaments.WhenAnnamma raised an alarm the appellant pulled her down from the cot on whichshe was lying and beat her on the head with a wall clock.He then robbedher of her gold chain weighing about 5.500 grams by breaking it from herneck and also took two imitation bangles from a bag kept inside the almirahin the room.The appellant then went away from the house.Upon the departure of the appellant and Jose Joseph from the scene ofcrime, Lidiya went to the school where she learnt dancing from her fatherand informed him of the incident.Madan B. Lokur, J.The question before us is whether, in the absence of a TestIdentification Parade (TIP for short), the evidence of a child witnessshould have been accepted for convicting the appellant.In our opinion, onthe facts of this case both the Trial Court and the High Court were rightin convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 397(robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) andSection 302 (punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code.On 20th October 1997, the appellant and Jose Joseph came to theresidential premises of PW-1 Jose son of Anthony at about 4.30 p.m. withthe common intention of committing robbery.While Jose Joseph stood guardnear the house, the appellant made an entry and came upon PW-2 Lidiyadaughter of PW-1 Jose son of Anthony, who was then aged about 11 years.They both rushed back to the house alongwith some friends and on discovering Annamma’s condition, she was firsttaken to Kanjirappally Government Hospital and then to the Kottayam MedicalCollege Hospital for treatment.On a complaint having been lodged of the robbery, the policeinvestigated the case and during the investigations, on 24th October 1997,the Investigating Officer PW-13 T.A. Salim recovered the stolen articles atthe instance of the appellant.On conclusion of investigations, a challan was filed and theappellant was charged with offences punishable under Section 449 of theIPC, Section 397 of the IPC and Section 302 of the IPC.Jose Joseph wasalso similarly charged but the Trial Judge found him guilty of an offencepunishable under Section 411 of the IPC.Both the convicts filed appeals in the High Court.While the appealfiled by Jose Joseph was accepted by the High Court, the appeal of theappellant was rejected and his conviction and sentence upheld.We are, therefore, concerned only with the appeal filed by theappellant.Decision of the Trial Court:The Trial Judge found from the medical evidence given by PW-10 Dr.V.P. Rajan, Civil Surgeon in the Kanjirappally Government Hospital thatAnnamma was aged about 90 years.She had an injury on her forehead abovethe left eyebrow with suspicion of a fracture, edema of both eyelids andlacerated injury on right side of the forehead.According to him, theinjuries could have been caused by a wall clock as alleged by theprosecution.The Trial Judge also considered the medical evidence of PW-11Dr.Babu, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kottayam MedicalCollege that Annamma died on 29th October 1997 as a result of the headinjuries sustained by her.The Trial Court found that the evidence of boththe doctors was not challenged and proved that Annamma died due to theviolence inflicted on her including being hit with a wall clock.The Trial Judge also found no reason to disbelieve the consistenttestimony of Jose son of Antony and Lidiya who was an eye witness to theincident.In addition, the Trial Court relied on the testimony of PW-3Leelamma, a neighbour of Jose son of Antony.Although this witness hadturned hostile, she admitted having seen the appellant on the fateful dayabout 100 meters away from the house of Jose son of Antony.She had seenthe appellant earlier also and could, therefore, recognize him.The TrialJudge also relied on the evidence on PW-5 Thankuppam, who was residingclose by and had also seen the appellant in the vicinity of the house ofJose son of Antony.This witness had also turned hostile, but confirmedseeing the appellant and that he knew the appellant.It appears that thiswitness had turned hostile on the issue of having seen both the appellantand Jose Joseph together.The principal contention of the appellant before the Trial Judge wasthat since he was a total stranger to Lidiya, she could not have recognizedhim in the Court and in the absence of a TIP, reliance on heridentification of the appellant could not be considered safe.The TrialJudge rejected this contention on the ground that there was sufficientother evidence to show the presence of the appellant in the vicinity of thehouse of Jose son of Antony and in view of the corroboration from otherwitnesses, there was no reason to doubt Lidiya.Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentencedhim to 10 years imprisonment and fine for an offence punishable underSection 449 of the IPC, imprisonment for 7 years and fine for an offencepunishable under Section 397 of the IPC and for life for an offencepunishable under Section 302 of the IPC.It was directed that thesentences would run concurrently.Decision of the High Court:Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 835 of2004 in the High Court of Kerala.By its Judgment and Order dated 30thOctober 2007, the High Court rejected the appeal and upheld the convictionof the appellant.The High Court relied upon the evidence of the witnessesmentioned above to uphold the conviction.Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 835 of 2004 wasdismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,862,597 | (Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in No.32/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 30.07.2014 by the detaining authority,who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameAjay and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, C3 S.S.Colony Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein ithas been stated to the effect that the detenu has involved in the followingadverse cases:(i)Crime No.287 of 2014, C2 Subramaniapuram Police Station registeredunder Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 19.05.2014, one Moris,Son of Selvaraj has given a complaint against the detenu and others in C3S.S.Colony Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.655 of2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Codeand ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982against the detenu.4.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after perusingthe averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documentshas derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is nothing,but a habitual offender and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 against him andthereby branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detentionorder and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition hasbeen filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.A.SELVAM, J.4.The Inspector of Police, C.3 S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.ORDER MADE INH.C.P(MD)No.942 of 201424.11.2014 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,867,604 | Afterreaching a particular place, the accused has had cornal copulation with the saidPappathi and at that time, the son of the said Pappathi by name Boomiraj aged 1+years has started to cry and with an intention to murder the said Pappathi, theaccused has attacked on her head by using a spade and also bitten left chest anddue to overtacts alleged to have been committed by him, the said Pappathi haspassed away and subsequently, the accused has also attacked the said Boomiraj byusing the very same spade and he also passed away.After murdering both thedeceased, the accused has stealthily removed the jewels of Pappathi.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM, J.) The convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court in a double murdercase are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.The nubble of the case of the prosecution is that the accused by nameVeeramani @ Veerarasu @ Veeramuthu has served as an agricultural labourer forsome time in the leasehold field of one Sambanthamoorthy (PW6).On 20.10.2003 atabout 08.00 pm, the accused has approached the said Sambanthamoorthy anddemanded money for spending the same towards delivery of his wife.The saidSambanthamoorthy has refused to concede the demand made by the accused.One ofthe deceased by name Pappathi has also served as an agricultural labourer underthe said Sambanthamoorthy and at that time the accused has developed illicitintimacy with her and handed over some amount to her.After refusal of the saidSambanthamoorthy, the accused has approached the said Pappathi and demandedmoney and she expressed that she is not having money and with an intention torob her jewels, the accused has decided to take her to an isolated place underthe guise of irrigating field as directed by the said Sambanthamoorthy.After occurrence, on 23.10.2003, the Village Menial by name Rajendran(PW2) has intimated the factum of lying dead bodies in the field ofSambanthamoorthy to the Village Administrative Officer by name Venkatachalam(PW1).On receipt of Ex.The Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu has furnished copies of allrelevant documents to the accused and after considering that the offencesalleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court,has committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the same has been taken onfile in Sessions Case No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District andSessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Pattukottai.The trial court after considering the available materials on record hasframed first charge against the accused under Section 302 (2 counts) of theIndian Penal Code and second charge against him under Section 379 of the IndianPenal Code the same have been read over and explained to him.The accused hasdenied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 have been examined andExs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 8 have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available inevidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.No oral anddocumentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused.The trial Court after evaluating the available evidence on record hasfound the accused guilty under Section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Codeand imposed double life sentence.But the said Punniyamoorthy has not beenexamined on the side of the prosecution.But PW1 who is havingconnection with the alleged confession has given evidence to the effect that theaccused has given the same on 14.10.2003 and the trial Court has failed to lookinto the same.(iv) In pursuance of confession alleged to have been given by the accused,some material objects have been recovered in the presence of PWs.7, 8 and 10 andthe alleged seizure has not been proved on the side of the prosecution.(v) The doctor who conducted autopsy (PW11) has not given proper evidenceas to the cause of death of the deceased Boomiraj.(vi) The specific evidence given by one of the Investigating Officersviz., PW13 is that on 24.10.2003 the accused has been arrested in connectionwith Crime No.448 of 2003, Athiramapattinam Police Station by the concernedInspector of Police viz., Somasundaram and the said Somasundaram has not beenexamined.In order to dissipate the contentions put forth on the side of theappellant/accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also equallycontended that in the instant case, the prosecution has proved the allegedillicit intimacy of the accused with one of the deceased by name Pappathi.The husband of the deceased Pappathi viz., Ponnusamy has been examinedas PW3 and his specific evidence is that he and his wife have served asagricultural labourers in the field of Sambanthamoorthy and due to despair, hehas gone to his native village with his four children and after some time hashas come to Mela Uloor and asked the deceased viz., Pappathi to come along withhim and she refused.The prosecution has put forth its case on the basis of illicitintimacy, last seen witnesses, confession alleged to have been given by theaccused coupled with seizure of some material objects.The last seen witnesses by name Durai (PW4) and Maruthamuthu (PW5)have given clear evidence to the effect that on 20.10.2003 at about 08.30 pm,both of them and one Mariammal while sitting in front of the house of PW4, haveseen both the accused as well as deceased Pappathi.The accused has asked thesaid Pappathi to come along with him for the purpose of irrigating field and thedeceased Pappathi has followed the accused by way of taking a spade.The accusedhas given a voluntary confession statement and the admitted portions of the samehave been marked as Exs.In pursuance of Exs.P2 and P3, some of thevital material objects belonging to the deceased viz., Pappathi have beenrecovered in the presence of Kalidoss (PW7), Ponnambalam (PW8) and Vasudevan(PW10).P9 two jewels have beenrecovered from one Ayyasamy as identified by the accused.Further PW10 hasstated in his evidence that the accused has mortgaged a nose screw and receiveda sum of Rs.170/- and to that effect Ex.It is an admitted fact that PW11 viz., Dr.Sivakumar has conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased and he marked postmortem certificate viz.,Exs.The specific evidence given by PW13, Investigating Officer is alsoto that effect.Further PW1 has given evidenceagainst Exs.Therefore, the second contention put forth on the side ofthe appellant/accused is of no use.The third contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused isthat both PWs.4 and 5 are not reliable witnesses.Therefore, thefourth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused goes outwithout merit.The fifth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused isthat PW11, doctor who conducted autopsy has not given clear evidence to theeffect that the injury sustained by one of the deceased viz., Boomiraj is not atall sufficient to cause his death.In fact this Court has perused the entireevidence given by PW11 and his specific evidence is that he found a swelling onthe neck of the deceased Boomiraj and since the dead body is in a state ofputrefied condition, corresponding internal injuries cannot be found.The sixth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused isthat the specific evidence given by PW13 viz., one of the Investigating Officersis that on 24.10.2003 the accused has been arrested in connection with CrimeNo.448 of 2003, Athiramapattinam Police Station by the concerned Inspector ofPolice viz., Somasundaram and he recorded a confession statement (Ex.The trial Court after analysing both the oral and documentary evidencehas rightly found the accused guilty under Section 302(2 counts) and also underSection 379 of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the foregoing enunciation ofboth the factual and legal aspects, this Court has not found any acceptableforce in the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/accused andaltogether, the present Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.In fine, this Criminal Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly isdismissed.2.The The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District Thanjavur.3.The Addl. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,686,787 | Heard on I.A. No.11990/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant no.1 Gajendra Singh Chouhan.Appellant no.1 has been convicted for offences under Sections 120-B, 420 read with section 120-B on 24 counts and 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, three years, five years, five years and three years on each count respectively and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine amount and default clause.On appellant no.1's depositing the entire fine amount within one month from today and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28.10.2015 and on such other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, his jail sentence shall remain suspended and he be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,871,504 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, the report of the CJM,Sonbhadra dated 23.12.2019 shows that notices were served upon Mahendra the real brother of opposite party no.2 and despite of the notices no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to press this appeal.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that a written information was given by Rajendra Baiga on 09.02.2019 that his father Rampreet(deceased) spent quality time with the appellant Sadikulla Khan Alias Chhotu, Anil Jaiswal, Vikas Chubey and consuming liqour and after consuming liqour all of sudden the physical condition of the appellant started deteriorating and taking him to the hospital where he has taken last breath.Post mortem report shows that there are two superficial injuries over his right wrist and left nipple and according to the doctor the cause of death is SYNCOPE due to external and internal haemorrhage.After 28 days delay on 03.08.2019, the story was created by Rajendra Baiga against four persons, namely, Anil Jaiswal, Vikas Chubey,Sadikulla @ Chhotu Mistri and Rajkumar attributing the general role that all of them consuming liqour and during this there was a minor scuffle between them.The 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Rajendra Baiga is quite fluid and there is no concrete story has come up.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is 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 case for bail.Let the applicant/appellant-Sadikulla Khan Alias Chhotu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(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.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 17.1.2020 Abhishek Sri. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,878,170 | /34 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas.It is submitted that the petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court.The opposite party no.2 is the wife of one Samir Kumar Paul who is the so-called brother of one Smt. Shyamali Paul.Several false and fabricated cases have been filed against the present petitioner.The husband of the opposite party no.2 stands as a witness in all cases filed by either his wife or any local people.Samir Kr.Pal, the husband of opposite party no.2, is the actual culprit who had not come in the picture of the cases.However, the learned Counsel prays for direction to serve and for hearing the matter with an interim relief.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.Perused the petition of complaint and the photocopies of the annexures.There shall be stay of all further proceedings arising out of Belgharia Police Station Case No.15/2014 dated 09.01.2014 (G.R. Case No.155 of 2014) under Sections 323/354/504/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas for a period of eight weeks.Urgent photostat certified copy of this Order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.( Asim Kumar Mondal, J. ) | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,878,394 | The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Selvam and P.W.2 Kannan are brothers and they belong to the same village of Vadavirinchipuram where from, the appellant/accused also hails; that on 14.8.1998, which was a Adi Friday, many people took 'kavadi' and there was a kavadi procession in the village in which the deceased Selvam performed 'Silambattam'; that at about 7.30 p.m., when the procession was going on, a stranger came in his scooter and P.W.6 Arumugam intercepted him and chid him for having come in that way and the deceased Selvam intervened and told P.W.6 to leave the scooterist for which P.W.6 abused the deceased Selvam as a drunkard and told him that it was none of his business, which was witnessed by P.Ws.2,3 and 5 and others.The further case of the prosecution is that after the procession, the deceased Selvam complained against the conduct of P.W.6 to one Murugan, the brother-in-law of P.W.6, and at that time, the appellant/accused intervened and shouted at the deceased Selvam calling him a bastard, incited others to give him a blow and send him away and enraged by the said act of the appellant/accused, the deceased Selvam slapped him, which was also witnessed by P.Ws.2,3 and 5 who separated both of them; that by this time, P.W.4 Gnanasundari, the wife of the deceased Selvam came there and the accused shouting that he would not leave him without killing him, came towards the deceased Selvam and stabbed him with a pen knife on his left chest and fled away and when the deceased was taken to the Government Pentland Hospital, Vellore, he was declared dead by the Duty Doctor P.W.8 Arunan and hence the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who was met by P.W.2 and his son in the midnight on the date of occurrence and lodged a complaint with him, which was recorded by P.W.1 as Ex.P.1 and then he went to Vadavirinchipuram and enquired P.Ws.3 and 5 about the occurrence and on 15.8.1998 at 4.00 a.m., P.W.1 went to the respondent Police Station and with his endorsement Ex.P.2, handed over Ex.P.1 to P.W.13 S.I. Ashokkumar who registered the case and sent Express F.I.R. through P.W.11 Head Constable and P.W.11 handed it over to the concerned Magistrate and copies to the superior police officers.P.Ws.3 to 6 are the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence among whom P.W.4 Gnana Sundari is the wife of the deceased Selvam; P.W.7 is the Photographer, P.W.8 is the Doctor who examined the deceased and declared him dead and issued Ex.JUDGMENT V. Kanagaraj, J.P.7 wound certificate and Ex.P.8 the death intimation; P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem and issued Ex.P.10 post-mortem report; P.W.10 is the Head Clerk of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore, P.W.11 is the Grade-I Police Constable, who handed over the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate and copies to the superior police officers; P.W.12 is the Grade-I Police Constable, P.W.13 is the Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.14 is the Inspector of Police and the Investigating Officer.So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, the prosecution would mark 19 documents on its behalf as Exs.P.1 is the complaint dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.2 is the endorsement made by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 dated 15.8.1998; Ex.P.3 is the observation mahazar dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.4 is the mahazar for recovery of M.Os.1 and 2, dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.5 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant/accused dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.6 is the mahazar for recovery of M.O.3, Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate of the deceased dated 14.8.1998, Ex.P.8 is the death intimation dated 14.8.1998, Ex.P.9 is the Post Mortem Requisition dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.10 is the Post Mortem Certificate dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.11 is the requisition to send the properties to Chemical Examiner, dated 31.8.1998, Ex.P.12 is the letter from the Court to the Chemical Examiner dated 1.9.1998, Ex.P.13 is the Biol Report dated 24.11.1998, Ex.P.14 is the Chemical Report dated 30.10.1998, Ex.P.15 is the Serologist Report dated 2.3.1999, Ex.P.16 is Form-95 dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.17 is the FIR dated 15.8.1998, Ex.P.18 is the rough sketch dated 15.8.1998 and Ex. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,688,793 | Certified copy, as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.09.09 14:26:09 -12'00'The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363 of I.P.C., 376 (2) (I) (n) of I.P.C. and Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., 10 years R.I. and 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,000/- and 1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.It is further submitted that although in the court statement, the prosecutrix deposed that at the time of incident she was 15 years however she accepted in the cross examination that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First, Mhow in which she stated that at the time of incident she was 18 years of age and having love affair with the appellant so she had gone with the appellant with her own will.The prosecutrix is also having voter ID card in which her age is mentioned as 19 years and prosecutrix accepted in her cross examination that she had used twice her right of vote, which clearly indicates that at the time of incident, she was major.It is further submitted that she remained in the custody of the appellant about 1 and half months and she visited so many places by using public transport and during which she has not narrated the incident to 2 anyone committed by the appellant with her, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party.It is also contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future.If the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant is not suspended then appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 09/11/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,890,389 | 1. Heard Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 :::The petitioner is the accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 172/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad.There are three other accused in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC, and 498A of the IPC, read with Sections 107 of the IPC and 34 of the IPC.The trial is in progress.After one witness for the defence had been examined, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 73) praying that two witnesses, whose evidence, according to him, was necessary for a just decision of the case, be summoned by the Court as per the powers vested in it, by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"].The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 20-12-2013, rejected the said application.Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition invoking the constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers of the court.Considering the nature of challenge, it was thought fit to decide the petition finally at the admission stage itself.Hence, Rule was issued and was made returnable forthwith by consent.By consent, the petition has been heard finally.The facts of the case and the circumstances in which the application (Exhibit 73) came to be made, may be stated thus :::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 :::(3)The prosecution case is that, Smt. Geeta - wife of the petitioner - was set on fire by the petitioner at the instigation of the other accused which include parents of the petitioner.A statement of Geeta, recorded on 25-2-2010 at Krishna Hospital, implicating the petitioner and the other accused, formed a part of the charge sheet.In the course of cross examination of the Investigating Officer, it was revealed that a statement of Geeta had been recorded by one L.R.Jadhav, a Police constable attached to Jinsi Police Station, on 23-2-2010, itself.It was revealed that, Constable Jadhav had given a letter to an Executive Magistrate requesting him to record the statement of Geeta and had also given a letter to the Medical Officer, Krishna Hospital, requesting him to ascertain the condition of Geeta and opine whether she was in a fit state of mind to make a statement.The letters written by Constable Jadhav to the Medical Officer and to the Executive Magistrate, as also, the statement of Geeta recorded on 23-2-2010 were got produced before the court by the defence after the revelation of the said facts.The defence thereafter claimed that 'since they were admitting the documents in question, the documents may be marked, exhibited and read in evidence'.This was objected to by the prosecution and, therefore, such an application by the defence was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The challenge to that order given by the petitioner, by ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 ::: (4) filing a Writ Petition in this Court (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1047 of 2013, decided on 29th November 2013) also failed.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 :::The relevancy, admissibility, as also the importance of the evidence of the said witnesses viz. the Constable Jadhav and the Medical Officer cannot be doubted.However, before the trial court, the ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 ::: (5) prosecution had vehemently objected for the examination of these witnesses on grounds which are not convincing at all.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 :::I have gone through the impugned order.The accused had opportunity to examine them as defence witnesses'.It is, on this reasoning, that the application came to be rejected.The said dying declaration was however, suppressed by the prosecution and the accused were being prosecuted on the basis of another dying declaration, in which the declarant had implicated them.The same is, therefore, required to be interfered with.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:54:11 ::: | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,890,556 | Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of h ig the case without expressing any opinion on the merits of H the case, this application is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by the applicant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the applicant Kamta Yadav be released on regular bail."ou C. C. as per rules.C h (S.K. GANGELE) ig JUDGE H pb Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2017.12.09 10:57:52 +05'30' | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,568,909 | ORDER N. Kannadasan, J.Due to strained relationship, they were separated in the year 1999, resulting in the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P. No. 101 of 2000 seeking dissolution of marriage and the same is pending on the file of Sub Court, Pollchi.Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the respondent has already shifted her residence to Chennai and there is no impediment to file the present application for maintenance at the Court situated at Chennai and accordingly opposes the relief.I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both parties. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,893,038 | (Passed on this 17th day of September, 2019) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the Code) for quashment of first information report bearing Crime No.86/2017 registered at Police Station Baghna, District Neemuch (MP) against him for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and all consequential criminal pro- ceedings pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No.2 (Jalaj Sharma s/o Nandkishor Sharma) lodged First Information Report bearing Crime No.86/2017 at Police Station Baghana, District Neemuch (MP) on 11.05.2017 alleging that he purchased a Car (Polo) of Volkswagen Company bearing registration number MP-09 CJ-7806 on 08.10.2016 from the petitioner 2 (Ashish Sharma s/o Omprakash Sharma) and in this regard, an agreement (Annexure P/1) was executed, but the vehicle is still registered in the name of seller Ashish Sharma and proceedings for transfer of owner- ship of the vehicle is pending before the Regional Transport Officer.On 10.05.2017 at about 11.00 PM, he parked his vehicle in front of his house.On next day in between 04.00 AM to 05.00 AM, his mother Smt. Saroj Sharma found that the vehicle is missing.Then, they searched the vehicle, but it was not traced.During the investigation, re- spondent No.2 made suspicion over Ashish Sharma.Then, the Police seized the vehicle from the possession of the present petitioner and he has been implicated as an accused in the crime.After completion of the inves- tigation, charge sheet has been filed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehi- cle bearing registration number MP-09 CJ-7806 which he has purchased on finance, but due to need of mon- ey, he sold the said vehicle to respondent No.2 (Jalaj Sharma s/o Nandkishor Sharma) vide agreement dat-According to the conditions of the agree- ment, respondent No.2 agreed to deposit the install- ment of loan amount in the HDFC Bank; and he also accepted that if he fails to deposit consecutive two in- stallments of loan amount, then the agreement will stand automatically cancelled and the petitioner will have a right to get back the possession of the vehicle.Respondent No.2 did not pay more than two consecu- tive installments of loan amount.Thereafter, HDFC Bank issued a notice to the petitioner for recovery of loan amount and then the petitioner contacted respon- dent No.2 and requested him to handover the posses- sion of the vehicle.On 10.05.2017, respondent No.2 handed over the vehicle to the petitioner and told him that original document of the vehicle is kept in his house; therefore, he will send it later.On the next day, respondent No.2 threatened the petitioner on tele- phone that he will return the original document only when the petitioner will pay the consideration amount, or return the vehicle, otherwise he will implicate him in a false case of theft of the vehicle.The petitioner filed a written complaint about this incident before the Station House Officer, Bhanwarkuwa, District Indore (MP).Thereafter, on 11.05.2017 respondent No.2 lodged a false FIR (Annexure P/1) against unknown 4 person at Police Station, Baghana, District Neemuch (MP), on the basis of which, FIR No.86/2017 for of- fence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered.During investigation, the Police seized Car bearing registration number MP- 09 CJ-7806 on 15.05.2017 from the possession of the applicant.In these circumstances, he has not commit- ted the alleged offence.The dispute between the par- ties is of civil nature; and respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present crime.Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashment of the FIR and consequential proceedings initiated in further to the FIR.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the present petition by contending that from the material available on record prima facie offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out against the petitioner and no ground is available for quash- ment of the FIR and consequential criminal proceed- ings.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays for rejection of the petition.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.However, vide agreement dated 5 08.10.2016 he sold the aforesaid vehicle to respondent No.2 for a consideration of Rs.3,05,000/-.According to the conditions of the agreement, respondent No.2 agreed that he will pay the installments of the loan amount to the HDFC Bank and if he fails to pay two consecutive installments of loan amount, then the peti- tioner will have right to get the possession of the vehi- cle and the agreement will deem to be cancelled.The petitioner claims that respondent No.2 has not deposited more than two consecutive installments of loan, and therefore, the said agreement stood auto- matically cancelled; and on his request, respondent No.2 himself handed over the possession of the vehicle to him, but this fact has been denied by respondent No.2; and it is alleged that the petitioner took the pos- session of the vehicle from the house of respondent No.2, without his permission.Therefore, on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2, FIR bearing Crime No.86/2017 for offence under Section 379 of the Indi- an Penal Code, 1860 has been registered and after due investigation, charge sheet has also been filed against the petitioner.Hence, there is sufficient material available on record prima facie for charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the applicant; and no ground is available for quashing FIR and consequential crimi- nal proceedings registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,893,434 | ALLOWED In the matter of An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th May, 2016 in connection with Karimpur Police Station Case No. 56 of 2016 dated 29.03.2016 under Sections 326A/34 of the Indian Penal Code..And In the matter of : Ujjal Bachhar & Others.They have been falsely implicated.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,896,516 | At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not want to press the bail plea for the applicant No.2 Satish and applicant No.3 Arvind.Hence, this bail application insofar as it relates to the aforesaid applicants is dismissed as not pressed.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No.196/2015 registered at Police Station Orchha, district Tikamgarh against him and the co-accused Satish and Arvind for the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of the I.P.C.Prosecution allegations are that on 23.08.2015 at about 7.00 p.m, in village Gundrai, the applicant and the co-accused persons stormed into the house of informant Gopal with sticks.They asked him as to why he had ploughed the agricultural land of one Virendra Jain.Therafter, they committed marpeet with him.As a result, he sustained fracture in his right leg and other minor injuries.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 63 years old person and he is suffering from old age related diseases.It is also submitted by him that on account of land dispute, the informant has falsely implemented him and his sons, who are the -2- co-accused of the case.It is also submitted by him that this is the first ever offence registered against the applicant and he does not have any criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Learned panel lawyer opposes the prayer.The Investigating Officer is directed that if he arrests the applicant in the aforesaid crime, then he be released immediately on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to his satisfaction.The applicant is directed to abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer in the stipulated period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,898,099 | Sita Ram is an 65 years old man.He is hard of hearing and thus would not have heard the quarrel between his son and some third person.The alleged weapon of offence has been planted on the appellant.The same was recovered from an open field accessible to all.Hence he be acquitted of the charge.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 1 of 7No defence evidence has been led by Sita Ram and his explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is:"I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the police.I had brought my son Naresh from the village, due to our old age and we needed support.Deceased Naresh had never beaten us.He used to go for work and he used to look after us.He was short tampered so used to quarrelled with the neighbourhood people and other people.I was arrested by the police just to show the case solve.I did not make any disclosure statement.My signatures were obtained by the police, forcibly, which were later on fabricated against me."The process of law was set into motion on receipt of PCR information which was recorded vide DD No.3A at 12.10 AM on June 18, 2012 at PS Shalimar Bagh from phone number 9136808852 informing that a person has killed his child in front of Haiderpur Ayurvedic Hospital and the caller wants his name to be kept secret.When police reached the spot they found a young boy lying in pool of blood on a bed on the floor with injuries on the head.The name of the boy was revealed as Naresh son of Sita Ram resident of Jhuggi No.H49/354, Ayurvedic Hospital, Haiderpur, Delhi.No eye witness was available on the spot however, it was found that Naresh used to beat his parents due to which Naresh's father Sita Ram was upset and after the incident Sita Ram had left the house with Kudaal.On the basis of this Crl.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 2 of 7 information FIR No.162/2012 was registered under Section 302 IPC.Statements of witnesses were recorded including that of the wife of the appellant and mother of the deceased and search.During investigation on the same day Sita Ram reached the Police Station and surrendered himself.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 2 of 7Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Sita Ram, his blood stained clothes and the weapon of offence Kudaal were recovered at his instance from the Bagh of Chattar Singh, Sheesh Mahal Shalimar, near guava tree.The Kudaal was blood stained.temporal and base of skull.In his opinion the death was due to coma as result of head injury.All injuries were ante mortem, fresh in duration and caused by sharp heavy cutting weapon like axe.Injury Nos.1 to 4 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.They used to grow vegetables in the grove land and used to look after the trees of plum, mangos and guava.This land had been taken from Chattar Singh Thekedar.This Court is thus left with the testimony of Sahja PW-10, wife of Sita Ram who deposed that Sita Ram is her husband and they had three sons, Naresh being the second son.She stated that Naresh was a bad element who used to consume liquor and did not do any work on permanent basis.He Crl.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 4 of 7 often quarrelled with her and her husband for money for consuming liquor and used to beat both of them.On the day of occurrence in the morning the deceased Naresh had demanded money from her for liquor and quarrelled with her for the same.Naresh had demanded money because he knew that Sita Ram and Sahja were having `1,000/- which they have kept for purchasing new clothes for their grandson and for arranging return ticket as he had come in the holidays from the village.On Sahja refusing to give money Naresh had quarrelled with her and had beaten her.She along with her grandson Manjeet went to grove land (bagh), where her husband was working as farmer and told about the occurrence of beating by Naresh to Sita Ram.Thereafter her husband left from the Bagh.After some time she came to the house and fell asleep.Even as per Sahja both Sahja and Sita Ram were present in the house when she heard the noise of quarrel whereafter Naresh was found bleeding and struggling for his life.She does not say who entered the premises.It is also her case that both of them, i.e. she and her husband were annoyed with the conduct of Naresh and just before the incident she had complained to her husband about Naresh beating her whereafter Sita Ram came home.In a two room tenement, as is evident from the site plan, there is no averment that there was access to anybody from outside especially when everybody was sleeping in the house.M.B.No.10269/2014 (suspension of sentence) Since we are finally hearing the arguments in the appeal and deciding the same, the application seeking suspension of sentence pending hearing of the appeal, is dismissed as infructuous.Sita Ram is convicted for the murder of his son Naresh and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year which judgement of conviction and order on sentence he challenges in the present appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment on the ground that this is a case of no evidence.The witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.The blood stains on the clothes of the appellant would naturally be there as he had picked up his son resulting in his clothes getting Crl.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 1 of 7 stained with the blood of his son.The articles seized from the spot along with the blood stained clothes of Sita Ram were sent for FSL examination vide report Ex.PW-20/A. It was opined that the clothes of Sita Ram and Kudaal had blood group of human origin 'B' group on it which was the blood group of the deceased.Post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Bhim Singh PW-1 who noticed the following external injuries on Naresh:"i. Chop wound measuring 3.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep over the left mastoid region of head.Chop wound measuring into 3.3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left parietal region.Chop wound measuring 3.2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over left temporal region.Chop wound measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep over left eye brow.v. Chop wound measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm over lower part of left ear lobule through and through."On internal examination Dr.Bhim Singh found a cut wound below injury Nos.1 to 4 with depressed communicating fracture of paretio-fronto-A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 3 of 7He exhibited the post mortem report as Ex.PW-1/A. The matter was referred to him again for subsequent opinion after the recovery of Kudaal at the instance of the appellant and vide his subsequent opinion Ex.PW-1/B he opined that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report could be possible by the examined weapon i.e. Kudaal.He also clarified that in his post mortem report he inadvertently mentioned the name of deceased as Harish Kumar which in fact was Naresh Kumar.Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of this witness.During the course of trial the neighbours, who appeared in the witness box, did not support the prospection case however, stated that Naresh used to trouble PW-10 and Sita Ram as he used to demand money from them for liquor and quarrelled with them.On hearing the noise of quarrel she woke up and also awoke Sita Ram who was sleeping beside her.After opening the door of the room, he went to the room of Naresh and saw that Naresh was bleeding and struggling for his life.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 4 of 7Sahja has supported the prosecution case in all aspect but she blurred on the aspect of who committed the crime.Despite this incident happening in the house and admittedly Sahja and Sita Ram Crl.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 5 of 7 seeing their son in this condition, no PCR call was made by them and when police reached the spot Sita Ram was not present.The version of Sahja to the extent that she woke up on hearing the quarrel and also awoke Sita Ram who was sleeping beside her is obviously to save her husband however, the fact that the incident happened when only three of them, i.e. Sita Ram, Sahja and Naresh were in the house and there was no third person, the onus shifts to Sita Ram to explain how injuries were received to Naresh.No explanation on this account has been rendered in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C or by suggestion to the witnesses.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 5 of 7The prosecution case that Sita Ram committed the murder of Naresh is further proved by the recovery of blood stained clothes and Kudaal, the weapon of offence which was also blood stained, at his instance.Though learned counsel for the appellant has sought to contend that the clothes were blood stained because the appellant picked his son however, there is no material on record to prove this fact.Further, neither Sita Ram made any call to the police nor was present when the police reached the spot.This conduct of the appellant which is incompatible to his innocence coupled with the recovery of the blood stained clothes and weapon of offence in our opinion the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by inflicting injuries to Naresh having been caused by Sita Ram.The issue then arises is whether the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC.As per Sahja on the date of incident Naresh demanded money from him as he knew that Sita Ram and Sahja had `1,000/- with them which fact is also proved from the testimony of Shatrughan Sengar PW-14 who stated that Sita Ram had retained `1,000/- which included his share of `500/- as he had to purchase clothes and tickets Crl.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 6 of 7 for his grandson who had come from the village during summer vacations.It is on the complaint of Sahja that Sita Ram came and quarrel ensued between the father and the son resulting in the injuries on the head of Naresh.The act of Sita Ram being on a sudden quarrel between the two of them without any premeditation on being fed up with the behaviour of his son Naresh of not earning but quarrelling and beating his parents on the demand of money not being in fulfilled and by weapon available at home which Sita Ram was using to plough the fields.The offence would thus be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the appellant is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC.The conviction of Sita Ram is altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC.Sita Ram is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 6 of 7The appeal is accordingly disposed of.T.C.R. be returned.Two copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar one for his record and the other to be handed over to the appellant.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2014 'vn' Crl.A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 7 of 7A.No.1092 of 2014 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,568,988 | J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4664 of 2007)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court which confirmed conviction of the appellants while directing acquittal of twelve co-accused persons.Originally, 20 persons including the present appellants faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC).After recording evidence the Trial Court acquitted six persons under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) and the rest 14 were convicted.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: First information report was lodged by one Hrishikesh Jana on 17.1.1992, stating that on 17.1.1992 in the morning when said Hrishikesh Jana was busy in the field for cultivation of his land, the appellants under the leadership of appellant Sachin Jana forming an unlawful assembly and being armed with different weapons like bombs, sticks, knives, iron rods and bottle of acid threatened Hrishikesh Jana with dire consequences and when Hrishikesh Jana did not oblige them by leaving the work of cultivation, the accused persons started assaulting him with blows, kicks, iron rods etc. and acid was also poured on his face and body.Hrishikesh Jana alleged in his written complaint that the appellants also poured acid on one Amulya Giri and Kartick Maity and also assaulted one Sabitri Giri who came forward to save Hrishikesh Jana.After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.Accused persons pleaded false implication.In order to further its version the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the informant Hrishikesh Jana and injured persons Amulya Giri, Kalipada Maity.The accused persons examined three persons to contend that the prosecution was not projecting the correct scenario.The Trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that on 17th January, 1992 Sachin Jana and remaining appellants, after forming an unlawful assembly assaulted him when Amulya (PW2), Kartick (PW3) and Sachin came to rescue Hrishikesh.The accused persons shared common intention and also poured acid on the person of Amulya and assaulted.Fourteen persons were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and each was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.Different sentences were also imposed for the other offences.The Trial Court primarily relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 who were claimed to be victims of acid pouring.1, 2 and 3 clearly established the guilt of the appellants, but was not sufficient to convict the 12 co-accused persons.Accordingly, the appeal so far it relates to the present appellants was dismissed.But the conviction was altered to Section 307/34 IPC.The acid burns caused disfigurement. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,899,105 | From the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, it reflects that when she was talking to the appellant on mobile phone her husband came there and he overheard the Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.08.21 17:54:53 +05'30' Cr.A. No.5539/2019 2 conversation between the appellant and the prosecutrix, thereafter, she lodged FIR against the applicant which shows that she was consenting party.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Under these circumstances, counsel prayed for bail to the appellant.Cr.A. No.5539/2019 2Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the objector/complainant submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.Consequently, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is hereby allowed.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his regular presence during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.08.21 17:55:16 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,568,993 | Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A on theprayer for bail of accused appellants and perused the impugnedjudgement and order of the trial court as well as trial court record.This third bail application has been moved by the accusedappellants Ram Sajeevan and Ram Sumiran in pending criminalappeal filed by them against the judgment and order dated22.08.2005, passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.9, Faizabad in S.T. No.38 of 2002 (Case Crime No. 338 of2001); State Vs.Awadesh Kumar and others under Sections 147,148, 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Beekapur, DistrictFaizabad, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has heldthe accused-appellants along with other accused guilty underSections 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C, consequently, hehas convicted and sentenced each of the accused to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 8,000/- each underSection 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone year each under Section 148 I.P.C. In case of default of paymentof fine, they were ordered to further undergo additionalimprisonment for one year each under Sections 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.The first and second bail applications of the accused appellants hadbeen rejected on merit on 27.4.2006 and 21.05.2009 respectively bythe Court.The submission of the learned counsel for the accusedappellants is that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive ofthe occurrence.Ram Bachan who is the best witness of theoccurrence was not examined by the prosecution; rather he has beenexamined by the accused as defence witness.No prosecution witness has specifically assigned the weapons the each accused was having atthe time of occurrence.Learned counsel for the accused appellantsfurther submits that the witnesses examined by the prosecution werenot neighbours of the complainant; rather they were resident of more30 Kms.away from the place of occurrence.The house of P.W.2Kashi Ram was also 50 meters away from the place of occurrence.Therefore, witnesses could not be said to be natural witnesses.Thefurther submission of learned counsel for the accused appellants isthat the prosecution witnesses have not specifically assigned the roleof any accused as to who had given blows to the victim.There is noreliable evidence against the accused appellants who are languishingin jail for the last 9 years.Therefore, they deserve to be released onbail during the pendency of appeal.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued thatthe first and second bail applications of the accused appellants hadbeen rejected on merits by the Court.In this case as many as sixpersons were butchered by the accused.The prosecution witnesseshave given eye account of the occurrence.The submissions made bythe learned counsel for the accused appellants were already availableto him at the time the first and second bail applications.We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the accused appellants and learned A.G.A.The first and second bail applications had been rejected by this Courtby a reasoned and detailed order.The grounds which learned counselfor the accused appellants submitted were already available to him atthe time the first and second bail applications were rejected.The bail application is, therefore, liable tobe rejected.The bail application is rejected. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,906,695 | Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted Kunwarsingh (Res.No.2) for a charge with regard to offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (for short "I.P.C").Necessary facts in a nutshell, are that the petitioner Smt. Shakuntal preferred a complaint against respondent no.2 and two other persons, namely - Shital Davar and Narayan Vyakya averring that the petitioner was married to Kunwarsingh (Res. No.2) in 1999 as per the prevalent customs of their community.It was further averred that they had no issue from this wedlock; in 2004, Kunwarsingh (Res.No.2) started harassing the petitioner and ultimately, in 2006, she was driven 2 M.Cr.2 M.Cr.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led by both the parties, acquitted Kunwarsingh (Res.The learned trial Court further found that though it has been averred that the marriage between the petitioner and Kunwarsingh (Res.No.2) was performed as per prevalent customs and rites, however, such customs were not pleaded by the petitioner and that she has clearly deposed that as per the prevalent customs in her community, the bride and groom are required to go for saptapadi.Learned trial Court also found that as the petitioner herself has admitted that saptapadi was not performed, therefore, it cannot be said that she was legally wedded to Kunwarsingh (Res.No.2) in the year 1999, therefore, subsequent marriage by Kunwarsingh (Res. No.2) with Shital does not come within the mischief of Section 494 of I.P.C.The leave to appeal is sought on the ground that in proceedings under Section 125 of "The Code", the learned Magistrate had granted maintenance in favour of the petitioner, inter-alia holding that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of Kunwarsingh (Res.No.2).The said order had attained finality, therefore, the finding with regard to marriage between the petitioner and Kunwarsingh (Res.But, here Gulaba Singh was a stranger.No.2) she was using her surname as Chandrawanshi during her studies and was writing the name of her father as guardian and at no point of time had taken any step for correction of the same.The learned trial Court has considered all the aforesaid aspects carefully and has come to the conclusion that the marriage between the petitioner and Kunwarsingh (Res.No.2) was not proved as per law.Here reference can be made to the pronouncement of Hon'ble the apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675, wherein it has been held that the validity of marriage for the 7 M.Cr.7 M.Cr. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,664,765 | Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,336,649 | The case for the prosecution in brief was as follows: The appellant, his father, brother and son were residing in the family house, at mouza Sunheti, in separate portions.The appellant was not on cordial terms with the patelan of the village with whom he was at one time in service.Gangabai had about a couple of months before the occurrence also set up Mst.Ramrani alias Gayatri (P.W. 2), on an offer of substantial reward of land, a pair of bullocks and money to accuse her father-in-law, the appellant of having outraged her modesty.The appellant had, therefore, prohibited Ramrani from associating with the deceased Gangabai or visiting her.On the 4th of October 1950 i.e., a day prior to the occurrence, the appellant had gone to the house of Gangabai in search of Ramrani and had inquired of Gangabai's husband, Malthu (P.W. 1) who had warned him not to go to his house in such inquiry and had threatened him.On the 5th October 1950, in the afternoon, the appellant left his house with a gun in his hand and went to the house of Gangabai to look for Mst.Gayatri and seeing her there pointed her out to Malthu to falsify him.JUDGMENT Sathaye, J.C.The appellant Kanhaiyalal Brahmin of Mouza Sunheti, aged about 50 years has been convicted of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal for having committed the murder of Mst.Gangabai Nain aged about 25 years of the same village, in the afternoon of the 5th of October 1950, at her house by a gunshot and is sentenced to death.The learned Sessions Judge has also made a reference under Section 374, Criminal P.C. for confirmation of the sentence.This judgment will dispose of both the appeal and the reference.His relations with the deceased Gangabai Nain were also pot cordial as she was a partisan of the patelan.The appellant therefore did not like his young daughter-in-law, aged about 20 years, Mst.Ramrani alias Gayatri visiting the house of the deceased Gangabai.He then went to Gangabai and asked her why she had called his daughter-in-law and said that she wanted to accuse him of a foul charge so as to throw him out of the village.At this Gangabai replied that the charge was true and that he had caught hold of his, daughter-in-law's hand with an evil intention.The appellant suddenly fired a shot from his gun at Gangabai and the bullet Struck her on her chest.He also tried to hit her with the gun after she fell down, but the gun struck against the roof of the house and broke.Gangabai died a few minutes later.The appellant then himself left for the Police Station, but was forestalled by Malthu (P.W. 1) who made the First Information Report.In his plea in the Sessions Court the appellant denied having shot Gangabai, but he admitted all the facts as stated above in the case for the prosecution and added that on the afternoon in question his brother Raghunandan returned from their fields and asked him to go with the gun for watching the crops and stay there for the night.While he was leaving his house for the fields, his mother told him to send Gayatri back home from Gangabai's house where she had gone.He accordingly went there.On his way to his fields and finding her there, he asked her to go back and asked Gangabai why she had tutored his daughter-in-law to make a charge against him to which she insisted that it was true and therefore he lost his balance and self-control & fired a shot at Gangabai which killed her.On his side it was urged in the Sessions Court that his act amounted to, at the maximum, culpable homicide not amounting to murder as his case fell within the purview of exception No. 1 to Section 300, Indian Penal Code, as he committed the act in grave and sudden provocation.The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence on record, found as a fact that the appellant shot at Gangabai with an intention to cause her death & she had died of it & had thus committed her murder.In appeal in this Court two points are pressed viz.: (1) that in the circumstances of the case the appellant had acted on grave and sudden provocation and, was entitled to the benefit of exception No. I to Section 300, Indian Penal Code and (2) that in view of the provocation the sentence of death was not proper.The record of the case has been carefully perused and examined by me & there is no doubt that Gangabai, the wife of Malthu is dead and that her death was caused by a wound of a gun-shot fired by the appellant from his gun and that he did so with an intention to cause her death.The evidence of Gajadhar (D.W. 3) and Shriram (D.W. 1) clearly establishes that the appellant left his home with a gun in his hand.Gayatri (P.W 2) that the appellant entered the former's house and bandied words with Malthu (P.W. 1) and scolded Mst.Gayatri and of his own accord questioned the deceased Gangabai and racked up the rankling in his mind re-Jjarding the accusation of his mis-behaviour with his daughter-in-law and when the deceased Gangabai replied to him, he fired a shot from his gun killing her a few minutes later.The evidence, therefore, is more than enough to establish the above facts.The learned Sessions Judge has unfortunately recorded much of evidence from Mohammad Raqib (P.W. 3), Mohammad Azim (P.W. 4) and Nandlal (P.W. 7) which was wholly inadmissible.The evidence of Mohammad Raqib (P.W. 3) regarding the statement of Mst.Gayatri, under Section 164, Criminal P.C. was not admissible as she herself was placed in the witness-box and could depose to the facts recorded in the statement.The evidence of Mohammad Azim Khan, Sub-Inspector (P.W. 4) regarding what he had heard in the village and his conclusions was again inadmissible as nothing but hearsay or based on information which he had received and so is the case with the evidence of Nandlal (P.W. 7) regarding what the accused told the Police in his presence.Even excluding this inadmissible evidence however, the conclusions arrived at are not shaken.The learned Sessions Judge does not seem to have taken into consideration the confession of the appellant recorded by Mohammad Raqib, Magistrate, Second Class, (P.W. 3).A Government notification authorised the Magistrate to record confessions and there was nothing to prevent the Sessions Judge from considering the said confession.Curiously enough however, there has been a serious lacuna in the matter of the admissibility of the evidence as found in the confessional statement.Sessions Judge against the appellant and dismiss the appeal. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,336,833 | 3/ The prosecution case in short is that on 19.2.1993 the complainant Gora Bai (P.W.5) was sitting in her house.Appellants/ accused Rajjan @ Dhanpat (A-1), Munna Yadav (A-2), Chand Yadav (A-6), Sudama Prasad (A-7), Bablu @ Ballu (A-4), Raju @ Shailendra (A-5), Guddu (A-3) having 'farsa' and 'lathi' came over and assaulted her as a result of which she received head injury.Sakun Bai (P.W.6) daughter-in-law of complainant, Shankerlal son of complainant also received injuries on their person.Beshakhu (P.W.2) another son of complainant was beaten by appellants/accused.First information report (Exh.P-9) was lodged by the complainant Gorabai on 11:30 am at Police Station Adhartal.4/ Complainant and other injured person were sent for medical examination.Dr. Jai Narayan Sen (P.W.7) examined them and found simple injuries on their person.After usual investigation, appellants/accused were charge-sheeted.As per : G.S. Solanki, J.Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has passed the impugned judgment dated 4.7.1996 in sessions trial no.254 of 1994 by which the appellants/accused have been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 and under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to appellant Rajjan @ Dhanpat to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for three months and remaining the appellants to pay fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default speculation.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 307/34, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act against the appellants/accused.5/ Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.6/ On appraisal of the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants/accused to the charges of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act but they have been convicted and sentenced under Section 323 read with Section 149, 148 of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned herein above.7/ Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court committed error in appreciating the evidence on record in their proper perspective.Therefore, he prays for setting aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court.8/ On the other hand, learned Penal Lawyer for the respondent/ State justified and supported the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the trial court.9/ I perused the evidence recorded by the trial court, the impugned judgment and other materials on record.Gora Bai (P.W.5) deposed that at about 11'o'clock, she was taking the sun bath at her home, appellants/accused Rajjan, Munna, Guddu, Bablu, Raju, Chand and Sudama having farsa and lathis in their hands came to her house and assaulted her.She further deposed that appellants/accused exploded bomb and they had also beaten her daughter-in-law Sakun Bai and son Baishakhu.She further deposed that she immediately lodged the first information report (Exh.P-9).10/ Version of the complainant corroborated by her son Lakanlal (P.W.1), her daughter-in-law Sakun Bai (P.W.6), her another son Baishakhu (P.W.2).They all are related witnesses but at the same time they were injured witnesses and their presence at home seems to be natural.Therefore, their testimony cannot be discarded on the basis of their relation with complainant.11/ Testimony of complainant and other injured witnesses further corroborated by FIR (Exh.P-9) which was immediately lodged by the complainant Gora Bai (P.W.5).Version of the Gora Bai and other injured witnesses further corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Jai Narayan Sen (P.W.7) who had examined them on the same day of incidence and found the simple injuries on the person of Baishakhu and prepared M.L.C. report Exh.P-10, simple injury on the person of Sakun Bai and Gora Bai and prepared M.L.C. report Exh.P-12 and 13 respectively.12/ In the above mentioned circumstances, where appellants/accused armed with deadly weapons like farsa, lathis and bomb came together to the house of complainant and assaulted the complainant and other witnesses in furtherance of common object.Prosecution succeeds to establish the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.15/ In the result, appeal of Munna (A-2), Guddu (A-3), Bablu (A-4), Raju (A-5), Chand (A-6), Sudama Prasad (A-7) is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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. |
13,368,505 | (15)Allowed md.Tapeswar Mukherjee @ Kalyan Mukherjee ... Petitioner Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Mr. Sarayati Datta ... for the petitioner Ms. Sonali Bhar .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Balagarh Police Station Case No.217/2018 dated 26.10.2018 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State refers to the complaint and the real grievance of the wife against the petitioner for retaining the stridhan articles of the wife.In the event any other forum passes an order for maintenance or alimony pendente lite or the like in favour of the wife, the payments made in terms of this order will be adjusted against the same.In addition, the petitioner has also offered that the wife may take back her stridhan articles.Accordingly, the investigating officer is directed to accompany the de facto complainant to the matrimonial home so that the stridhan articles can be identified and made over to the wife upon a proper inventory list being prepared.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, till the investigation is completed.C.R.M. 11375 of 2018 is allowed as above.2 3 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,336,860 | Aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal.The incident took place in between 28/29. 5.79 at about 1 a.m. in village Sen Paschim Para, P.S. Bidhnu, District Kanpur.The F.I.R. was lodged on 29-5-1979 at 6.20 a.m. by one Vishwa Nath Dubey.The distance from the place of occurrence to the police station was 7 miles.The victim of the offence was Sheo Adhar.He was allegedly shot dead by the present appellant.The facts, shorn of superficialities, are that on 28-5-1979 there, was Phaldan ceremony of Chhutkau, the grandson of Basant Singh of the resident of village Sen Paschim Para.P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath had gone to attend it at about 8 p.m. The function was largely attended by the residents of the village and concluded at about mid-night, followed by dinner.After the festivities ended, P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath along with Sheo Adhar deceased, Maluke, Jai Narain, Raj Narain, P.W. 3 Sheo Narain and few others left for their houses together.Appellant-Sri Kant was carrying the gun of his brother Rama Kant.When they reached in front of the house of Raja Ram Kachhi, the appellant fired on Sheo Adhar who fell down on receiving the shot.He shot at him a second time after he had fallen.Sheo Adhar died then and there.The appellant made his escape good threatening that whosoever dared to pursue him, would be killed likewise.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.Appellant-Sir Kant and his real brother Rama Kant faced trial before the then Vth Addl.P.W. 5 Ved Prakash Gautam and P.W. 6 S.O. Rama Shankar Mishra were associated in succession with the investigation of the case.The post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 1 Dr. Swami Din Raghuvanshi on 30-5-1979 at 2.30 p.m. The deceased was 38 years of age.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person :1. (a) Gunshot wound of entry with margins inverted 5 cm.x 3 cm.x chest cavity deep on the right side back.Scorching and tattooing present.(b) Wound of exit of the above injury 1 cm.x 1 cm.on the left shoulder below the lateral end of the left clavicle, one wadding piece found in the left lung.Five pellets found on the left side chest muscle.2. (a) Gunshot wound of entry with margins inverted 7 cm.x 5 cm.x right abdominal cavity deep 11 cm.above the right iliac crest.Scorching and tattooing present.Direction right and left.(b) Wound of exit pertaining to injury No. 2 (a) 1 cm.x 1 cm.on the left side of abdomen with muscular tissue protruding out.(b)(ii) Wound of exit pertaining to injury No. 2 (a) 1 cm.x 1 cm.on the left side of abdomen muscular tissue protruding out.Four pellets found in the abdomen on the right side and two wadding pieces found in the liver.The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds.The appellant pleaded false implication, though this part of the prosecution story was admitted to the defence side that the deceased Sheo Adhar, Anant Singh, Dr. Kailash and one Vishwanath (other than the informant) were accused of having attempted to murder Dharam Raj in the compound of the Civil Court, Kanpur on 21-5-1975 and Rama Kant was a witness of the incident from the side of the prosecution.According to him, he had not been invited in the Phaldan ceremony of Chhutkau at the house of Basant Singh and he did not know as to who shot dead Sheo Adhar.Later on, he had seen his dead body in front of the house of Raja Ram Kachhi.He also examined Basant Singh as D.W. 1 to say that he had not invited the appellant in Phaldan ceremony at his residence as he was a Brahmin and he had no social relations with him.According to this defence witness, it was true that the deceased had come to his residence in the Phaldan ceremony and had only taken cold beverage (Thandai) and had remained at his house till 8 or 9 p.m. He did not go along with others of the village but earlier to them.He heard the firing by gun after Sheo Adhar had left his residence.He went in that direction along with 5-10 others and saw Sheo Adhar lying dead at a distance of about 1 furlong.He did not stay there because his guests had yet to take dinner at his house.It would be unnecessary to refer to the testimony of another defence witness, namely, D.W. 2 Ganga Prasad, as he does not throw any light on the matter in issue.To come to the point, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all including the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased, two Investigating Officers and formal witnesses.The eye-witnesses were P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath (informant) and P.W. 3 Shiv Narain.We have heard Sri V. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned A.G.A. from the side of the State in opposition thereof.The record of the lower Court has been summoned before us, which we have carefully examined.The central core of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that he had no motive to commit the crime; there was no source of light at the spot; the F.I.R. is ante-timed and none of the eye-witnesses was present at the spot and they have simply rendered their testimony on the basis of their imagination or suspicion to support this blind murder committed by unknown person.We intend to proceed further to deal with the arguments made at the bar in the light of evidence and relevant circumstances.Taking the question of motive first, we wish to say that it is insignificant in the present case of eye-witness account.That apart, the prosecution has put forth the previous background.The F.I.R, states that the murder had been committed by the appellant because of old enmity.It has been elucidated by the informant P.W. 2 Vishwanath in his testimony before the trial Court that a dacoity had taken place at the house of Triloki who happened to be the cousin brother of the deceased Sheo Adhar.Sheo Adhar had made a mention to the police that the accused-appellant-Sri Kant could have had a hand in the commission of such dacoity.As a result, the appellant-Sri Kant was interrogated and roughed up by the police while trying to work out the said dacoity.In his statement before the Court under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the accused-appellant-Sri Kant admitted the factum of commission of dacoity at the house of Triloki, but denied to have been interrogated or roughed up by the police on this account.Obviously, there could be no documentary evidence in this behalf, but in our opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that it was quite probable that the accused-appellant-Sri Kant developed animosity against Sheo Adhar deceased on learning that he had been suspected to be associated with the commission of dacoity at the house of Triloki at the instance of Sheo Adhar deceased.He must have been interrogated and even roughed up by the police in this behalf.It should be stated at the risk of repetition that in the instant case, because of availability of eye-witness account, the question of motive pales into insignificance also.We take up the question of light in the second instance.True, the source of light has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. but then it should be kept in mind that every minute detail is not expected to be recorded in the F.I.R. when it is a spontaneous document presented without any deliberation or concoction.It has come in the testimony of eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath and P.W. 3 Shiv Narain that a bulb was glowing on a nearby Chakki at a distance of about 80-90 paces.All of them along with the deceased and many others had participated in Phaldan ceremony at the residence of one Basant Singh, wherefrom they were returning together in midnight.The accused-appellant was armed with a gun.The incident t6ok place at a little distance from the house of Basant Singh, wherefrom the accused-appellant, deceased, witnesses and few others were returning.Moreover, it has also come in the testimony of P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath that it was a moonlit night.Therefore, the evidence has to be accepted that it, was a moonlit night.All the factors being considered, there was no possibility of misidentity.Therefore, the argument complaining the non-availability of light at the spot is lost.The third argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the F.I.R. has been ante-timed.As per the record, the incident took place in between the night of 28/ 29th May, 1979 at about 1 a.m. and the report was lodged on 29-5-1979 at 6.20 a.m., the distance of the police station being 7 miles.Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the dead body of the deceased had reached the Police Lines on 30-5-1979 at 10.15 a.m., though the statement of the first Investigating Officer, namely, P.W. 5 Ved Prakash Gautam is that the dead body after being sealed had been handed over to the Constables at the spot on 29-5-1979 at 11 a.m. As per the record of inquest report, the Investigating Officer had reached the spot at 9 a.m. on 29-5-1979 and had started preparation of Panchayatnama which concluded at 11 a.m. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Investigating Officer had been fabricating the evidence and it is wrong to say that the dead body had been handed over to the Constables on 29-5-1979 at 11 a.m. He tried to support this contention by referring to the statement of P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath that the Investigating Officer had left the spot carrying the dead body also at about 9.30 or 10 p.m. The statement of P.W. 3 Shiv Narain has also been referred to that the Investigating Officer was preparing the Panchayatnama at about 2 1/2 or 3 O'clock in the afternoon.In our opinion, it is not possible to jump and accept the inferential conclusion as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant.We note that P.W. 4 Constable Shyam Kishore stated that the dead body had been handed over to him and Constable Sita Ram on 29-5-1979 at 11 a.m. Because of non-availability of conveyance, they could reach Kanpur at about 7 p.m. The statement of P.W. 9 Constable Sita Ram is that they could start from the spot with the dead body at about 3.30 p.m. because of non-availability of conveyance.No foul play can be scented and a little delay in bringing the dead body to Police Lines would not adversely affect the prosecution case.Nor can it justify the inference of any tampering in the preparation of inquest report.A little contradiction as to the time of dispatch of the dead body at the spot in the testimony of rustic eye-witnesses is attributable to lapse of time and consequent failure of memory.In any case, late dispatch from the spot or receipt in the Police Lines of the dead body does not lead to the conclusion that the F.I.R. is ante-timed.The statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Swami Din Raghuvanshi who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased is that the death could have occurred on 29-5-1979 at about 1 a.m. We are of the opinion that the prosecution could hardly have any purpose in ante-timing the F.I.R., as it was not likely to render, any benefit thereby under the facts and circumstances of the present case.Learned counsel for the appellant then doubted the time of incident given as about 1 a.m. in between the night of 28/29th May, 1979 by the prosecution.Referring to the statement of D.W. 1 Basant Singh at whose house, the appellant, deceased and witnesses with many others had attended the Phaldan ceremony wherefrom they were returning, it has been urged that according to him the function had ended at about 9 p.m. We form the opinion that this witness unnecessarily tried to create a confusion about the time of incident in a vain attempt to help the accused-appellant.It was the summer season of May. It came to be stated by him in his cross-examination that dinner had started at 9 p.m. He also admitted that there was big crowd and he could not say as to who left when.We do not think that any doubt can be entertained as to the time of incident alleged by the prosecution on the basis of what has been stated by D.W. 1 Basant Singh who appears to be out to favour the accused-appellant, as is very clear from a careful scrutiny of his testimony.Rather, the place of occurrence is fixed to be that as alleged by the prosecution according to the testimony of this witness also.He has admitted that after Sheo Adhar (deceased) had left his house, he had heard the sound of firing.He with 5 or 10 others had rushed to that direction and had found Sheo Adhar lying dead at a distance of about one furlong from his house.We should point out that the accused-appellant-Sri Kant himself admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that he had seen the dead body of Sheo Adhar lying in front of the house of Raja Ram Kachhi.Of course, he added that he could not say as to who shot him dead.The point we wish to emphasize is that the place of incident is beyond doubt even by the own statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and that of D.W. 1 Basant Singh.Learned counsel for the appellant then tried to impeach the veracity of the eyewitnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath and P.W. 3 Shiv Narain on the basis of injuries sustained by the deceased and contents found in his stomach.The deceased sustained two gunshot wounds of entry, one on the right side of back and the other on the right side of abdomen.Referring to the statement of P.W.1 Dr. Swami Din Raghuvanshi, it has been urged that according to him there was lesser possibility of the second injury having been received by the deceased after falling down.A careful scrutiny of the testimony of the Doctor reveals that he did not state that the second injury could not have been sustained by him at all after he had fallen down.He has only spoken of the possibility that there was less likelihood of injury No. 2 having been caused at a time when Sheo Adhar had fallen down.The second shot could have been fired when Sheo Adhar was in the process of falling and was in a ducking state.Regard is to be had to this aspect also that both the shots had been fired in quick succession, one after the other, from close range.Blackening and tattooing had been found at the time of postmortem and wadding pieces had also been taken out by the Doctor from the dead body of the deceased.The accused-appellant availed of the opportunity when the deceased was just ahead of him.He fired the first shot in his back and instantaneously fired another shot, which hit on the right side of abdomen while he was in the process of falling or had fallen down.Of course, the Doctor did not find solid food in the stomach of the deceased, but it does not make any dent in the prosecution version, nor the, same renders the time of incident to be suspicious.The contents of stomach cannot be a sure guide to determine the time of incident.D.W. 1 Basant Singh state that Sheo Adhar had only taken beverage (Thandai) at his residence and had not eaten anything else.At the same time, he says that there was big crowd and he could not say as to who left when.He could hardly be particular in noticing as to who had taken what.The testimony of P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath is that Sheo Adhar deceased had only taken Kheer.It cannot be speculated as to what were the contents of Kheer.Learned trial Judge has also rightly observed that when the small intestines had been ruptured through and through, the Doctor could not have found any evidence of any solid food taken by the deceased, because by 1 a.m., the same would have left the stomach and passed into small intestine which were blown off.The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the premise of the injuries received by the deceased and his stomach condition does not impress us and it cannot render any benefit to the accused-appellant.The last argument of learned counsel for the appellant is the criticism against the statements of the eye-witnesses.It is also urged on the basis of testimony of D.W. 1 Basant Singh that the deceased had not gone in the function at his house.The appellant too, had gone to attend the Phaldan ceremony at his house.This witness has obviously attempted to help the appellant.In his cross-examination he could not deny that P.W. 2 Vishwanath and P.W. 3 Shiv Narain had gone to attend the function at his house.He could only say that he was unable to say about their presence, as there was huge crowd at his house.P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath being Pradhan of the village would not have ordinarily been left out from the list of invitees when a large number of persons had been invited, He has simply pretended lack of memory about the presence of these witnesses to help the appellant.In the trial Court, this witness Basant Singh was cited as witness on the prosecution side in the charge-sheet, but he was later on discharged.The accused, side did not object to his discharge and it indicates that during the pendency of the trial he was won over by the defence.The eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath and P.W. 3 Shiv Narain withstood the test of cross-examination firmly and nothing has come out to impeach their evidence.They were natural witnesses of the incident, who were returning with the appellant, deceased and few others after attending the Phaldan ceremony at the house of Basant Singh when the incident took place in the way.P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath is the next door neighbour of the appellant.There is nothing to show that he had any dispute with him.There is a copy of judgment of Nyaya Panchayat dated 8-6-1969, relied upon by the appellant relating to Parnala's case between his father and P.W. 2 Vishwa Nath.Nothing happened thereafter.It cannot be accepted that simply because of this old dispute between this witness and father of the appellant, he would falsely implicate him in this case.Such uneven textures in the fabric of rural life are common, but that does not mean that one would implicate the other in false murder case after the lapse of several years.P.W. 3 Shiv Narain also explained that during the days of the incident he used to do tailoring work at his house in the village, though thereafter he started working with Tiwari Tailors, Kanpur.Our impression is that both the eye-witnesses Were neither thick with the deceased nor bore any animosity against the appellant.They are independent witnesses whose testimonial assertions have ring of truth.They have rightly been believed by the learned trial Judge.We reject the argument levelling criticism against their testimony.Resultantly, we find this appeal to be wholly unmerited.The appellant shot dead the deceased Sheo Adhar at the given date, time and place.As he committed murder of the deceased, he has rightly been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court below.The appeal is dismissed.The appellant Sri Kant who is on bail shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,688,286 | as (Allowed).C.R.M. 2252 of 2020 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.02.2020 in connection with Hemnagar Coastal P. S. Case No.70 of 2019 dated 11.12.2019 under Sections 448/325/354B/427/376/511/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Panchanan Mondal.... Petitioner.Basu, Md. Jannat Ul Firdous....for the Petitioner.Mr. N. P. Agarwala, Ms. S. Patel......for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer and hand over his passport, if any, within four weeks from date.In the event he does not have passport, he shall personally appear before the investigating officer and furnish affidavit to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,336,883 | JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J.Accused-appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment dated 25th January, 1996 rendered by Special Judge and 1st Addl.Sessions Judge Ujjain in Special Case No. 11/93, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 and also under Section 161, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo two years RI, Rs. 2,000/- fine and one year RI, Rs. 1,000/- fine under each count.All the sentences passed against the appellant are directed to run concurrently.As per case of the prosecution, the appellant between 5-9-86 to 10-9-1986 working as Assistant Engineer in the Office of the M.P. Electricity Board at Tarana as Public Servant, demanded Rs. 1,500/- as bribe for installation of Electricity connection on the well situated in the agricultural field and also obtained Rs. 800/- from the complainant Chandersingh, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161, IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').It is alleged that the complainant did not want to pay any amount to the appellant as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for installation of the alleged electricity connection.As such, he went to the office of the DSP Lokayukta Organization, Ujjain and submitted a written report Ex. P-1 for taking action against the appellant.On the report of the complainant, a trap was arranged to caught the appellant red-handed while accepting the alleged bribe from the complainant.On the date of the incident, at about 9.30 or 10 p.m. when the appellant returned from Ujjain and went inside his bungalow at Tarana; at the same time complainant Chandersingh P.W. 6 entered the house of the appellant and paid the marked and powder treated currency notes of Rs. 800/- to the appellant.On accepting the said currency notes, the complainant came out of the house of the appellant and as per plan, gave signal to the members of the trap party.The members of the trap parly immediately entered the house of the appellant and caught hold the hands of the appellant.The officers of the trap party gave their identity and thereafter took search of the appellant for the alleged currency notes.No currency notes were recovered from the person of the appellant in his search.On taking the search of the room, it is said that the alleged currency notes of Rs. 800/- were found in one Almirah and were seized.The hands of the accused were washed in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate which turned pink.A portion of the said solution was preserved in a bottle and it was duly sealed.The appellant was arrested and on performing the other formalities as also the usual investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant before the Trial Court.The accused appellant was charged and tried for the alleged offences punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Sections (2) of the Act and Section 161 of the IPC and on completion of the trial he was convicted and sentenced for the alleged offences as indicated above.Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.During the pendency of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant I.A. No. 2332/2000 was filed on the averments that at the relevant time, appellant was in the employment of the M.P.E.B. on the post of Assistant Engineer and not covered under the definition of the 'public servant' as given under Section 21 of the IPC.As such, the appellant cannot be prosecuted or tried for the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 as also under Section 161, IPC and on this count he deserves acquittal.This application was directed to be heard alongwith the final hearing of the appeal.As such, he cannot be prosecuted and convicted for the alleged offence under Section 161, IPC and the alleged offences under the Act. The accused appellant deserves acquittal on this very ground.The counsel also submitted that in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in this case, the demand of Rs. 1,500/- as bribe and acceptance of Rs. 800/- from the complainant as illegal gratification for installation of the electricity connection on his well is not established.As such, the appellant also deserves acquittal on considering the case on merits.If it is considered that the accused demanded Rs. 1500/- by way of bribe then, at the time of trap under what circumstances he accepted Rs. 800/- only.In view of the aforesaid discrepancy found in the case of the prosecution, in my opinion, the demand of Rs. 1500/- as bribe is not established beyond doubt from the evidence of the prosecution.On the point of acceptance of the alleged currency notes of Rs. 800/-at the time of the trap, it emerged from the evidence of the prosecution that the said currency notes were not recovered from the person of the appellant in the alleged search.The currency notes were recovered from one almirah during the search of the room of the house of the appellant.From the statements of P.W. 9 Aminuddin Qureshi (para 8), a Head Constable who was a member of the trap party and T.I. Shri Vijay Singh Pawar P.W. 10, who arranged the trap, it emerged that before taking the search of the accused as also the search of the house, the members of the trap party or the persons conducted the search did not give their personal search before the appellant.As such, the recovery of the Notes from the person of the accused appears to be surrounded by a cloud of suspicion and the factum of recovery is shaken."In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as also the law applicable, the impugned judgment of the Trial Court cannot be allowed to sustain and the accused appellant deserves acquittal mainly on the ground that he being an employee of the Electricity Board at the relevant time, cannot be considered as public servant for initiating prosecution against the appellant under the Act of 1947 as also for the offence punishable under Section 161 (since repealed) of the IPC, the alleged demand of Rs. 1500/- as bribe and acceptance of Rs. 800/- from the complainant as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration, is also not established from the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Consequently, this appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment of the Trial Court is set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.Accused appellant is on bail.His bail bonds stands cancelled.Criminal Appeal allowed. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,691,020 | The prosecution's case in short, is that, on 4.8.2011 at about 8.40 p.m, the deceased Pinky committed suicide and she was brutally brunt.She was taken to Peoples Hospital, Bhopal but, ultimately at about 11.15 p.m she expired.In the investigation, it was found that the respondents were defaming the deceased that she had illicit relations with Guddu Thakur and therefore, she committed suicide.After considering the submissions made by the Panel Lawyer and considering the evidence of the prosecution before the trial Court, it appears that in the present case no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was applicable. | ['Section 306 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.