id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
133,812,476 | Heard on admission.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.After perusal of the statement of witnesses as well as judgment, this appeal is having an arguable point, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.The appellant has never misused the liberty granted to him.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally; therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for dismissal of this application.On perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses, it emerges out that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years at the time of incident.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.04.04 16:16:44 +05'30' | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,148 | JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.By this revision, the accused challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.It was the prosecution story that on 3.5.1981 at about 9.00 a.m. applicant Ramdayal Singh was driving a speeding truck (CPD 8478) along Indore-Bhopal Highway.Near village Refiqueganj on that highway, the applicant by his truck knocked down a labourer of P.W.D. gang named Mohd. Khan who was at that time pushing a hand trolley along that road.Mohd. Khan was knocked down while he was on the left side of the road itself.He died on the same day.On trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sehore, convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for 1 1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default to further R.I. for four months.In appeal Sessions Judge, Sehore, maintained the conviction of the appellant but slightly reduced the sentence by visiting the applicant with R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.. 1,000/-, in default to further R.I. for three months.Aggrieved by the appellate judgment, the applicant has now come in revision to this court.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in my opinion, on the prosecution evidence it was doubtful if applicant Ramdayal Singh was really driving the truck which caused the accident.In the first place, the F.I.R. did not name applicant Ramdayal Singh as the person who was driving the truck.On the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was recorded at the spot itself as Dehati Nalshi by Head Constable Omprakash Singh at the instance of PW 1, Shekh Hameed, living closeby to the place of the incident.It is natural to expect that if applicant Ramdayal Singh was really driving the truck in question, his name should have been so mentioned in the F.I.R. The prosecution found it convenient not to prove the said F.I.R. by failing to examine Head Constable Omprakash Singh.Shekh Hameed, PW 1, on his part denied having made any kind of report at the spot or anywhere.In these circumstances, the F.I.R., although a document of the prosecution, went unexhibited and unproved.Can an unproved document of the prosecution be used by the defence? A view has been taken, with which I concur, that the defence should not be shut out from using the document like F.I.R. just because the prosecution failed to formally prove it.In the absence of such evidence by the prosecution, the defence is entitled to use a prosecution document although unexhibited and unproved.The decision of our High Court in Samedas v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1969 JLJ SN 54, is one such decision.The next irregularity is that the first information report, Exh. P-l, has not been proved by examining the scribe who wrote it.This is a formal objection and not one that should be advanced on behalf of the prosecution whose document Exh. P-l is.The defence should not be shut out from using this document because the prosecution did not formally prove it.The presumption is that such a first information report represents the actual information given to the police and taken down by them, and if the prosecution wished to imply that the record of the information made by the police was garbled, it should have given evidence to that effect.This circumstance may not be conclusive to establish the innocence of the accused, for the accused may be a stranger whose name might not be known to the eyewitnesses, in whose presence the report was lodged at the spot.Another salient feature of the case is that the applicant was not even caught at the spot.On the prosecution case itself, he had disappeared from the truck in question in another passing truck.The person who was, on the other hand, actually caught at the spot was the cleaner of the truck in question.It is their evidence that their attention was attracted when the accident occurred and at that time the truck was at least a furlong away from the place where they were working.They claimed that applicant was the person who was driving the truck.If Babu Khan, PW 5, is to be believed he had seen applicant Ramdayal Singh sitting at the cleaner's side of the truck in question before he had run away in another truck.This fact by itself greatly contraindicates the possibility that applicant Ramdayal Singh was seen before driving the truck.Cleaner's side, as is well-known, exists to the opposite of driver's seat.A person seen running away from the cleaner's side could be most unlikely the person who was seen before driving the truck.At that time the accused was seen sitting at the cleaner's side of the truck and running away in another passing truck.On the evidence already adverted to above, it was doubtful if the applicant/accused was really the person who was driving the truck and had caused the accident. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,209 | (2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that PW4 Mehar Singh with his wife PW5 Sarupi were at the relevant time living in Railway Colony, Vasant Road.PW3 young girl then aged about 7 years, who is the grand-daughter of PW4 Mehar Singh, was living with them.Appellant was living in the neighbourhood in Quarter No-195/C-l, Railway Colony, Vasant Road.It is the case of the prosecution that on June 1 (3) It appears that due to injuries caused to her vagina the girl developed septicemia requiring treatment and she was taken to Kalavati Saran Child Hospital on July 8, 1983 and she was examined by Dr.Sharda Jain PW11 who prescribed certain medicines as per prescription slip Ex.PW11/A. It is recorded in the prescription that the child had been assaulted.Mehar Singh then thought of taking up the mailer in the brotherhood as the appellant and Mehar Singh belong to same brotherhood.JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The appellant-Balbir Singh has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.l0,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on the first count and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine ofRs.lO,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on the second count vide judgment and order dated August 7, 1992, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.He has come in appeal challenging his conviction and sentences.Admittedly the appellant was resident of Village Dhaani Mir Dad, District Hissar.Mehar Singh is stated to have taken her little child to the respectable persons of brotherhood in that Village who then met as a Panchayat and after hearing the narration of facts from Mehar Singh and the little girl and also giving chance to explain the position to appellant's father Mangat Ram, they came to the conclusion that appellant had committed rape and proposed a punishment of blackening the appellant's face and then for taking him around in the village which punishment was not acceptable to appellant's father.Thus, they prepared document Ex.PW7/B in this connection on July 12, 1983 and as the punishment was not agreed upon by the appellant, they prepared letter Ex,PW7/A addressed to the Gram Panchayat of Garnothi, District Rohtak, to which village Mehar Singh belonged, recommending that the suitable action may be taken against the appellant in accordance with law.PW7 Phoola Ram, PW8 Parbhati and PW10 Parkash are the witnesses of the said village who were examined to prove these facts.Mehar Singh then decided to take up the matter with the police and on August 6, 1983, he made his statement Ex.PW4/A before Si Ramesh Chang Garg PW15 and Fir, copy of which is Ex.PW12/B, was registered.PW3 little girl was sent for medical examination and she was first taken to Dr.D.D.Khetarpal, PW2, who referred her to Lnjpn Hospital as there was no lady doctor present in the Police Hospital at that time and he prepared his report Ex.PW2/B and thereafter the girl was medically examined by a lady doctor on that very day as per medico legal report Ex.PW6/A. The record clerk of the said hospital Shri K.K.Chhibber PW6 proved the report to be in handwriting and signed by Dr.Behl was not examined as her present address could not be found out.Document Ex.PW6/A shows that the patient, who is said to be victim of having been subjected to rape by Balbir Singh, was haying history of mucus discharge from her private parts for the last one month or so and she also found that pus discharged was present from urethra and hymen stood torn and no fresh bleeding was present but vaginal introits was found inflamed.Slide was also made of pus discharge coming from introits.(4) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has brought home the offences to the appellant in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the little girl corroborated by testimony of the grand parents and supported to some extent by the medical report.(5) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charges against the appellant were not at all stood established in any manner inasmuch as there has been unexplained and undue delay made by the grand-parents of the little girl in reporting the matter to the police and they themselves have been instrumental in destruction of the material evidence like blood stained underwear of the little girl by washing it out and not producing the same before the police.It is also urged that the statement of Mehar Singh, grandfather, was full of contradictions as he wanted the court to believe that in order not to give any publicity to the plight of his little girl and to save her honour he had not thought fit of raising the issue with the police yet he thought it fit to go to the brotherhood of the appellant in the village and publicise this occurrence at that place instead of reporting the matter to the police at Delhi so that the members of the brotherhood may not come to know about the shame of little girl.It is also urged that Pratap, father of the girl, was cited as a witness and was present in court on one of the hearings still the prosecution had for reasons unknown not examined him as a witness.It is also urged that PW3 being a child witness could have been easily tutored to falsely implicate the appellant and thus, her testimony could not have been made the basis of bringing home the offences to the appellant as her testimony was not corroborated by any independent evidence.It is also urged that at any rate the sentences imposed on the appellant were disproportionate to the alleged crime committed by him and appellant being a young person should not have been dealt with so severely.It is also urged that the witnesses, who have been examined from the village of the appellant, were inimically inclined towards the family of the appellant and thus, no reliance could have been placed on their statements and virtually they are the persons, who had got falsely implicated the appellant in this case.(6) On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the State that there was no enmity in between the appellant and Mehar Singh and his family and there were cordial relations between them till this occurrence took place and there is no reason whatsoever for Mehar Singh and his wife to toe the line of any enemy of appellant for bringing this heinous charge against the appellant which involves the honour of their little grand-daughter.It is urged that delay which has occurred in lodging the Fir in the present case has been explained as Mehar Singh who originally belongs to a village and his son Pratap did not want to give publicity to the occurrence which would have brought more trauma and shame to the family and they wanted the matter not to be raked up but as the girl developed septic in her private parts in the injuries caused to her on account of this rape, they took up the courage at first to get punished the appellant at the hands of his brotherhood and not succeeding in that object they were left with no other alternative but to lodge the case with the police.Hence the court should look for corroboration particularly when the evidence betrays traces of tutoring.In Satish Kumar Vs State of Punjab, 1994 Scc (Cri) 180, the apex court has held that court should look to all the surrounding circumstances in order to decide whether the testimony given by a child witness is as a result of tutoring.(8) 1 In the present case, before even approaching the respectable members of the brotherhood of the appellant in the village situated in Hissar District (Haryana) this girl has been taken for medical treatment to Kalavati Saran Child Hospital and it was found by the doctor who examined her that history had been given that she had been assaulted and medical treatment was prescribed and a drug ampicillin for controlling the infection has been given.The word 'assault' and nature of drug prescribed, in our view, give corroboration to the prosecutiocase.(9) Even the girl was examined after lodging of the FIR.Her hymen was found torn and the pus was also found coming from her private parts.So, these material pieces of evidence which could not be fabricated by the prosecution do indicate that this little girl was having problem in her private parts which fact gives corroboration to the statements of the prosecution witnesses that she must have suffered injuries to her private parts on account of an assault.The doctor had, while referring the history before the case was registered, mentioned that child has been subjected to assault.It is true that nature of the assault has not been mentioned in that prescription slip prepared by the doctor.In the present case, the testimony of the little girl in court has been quite straightforward and she has unequivocally deposed that it was the appellant who lured her to his own room and then subjected her to rape and she bled from her private parts.It must be mentioned that there is not even a suggestion to little girl or Mehar Singh or Smt.Sarupi in cross-examination that they had ill- will or inimical relation with the appellant earlier so that they could be motivated to bring such heinous charges against the appellant.Sarupi has clearly mentioned that this appellant always held himself out as her Dharambhai which indicates that there were quite amiable relations between appellant and Mehar Singh and Mehar Singh's family.If that is so, we find no earthly reason as to why Mehar Singh, Sarupi and the little girl would have brought about this serious charge against the appellant which involved the honour of their little grand daughter if the charge was not true.(10) In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Raghubir Singh, , the Supreme Court has laid down that there is no legal compulsion to look for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording order of conviction and a conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity.(11) Mere fact that the underwear of the prosecutrix was not preserved by the grand-parents of the girl, in our view, is not sufficient to doubt the veracity of the statement of the little girl as well as her grand-parents that this heinous crime has been committed by the appellant.The grand-parents of the child and also her father had Initially decided not to take any action against the appellant for this occurrence, that is why they did not in their wisdom think it fit to preserve that blood stained underwear.It is possible that if the girl had not developed any serious infection in her injury to her private parts, the matter may not have seen the light of the day.Unfortunately for the appellant the girl developed infection in the injury inflicted on her private parts as a result of inhumane rape committed by the appellant on her person and that provoked the grand-parents of the girl to rake up the matter and see that the appellant is awarded some punishment by his brotherhood and failing in their efforts in that direction they lodged the matter with the police.PW7/A, and PW7/B and had deposed that Mehar Singh alongwith his grand-daughter had come to the village and complained about the conduct of the appellant in raping his grand-daughter and the members of the brotherhood had met in a Panchayat where even appellant's father was present and the girl had narrated the occurrence which they believed.In crossexamination of this witness it was tried to show that appellant's father was having bad relations with Prabhati, Zile and Harjas and thus, they had joined hands with Mehar Singh in support of this case.We agree with the findings arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge that there was no reason for Mehar Singh and his wife and their grand-daughter to bring any false charges against the appellant involving the honour of their family. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,382,946 | The applicant was shocked and immediately lodged an FIR and on basis of it after due investigation the applicants were charge-sheeted.Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sharad Punj, Advocate for the applicant.Shri V.K. Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.4-State.(ORDER) Delivered on:25.11.2014 Arguments were heard on I.A. No.4083/2014, an application for condonation of delay.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Delay in filing this revision petition is hereby condoned.This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2012, passed in Sessions Trial No.299/2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.2, Bhopal, by which the learned trial Court discharged the respondents no. 1 to 3 from the charges punishable under Sections 376/34 and 506-B/34 of IPC.Following are the admitted facts of relationship between the parties:-2 Cr.R. No.752 of 2014(i) A resident of Tahsil Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, the applicant Deepak Sharma is husband of respondent No.3 Smt. Sandhya Sharma..(ii) This couple blessed with daughters D and A. These victims' girls were aged 8 and 6 years respectively at the time of incident.(iii) Respondent No.1 Pramod Tiwari and respondent No.2 Smt. Kanta Tiwari are brother and mother of respondent No.3 that way brother- in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant respectively.(iv) In October, 2011, respondent no.3 took children D and A to her matrimonial home at Bhopal where she used to visit frequently.The girls disclosed this fact to the respondents' no. 1 to 3 so many times.Instead of controlling juvenile Goldy or punishing him for the guilt the respondents no.1 to 3 scolded and threatened the victim girls and asked them to keep quiet and refrain them from disclosing this fact to anyone.The respondents threatened the girls to their life if they told anyone about this offence.The girls when returned to their parental home at Ganj Basoda did not disclose the mis- happening to applicant father because of fear of respondent no.1 maternal uncle of the victim girls, who was with them.After few days, respondent no.3 again decided to go to her maternal home along with the victim girls but they refused to go with her, therefore, respondent no.3 left them alone for Bhopal.Taking opportunity of this loneliness the victim girls explained entire episode to the applicant about the commission of 3 Cr.R. No.752 of 2014 offence against them by juvenile Goldy at Bhopal.There was clear evidence against the respondents no.1 to 3 to that when the victim girls informed them about the offence committed by juvenile Goldy they did not pay any heed and on the contrary tried to suppress the offence by threatening these minor girls for not disclosing the incident it to anybody.The victims girls D and A in their statement before the learned trial Court have specifically stated and detailed the miss happening with them separately and had narrated the role of respondent no.1, 2 and 3 even the learned trial Court discharged the respondents no.1 to 3 ignoring the direct evidence against the alleged respondents. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,833,618 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.54934/2019 (Shailendra Singh s/o Bharat Singh Oswal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 14.01.2020 Mr. Nilesh J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix, alleged offence under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the present applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.Thereafter, he again made physical relationship with the prosecutrix.However, neither she raised any alarm nor 2 made any complaint and disclosed anybody that the applicant has forcefully making relationship with her.FIR was lodged on 23.10.2019 after a delay of more than eight months and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party, or she made false allegation against the applicant regarding commission of rape.It is further submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that the applicant made physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage.Therefore, offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC is not made out against the applicant.The applicant is the resident of Khargone, District Khargone (MP) and there is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on anticipatory bail.He also submitted that the present applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation.Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application and prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Shailendra Singh 3 s/o Bharat Singh Oswal shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.54934/2019 stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Ramesh Chandra Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Pithawe 2.5.4.20=dbcd6478673ed1cb472bfe4ff530b412bf73787574d371 3fa86db0de124035d6, cn=Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2020.01.14 16:38:13 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,356 | a. The deceased persons Umamaheswari, Muralikumar and Neethishkumar are the wife and children of the Appellant.PW.1 Chandra is the mother and PW.2 Neelakandan is the grand father of the deceased Umamahewari.PW.3 Shanmugham is the father of the Appellant.PW.4 Paul Martin is the neighbour of the Appellant.The Appellant had not permitted the deceased to visit the house of PW.1 and also not permitted PW.1 to visit her daughter.The deceased told PW.1 that the Appellant was causing cruelty to her by beating.On 29.9.2000 at about 2.30 p.m., PW.3 on hearing the sound, he rushed to the kitchen and saw and deceased and her two children burning and immediately, they were taken to the Egmore Children Hospital.b. On PW.1 was informed that her daughter along with her children had been admitted in the Hospital and that the deceased Umamaheswari poured kerosene on herself and also on her two children and set fire on all of them.c. PW.5 Dr.Umayal admitted the two children and issued accident register Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and both the children were referred to the KMC Hospital for further treatment.PW.8 Dr.A.T.Mahajabeen on 23.9.2000 in early hours of 1.20 a.m. admitted both the two children and the deceased Umamaheswari for treatment and issued accident register Ex.d. PW.9 Inspector of Police attached to the K7, ICF Police Station on receipt of complaint Ex.This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 19.11.2002 passed in SC.No.376/2001 by the learned Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of IPC to undergo two years of Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 306 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.P14 from the Appellant, registered a case in Cr.No.1091/2000 for the offence under Sections 309, 307 read with 306 of IPC and prepared FIR Ex.On receipt of Ex.P15, PW.11, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range took up the case for investigation and he was informed that wife and her two children died in the Hospital and since the death took place within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, he sent an intimation to the District Collector to conduct inquest and visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and sketch and seized a white colour plastic cane in the presence of the witnesses.e. PW.10 Tahsildar of Perambur Division conducted inquest and examined the witnesses and filed a report Ex.P16, stating that death of the Umamahewari is not due to dowry demand, but due to cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused.After inquest, the body of the deceased persons were sent to Post mortem.PW.7 Dr.Manohar conducted post mortem over the body of the deceased persons and opined in the post mortem certificates Ex.P6, 8 and 10 that the deceased persons died due to burn injuries.f. Pw.11 in continuation of the investigation recorded the statements of the Doctors and the accused was not arrested, since he was enlarged on anticipatory bail and in the mean while, PW.11 was transferred and the Assistant Commissioner of Police who took charge at that time completed the investigation and filed a final report for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC against the accused.The case was taken on file in SC.No.376/2001 by the learned Magalir Neethimandram and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.11} and also relied on Exs.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it transpires that on the date of the incident, the Appellant had scolded the deceased and had given her two beatings for not feeding the children and make them to go to bed in time.Though in the chief examination PW.1 stated that the Appellant used to beat his wife consuming alcohol and did not allow her to talk to her daughter whenever she visited his house, but she contradicted her own statement and deposed that she stated so in her chief examination, as she was in anger with the Appellant due to the suicide committed by her daughter along with her children.The statement made by PW.1 to the Tahsildar PW.10 was not placed before the court and the report Ex.As spelt out from the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, the Appellant had chided the deceased for not feeding the children in time and in the course of such quarrel, he had beaten her.It is the essence of the criminal order of abetment of suicide that the abettor should be proved to have substantially assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide.Instigation, incitement and provocation are some of the acts which may constitute as "abetment" for commission of suicide, but all those acts or any of such acts have to be positive and patent in the nature of such a degree that the direct result of such acts may be none other, but the commission of suicide.Stray domestic quarrel, perfunctory abuse, crude and uncultured behaviour being mundane matters of normal occurrence in the a family will not go to form and constitute "abetment" unless those acts of conduct singly or cumulatively are found to be of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide.In the present case, there is no dependable evidence to the effect that the Appellant misbehaved or ill-treated his wife and because of such harassment or torture she committed suicide.In the instant case, the first information was lodged by the Appellant and he has stated that he asked his wife to give milk to the children in time so that they can go to bed early, but the deceased ignored it and told him that she knows when to feed the children.But, however as she delayed feeding the children, he got angry and beat her on her back.After he went asleep, he was woken up by his brother and heard the shrieks of his wife and children from the Kitchen room which was locked from inside.State of Chhattisgarh [2001-9-SCC-618] considering the definition of "abetment" under Section 107 of IPC and acquitting the accused for an offence under Section 306 of IPC as conviction not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment is extracted as under:-"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."In the back ground of facts and sketchy ocular evidence, I am unable to sustain the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Sections 306 of IPC and 498A of IPC.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.1.Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,838,287 | The appellant got examined DW-1 Brij Bala in his defence who deposed that:The timing of our school is from 07:45am to 01:15pm for the teachers and students.The body was brought by HC Ram Dutt of Police Station Bazar alongwith the inquest papers and request for postmortem examination by CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 59 of 83 IO.The dead body was identified by Dharambir and Sunil.There was history of being stabbed during quarrel.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 59 of 83On examination I observed following external injures on the body of deceased:Multiple incised wounds (13 in number) present over left parieto occipital region, frontal region of scalp, forehead, nose (3 injures), lips (2 injures),- cheek right side, chin (2 injures), left mandible (2 injures) of various sizes.The wounds were skin deep.Multiple superficial incised wounds (09 in number) present over outer aspect of right arm, elbow, forearm and back of wrist (2) of various sizes.Incised wounds (2 in number) over front and inner aspect elbow of different sizes.The wounds were superficial.Superficial linear incised wounds (2 in number) over palmar aspect of right ring and little fingers and on back of right middle and ring fingers of different sizes.Incised wounds over front of left elbow skin deep.Two incised wounds present on front and back part of let shoulder of different sizes wounds were skin deep.Injuries no-1 to 12 were incise wounds on the various parts of the body.My opinion in this regard is EX.PW-1/C, bear my signature at point-A."Ram Dutt-296/N Name: Pradeep @ Deru Age 20 yrs.Sex Male Father's Name: Sh.Dharam Vir Address: 2019, Basti Jhullan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Date & Time of Admission brought Dead on 28/04/10 at 11.30 PM Date & Time of Death -------------------(2) Sunil s/o Man Singh-Brother-in-law Alleged History : of being stabbed during quarrel brought to hospital where he was declared Brought Dead on 28.04.10 at 11.30 PM (one blue jeans and shirt sealed by CMO) External Examination: Body identified Clothes: One Right green underwear only:(1) Identification marks (in unidentified bodies/clothing's) (2) Height 158 cm.Weight 57 kg.The margins of the wounds are clear cut and skin deep.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 43 of 83(emphasis supplied)We are thus of the opinion that in the instant case, non-joining of any public witness at the time of recovery of knife is not a sufficient ground to doubt the truthfulness of the testimonies of the police witnesses on the above aspect or discard their evidence completely as the testimonies of the police witnesses inspires confidence.Keeping in view the facts of the present case and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as on the basis of corroborative testimonies of the material police witnesses, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve the recoveries made by the Investigating team at the instance of the appellant/Rahul.The CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 44 of 83 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement are consistent, trustworthy and corroborative; as such the ground raised by learned counsel for the Appellants in relation to the non-recovery of second knife and the inadmissibility of the recovery of knife made at the instance of the Appellant/Rahul holds no ground.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 44 of 83Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the investigating agency failed to conduct a fair and transparent investigation, as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.Learned counsel has pointed out following discrepancies in the investigation:a) That the police mechanism in the present case was set in motion on registration of DD No.42A (Ex.PW5/A) and DD No. 43A (Ex.PW5/B), on receipt of the information from telephone number 92899375618 & 9211379946, but the investigating agency made no endeavor to ascertain the identity of the caller and no attempt was made to place on the record the call detail records of the aforesaid numbers.b) That no crime team was called to the spot for obtaining the chance prints, from the place of incident on 28.04.2010 and from the materials objects (empty water bottle, the cigarette packet) recovered from the spot.c) That appellant/Rahul & appellant/Nandu were armed with separate knives and only one knife was recovered whereas no effort was made to recover the second knife CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 45 of 83e) That the FIR is embellished and registered after an unexplained delay of 2 Hours 50 Minutes to falsely implicate the appellants.f) That the investigating agency failed to seize the clothes of PW-6 Dharamvir (father of the deceased) and PW-11 Sunil Kumar (brother in law of deceased) stained with the blood of the deceased while they were carrying his dead body down from the roof.g) That neither site plan of the place of recovery was prepared nor perceptible efforts were made by the investigating officer to validate the recoveries with the presence of an Independent/Public witness.h) That the prosecution set up a story that the deceased had illicit relations with wife of appellant/Nandu and mother of Juvenile Sachin, which eventually accelerated the aforesaid incident but the prosecution failed to make her part of the investigation though the said facts had been narrated in the Rukka Ex.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 51 of 83"I am posted in MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as school incharge.Today I have brought the attendance register from May, 2006 to June, 2012 of MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the attendance register from March, 2008 to September, 2012 of MC primary School, sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi.The copy of entry in register of MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi of the month of April, 2010 is Ex. DW1/A (OSR).The copy of entry in register of MC Primary school, Sat Nagar, Delhi of the month of April, 2010 is Ex DW/B (OSR)."During cross-examination DW-1 Brij Bala deposed as under:-"It is correct that I was not posted in the said school in the year as school incharge, however, I was teacher in the said school at that time.I do not know accused Manoj Kumar.I have not seen the accused ever in the school.Principal used to keep the record.It is correct that I cannot identify signature of the accused.It is correct that I have not seen the accused Manoj on 28.4.2010 in the school.The testimony of the defence witness clearly demolishes the version of the Appellant/Manoj@Kale that he was on his official duty from 3pm of 28.04.2010 to 8am of 29.04.2010 at M.C. Primary School, at the relevant time.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 58 of 83X X X92. PW-1 (Dr. C.B Dabas) HOD, Forensic Medicine, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and proved the report (Ex.Injures no. 13,14,15, & 16 were stab wounds on the various parts of the body.Injures no-17 was also incise wounds on the chest.Injury no-18,19,20,21,22,23, & 24 were stab wound on the various parts of the body.Injury no-25 was incise wound on front of abdomen.Details of these injuries have been described in my postmortem report EX.PW-1/A, which bears my signature at point-A.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 60 of 83On internal examination- there was about 400 gm semi digested food material were present in the stomach.Liver showed cuts on right lobe.There were fracture on 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th rib of right side of chest and 4th& 5th rib of left side of the chest.Plural cavity was full of blood.Both lungs had multiple cuts and left lung was collapsed.The diaphragm also showed cuts.There were incise wounds on the scalp.I preserved the underwear and blood sample of the deceased and sealed them with the seals of 'FM HRH' and handed over to the I.O.OPINION: -Death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock subsequent to injures.The injures no.1 to 25 had been caused by sharp edged weapon and are collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.All the injures are ante mortem and time since death is approximately 13-4 hours.On 4/6/2010 Inspector V.S. Tyagi, the IO of the case forwarded the sealed parcel containing the weapon of offence i.e. knife and the original postmortem report for opinion whether the injures on the person of the deceased Pradeep @ Deru could have been caused by this weapon.I opened the parcel and it was found contained one knife wrapped in a white paper sheet and prepared diagrammatic sketch of this knife on the back of my report.Sketch of knife is EX.PW-1/B which bear my signature at point-A.On the basis of examination of this knife and perusal of injures mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased, it was opined that injures no-1to 25 appear to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like this knife.The Diagrammatic sketch of which is EX.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 61 of 83PW-1/B. The weapon of offence was re-sealed with the seals of 'FM HRH; and handed over to the IO alongwith original postmortem report.Post Mortem Report of the deceased reads as under:-HINDU RAO HOSPITAL, DELHI (Deptt.Of Forensic Medicine) POST MORTEM EXAMINATON P. M. No. HRH/39/10 Conducted by Dr. C. B. Dabas Case (FIR) No.81/10/ U/s 302/34 IPC P.S. Sadar Bazar Date & Time: 29.04.10 at 12.30 PM Body brought by: H/Ct.Built Average CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 62 of 83 Condition of BodyCRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 62 of 83Rigor Mortis:2. Post Mortem Staining: Present on back parts except contact ptEyes closed/open: Closed Cornea: Hazy Conjuctiva: PaleNatural orfices (Nose, Mouth, Ear, Vagina, Anus)- n. adExternal Injuries (1) Multiple Linear incised wounds (13 in number) present over (L) (-sic-) region, Frontal region of scalp, forehead, Nose (3) Lips (2), Cheek (R) side, chin (2) (L) maudible (2), measuring 3 x 0.4 cm, 5 x 1 cm, 5 x 0.8 cm, 4 x 0.5cm, 2.5 x 1 cm, 3cm x 1.5 cm, 3cm x 2 cm; 1.5 x 0.5 cm, 2cm x 0.5cm, 2cm x 0.5 cm, 4cm x 1cm, 1 x 0.5 cm, 1x 0.5 cm, respectively.(2) Multiple superficial incised wounds (09 in number) located on outer aspect of arm, elbow and forearm and back of wrist (2), measuring 4 x 2 cm, 3 x 1.5 cm, 4 x 2 cm, 5 x 2.5 cm, 3.5 x 1.5 cm, 9 x 4 cm, 4 x 1.5 cm, 3.5 x 2 cm and 4 x 1.5 cm respectively the margins of the wounds are clear and are skin and muscle deep.(3) Incised wounds (02 in number) located over front and inner aspect of (R) elbow measuring 3 x 1.5 cm, and 4 x 2 cm respectively.The wounds are superficial and margins are clear cut.(4) Superficial linear incised wounds (02 in number) over plamar aspect of (R) ring and little fingers horizontally placed, measuring 1 x 0.5 cm each.There are (02) incised wounds on back of (R) middle and ring finger, measuring 1 x 0.5 cm each.Margins are clear cut.(5) One incised wound, 2.5 x 1.0 cm over front of (L) elbow, skin deep.(6) Two incised wounds located on front and back parts of (L) shoulder measuring 4 x 2 cm and 3 x 1. 5 cm respectively.Wounds are skin deep/ (-sic-) (7) One incised , 3 cm x 1 cm on outer aspect of (L) wrist.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 63 of 83(8) One incised 3 x 1.5 cm located (l) buttock on lower part, horizontally placed, wound is muscle deep.(9) One incised deep 4 x 2 cm located on outer upper of (-sic-) of (R) buttock wound is muscle deep.(10) Multiple incised wounds (03 in number) on front and left lateral aspect, measuring 6 x 0.5 cm, 7 x 1 cm, 2 x 2 cm, respectively.Wounds are horizontally placed (-six-) (11) One incised wound 2.5 x 1.5 cm x skin deep, located over outer part of (R) chest, 9 cm below axilla and 15 cm outer and post of (R) nipple.(12) One incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm located on outer front part of (R) chest, 12 cm below (R) nipple and 11 cm outer to mid line and 105 cm above (R) heel.Wound is much deep, margins are clear cut.(13) One stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth located over outer aspect of (R) chest 16 cm outer to mid line, 107 cm above (R) heel, the wound is placed vertically, the upper angle is round and lower angle is acute, margins are clear cut.(14) One stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth located on outer aspect of (R) chest behind injury M(13), 15 cm below axillary fold, and 108 cm above (R) heel upper angle is round and lower angle is acute, margins are clear cut.(15) Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth located on (R) side front of chest just below clavicle 10 cm outer to mid line and 127 cm above (R) heel wound is vertically placed with upper angle being round and lower angle acute.Margins are clear cut.(16) Stab wound 4 x 1.3 cm x ? depth, located on (R) side front of chest, 3.5 cm above (R) nipple and 126 cm above (R) heel, horizontally placed, outer angle acute and medial angle is round.Margins are clear cut.(17) Incised wound (02 in number) over right side chest over ant.Axillary fold measuring 8 cm x 2 cm and 2.5 x 1 cm respectively.Margins are clear cut and skin deep.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 64 of 83(18) One stab wound 4.5 cm x 1.3 cm x ? depth over right side chest on front aspect, 4 cm outer to mid line, 7 cm below (R) clavicle upper inner angle is acute and outer angle is round.Located 124 cm above (R) heel.(19) One stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth over right side chest front of chest, 3 cm outer to mid line, 6 cm below and inner to (R) nipple 122 cm above (R) heel, upper angle is acute and lower angle is round.(20) Stab wound 4 cm x 1.3 cm x ? depth over (L) side front of chest in upper part 2.0 cm outer to mid line 130 cm above (L) heel, horizontally placed, outer angle being round and inner angle being acute.(21) Stab wound 4.2 x 2 cm x ? depth obliquely placed on (L) side front of chest, just below injury No. (20) 5 cm outer to mid line, 129 cm above (L) heel, upper angle is round and lower angle is round.(22) One incised wound 3 x 1.5 cm over front of (L) chest over lying outer axillary fold.(23) Stab wound 4 x 2 cm x ? depth over middle front of (L) chest, 3 cm outer to mid line and 6 cm below (L) nipple, 102 cm above (L) heel, upper angle is round, lower angle is acute.(24) Stab wound 8 x 2 cm x ? depth located over front of chest epigastric region of abdomen & adjoining (- sic-) in mid line, lower angle is acute and upper angle is round.116 cm (R) heel.(25) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm, muscle deep on front of abdomen, in mid line 12 cm above (-sic-) and 102 cm above left heel.Tracks of injuries: On deeper desertion and exploration, it is observed that:Injury No.1 (-sic-): It has cut through 8th rib on ( R ) side and penetrated through (R ) (-sic-) and perforated through & through lower lobe of (R) lung in lower part, depth of the wound is 8.0 cm, direction being from right to left and downwards.Injury No. 14: It has cut through 9th rib on ( R ) side of chest and then penetrated the diaphragm and entered into posterior CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 65 of 83 superior surface of liver ( R ) lobe and ended here.Depth of the wound is 9.0 cm, direction being from behind to front and downwards.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 65 of 83Injury No.15: The wound has entered the chest cavity after cutting through 2nd rib of ( R ) chest and ended in upper lobe of ( L) lung.Depth of the wound is 7.0 cm, direction being from front to behind and downwards.Injury No.16: The injury has entered the chest cavity through 2nd inter (-sic-) space and ended in ( R ) pleural cavity.Total depth is 5.0 cm and direction being from front to behind and downwards.Injury No.18: The injury has cut into the chest muscles, obliquely and has not entered the chest cavity, direction being from front to behind and downwards.Injury No.19: It has cut through 4th rib on ( R ) side chest and entered the chest cavity and penetrated into upper lobe of ( R ) lung, total depth is 8.0 cm.direction being from front to behind and downwards.Injury No.20: It has entered the chest cavity after cutting through 2nd inter (-sic-) space on (L) side and penetrated into upper lobe of (L) lung, depth is 7.0 cm.direction being from front to behind.Injury No.21: It has entered the chest cavity after cutting through 4th inter (-sic-) space on (L) side and ended in upper lobe of (L) lung, depth is 7.2 cm.direction being from front to behind.Injury No.23: It has cut through (L) side 6th rib and entered the (-sic-) and penetrated the lower part of lower lobe of (L) lung, depth is 8.0 cm, direction being from front to behind and downwards.Injury No.24: It has cut through abdominal muscles and penetrated the diaphragm and ended in medial and superior CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 66 of 83 surface of liver and ended her.Depth is 8.0 cm, direction being from left to right and downwards.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 66 of 83Remaining injuries are incised wounds and skin to muscle deep.X xx Opinion: Death in this case due to haemorrhage& shock consequent to injuries.The injuries 1 to 25 have been caused by sharp edged weapon and are collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Injuries are ante mortem and recent.Time since death is approximately 13 to 14 hours.Sd/- (illegible) Dr. C. B. Dabas M. D.HOD Forensic Medicine Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi"After examining the testimony of PW-1 (Dr. C.B Dabas) and the post mortem report (Ex.PW1/A), it is observed that deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock and injuries no. 1 to 25 appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Herein, it is relevant to highlight that as per the post mortem report injuries were also inflicted on the (arms, elbow, forearm, back of wrist, fingers) right and left hands of the deceased.The medical analysis draws a constructive approach and corroborates with the version of the prosecution witnesses that Manoj @ Kale had caught hold the head of deceased, whereas accused Manoj s/o Ashok had caught hold of the shoulder of deceased, accused Akash and Arjun CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 67 of 83 caught hold his legs and accused Nandu and Rahul had repeatedly stabbed him and Accused Sachin (JCL) was exhorting 'sale ka kaam tamam kar do aaj', leading to the suggestion that the hands of the deceased were free and during the assault the deceased had resisted the attack, resulting in thrusting of the aforesaid injuries on his arms, elbow and fingers.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 67 of 83Perusal of the aforesaid testimony also reveals that the Investigating Officer PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh) had forwarded a sealed parcel containing the weapon of offence (knife) and the original post- mortem report for the expert opinion that whether the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by said weapon .Relevant portion of the 'Opinion regarding the weapon of offence' (Ex.PW1/C) is reproduced herein below:-"Subject: Subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence in above said case (FIR) Inspector V. S. Tyagi, I.O. of the case forwarded a sealed parcel bearing 4 intact seals of V. S. T. containing weapon of offence i.e. knife allegedly used to inflict injuries on the person of the deceased Pradeep @ Deru whose post mortem examination was conducted vide PM Report No.The sealed cloth parcel bears the label "Case FIR No.81/10 dated 29.04.10 /s 302/34 IPC PS Sadar Bazar Sd/- Inspector V. S. Tyagi SHO SB.Dt. (-sic-) 'Chaaku (Chhura)-(Knife) On opening the parcel, it is found to contain one 'Knife' wrapped in a white paper sheet.A diagrammatic Sketch of the knife has been prepared overleaf.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 68 of 83Opinion: On the basis of examination of this knife and perusal of injuries, mentioned in above said PM Report of the deceased, it is opined that injury No.1 to 25 appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like this knife, a diagrammatic sketch of which has been prepared overleaf and signed by me.The weapon of offence resealed with seal of 'PMHRH' and handed over to IO alongwith original PM report.Sd/- (illegible) Dr. C. B. Dabas M.D.HOD Forensic Medicine Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi"Perusal of the aforesaid Opinion reveals that PW-1 (Dr. C.B Dabas) opined that injuries no. 1 to 25 appear to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like knife and proved his opinion as Ex.PW1/C. Further the weapon of offence (knife) was sent to forensic science laboratory for analysis wherein it was opined that blood was detected on exhibit '6' (One weapon of offence having brown stains, described as 'knife').Relevant portion of FSL.2010/B- 2544(Ex.RESULTS OF ANALYSISBlood was detected on exhibits '1', '2', '4', '6', '7', '8', '9' and '10'.Blood could not be detected on exhibits '3' and '5'.Report of serological analysis in original in attached herewith.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 69 of 83Relevant portion of Serological report (Ex.PX2) reads as under:-In the second case also this Court did not consider the evidence regarding the find of human blood on the knife sufficient to convict the appellant in the absence of determination of blood group since the evidence of PW 2 was found to be uninspiring and there was no other circumstance to connect him with the crime.In this case we have the direct testimony of PW 1 Komal Chand, besides the testimony of PWs 3 and 4 which we have considered earlier.CRL.A. 379/2019 & other connected matters Page 82 of 83 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,434 | After Jagdish had gone to Ms shop on 28th September, 1969, at about 9.00 p.m, the appellant is said to have kid-stepped Shakuntala from the lawful guardianship of her mother.It is alleged that he kidnapped her under threat of causing hurt to her with a knife.It is further stated that the appellant took Shakuntala to various places in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and was roaming with her for a period of about a month and a half.During this period the appellant is said to have committed rape on her.He will now be discharged from the bail-bonds.JUDGMENT N.L. Untwalia, J.This is an appeal by special leave from the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh confirming that of the trial Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 368 and 367 (sic 376) of the Indian Penal Code with imposition of 3 years and one year's rigorous imprisonments respectively.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Her father had died a few years ago.She was living with her widowed mother and with her brother Jagdish, P.W, 1, Her mother was running a small hotel which was at a short distance from their house, The appellant was about 36 or 37 years of age and was a widower having two children from his first wife.Appellant started making overtures to Shakuntala, which was not liked by Jagdish.The defence of the appellant was that he had committed no offence, Shakuntala was a major girl of about 18 or 19 years of age.She was in love with him.They were betrothed and were to be married with the consent of the mother and other relations.Only the brother, Jagdish, was objecting to this.The appellant had never committed any rape on Shakuntala, Trial Court as also the High Court found that the girl was 14 or 15 years of age at, the time of the occurrence and, therefore, both the charges were established against the appellant on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.First we shall deal with the charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code found proved against the appellant.In relation to this charge, we shall assume in favour of the prosecution that Shakuntala was below 18 years of ages but then, two ingredients further must be established; (i) that she was kidnapped or abducted from the custody of her lawful guardian, and (ii) that she was kidnapped, or abducted with the intention of compelling her to marry any person against her will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit sexual intercourse.The story of the girl that she was taken away under threats is not believable in view of the number of letters Exh. P series, which were written to Lalta Prasad by her before the incident in question and which she was forced to admit that all these letters were written by her.We have been taken through some of these letters and the trend of these letters written at a point of time when there was no question of kidnapping, abduction or rape, clearly shows that the girl was immensely in love with the appellant.She was betrothed to him and had almost accepted Mm as her husband, although she was not till then married to Mm, In the background of the facts stated in those various letters, it is difficult to believe that the girl was kidnapped or abducted under fear of causing hurt to her.It is clear to us that she went with Lalta Prasad of her free will and with the consent of her mother, as her prospective marriage with Lalte was not liked by her brother Jagdish.We are conscious, of the fact that P.W. 5 Sohanbai was allowed to fee cross-examined toy the State counsel because whatever she had said in Court goes a long way against her statement before the police said to have been given during the course of the investigation.When she was confronted with this statement, she said in Court that she had given no such statement.We have been taken through Ex, P-36 in full.Judging that statement recorded by the Police in the light of the facts which appear from the letters of Shakuntala as also in the light of the evidence of Shyam Lal D.W. 1, husband of Gita, elder sister of Shakuntala and the evidence of Mohanbai, aunt of Shakuntala (Chachi), we are, not prepared to accept that her statement contained in Ex. P-36 was her statement given before the Police.Every line of that statement smacks of as being the statement of Jagdish, and not as that of his mother.That statement does not appear to us to be a true statement of Sohanbai made during the course of investigation.We are, therefore, inclined to believe her testimony in Court and not disbelieve that because of her alleged statement before the Police.Further, in the background of the contents of the letters Ex. P series, admittedly written by Shakuntala to the appellant, it is clear that she was not taken away by the appellant for the purpose of compelling her to marry against; her will.She wanted to marry him at that stage.It appears that alter this occurrence Jagdish arranged her marriage with one Amba Lal.We are also not prepared to believe that she was taken away by the appellant to seduce her to illicit intercourse and we shall deal with this a bit more fully when we come to the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Shakuntala's evidence in Court is very much against the appellant.But even so she had to admit in cross-examination that she accompanied the appellant because she was asked by her mother to do so.She has deposed about only one incident of the appellant's committing rape on her under threat of knife and that was in Kota.When she was deposing in Court, she was already a married woman and it is not strange to find that in order to save her honour she had to relate that incident in that fashion.Now coming to the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the most important evidence to be looked into is of age.On the evidence of Shakuntala, uncorroborated as it is by any other piece of evidence it cannot be held that she was ever subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent.Roughly speaking, that will make Shakuntala 17 or 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence.Sohanbai definitely said in her testimony that she was at that time 19 or 20 years old.Next we want to point out that although Shakuntala in her deposition in Court stated that she was 14 or 15 years of age at the time of the occurrence, that testimony is wholly untrustworthy, because in a panchnama before the police she herself had made an endorsement in her own handwriting thus:Sub-Inspector Sahab write my age about 19 years approximately.Shakuntala Devi.It is important to remember that when she made that endorsement on the Panchnama before the Police it was immediately or shortly after the alleged occurrence and at that time she was not married to Amba Lal, When she was deposing in Court, as we have already stated, she was married to Amba Lal.On the side of the prosecution two Doctors have been examined, namely, Dr. Arjun Sahai Varma and Dr. Shrilal Mathur P.W. 31 and P.W. 32 respectively.They deposed that Shakuntala was about 14 to 15 years of age.They had done certain tests on the basis of which they were giving their testimony.But then, Dr. Mathur was constrained to admit in cross-examination that there could be a difference of one or two years, even after all those tests regarding the estimation of the age of the girl and for several other reasons.On that other hand, we find Dr. R.K. Gupta, D.W. 6, was a doctor practising at Kota.This application form is said to have been filled in by Jagdish, giving her date of birth as 1-1-1956, The statement in this application form could not be proved from the evidence of Bansi Lal in re-examination.Jagdish, the alleged maker of that statement was not asked about it.The copy of the school certificate which was proved by Bansi Lal was of a private school and not of a Government school.The date of birth mentioned in that copy could not be an evidence of the statement of the deceased father of the girl that he had mentioned her date of birth as 1-1-1956 in the application form when the girl was admitted in January, 1962, That application form was not produced nor was it proved.He was opposed to Shakuntala being given in marriage to the appellant.He had, therefore, his own axe to grind.On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence which we have already alluded to, we are of the opinion, that she was above 16 years of age.The charge under Section 376 will, therefore, fail on that account.It could not be established nor has the High Court found that she was ever subjected to any sexual intercourse by the appellant against her will.On the other hand, we find from the evidence of Dr. Bina P.W. 36, that when she examined the girl after the occurrence, she found old rupture of hymen and no sign of any raps or any forceful intercourse with her.That being so, the charge under Section 378 against the appellant also fails.It appears to us that it was an unfortunate case where the mother and other relations of the girl were agreeable to Shakuntala being given in marriage to the appellant; but, somehow or the other, Jagdish was not reconciled to this.He was, perhaps the sole staunch opponent of this proposal and the whole case seems to have been engineered at his instance. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,460 | C. K. Daphtary, Nalin Chandra Banerjee, D. N. Mukherjee andMukul Gopal Mukherjee, for the appellants.The respondent did not appear.The circumstances leading up to the order of the High Courtmay be indicated : The second respondent filed a, complainton January 3, 1967 before the Court of the Chief PresidencyMagistrate, Calcutta,.in respect of the incident which tookplace, on the202second day (January 1, 1967) of the Second Cricket TestMatch between India and West Indies at the Eden Gardens.The Test match was to be played under the control,management and supervision of the Cricket Association ofBengal, which had sold tickets of various denominations forthe game.However, nothing untowardhappened on that day.According to the prosecution, the first appellant started.selling tickets announcing that arrangements had been madefor the accommodation of about 60,000 spectators, while as amatter of fact nearly a lakh of spectators were admittedinto the enclosure.The sitting arrangement was mostinconvenient and,, highly unsatisfactory.The arrangementsmade by the first appellant for accommodating the personsinside the enclosure were so grossly inadequate that ittended to endanger the personal safety of the spectators.On the day in question, the complainant, who was a holder ofa season ticket for Rs. 45 /- went to attend' the game andfound all the stands jampacked.Notwithstanding, this thepeople with tickets were being pushed into different en-closures with the result that the spectators within theenclosures started jumping over the fence and occupied thespace between the lines of the field and the fencing.Thepolice, unable to control' the rush and confusion caused bythe behaviour of the crowd,suddenly started a lathi-chargefollowed by the bursting of tear gas shells, which resultedin causing injuries to various persons.Thearrangements for going out of the enclosures were alsogrossly inadequate with the result that some of thespectators who wanted to clear out quickly in panicsustained injuries.The Match had to be abandoned for theday.On these facts the complainant alleged that the firstappellant who acted most rashly and negligently inoverselling the tickets and admitting a large number ofpeople than could be conveniently accommodated inside theground and thereby endangered human lives and the personalsafety of thousands of spectators.It was further allegedthat as, a matter of fact the rash and negligent act of thefirst appellant also resulted in hurt being caused to anumber of persons, who, bad come to witness the Match.Apart from the Cricket Association of Bengal, which was thefirst accused, he made 33 persons accused in his complaintpetition.Those persons were the President, the Vice-President and other office bearers and Members of theWorking Committee of the Cricket Association of Bengal.There were tickets sold for all.days of the Matchandthere were arrangements made for the sale of dailytickets.The game started as scheduled on December 31,1966.The play was interrupted by a number of spectatorsscaling over the fencing erected around the play ground andentering the cricket field.Thecomplainant prayed for issuing summons against the 34203accused persons under ss. 337 and 338 read with s. 114 ofthe Indian Penal Code and to proceed against them accordingto law.On January 3, 1967 the Chief Presidency Magistrate examinedthe complainant and heard his counsel.As the ChiefPresidency Magistrate was prima facie satisfied there was acase, he issued summons to the, persons shown as accusedunder ss. 337 and 338 read with s. 114 of the Indian PenalCode, fixing February 13, 1967 for appearance.Some of the office bearers of the first appellant on receiptof summons challenged before the High Court in CriminalRevision No. 19 of 1967 the orders of the Chief PresidencyMagistrate issuing summons and search warrants.They alsoprayed for quashing the complaint on the ground that theallegations even if fully established will not establish anoffence under s. 337 and/or s. 338 read with s. 114 or anyother section of the Indian Penal Code, and that thecomplaint was misconceived and constitutes an abuse of theprocess of the Court.The learned Single Judge stayed further proceedings beforethe Chief Presidency Magistrate and issued summons to theState and the complainant.After hearing all parties, thelearned Single Judge ultimately, by his order dated February24, 1967, dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1967.There were three points to be noted in the order of thelearned Judge, namely, (1) Mr. Dutt, counsel appearing forthe complainant conceded before the High Court that theprocess issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under ss.337 and 338 read with s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code ismisconceived (2) the High Court has given a finding that thestatements made in the petition of complaint do notconstitute the essential elements to make out offences underss.It is needless to state that the Chief PresidencyMagistrate was bound to have due regard to these directionscontained in the order of the High Court when the case wasto be proceeded with again in his courtAfter the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1967 bythe High Court on February 24, 1967 and in consequence ofthe stay of proceedings being vacated, the Chief PresidencyMagistrate proceeded to deal further with the complaint.The reason given by thecomplainant was that the said accused persons had ceased toact as members of the Working Committee at the materialtime.On March 20, 1967 the Chief Presidency Magistratedischarged under s. 253(2) Cr.P.C. the eight accused asprayed for by the, complainant in his application datedMarch 2, 1967, after accepting the reasons given therein.On May 31, 1967, the complainant filed anotherapplication before the Chief Presidency Magistrate seekingpermission to withdraw the complaint against the rest of theaccused.In that application he stated that he had filedthe complaint to voice the grievances of the bona fidespectators, who had purchased tickets for witnessing theCricket Test Match.He had further mentioned that anInquiry Commission called the "Sen Commission" was alreadyinquiring into the events connected with the incident thattook place on January 2, 1967 in order to find out thepersons responsible for the same.Under thesecircumstances, the complainant stated that he does notintend to continue the complaint instituted by him.On June 8, 1967, the Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissedthe complaint as against accused Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 23,27, 30 land 34, under s. 204(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground thatthe complainant had not deposited the necessary charges forissue of summons.It was noted by the Chief PresidencyMagistrate that the complainant though called was absent.Dealing with the application dated May 31, 1967 filed by thecomplainant for permission to withdraw the complaint, theChief Presidency Magistrate has stated that he cannot accordpermission to withdraw the complaint as the proceedingsunder s. 338 I.P.C. are warrant procedure proceedings.Butthe Chief Presidency Magistrate has further stated that nouseful.purpose will be served by205proceeding further with the complaint as the complainant wasnot present and was also not serious to proceed with thecomplaint as is evident from his conduct in comittingseveral defaults.For these reasons the Chief PresidencyMagistrate passed an order discharging all the otherremaining accused under s. 253(2) Cr.The ChiefPresidency Magistrate was directed to proceed with thecomplaint and dispose it of according to law.The learnedJudges have held the discharge of some of the accused unders. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,215,182 | Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.11/2019 registered by P.S. Khalwa District Khandwa (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 304, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that 22/12/2018 at about 12 O' clock, applicant/accused Tara Bai has given the birth to a female child who was having 6-6 fingers in both hands and legs.It is alleged that applicant Tara Bai has chopped all the extra fingers of both hands and legs with the help of razor, because of excessive bleeding and infection, female child has died on 24/12/2018 at about 4.00 pm, then applicant/accused buried her in a pit.On the information, the dead body of said child was recovered and Post Mortem was conducted.On that basis, above mentioned offence has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that a false case has been been registered against the present applicant.It is urged that the applicant is a lady aged about 22 years, who have no criminal past.She has also having two other children aged about 2 years and 4 years.She is in jail since 18/01/2019 and trial will takes time for its decision.She is permanent resident of the addressed shown in the application and there is no possibility of her absconding.The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.From perusal of the case diary it appears that the applicant is a lady, aged about 22 years, who has given the birth to a child.She is also having two other children aged about 2 years and 4 years.She is in judicial custody since 18/01/2019 and trial will take time.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the applicant is a lady having two minor children, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 01/03/2019 23:04:39 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,323,881 | It says that Rina married Arun about 1 month and 14 days prior to her death.She had 3 love affairs with Arun.Immediately after marriage, Arun started demanding dowry through some local boys.Rina was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house.She sent one Sajish Ali Halder to Pratima Das to bring money as demanded by the opposite party, Arun.But the torture did not stop.On 18.9.1999 Pratima Das was informed that Rina was ill.She went to meet her in her matrimonial house.She found the dead body of Rina was lying on a cot.She was told that Rina committed suicide by hanging.It shows that the death of Rina was caused due to sudden collapse of the vital organ of the chest cavity and haemorrhagic shock due to heavy pressure or hit on the chest.No sign of ligature mark in the neck was detected.A multiple abrasion was found around the mouth and a huge haematoma on the chest bips was found in broken condition.According to post mortem report, the death of Rina was not suicidal but homicidal in nature.was started against the opposite parties under Sections 498A/304B/302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under the abovementioned Sections against the opposite parties.However, the learned Trial Court framed charge against the opposite parties under Sections498A/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The opposite parties claimed that they were innocence and desired to be tried.Accordingly, the trial commenced.The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses.The First Information Report, seizure list, post mortem report, inquest report and rough sketch map were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits.Neither any witness was examined nor any document was admitted on behalf of the defence.Upon considering the evidence on record the learned Trial Court found the opposite parties not guilty to the charges levelled against them and accordingly acquitted them therefrom.On perusal of the judgment and order impugned, I find that the learned Trial Court did not find any convincing evidence as to the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties.The P.W. 1, the defacto-complainant, Pratima Das, has stated that one week after the marriage of Rina with opposite party no. 1, she was subjected to torture for dowry.That demand of dowry was made through some local people.Her daughter, Rina, sent one Sajish Ali Halder also for bringing Rs.15,000/-.No Para people, through whom the alleged demand of dowry was made by the opposite parties, was examined by the prosecution.Other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not supported the case of torture upon the victim by the opposite 4 parties as alleged.On the contrary, the local people stated that the relation between Rina and opposite party no. 1 was normal.The P.W. 8, a local woman, stated in his examination that the matrimonial relation amongst Rina, her husband and mother-in-law was very good.On the contrary, her mother and brother used to abuse her openly.The P.Ws. 9, 10, 11 and 12 are local people and none of them supported the prosecution case.The P.W. 14, Sajish Ali Halder stated categorically that he was not sent by the victim to Pratima Das for bringing money as demanded by the opposite parties.The P.W. 15, a shop owner, has stated that the mother of Rina, i.e., Pratima Das complained him that Rina was subjected to torture in her matrimonial house.However, Pratima Das, P.W. 1, has not stated that she passed any such information to P.W. 15 at any point of time.P.W. 16, another local man, has not supported the prosecution case.There is no evidence, in true sense, in support of the prosecution case to the effect that Rina Roy was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial house and the opposite parties demanded money from the defacto-complainant and on failure on the part of Rina to provide them money, she was tortured by the opposite parties.As far as the findings of the learned Trial Court in respect of the alleged charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, I find that there is no illegality and perversity in the judgment.The learned Trial Court itself raised the question that if Rina was murdered, who could commit that murder.On careful perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that neither there is any direct evidence nor any indirect evidence suggesting that the opposite parties herein were involved in murder of Rina.I have carefully gone through the oral testimonies of the witnesses.It is true that Rina was found dead in the house of the opposite parties.It is also true that she died within 1 months from the date of her marriage with opposite party no. 1, Arun.At best suspicion can be raised, but suspicion cannot take place of proof whatever strong it might be.There is no evidence, even suggesting the involvement of the opposite parties in the alleged murder.The evidence of P.W. 8, a local woman, is very important.She has stated in her cross- examination that on the date of death of Rina both Arun and his mother left the house in the early morning for their place of work and returned at night.The aunt of Arun, his sister and elder sister were in the house of Arun.Neither the aunt of Arun, nor his sister and elder sister were made accused in the case.They were not also examined as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution.The P.W. 1, the defacto-complainant has not also stated anywhere within the four corners of her deposition that on her arrival in the matrimonial house of Rina, she met the opposite parties.It is not the case of the prosecution that the opposite parties left the house after committing murder of Rina leaving her dead body in the house in the custody of the aunt of Arun, his sister and elder sister.The exhibit-7, the Post Mortem Report, does not disclose the time of death of Rina.6 The learned Trial Court found that the alleged incident happened at about 2.30/3.00 p.m. In view of the statement of the P.W. 8, the opposite parties left the house early in the morning.If so, it was not possible for them to cause death of Rina at 2.30/3.00 p.m. In fact, the prosecution projected the case of suicide instead of murder.Therefore, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution in order to establish the case of murder against the opposite parties.The learned Trial Court was supposed to act on the materials placed before it.It is true that the dead body was found in the house of the opposite parties.But, opposite parties were not at home from the early morning to night.Some of their inmates were at home.But, they were not made accused in the case.They were also not cited as witnesses by the prosecution. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,383,559 | However, during investigation, involvement of respondent came to light and, therefore, summons under Section 40 of FERA was issued to him on two occasions for appearance.But he did not respond to these notices and sent evasive replies on one pretext or the other.Cognizance of the offence was taken on the same date.Both the parties felt aggrieved from the said order.The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order whereas the petitioner filed instant petition for quashing the order initiating proceedings under Section 56 of FERA.The main plank of the contention of counsel for respondent is that once his petition quashing the order of the learned ACMM had attained finality, the same cannot be disturbed or reopened by the instant petition having been restored subsequent to the order of this court.I am afraid aforesaid contention holds water like sieve as the observations of his Lordship Justice K.S. Gupta vide whose order petition of the respondent was allowed, cannot be lost sight of nor can these be taken in isolation.For the foregoing discussion, impugned order deserves to be set aside on both the aforesaid counts and complaint quashed."However, the very circumstances of instant petition having been restored by order dated 8.10.2001 wipes out any observation made by his Lordship in the order disposing of the petition of the respondent and render it not only irrelevant but redundant as the instant petition has to be decided and determined in the perspective of its own facts and contentions raised by the petitioner. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,503,005 | Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 2 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 2 of 183At 10:15 AM on 24.8.2002 he left his residence in an Indica Car bearing registration No.While leaving the house he told his wife Sumitra Gupta PW-18, that he was going to attend a rally organized by the Congress Party at Firozshah Kotla Grounds Delhi.He did not return to his residence till late evening and could not be contacted on his mobile phone since the same was switched off.His wife got worried.She contacted the younger brothers of Atma Ram Gupta as also her children and apprised them of the situation.The children of Atma Ram Gupta as also his younger brothers came to his residence and made inquiries from persons who were in contact with Atma Ram Gupta during the day.They could not ascertain the whereabouts of Atma Ram Gupta till midnight and thus Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, the younger brother of Atma Ram Gupta, lodged a missing person report at PS Keshav Puram.HC Ashok Kumar PW-6, recorded DD No.31, Ex.PW-6/A at 1:00 AM on 25.8.2002 in which it stands recorded that on 24.8.2002 at about 10:30 AM Atma Ram Gupta left his residence in his white coloured Indica Car bearing registration No.DL 6SA 0025 which was driven by the driver Prabhu Yadav and that he went to the residence of Sharda Jain, a Member of Indian National Congress and also a Municipal Councillor from Keshav Puram Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 3 of 183 Ward New Delhi.That on reaching the residence of Sharda Jain, Atma Ram sent back his car with the driver and thereafter, in the company of Sharda Jain and another person, Atma Ram Gupta left the residence of Sharda Jain in an Indica Car bearing registration No.DL 3SAB 0016 belonging to Sharda Jain, which was driven by Prakash Chauhan the driver of Sharda Jain and they left for Firozshah Kotla grounds to attend a rally.When Atma Ram Gupta did not return home till evening his family members contacted Sharda Jain who told them that Atma Ram Gupta had accompanied her to the rally held at Firozshah Kotla grounds and attended the same for sometime.Leaving the venue of the rally the said four persons proceeded in the car of Sharda Jain towards ring road and at a red light near Jamuna Bazar, Hanuman Mandir, opposite Nigam Bodh Ghat the driver of Sharda Jain got down from the car as he was not feeling well.The unidentified person started driving the car.Sharda Jain further told them that after some time Atma Ram Gupta got down from her car.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 3 of 183On 25.8.2002 itself, Inspector Shiv Raj Singh PW-55, recorded the statement, Ex.PW-62/DB, of Sumitra Gupta PW- 18, as also the statement Ex.PW-9/C of Rajinder Pal Gupta PW- 9, the younger brother of Atma Ram Gupta.In her statement, Ex.PW-62/DB, Sumitra Gupta stated that on 24.08.2002 at about 10.15 A.M. her husband Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 4 of 183 left his residence in his Indica car bearing registration no.DL 6SA 0025 being driven by his driver Prabhu Yadav.Before leaving the house, her husband told her that he would first go to the house of Sharda Jain and thereafter would proceed to a rally along with Sharda Jain.She further stated that while leaving the house her husband was wearing a watch in his right hand as also a gold ring on his finger, on which letters 'AR' were engraved and was also carrying a mobile phone, some cards and documents.After some time Prabhu Yadav returned to the house and told her that he had dropped her husband at the residence of Sharda Jain and that Atma Ram Gupta told him to take back the car to the house because he would go to the rally in the car of Sharda Jain.When her husband did not return home till evening she contacted Sharda Jain over the telephone to enquire about the whereabouts of her husband and Sharda Jain informed her that her husband did not accompany her to the rally.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 4 of 183A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 5 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 5 of 183In his statement Ex.PW-11/DA, Om Parkash stated that he had driven Sharda Jain and Atma Ram Gupta in the car of Sharda Jain to the venue of the rally at Firozshah Kotla Grounds and that another person named Rajesh @ Raju was also in the car.From the venue of the rally they all left and he drove the car towards ring road.When the car reached the red light near Hanuman Mandir at Jamuna Bazar, Nigam Bodh Ghat, since he was not feeling well, he got down from the car and Rajesh started driving the car.He heard suspicious talks between Roshan Singh and Sharda Jain.In her statement Ex.PW-10/A, Shanti PW-10, the mother of Om Prakash, stated that Sharda Jain visited their house in the night of 24.08.2002 and asked her son Om Parkash not to divulge to anyone that Atma Ram Gupta was in her company in the morning.On 26.08.2002, Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, took over the investigation of the case.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 6 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 6 of 183The fact that the deceased was present in the company of Sharda Jain and Rajinder @ Rajesh @ Raje @ Raju on the day he went missing; that Sharda Jain, Rajinder @ Rajesh @ Raje @ Raju, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Roshan Singh were meeting each other few days before the deceased went missing and that something fishy was being discussed in the meetings between Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh and Rajinder, the said persons became suspects.On 27.08.2002 Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, accompanied by Inspector Shiv Raj Singh PW-55, SI Anil Kumar PW-44 and HC Sunita PW-31, went to the residence of Sharda Jain and arrested her at 01.00 P.M. as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-31/A. On interrogation by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, in the presence of Inspector Shiv Raj Singh PW-55, Anil Kumar PW-44 and HC Sunita PW-31, Sharda Jain made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-31/D wherein she disclosed that she hatched a conspiracy with her brother Raj Kumar and two other persons; namely, Roshan Singh and Rajinder to murder the deceased and that pursuant to the conspiracy the deceased was taken to village Chajjupur on 24.8.2002 in her car.Two hired assassins shot him as per plan when the deceased was led to village Chajjupur.That she could take the police and show the place where the deceased was murdered.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 7 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 7 of 183The phone along with the SIM card were seized vide memo Ex.PW-31/C. Indica car bearing registration No.DL 3SAB 0016 was parked outside the residence of Sharda Jain.It was searched.One pair of molded P.O.P. denture set on which name of Dr.S.C.Rajput was engraved; four invitation cards dated 24.08.2002 one of which had the name of the deceased written thereon and two labels for parking of the car at Firozshah Kotla ground were recovered and hence seized vide memo Ex.PW-44/C. Mud was found sticking on the right rear tyre of the said car.The same i.e. the tyre was seized vide memo Ex.When aforenoted events were transpiring in the house of Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar the brother of Sharda Jain came there and tried to slip away on seeing the police.However, he could not manage to escape and was arrested at 3 P.M. as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-44/A. On being interrogated by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, in the presence of Inspector Shiv Raj Singh PW-55 and SI Anil Kumar PW-44, Raj Kumar made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-44/O wherein he disclosed that he was a party to the conspiracy with Sharda Jain and two other persons; namely, Roshan Singh and Rajinder to murder the deceased and that two other persons; namely, Pushpender and Nirvikar were the hired assassins who Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 8 of 183 fired shots at the deceased in pursuance of the said conspiracy.He stated that he could lead the police to the place and identify the same, where the deceased was murdered.He further disclosed that he had removed the wrist watch of the deceased and could get the same recovered.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 8 of 183Pursuant to their respective disclosure statements, Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar led the police party consisting of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, HC Sunita PW-31, SI Ram Kumar PW-32, SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44 and SI Shiv Raj Singh PW-55 to a Dak Bangla near a Rajwaha (minor canal) situated behind village Chajjupur, U.P. and vide pointing out memos Ex.PW-44/D and Ex.PW-44/E both of them, at the same time, pointed out a spot and stated that the said spot is the place where the deceased was murdered.On a thorough investigation of the place pointed out by accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar, the earth therein was found to be stained with blood at three different spots.SI Ram Kumar PW-32, lifted the portions of the earth stained with blood as also the earth control and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-44/F. Thereafter the control mud/soil at the place in question was lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW-44/G. Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, prepared the site plan Ex.PW-62/B of the spot in question; recording therein at points A, B and Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 9 of 183 C, the spots where the earth was found to be stained with blood and samples lifted.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 9 of 183SI Manohar Lal PW-29, a draftsman and HC Sajjan Kumar PW-33 a photographer were summoned.SI Manohar Lal prepared the site plan to scale Ex.PW-29/A of the place in question, at the instance of Inspector V.S.Meena.HC Sajjan Kumar took five photographs Ex.PW-33/A to Ex.PW-33/E of the place in question; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-33/A1 to Ex.Thereafter accused Raj Kumar led the police party consisting of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44 and SI Shiv Raj Singh PW-55, to his residence at village Gulawati, District Bulandshar, UP and recovered a wrist watch of make Citizen Quartz with a gold chain from behind a speaker kept at a ventilator in the balcony of his house and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW-44/H. The said watch was deposited in the Malkhana on the date of its recovery itself i.e. 28.08.2002 as recorded vide entry No.1560 entered by HC Dinesh Kumar PW-43, in the Store-Room Register (Part I).Attempts made to locate the dead body of Atma Ram Gupta failed till 31.08.2002, when around 5 A.M. on 31.8.2002, Ram Kumar PW-22, an agriculturist and resident of village Deher Ki Madia, Bulandshar, UP saw a dead body of a Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 10 of 183 male person lying in a sub-canal of the canal known as Bulandshar Rajwaha/Sanota Canal.Ram Kumar apprised the police officials.Since the body found in the canal appeared to be that of the deceased, the police called the relatives of the deceased for the purposes of the identification of the said body.Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, Ved Prakash Gupta PW-15, Rajpal Gupta PW-16, brothers of the deceased and Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8 and Amrit Lal Singhal PW-37, friends of the deceased, identified the body found in the canal as that of the deceased.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 10 of 183Since the body of the deceased was found within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gulawati, UP, the police officials of the said police station were joined in the recovery.PW-62/C about the recovery of the body of the deceased based whereon Const.Lalit Kumar PW-60, prepared DD Entry Ex.Taking along a copy of the afore- noted DD Entry, SI Rambir Singh PW-61, reached the canal, lifted the earth from near the canal and water oozing out from the body of the deceased and seized the same vide Ex.PW- 23/A. SI Rambir Singh also prepared inquest report Ex.PW-61/A and other documents pertaining to the recovery and conduct of post-mortem of the deceased.Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 11 of 183 prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-62/D of the place of the recovery of the body of the deceased; recording therein at points A and B the spots where the body of the deceased was found stuck in the heap of garbage in the canal and where the body was kept after being taken out from the canal.HC Sajjan Kumar PW-33, photographer, reached the said place and took the photographs Ex.PW-33/X1 to Ex.PW-33/X12 of the body of the deceased and the place of the recovery of the said body; negatives whereof are Ex.PW33/X1A to Ex.PW-33/X12A. (It may be noted here that the photographs Exhibits PW-33/X1, PW-33/X7, PW-33/X8, PW-33/X9, PW-33/X10 and PW-33/X11 are the photographs of the body of the deceased whereas the photographs Exhibits PW-33/X2, PW-33/X3, PW-33/X4, PW- 33/X5 PW-33/X6 and PW-33/X12 are the photographs of the place of the recovery of the dead body of the deceased) Ravinder Singh PW-23 and Jai Chand PW-26, public persons, witnessed the investigation conducted at the place in question and preparation of the memos as also the other documents prepared by the police in connection with recovery of the body of the deceased.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 11 of 183"...Skin peeled off at places, scalp hair loose and easily detachable.Body covered with mud at places.Skin of hands and feet (soles) wrinkled.Foul smell present.Face scrotius and penis swollen."The post-mortem report further records that the brain of the deceased was in a liquefied state; that the small intestine was contain gases; that the death was caused due to coma, shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased and that the death of the deceased had taken place about one week prior to the conduct of the post-mortem.After the post-mortem, the doctors handed over the clothes and artificial teeth, six in number; viscera of the deceased; vial of sample of preservative used for preserving Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 13 of 183 the viscera of the deceased and one sample seal to SO of PS Gulawati.HC Ajay Pal PW-4, handed over the afore-noted materials as also the materials seized vide memo Ex.PW-23/A; namely, earth lifted from near the canal and water which had oozed out from the body of the deceased; the post-mortem report and its copies and the inquest papers to Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, vide memo Ex.PW-4/A.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 13 of 183Since accused Roshan Singh could not be located in his house, the police flashed a wireless message, Ex.PW-55/A, to all SSPs and DCPs in India to search for Roshan Singh and a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.DDU 1371 owned by him.Proceedings were initiated to declare him a proclaimed offender.Attempts were made to trace Pusphpender and Nirvikar.On 6.9.2002, Inspector Ram Chander PW-20, along with other police officials was present near PS Tappal, District Aligarh when a secret informer informed him that accused Pushpender is staying in the house of his relative situated at village Bharatpur.Inspector Ram Chander PW-20, sent the aforesaid information to Police Station Keshav Puram, where DD No.11, Ex.PW-62/E, was recorded at 3.20 P.M. noting the said information.Thereafter Inspector Ram Chander proceeded to village Bharatpur and apprehended Pushpender from a road in the village.Inspector V.S.Meena accompanied Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 14 of 183 by SI Sukaram Pal PW-39 and SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, reached village Bharatpur and formally arrested accused Pushpender at 7.30 P.M. as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-20/A.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 14 of 183The personal search of Pushpender resulted in the recovery of Rs.44/- and one I-Card issued in the name of the deceased by All India Crime Prevention Organization and the same were seized vide memos Ex.PW-20/B and Ex.PW-20/C respectively.On being interrogated by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, in the presence of SI Sukaram Pal and SI Anil Kumar PW-44, Pushpender made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/D wherein he disclosed that he had fired a shot at the deceased in pursuance of a conspiracy to murder the deceased.On 17.09.2002 Inspector Ram Chander PW-20, telephonically informed duty officer at PS Keshav Puram that accused Nirvikar who was granted bail in connection with FIR bearing no.250/01 registered against him and had got his bail cancelled and is lodged in Aligarh Jail, based whereon, DD No.7A Ex.PW-62/F, was recorded at 10.45 A.M. noting the same information.Additionally, he stated that he can point out the place where the deceased was murdered and the residence of accused Roshan Singh and can also get recovered the country made pistols used for committing the murder of the deceased.Pursuant to his disclosure statement, Nirvikar led the police party consisting of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 and SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, to a Dak Bangla near a Rajwaha which was situated behind village Chajjupur, U.P. and vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-39/B pointed out a spot and stated that said spot is the place of the murder of the deceased.(It may be noted here that the said spot is the same which was told by accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar as the spot where the murder of the deceased was committed i.e. the spot was already known to the police).Thereafter, he led the afore-noted police officials to the residence of his brother-in-law situated at village Chajjupur and got recovered an I-card issued in the name of the deceased by ISCKON, from underneath a trunk, which was seized vide memo Ex.On the basis of secret information, the police party, consisting of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44 and SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, arrested accused Rajinder Singh at a bus stand situated at JJ Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, at 8.30 P.M. on 30.09.2002 as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-44/J. On being interrogated by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, in the presence of SI Sukaram Pal and SI Anil Kumar PW-44, Rajinder Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-39/E, wherein he disclosed that he hatched a conspiracy with Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh and Rajinder to murder the deceased and that two unknown persons fired shots at the deceased in pursuance of the said conspiracy.Pursuant to his disclosure statement, Rajinder Singh led the police party consisting of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 and SI Sukaram PW-39, to a Dak Bangla near a Rajwaha which was situated behind village Chajjupur, U.P. and vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-39/G pointed out a spot and stated that spot is the place of the murder of the deceased.Thereafter he led the afore-noted police officials to the residence of Sharda Jain and vide pointing out memo Ex.PW- 39/F pointed out the said house as the place where the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 17 of 183 conspiracy to murder the deceased was hatched.(It may be noted here that the said places were already in the knowledge of the police).(Emphasis Supplied)"On 14.10.2002 a secret information was received by Inspector J.R.Uike PW-63, posted at PS Babai, District Hoshangabad, MP, that accused Roshan Singh is present at Rampur Tala near the tube well of Kamal Singh, pursuant whereto he went there and arrested Roshan Singh at 6.10 P.M. in the presence of two public witnesses; namely, Lalit Dubey PW-56 and Ram Bilas PW-57, as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.On the next day i.e. 15.11.2002 the SP, Hoshangabad, sent the information, Ex.PW-63/B, about the arrest of Roshan Singh to the Commissioner of Police Delhi, pursuant whereto, Inspector VS Meena, accompanied by Inspector Ram Chander PW-20 and SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, went to Hoshangaband, where after filing an application and getting permission from the court at Hoshangabad, Inspector Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 19 of 183 V.S.Meena obtained the police custody of Roshan Singh and formally arrested him at 04.00 P.M. as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-39/G. On being interrogated by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, in the presence of Inspector Ram Chander PW-20 and SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, Roshan Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/E, wherein he disclosed that he hatched a conspiracy with Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar and Rajinder to murder the deceased and that two other persons; namely, Pushpender and Nirvikar fired shots at the deceased in pursuance of the said conspiracy.He further disclosed that he, along with three police officials; namely, Shri Pal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar had thrown the body of the deceased in the canal; that one Subash who is a resident of village Chajjupur can shed some light on the said aspect of the matter and that he can get recovered a gold ring and the mobile phone of the deceased as also his mobile phone and the two pistols used for committing the murder of the deceased.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 19 of 183On 22.11.2002, Roshan Singh took the police party, consisting of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, SI Sukaram Pal PW- 39 and SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, to Bijoli Mode, UP and got recovered his mobile phone from the bushes and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW-39/O. Thereafter Roshan Singh led the said police officials to his residence and got recovered two country made pistols; two live cartridges and one gold ring from a polythene bag which was kept hidden in a heap of cattle feed, lying in a room of his house and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW-39/L. Inspector V.S.Meena prepared rough site plan Ex.PW-62/N of the residence of Roshan Singh; recording therein at point B the room where the afore-noted articles were recovered.He also prepared the sketches of the pistols and live cartridges recovered at the instance of Roshan Singh, being Ex.PW-39/H, Ex.PW-39/J and Ex.PW-39/K respectively.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 21 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 21 of 183Thereafter Roshan Singh led the police officers and pointed out the spots where the deceased was murdered and body of the deceased respectively was thrown into the canal, vide pointing out memos Ex.PW-39/H and Ex.PW-39/N respectively.(It may be noted here that the spot which was pointed out by accused Roshan Singh as the place of the murder of the deceased is the same which was told by accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar as the spot where the deceased was murdered i.e. the spot was already known to the police).(It may further be noted here that sketch of one of the pistols recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh as also the pointing out memo of the place of murder of the deceased prepared at the instance of Roshan Singh have been exhibited as Ex.PW-39/H i.e. two documents have been given the same exhibit mark.) The mobile phone of the deceased could not be found pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Roshan Singh.PW-38/A dated 10.12.2002 of Subash, wherein he stated that he is an agriculturist and resides in village Chajjupur.That on 24.08.2002 at around 06.00 PM he returned to his house after finishing work at his fields when some children told him that a dead body is lying near the government bungalow situated near the canal.On hearing the same, he proceeded to the house of Roshan Singh who was the Pradhan of his village to apprise him of the said fact.On his way to the house of Roshan Singh he met Roshan Singh who was driving a car and he told him about the dead body, upon which Roshan Singh told him that they should go to the police station and give the said information.Thereafter he sat in the car of Roshan Singh and while they were on their way to the police station they met three police officers; namely Shri Pal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar to whom they gave the information about the dead body.The three police officers sat in the car of Roshan Singh.When the car reached near the canal, Roshan Singh asked him to get down from the car and told him that he, along with the three police officers would take care of the matter upon which he got down from the car.Roshan Singh drove the car towards the canal and he returned to his house.Roshan Singh absconded from his house since Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 23 of 183 that day.He did not see the dead body with his own eyes.He came to know that the said body was that of the deceased after reading a newspaper report a few days after the dead body of Atma Ram Gupta was discovered.In view of what was told to Inspector V.S.Meena by Subhash, it became apparent that Shri Pal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar became suspects regarding the disposal of the dead body.On 11.12.2002 Inspector V.S.Meena, accompanied by SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, went to PS Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP where he arrested Sripal Singh Raghav and Satender Kumar at 6.00 PM as recorded in the arrest memos Ex.PW-39/T and Ex.PW-39/U. On interrogation by Inspector V.S.Meena, in the presence of SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, accused Sripal Singh Raghav and Satender Kumar made disclosure statements Ex.PW-39/P and Ex.PW-39/Q respectively, wherein they disclosed that along with Roshan Singh and another police officer; namely Rakesh Kumar, they threw the body of the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 24 of 183 deceased into the canal.Both of them led Inspector V.S.Meena to the place which had already been identified to the police as the place where the deceased as murdered and vide pointing out memos Ex.PW-39/V, Ex.PW-39/X, Ex.PW-39/Y and Ex.PW- 39/W accused Sripal Singh Raghav and Satender Kumar pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying before it was thrown into the canal and the place where they threw the body of the deceased into the canal.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 24 of 183On the basis of secret information, Inspector V.S.Meena accompanied by SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, arrested accused Rakesh Kumar at a bus stop situated at B-2 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi at 09.30 AM on 23.12.2002, as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-44/K. On being interrogated by Inspector V.S.Meena, in the presence of SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, accused Rakesh Kumar made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-44/L wherein he disclosed that he along with Roshan Singh, Sripal Singh Raghav and Satender Kumar had thrown the body of the deceased into the canal.Thereafter vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-44/N, accused Rakesh Kumar pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying before it was thrown into the canal.The design and size of these rings are similar to that of case property.It is pertinent to mention here that on none of the said rings the English letters AR is engraved" (Emphasis supplied)In the meantime, some of the materials seized during the course of investigation; namely, the blood samples of the parents of the deceased, the soil/earth lifted from the spot pointed out by accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar as the place of the murder of the deceased, the clothes, artificial teeth and viscera of the deceased, the sample of the vial used for preserving the viscera of the deceased, the tyre of the car of Sharda Jain, two country made pistols and cartridges were Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 26 of 183 sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for serological/chemical/ballistic examination.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 26 of 183Vide CFSL report Ex.P-1, it was opined that the samples of the blood of the parents of the deceased and the sample of the tissue of the body recovered from the canal were subjected for DNA isolation by organic extraction method and that the said sample of tissue belongs to the male child of the parents of the deceased.Vide FSL reports Ex.PW-41/A and Ex.PW-41/B it was opined that the earth/soil/mud lifted from the place of occurrence was found to be stained with human blood; group whereof could not be determined and that blood could not be detected on the clothes and artificial teeth of the deceased.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-66/A it was opined that the mud/soil lifted from the place of occurrence and the soil/mud found stuck on the tyre of the car of Sharda Jain were similar in physical characteristics.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-50/A it was opined that the pistols recovered at the instance of Roshan Singh are of .315 bore, designed to fire a standard 8 mm/.315 bore and are in working order in their present condition and that the cartridges recovered at the instance of Roshan Singh are live and can be fired through a .315 bore firearm.Vide FSL report Ex.DL-3S- AB-0016, being driven by accused Rajinder Singh, and in a friendly manner, led him to a Dak Bangla near a Rajwaha situated behind village Chajjupur, UP, where accused Pushpender and Nirvikar fired shots at the deceased and caused his death.Thereafter Sharda Jain along with Rajinder Singh left the spot and asked the other accused persons to dispose of the body of the deceased.Roshan Singh asked the remaining accused persons; namely, Raj Kumar, Pushpender and Nirvikar to disperse and told them that they would come back to said spot in the evening to dispose of the body of the deceased.Before dispersing from the place of the crime, the said accused persons removed the I-cards, wrist watch and gold ring of the deceased.However, everything did not work out according to their plan inasmuch as Subash, who is a resident of village Chajjupur, got knowledge about the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 29 of 183 presence of a body at the place in question.It may be noted here that the testimony of the said witness was not controverted by the defence.No suggestion was given to the said witness in his cross-examination regarding the recording of the said endorsement.Jitender PW-25, deposed having handed over the endorsement Ex.PW-55/C to the duty officer at Police Station Keshav Puram.HC Savitri PW-27, deposed having registered FIR Ex.HC Sher Singh PW-35, deposed having delivered copies of the FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate and senior police officers.Sumitra Gupta PW-18, the wife of the deceased, deposed that on 24.08.2002, at about 10.15 AM the deceased Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 32 of 183 left his residence in his Indica car bearing registration No.DL 6SA 0025, which was driven by his driver Prabhu Yadav.Before leaving the house, the deceased told her that he would first go to the house of Sharda Jain and thereafter would proceed to a rally along with Sharda Jain.She deposed that while leaving the house, the deceased was wearing a watch in his right hand and a gold ring on which letters 'AR' were engraved and was also carrying a mobile phone, some cards and papers.After sometime Prabhu Yadav returned home and told her that he had dropped the deceased at the residence of Sharda Jain and that the deceased had told him to return to his house as he would be going to the rally in the car of Sharda Jain.When the deceased did not return till evening, she tried to contact him on his mobile phone having number 9810166101, but the same was switched off.Thereafter, she contacted her children and the younger brothers of the deceased and apprised them that the deceased was missing.She made a telephonic call to Sharda Jain to enquire about the whereabouts of the deceased, in response whereto, Sharda Jain told her that the deceased did not accompany her to the rally in question.After sometime, her son Amit Gupta called Sharda Jain, who then informed that the deceased did accompany her to the rally, but stated that the deceased got down from her car near ISBT when they were returning from the rally.On being cross-examined about the relations between the deceased and herself, Sumitra Gupta stated (Quote): My husband was honest and loyal to people and was faithful to me.It is wrong to suggest that police official Meena had come to my house and had taken away the ring of my husband.....It is wrong to suggest that the ring Ex.It is wrong to suggest that on 18.12.02, I had given the ring, Ex.PW-18/1 to Insp.Meena'.It may be noted here that no specific suggestion was given to Sumitra Gupta that the Investigating Officer collected the wrist watch, the ring or the I-cards of the deceased from her.On reaching the residence of Sharda Jain, the deceased told him to take back the car to his house and meet him in the evening.He had seen the deceased, Sharda Jain and another person whom he cannot identify, sitting in the car of Sharda Jain, being driven by Om Prakash Chauhan, the driver of Sharda Jain.On returning the residence of the deceased, he handed over the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 34 of 183 keys of the car of the deceased to the wife of the deceased and told her that accompanied by Sharda Jain the deceased had gone to attend the rally in the car of Sharda Jain.Thereafter he left for his house.On the same day, at about 05.00 PM he again returned to the residence of the deceased but the deceased was not present there.Shanti PW-10, the mother of the driver of Sharda Jain i.e. the mother of Om Prakash PW-11, deposed that her son was employed as a driver with Sharda Jain and that she does not know Sharda Jain.One night Sharda Jain had come to her residence and sent a boy inside her residence to call her son, whereupon she asked her son to go and meet Sharda Jain.He saw that the said car stopped near the red light at Nigam Bodh Ghat, whereupon the driver of the car got down and started walking towards ISBT.He made enquiries from the deceased, who told him that driver of Sharda Jain has left as he was not feeling well and that accused Rajinder would drive the car in the absence of the driver of Sharda Jain.Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, a friend of the deceased, deposed that on 31.08.2002 along with the relatives of the deceased he had gone to a canal near village Gulawati where he saw the body of the deceased lying on the bank of said canal.The body of the deceased was swollen and was clothed in an off-white colored safari suit.However, structural physics forms part of a degree course in physics.On being questioned about the methodology adopted by him for carrying out the examination of the soil, he stated: It is correct that I did not carry out any Chemical examination of the soil supplied to me in the present matter so as to ascertain its various components or as to its salinity.The elevation of the place from where the alleged samples were lifted from the sea level were not supplied to the laboratory..........Witness further states that on account of difference in quantity of samples etc it is difficult to give an opinion of identical physical character-sticks or for that matter some physical character-sticks.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 47 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 47 of 183Subash Chander PW-2, President of All India Crime Prevention Organization, deposed that the deceased enrolled himself as a member of All India Crime Prevention Organization on 08.03.1995 and that the I-card Ex.It may be noted here that the testimony of the said two witnesses was not controverted by the defence.Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9 and Sumitra Gupta PW-18, the younger brother and the wife respectively of the deceased, deposed that they had identified the wrist watch Ex.P-4 and the ring Ex.PW-18/1 of the deceased in a Test Identification proceedings.On being questioned about the wrist watch in question, Rajinder Pal Gupta stated (Quote): 'Atma Ram Gupta had gone to Singapur perhaps in the year 1996 and from where he had brought the wrist watch Ex. P-4 but I was not present when he purchased the watch.....It is correct that there is no special mark of identification on the wrist watch of Atma Ram Gupta.......Atma Ram Gupta had other wrist watches also Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 48 of 183 but however after he had brought the wrist watch Ex.P-4 from Singapur, he used to wear only this watch.'Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 48 of 183P.K.Jain PW-40, Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi deposed that he conducted the TIP of the wrist watch and the gold ring recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar and Roshan Singh and that the said wrist watch and ring were identified as belonging to the deceased by Rajinder Pal Gupta and Sumitra Gupta respectively.He also deposed having prepared the record in respect of the said TIP proceedings i.e. Ex.PW-40/C and Ex.PW-40/G.Baldev Kumar PW-52, deposed that he runs a jewellery shop under the name and style of Gogna Jewelers at Narang Colony, Tri Nagar.That on 23.10.2001 the deceased purchased a gold ring from him on which the letters AR were engraved and that he issued a bill Ex.PW-52/A to the deceased in said regard.The ring Ex.PW-18/1 recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh is the same ring which was purchased by the deceased from him.On basis of the said record, he deposed Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 49 of 183 that the said number is registered in the name of Sharda Jain.He further deposed that the call record Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 49 of 183Anu Anand PW-65, an employee of the cellular company HUTCH, produced the Cell ID Chart Ex.PW-65/A, which record indicates the locations of the various towers installed by cellular company HUTCH in Delhi and NCR and proved the same.A cumulative reading of the documents Ex.PW-34/A and Ex.PW-65/A shows that on 24.08.2002 incoming calls were received on the number 9811508688 at Shalimar Bagh at 9.09 A.M., Sarai Rohilla at 11.42 A.M., Turkman Gate at 12.05 P.M. and Raj Nagar (Ghaziabad) at 4.18 P.M., Mohan Nagar (Ghaziabad) at 4.32 P.M., Dilshad Garden at 4.52 P.M. and Mori Gate at 5.11 P.M.; outgoing calls were made from the number 9811508688 at Raj Nagar (Ghaziabad) at 4.21 P.M., Zaina Tower, Raj Nagar (Ghaziabad) at 4.27 P.M., Navyug Market (Ghaziabad) at 4.30 P.M. and Ashok Vihar at 5.31 P.M.Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, deposed that he obtained the call record Ex.PW-62/A of the mobile number 9811508688 pertaining to the period 01.06.2002 to 26.08.2002 during the course of the investigation of the present case.The entry register starts from 1.4.2002 to 29.7.2002 are in pen ink.The figure "4" has been written over the figure "3".ASI Baljeet Singh PW-19, deposed that he conducted investigation pertaining to the incident dated 25.10.2000 of consumption of sulfas tablets by Sharda Jain and that he prepared two DD entries Ex.PW-19/A and Ex.Tariq Nasir PW-58, Senior Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, deposed that the news item with the photograph Ex.We may note that the news item pertains to a function of a park being inaugurated and Memwati Berwala present at the function and her announcing that she would ensure that Rohini becomes garbage and corruption free area.The photograph shows Atma Ram Gupta i.e. the deceased standing next to Memwati Berwala.J Residual Witnesses :- P.S.Chauhan PW-1, Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, Ram Kumar PW-22, Ravinder Singh PW-23, Jai Chand PW-26, Subash PW-38, SI Kalicharan PW-53 and Dr.Subash PW-38, deposed the facts recorded in his statement Ex.PW-38/A under Section 164 Cr.P.C., contents whereof have already been noted by us in para 41 above.On being cross-examined about the factum of his inimical relations with accused Roshan Singh, Subhash Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 57 of 183 admitted (Quote): 'It is correct that my father Kishan Singh once contested against accused Roshan Singh for the post of village pardhan and in which my father lost.......It is correct that after Roshan Singh had won the election one complaint was lodged against him regarding misappropriation of village funds.I was one of the signatory to the said complaint alongwith other villagers.On being cross-examined about his knowledge of the identity of the dead body of the deceased he stated (Quote): 'I do not remember whether I stated in my statement to the IO that after about three days I came to know from news papers that the said dead body belogned to Atma Ram (confronted with statement EXPW 38/DA where the fact that "after three days from the news papers I came to know" is not mentioned).....Police as per my knowledge came to our village either on the third or fourth day of the incident.On that day the police did not meet me.It is correct that my statement was recorded by IO after about 3 months.On reaching the rajwaha situated at village Chajjupur, he saw that accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Raju and Roshan Singh were present there.He further deposed that the police was making inquiry from accused Roshan Singh and that he does not recollect whether other accused persons; namely, Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar and Raju took part in the investigation.He stated that he appended his signatures on certain papers prepared in connection with the inquiries made from accused Roshan Singh as also signed the pointing out memos Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/B of accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar.He also deposed that accused Rajinder is Raju.The witness has nowhere deposed that he witnessed the pointing out of spot A by accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar.The evidence of the witness is ipsi-dixit on the point of the presence of accused Rajinder at spot A on 28.08.2002 inasmuch as the witness deposed that accused Raju was also present at spot A on 28.08.2002 and has referred to accused Rajinder as Raju in his examination-in- chief whereas he has referred accused Raj Kumar as Raju in his cross-examination.PW-34/A and Ex.As per the record, Ex.In the instant case, the call records Ex.PW-34/A and Ex.A.No.362/2001 Arvind Vs.State, decided on 10.8.2009, while referring to the decision in Deonandan Mishras case (supra) had held that with reference to the last seen evidence theory, the circumstance of the accused and the victim being co-passengers i.e. starting their journey together would require an inference to be drawn that they should reach their destination together and one of them dying a homicidal death, the other must own up responsibility unless he explains the circumstance of the two parting company.In the instant case, the fact that Sharda Jain and the deceased left together, and the deceased died the same day without reaching his destination would entitle this Court to draw an inference against Sharda Jain on last seen evidence alone and if linked with the attempt made by Sharda Jain to mislead the family members of the deceased and her attempt to contact her driver the same night in very suspicious circumstances are enough to nail her.We fail to understand what is incriminating in the conduct of accused Raj Kumar of arriving at Sharda Jains residence on the day of her arrest.Sharda Jain is the sister of accused Raj Kumar.Conduct of accused Raj Kumar in pointing out spot A: - The fifth circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to Crl.In his statement Ex.PW-9/C, Rajinder Pal Gupta PW- 9, stated same facts which were already recorded in DD No.31, Ex.PW-6/A.On the next day i.e. 26.08.2002, Inspector Shiv Raj Singh PW-55, recorded the statement Ex.PW-11/DA of Om Parkash, the driver of Sharda Jain, and the statement Ex.Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, informed the duty officer of PS Gulawati by way of a written application Ex.Thereafter the body of the deceased was sent to the mortuary at District Hospital, Bulandshar, where Dr.S.K.Aggarwal PW-21 and Dr.M.M.Aggarwal conducted the post-mortem of the deceased at 2.30 P.M. on 31.08.2002 and Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 12 of 183 prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-21/A which records following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:-Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 12 of 183"1. Firearm wound of entry 1.0 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side forehead 2.0 cm above lateral end of right eye brow, margins inverted.Firearm wound of exit 2.0 cm x 3.5 cm x cavity deep on left side of head 1.0 cm above left ear.On exploration, injuries nos.1 and 2 found communicating with each other.Margins inverted.Abraded contusion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm above top of head."The relevant portion of the external examination of the deceased recorded in the post-mortem report Ex.PW-21/A reads as under:-On receipt of said information, Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, proceeded to Aligarh, where after filing an application and getting permission from the District Judge, Aligarh, he obtained the custody of accused Nirvikar and Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 15 of 183 formally arrested him at 01.00 A.M. on 18.09.2002 as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 15 of 183On interrogation by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, in the presence of SI Sukaram Pal PW-39, accused Nirvikar made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-39/A, wherein he disclosed that the shot which caused the death of the deceased was fired by him.PW-39/C. (It may be noted Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 16 of 183 here that in the disclosure statement Ex.PW-39/A made by accused Nirvikar he has not made any mention of any I-card or of the fact that he can get one recovered).Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 16 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 17 of 183On 01.10.2002, Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, filed an application Ex.PW-62/H before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for conduct of Test Identification of Rajinder.Rajinder refused to participate in the TIP proceedings on the ground that he is known to the witnesses.Said fact was recorded in the record Ex.PW-40/A pertaining to the TIP proceedings.On 13.10.2002, SI Manohar Lal PW-29, prepared the site plan to scale Ex.PW-29/B of the place where th dead body of the deceased was recovered.He did so at the instance of Insp.On 16.10.2002 Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, filed an application before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for conduct of Test Identification of the wrist watch recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar.On 21.10.2002, Test Identification of the said wrist watch was conducted and Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, younger brother of the deceased, identified the wrist watch recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar, as that of the deceased.The Test Identification Proceedings were recorded vide Ex.PW-40/C. Being relevant to discuss the issue relating to the identification of the watch Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 18 of 183 as that of the deceased, it may be noted that it is recorded in Ex.PW-40/C as under:-Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 18 of 183"On opening of the pullanda one wrist watch make citizen quartz with gold chain is found.On 21.11.2002, Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, came to know that Maruti car bearing registration no.On the same day, Inspector V.S.Meena obtained the custody of the said car and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-62/N. SI Karan Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 20 of 183 Singh PW-45, from the crime team reached PS Kharkoda, on being summoned and inspected the car in question but no chance print could be detected thereon as recorded in the report Ex.PW-45/A.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 20 of 183In his disclosure statement, Roshan Singh had named Subash, stating that Subhash could shed some light on the aspect of the disposal of the dead body of the deceased, Inspector V.S.Meena tracked Subhash PW-38, and recorded his statement Ex.PW-38/DA.Thereafter, Inspector V.S.Meena filed an application Ex.PW-40/J before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi for recording the statement of Subash under Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 22 of 183 Section 164 Cr.P.C. Shri P.K.Jain PW-40, Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, recorded the statement Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 23 of 183On 30.11.2002 Inspector V.S.Meena took the two pistols recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh to Dr.S.K.Aggarwal PW-21, for his opinion about the weapon.Vide report Ex.PW-21/B, Dr.S.K.Aggarwal opined that the ante- mortem injury no. (1) found on the person of the deceased could possibly be caused by one of the said two pistols.On 13.01.2003, Inspector V.S.Meena, obtained the blood samples of the parents of the deceased for the purposes of DNA testing and seized the same vide memo Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 25 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 25 of 183On 16.01.2003 Inspector V.S.Meena, filed an application in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi for conduct of Test Identification of the ring recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh.On 18.01.2003, the Test Identification of the said ring was conducted.Sumitra Gupta PW-18, wife of the deceased, identified the ring recovered at the instance of Roshan Singh as that of the deceased as noted in the record of the proceedings Ex.PW-40/M. The manner in which the TIP of said ring was conducted, is recorded in Ex.PW- 40/M as under:-"Today I.O. Insp V.S.Meena produced one sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of V.S. On opening of the same, one gold ring is found in match box.The English letter AR is engraved on the top of the ring.I.O. also produced eight other rings which appear to be of gold.PW-59/A it was opined that blood or any other biological material could not be detected on the car of Roshan Singh.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 27 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 27 of 183Armed with the aforesaid material, the prosecution filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons.As per the charge-sheet, the broad contours of the case set up by the prosecution against the accused persons are that accused Sharda Jain developed intimate relations with the deceased due to which her husband left her.But, the deceased developed intimate relations with one Memwati Berwala who was also a member of the Indian National Congress and a Municipal Councillor.However, after sometime, the deceased again developed intimate relations with Memwati Berwala as also started ignoring accused Sharda Jain and promoted the political career of Memwati Berwala at the cost of the career of accused Sharda Jain.The aforesaid conduct of the deceased enraged accused Sharda Jain to such an extent that she decided to do away with the deceased.Accused Sharda Jain confided in her brother Raj Kumar who agreed to aid Sharda Jain in achieving her illegal desire.To give effect to the illegal desire of Sharda Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 28 of 183 Jain he contacted accused Roshan Singh and his i.e. Roshan Singhs driver Rajinder Singh.The four of them i.e. Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh and Rajinder Singh met twice at the residence of Sharda Jain, where they hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased.To execute the conspiracy accused Roshan Singh contacted accused Nirvikar and Pushpender, who agreed to kill the deceased.In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 24.08.2002, accused Sharda Jain made the deceased sit in her Indica car bearing registration No.Notwithstanding the said obstacle, Roshan Singh, with the aid accused Sripal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar managed to dispose of the body of the deceased by throwing the same in the canal flowing near the place where the deceased was murdered.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 28 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 29 of 183Charges were framed against the accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Roshan Singh, Pushpender and Nirvikar under Section 120-B, Section 364 read with Section 120-B and Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for having hatched a conspiracy to abduct and murder the deceased; abducting and murdering the deceased in pursuance of the said conspiracy.Charges were also framed against accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh, Sripal Singh Raghav, Satender Kumar and Rakesh Kumar under Sections 120-B and 201 read with Section 120-B IPC for having hatched a conspiracy to cause disappearance of the evidence by throwing the body of the deceased in the canal in pursuance of the said conspiracy.Additionally, a charge under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 was framed against accused Roshan Singh for being in unlawful possession of a firearm.A charge under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 was also framed against accused Pushpender and Nirvikar for illegally using a firearm.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 30 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 30 of 183ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE LED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURTAt the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 66 witnesses.We need not note the testimony of the various police officers who took part in the investigation for they have deposed facts regarding the respective role played by them during investigation which have already been succinctly stated by us in the preceding paragraphs and in respect whereof not much submission were made during arguments in the appeals.However, whenever necessary, to deal with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, such part of the testimony of the relevant witness would be noted.With a view to have clarity in the analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution, we segregate the relevant witnesses into 10 categories, clubbing in one category witnesses who have thrown light on the same issue.A Witnesses who participated in the preparation of the necessary documents prepared by the police till the FIR was registered:- HC Ashok Kumar PW-6, SI Shiv Raj Singh PW-55, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 31 of 183 Const.Jitender PW-25, HC Savitri PW-27 and HC Sher Singh PW-Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 31 of 183HC Ashok Kumar PW-6, deposed that he recorded DD No.31 Ex.PW-6/A at about 01.00 A. on 25.08.2002 on the basis of the report lodged by Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, regarding the deceased being missing.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 32 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 33 of 183He remained at the residence of the deceased till about 7.00 PM - 8.00 PM but the deceased did not return.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 34 of 183On being cross-examined about the instructions given to him by the deceased on 24.08.2002 at the time when he dropped the deceased at the residence of Sharda Jain, Prabhu Yadav stated (Quote): 'When Atma Ram Gupta left for rally in the car of Sharda Jain he had told me to come to his house at 05.00 PM and he had not told me that I should come to Kamal Clinic of Dr.Mahender Pal Gupta'.It may be noted here that save and except asking aforesaid question, the testimony of the said witness was not controverted by the defence.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 35 of 183The deceased came to the house of Sharda Jain in his Indica car, being driven by his driver Prabhu Yadav.Thereafter, the deceased sent back his car with his driver and occupied a seat in the car of Sharda Jain along with Sharda Jain and Rajinder.Thereafter, he drove the said car to Firozshah Kotla ground where a rally was organized by the Congress Party.On reaching there, the deceased and Sharda Jain went to attend the rally, while he and Rajinder remained seated in the car.Within ten-fifteen minutes of going to the rally, the deceased and Sharda Jain came back to the car and Sharda Jain instructed him to go towards Ghaziabad.When the car reached near the red light at Hanuman Mandir, Ring Road, Sharda Jain asked him to stop the car and leave for his house as he was not feeling well, upon which he enquired from Sharda Jain as to who would drive the car in his absence, to which, she replied that Rajinder would drive the car.Thereafter, he got down and saw accused Rajinder drive the car.That in the intervening night of 24/25.08.2002 a fat man came to his house and told him that Sharda Jain is calling him, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 36 of 183 whereupon he went downstairs but did not find Sharda Jain present there.The said fat man insisted that he should immediately go and meet Sharda Jain at her residence to which he replied that he would meet her in the morning.Sometime thereafter, he received a telephonic call from the driver of the deceased i.e. Prabhu Yadav who made enquiries about the whereabouts of the deceased and he apprised him of the above facts.He went to the residence of the deceased and apprised the family members of the deceased with the above facts.On being cross-examined by the learned APP since Om Prakash deviated from his statement recorded under Setion 161 Cr.P.C., Om Parkash stated that eight-ten days prior to 24.08.2002, Acused Raj Kumar along with two other persons whom he cannot identify, had come to the residence of Sharda Jain.He denied having listened to any talks between Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar and said two persons regarding payment in sum of Rs.1 lakh or that he had given any such statement to the police.He stated that on 22.08.2002 Raj Kumar along with said two persons again came to the residence of Sharda Jain.On being confronted with his statement Ex.PW-11/DA wherein it was recorded that accused Sharda Jain had come to his residence and threatened him in the intervening night of 24/25.08.2002, he stated (Quote): 'It is incorrect to suggest Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 37 of 183 that in the night at about 12:00 of 24.8.2002 Sharda Jain had also come to my house or that she told me that I should not tell to anybody that Atma Ram Gupta was also with her on that day otherwise consequences would not be good nor I so stated to the police.On being cross-examined by the defence about the visit of accused Raj Kumar to the residence of accused Sharda Jain on 22.08.2002, he stated that he had not seen any person at the residence of accused Sharda Jain on 22.08.2002 as he was on leave on said day and therefore did not go to the residence of accused Sharda Jain.On being confronted with the omission to mention the fact in the statement Ex.PW- 11/DA that accused Sharda Jain had told him on 24.08.2002 that they had to go towards Ghaziabad, the witness stated (Quote): 'Madam Sharda Jain told me that they had to go towards Ghazibad.Confronted with statement Ex.It is incorrect to suggest that I did not state to the police because Madam Sharda Jain had not told me that they had to go towards Ghaziabad.' The same was the reply of the witness when confronted with the omission in the statement Ex.No talks took place between Sharda Jain and her son in her presence.On being cross-examined by the learned APP as she was testifying at variance with her statement recorded by the police pertaining to the afore-noted testimony, she stated (Quote): It is incorrect to suggest that I know Sharda Jain.I cannot say if it was 24.08.2002 but however, it was about 12 in the night when one boy came to me and asked that Om Parkash had been called by Sharda Jain.It is relevant to note that the testimony of the witness was not controverted by the defence.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 39 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 39 of 183Manish PW-14, the son of Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8 a friend of the deceased, deposed that on 24.08.2002 he attended a rally at Firozshah Kotla ground.He had last seen the deceased in the rally at about 12 noon.On the way after returning from the rally, his car was moving behind a car in which the deceased along with Sharda Jain and accused Rajinder Singh were traveling and that the said car was being driven by the driver of Sharda Jain.Thereafter, accused Rajinder sat on the drivers seat and drove the car towards ISBT.That he first identified accused Rajinder on 2.10.2002 at PS Keshav Puram when he had gone there to lodge a report about his mobile phone being missing.On being cross-examined about his mobile phone being missing, Manish stated (Quote): 'I had lost my mobile phone and therefore, I had gone to the PS Keshav Puram on 2.10.2002 to make report about it.I did not so tell to the police in my statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. The report about the missing of the mobile phone was not recorded by the police, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 40 of 183 rather I was given suggestion first I should search it out in my house.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 40 of 183Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, the younger brother of the deceased, deposed that in the morning of 24.08.2002 the deceased left his house in his Indica car being driven by his driver Prabhu Yadav to go to the house of Sharda Jain.The deceased was wearing a wrist watch with a gold chain, one gold ring and off-white coloured Safari suit and was also carrying a mobile phone having number 9810166101 at the time when he left the house.On reaching the house of Sharda Jain, the deceased asked his driver to leave from there and directed him to meet him at Kamal Clinic in the evening, but the deceased did not come to the said clinic.Sumitra Gupta, the wife of the deceased, informed him that she had made a telephonic call to Sharda Jain, who told her that she is not aware about the whereabouts of the deceased.Prabhu Yadav, the driver of the deceased, also confirmed to him that he had dropped the deceased at the house of Sharda Jain in the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 41 of 183 morning.On making enquiries from Om Prakash Chauhan, the driver of Sharda Jain, Om Prakash Chauhan informed him that he had taken the deceased, Sharda Jain and another person to the rally in the car of Sharda Jain; the deceased and Sharda Jain returned to the said car after attending the rally and that he left the car near red light at Hanuman Mandir on his way, after returning from the rally, whereupon the third person sitting in the car started driving the same.Thereafter Sumitra Gupta again contacted Sharda Jain, who then informed her that the deceased went with her in her car to the rally but got down from her car near ISBT when they were returning from the rally as he had met some known person there.Amit Gupta, the son of the deceased, also made a telephonic call to Sharda Jain in his presence wherein Sharda Jain told him that the third person sitting in the car was her brother-in-law Sunil Jain, which fact was found to be false by the police.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 41 of 183On being cross-examined about his presence at the residence of the deceased on 24.08.2002 at the time when the deceased left the residence of Sharda Jain, Rajinder Pal Gupta stated (Quote): 'On 24.8.2002 Atma Ram Gupta had left the house to attend the Congress Rally in my presence.Volt : I have my office in Tri Nagar where I go daily.I usually used to go to the house of my brother Atma Ram Gupta.If the police had asked me if Atma Ram Gupta left his house in my Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 42 of 183 presence on 24.8.2002 then I must have so stated.At this stage the defence counsel has asked the witness to go through his Ex.PW9/C and then answer if Atma Ram Gupta had left the house in his presence.The witness has stated that it is not so written in Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 42 of 183Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, deposed that the wrist watch and the gold ring of the deceased recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar and Roshan Singh respectively were deposited by him in the Malkhana on 28.08.2002 and 22.11.2002 respectively.HC Dinesh Kumar PW-43, also deposed that the said wrist watch and the gold ring were deposited in the Malkhana on 28.08.2002 and 22.11.2002 and that he had made entries in the Malkhana Register in the said regard.It may be noted here that no suggestion to the contrary was given to the said witnesses.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 43 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 43 of 183A label of Lovely Tailors was stitched on the shirt of the safari suit.The deceased had 4 artificial teeth and that the same were not found in the jaw when the body was recovered.On being confronted with the photographs Ex.DX and Ex.When I saw the body, then the wrist watch was found wearing on the left hand of Atma Ram Gupta and it also reflects in the photographs Ex.(It may be noted here that the said statement of the witness strikes a discordant note with the case of the prosecution for the reason the claim of the prosecution is that the wrist watch of the deceased was removed by accused Raj Kumar after the death of the deceased and that the same was recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar).Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, Ved Prakash Gupta PW- 15, Rajpal Gupta PW-16, the younger brothers of the deceased and Amrit Lal Singhal PW-37, a friend of the deceased, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 44 of 183 deposed that they had gone to a canal near village Gulawati where they found the body of the deceased lying on the bank of said canal.Additionally, Rajinder Pal Gupta deposed that an off-white colored safari suit was found on the body and that the artificial teeth were found in the jaw.A label of Lovely Tailors was found stitched on the shirt of the said safari suit.(It may be noted here that no question regarding the presence of a wrist watch on the body of the deceased was put to the said witnesses in their cross-examinations).Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 44 of 183Zaheer Ahmad PW-36, deposed that he runs a tailoring shop in the name and style of Lovely Tailors at Tri Nagar, Delhi.The deceased used to get his clothes stitched by him and that he stitches his label Lovely on the clothes stitched by him.E Witnesses to prove the post-mortem report of the deceased:- Dr.S.K.Aggarwal PW-21, deposed that he conducted the post-mortem of the deceased on 31.08.2002 and that the post-mortem report Ex.PW-21/A as also the report Ex.P-W21/B regarding the opinion on the weapon of offence were prepared by him.F Witnesses to prove the reports submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratoy:- A.K.Srivastava PW-41, Sri Narain PW-42, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 45 of 183 K.C.Varsheny PW-50, Dr.Rajinder Kumar PW-59 and Dr.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 45 of 18373. A.K.Srivastava PW-41, deposed that the FSL reports Ex.PW-41/A and Ex.PW-41/B were prepared by him.Sri Narain PW-42, deposed that the FSL report dated 29.01.2003 was prepared by him.It is noted here that the two witnesses were not subjected to any cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons.74. K.C.Varshney PW-50, deposed that the FSL report Ex.PW-50/A was prepared by him.It may be noted here that the witness denied the suggestions that the two pistols examined by him were not in a working condition and that he did not examine them.Swaroop Vedanand PW-66, deposed that FSL report Ex.PW-66/A was prepared by him.It may be relevant to note that as per the report Ex.PW-66/A the physical characteristics of the soil scrapped from the right rear tyre of the Indica car of accused Sharda Jain were the same as that of the soil lifted from the spot pointed out by accused Sharda Jain and her brother Raj Kumar as the place where the deceased was murdered.PW-2/A recovered at the instance of accused Pushpender was issued to the deceased on the same day.Yadukuleshwar Dass PW-5, Vice-President of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCKON), deposed that the deceased was a member of ISCKON and that the I-card Ex.PW- 5/A recovered at the instance of accused Nirvikar was issued to the deceased.He further deposed that on the basis of the said Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 50 of 183 record he prepared a chart, Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 50 of 183At this juncture, it may be noted that the call details pertaining to the mobile No.9811508688 for the date 24.08.2002 contained in the call records Ex.PW-34/A and Ex.PW-62/A are exactly the same.I Witnesses to prove the motive of Sharda Jain to murder the deceased:- Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, Captain Dr.Satish Chand Rajput PW-3, Const.Satbir Singh PW-7, ASI Baljeet Singh PW-19, Dr.Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, a friend of the deceased, deposed that he runs a medical clinic at Keshav Puram, Delhi and that Sharda Jain used to visit his clinic along with the deceased.The deceased provided help to Sharda Jain when she contested elections for the post of Municipal Councilor and that Sharda Jain was having her office at a premises situated at Keshav Puram, which premises were provided by him to Sharda Jain at the request of the deceased.After Sharda Jain was elected as councilor, she once came to his clinic and expressed her displeasure over the fact that despite the fact that she is the Chairman of the Education Committee, the deceased made Memwati Barwala, who was also a municipal councilor, a chief guest at a function organized at a school, Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 51 of 183 instead of her.She further told him that she liked the deceased and because of said liking, she has left her husband.Sharda Jain also told him that the deceased was developing intimate relations with Memwati Barwala and that he should advise the deceased to discontinue his relations with Memwati Berwala.Sharda Jain told him that on one occasion she tried to commit suicide by consuming sulfas tablets on account of her liking for the deceased.She told him that she consumed sulfas tablets because the deceased started liking Memati Berwala.Sharda Jain asked him to advise the deceased to mend his ways, else the consequences would not be good.After her talks with Sharda Jain, he talked to the deceased about his talks with Sharda Jain, but the deceased did not pay any heed to his advice.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 51 of 183On being cross-examined about his talks with Sharda Jain, Mahender Pal Gupta stated (Quote): 'It is also correct that because of my such relations with Atma Ram Gupta, accused Sharda Jain made complaint to me against Atma Ram Gupta.It is correct that accused Sharda Jain had told me that Atma Ram Gupta had developed physical relations with Mem Wati Berwala and such relations was also with her and that she did not like such relations of Atma Ram with Mem Wati Berwala....I do not recollect if Sharda Jain told me that when Atma Ram Gupta, did not act on her advice to Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 52 of 183 have no physical relations with Mem Wati Berwala and therefore, she had consumed Shalfas tablet.The attention of the witness has been drawn towards the portion A to A of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 28.08.2002 mark PW8/C where it is so recorded.But the witness states that he does not recollect.I stated to the police that Sharda Jain told me that because of her said relations with Atma Ram Gupta, she left her husband.(confronted with statement mark PW8/C, now exhibited as Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 52 of 183Satish Chand Rajput PW-3, deposed that he runs a dental clinic at Vivek Vihar, Delhi.On 30.07.2002 the deceased visited his clinic after the visiting hours.The deceased was accompanied by Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 53 of 183 Sharda Jain in some of the visits.On 20.08.2002 he put an artificial denture from upper first canine to upper right canine in the jaw of the deceased.During one of the aforesaid visits, Sharda Jain told him that she would make payment for the treatment rendered by him to the deceased.That the photostat copies of the record of the vist and treatment given to Shri Atma Ram Gupta on 30.7.2002, 13.8.2002, 20.8.2002, 21.8.2002 and 23.8.2002 are Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/E. (It be noted here that the entries pertaining to the visits of the deceased are in lead pencil in the original register which had been perused by us during arguments in the appeal.All other entries pertaining to the patients of PW-3 are in ink.It may further be noted that the pair of moulded POP denture set with name of Dr.S.C.Rajput engraved thereon recovered from the car of Sharda Jain on 27.8.2002, seizure whereof has been recorded in the memo Ex.PW-44/C has not been put to the witness for purposes of identification.)Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 53 of 183On being cross-examined about the entries pertaining to the visits of the deceased at his clinic, Dr.Satish Chand Rajput stated (Quote): 'The entries Ex.PW-3/A to E are not in my hand, rather the same are in the hand-writing of my assistant.Similarly on 23.8.02, there are three entries in my register and out of them first two are written in pen and the third of Atma Ram is written in pencil.It is wrong to suggest that the writer of the entries in pen and pencil are different.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 54 of 183On being questioned about the factum of overwriting in the entries pertaining to the visits of the deceased, Dr.It is also worthwhile to note that suggestions were given to the witness that the deceased visited his clinic on 24/25/26 August 2002, which suggestions have been denied by the witness.Satbir Singh PW-7, deposed that on 25.10.2002 (should read 25.10.2000) he received an information from two different sources that Sharda Jain has consumed some tablets and that she has been admitted in the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 55 of 183 hospital, based whereon, he recorded DD Entries Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B. (It may be noted here that a perusal of the aforesaid entries shows that the same have been recorded on the intervening night of 24/25.10.2000 therefore it is clear that either the witness has inadvertently deposed regarding the date in question or that there has been a typographical error at the time of the recording of the evidence).Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 55 of 183PW-19/B in said regard.It may be noted here that DD entry Ex.PW-19/B records that Sharda Jain gave a statement to the police to the effect that she inadvertently consumed sulfas tablets for the reason she was suffering from an illness as also was tense on account of the fact that her husband left for Madras but did not return home in spite of considerable time lapsing.Sunil Marken PW-24, deposed that on 25.10.2000, Sharda Jain was admitted at Maharaja Agarsen Hospital as she had consumed sulfas tablets and that he prepared the MLC Ex.PW-24/A pertaining to Sharda Jain in said regard.HC Bhagirath PW-28, deposed that on 27.03.2001 Sharda Jain visited police post Shanti Nagar and lodged a Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 56 of 183 report that her husband was missing, based whereon, he recorded DD Entry Ex.PW-28/A. It may be noted here that DD entry Ex.That she has no knowledge about the whereabouts of her husband.During the said period of 3 months I myself did not go to any police official to inform about the above incident.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 57 of 183Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, a friend of the deceased, deposed that on 28.08.2002, while he was sitting at his clinic, he saw a news item on TV, regarding the deceased being missing.He further learnt from the news item that the police, along with accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar and Raju had gone Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 58 of 183 to village Chajjupur in connection with the present case.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 58 of 183On being cross-examined about the presence of accused persons at village Chajjupur on 28.08.2002, Mahender Pal GUpta stated (Quote): 'It is correct that on 28.8.2002 from the Media report, I had come to know that the police had gone to village Chajjupur along with accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar @ Raju and that I had not come to know that third person had also accompanied the police......I had stated before the police that on 28.8.2002 when I reached to village Chajjupur then accused Roshan Singh was also present there and the police was making inquiry from him (confronted with Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 59 of 183 statement mark PW8/C where it is not so recorded) It is correct that no person by the name of Roshan Singh met me in village Chajupur when I had gone there on 28.8.02.It is correct that accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar @ Raju was speaking about Roshan Singh when I visited village Chajupur.......I had seen accused Rajinder as I identified in the court today, in the police station at the time of my visit after 15/20 days of 31.8.2002'.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 59 of 183P.S.Chauhan PW-1, Head Clerk, Motor Licensing Office, Delhi, deposed that Indica car bearing registration No.DL 3S AB 0016 is registered in the name of Sharda Jain.The witness was not cross-examined by the defence and thus his testimony has gone unchallenged.Additionally, Ravinder Singh PW-23 and Jai Chand PW-26 deposed having witnessed the investigation conducted by the police at the time of the recovery of the body of the deceased.SI Kalicharan PW-53, deposed that Maruti car bearing registration No.Prabhat Chaurasia PW-64, deposed that he sold Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 60 of 183 Maruti car bearing registration No.It may be noted here that the said witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence and thus their testimonies have gone unchallenged.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 60 of 183Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 deposed facts pertaining to the investigation conducted by him.He deposed that he prepared the various seizure memos and that he seized the exhibits recorded in the seizure memos and deposited the same in the malkhana.He deposed having sent various exhibits for forensic opinion and the reports received.Since, while noting the case of the prosecution with reference to the contemporaneous investigation allegedly conducted, where role of Inspector V.S.Meena has been extensively noted, we are not noting his testimony which is fairly lengthy, but clarify that would be noting such parts thereof as are relevant to be noted while dealing with the submissions made during arguments in the appeals.In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.In her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Sharda Jain stated that she is innocent and denied everything save and except admitted that she and Atma Ram Gupta in the company of accused Rajinder left her residence Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 61 of 183 on 24.8.2002 to attend a Congress rally.She also admitted that after the rally Atma Ram Gupta left in her car but stated that he got down at ISBT.She also admitted that accused Raj Kumar is her brother.Everything else was denied by her.Her admissions afore-noted are contained in the answers to question No.18, 20 and 27 which are as under:-Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 61 of 183"Ques 18: It is in evidence against you that on 24.08.02 Atma Ram Gupta left his house to attend the Congress rally in his Indica Car no.DL6SK 0025 along with his driver Prabhu Yadav and from there he came to your house and after having talks with you Atma Ram asked his driver Prabhu Yadav (PW-17) to take back the car to his house and Atma Ram Gupta sat in your car alongwith you and which was driven by your driver Om Parkash Chauhan.One other person namely co-accused Rajinder also sat alongwith you people in the said car.What you have to say?Ans: It is correct.Ques 20: It is further in evidence against you that on 24.08.02 after attending the Congress Rally at Feroz Shah Kotla Ground for about 15/20 minutes you alongwith Atma Ram Gupta and your co-accused Rajinder Singh left in your Indica car being driven by your driver PW11 Om Prakash Chauhan for Ghaziabad and at near Jamuna Bazar, Hanuman Mandir, ISBT you asked PW11 to go back to his house and the car was thereafter being driven by Rajinder Singh? What you have to say?Ans: It is incorrect that after the rally we were to go to Ghaziabad.Ques 27: It is in evidence against you that when the family members of Atma Ram Gupta made enquiries from Om Parkash Chauhan, the driver of your Indica car and came to know that Atma Ram Gupta left the Rally alongwith you in your car for Ghaziabad, that they again made enquiries from you Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 62 of 183 but you again claimed ignorance stating that Atma Ram Gupta had got down at ISBT for his some personal work.What you have to say?Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 62 of 183Ans: It is incorrect but it is a fact that Atma Ram Gupta got down at ISBT." (Emphasis Supplied)"In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Raj Kumar only admitted knowing accused Sharda Jain as his sister.He denied everything else.In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Roshan Singh only admitted knowing Pushpender and Nirvikar.He denied knowing or ever meeting any other co- accused.He denied every piece of incriminating evidence put to him.In their examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Pushpender and Nirvikar denied everything.In their examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Sripal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar pleaded innocenc e and denied everything.They stated that they have been falsely implicated in order to save Govind Singh Rawat, SO of PS Gulawati.But how, they failed to disclose.The accused led no evidence in their defence.S.C.Rajput PW-3, in his cross-examination that the deceased visited his clinic on 24/25/26.08.2002 corroborates the testimony of the witness that the deceased used to visit his clinic; (ii) the fact that a denture set on which words S.C.Rajput were engraved was recovered from the car of Sharda Jain and that there is no evidence to show that Sharda Jain was using artificial teeth corroborates the testimony of Dr.S.C.Rajput PW-3, that Sharda Jain used to accompany the deceased during his visits to his clinic which in turn establishes that Sharda Jain and the deceased were having close relations; (iii) testimony of Mahender Pal Gupta Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 65 of 183 PW-8, establishes that Sharda Jain was unhappy and angry with the deceased as he had developed close relations with Memwati Barwala and was ignoring her; (v) the fact recorded in the DD entry, Ex.PW- 65/A which shows the locations of various towers installed by the cellular company at Delhi and NCR establishes that the mobile phone of Sharda Jain was present at Ghaziabad on 24.08.2002 inasmuch as incoming/outgoing calls were received/made on/from the mobile phone of Sharda Jain on the said day; and (ii) if the claim of Sharda Jain that she did not visit Ghaziabad on 24.08.2002 was correct, it was incumbent upon her to explain as to how the calls made/received to/from her mobile phone came to be routed through the towers installed at Ghaziabad and she failed to do so.As regards conclusion (v), the learned Trial Court held that (i) mark of wrist watch seen in the hand of the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 66 of 183 deceased in photographs Ex.DX and Ex.DX-1 is of no consequence for the reason some marks appear on the wrist, when a person regularly wears a watch on his wrist; (ii) testimony of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 and HC Dinesh Kumar PW-43 that the said wrist watch was deposited in the Malkhana on 28.08.2002 was not controverted by the defence; and (iii) no question was put to HC Sajjan Kumar PW-33, who took photographs of the body of the deceased at the time of its recovery in his cross-examination regarding presence of wrist watch on the wrist of the deceased.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 66 of 183Save and except accused Sripal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar, the learned Trial Court convicted the other accused of all the charges framed against them.Holding that the prosecution has not been able to establish that accused Sripal Singh Raghav, Rakesh Kumar and Satender Kumar entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons to cause Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 68 of 183 disappearance of the evidence of murder of the deceased, the learned Trial Court acquitted them of the charge framed against them for having committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.The circumstances used by the learned Trial Court for convicting accused "Raj Kumar" are that (i) Raj Kumar along with two other persons visited the house of Sharda Jain on two occasions just few days prior to 24.08.2002; (ii) the place of residence of Raj Kumar was in the vicinity of the place of murder of the deceased; (iii) Raj Kumar did not controvert the factum of his acquaintance with accused Roshan Singh and Rajinder Singh; (iv) sudden arrival of Raj Kumar at the house of Sharda Jain on the day of arrest of Sharda Jain; (v) Raj Kumar pointed out the place of the murder of the deceased (vi) wrist watch of the deceased was recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar and (vii) the disclosure statement of Raj Kumar provided leads to the police.The circumstances used by the learned Trial Court for convicting accused "Rajinder Singh" are that (i) the deceased was last seen alive in the company of Rajinder Singh and that the time gap between the last seen and time of the death of the deceased is so small that it makes the possibility that the deceased could have come in the contact of any other person too remote; (ii) no plausible explanation was given by Rajinder Singh as to how and when the deceased parted company with him on 24.08.2002; (iii) Rajinder Singh was Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 70 of 183 associated with Roshan Singh as he has not controverted the fact that he used to drive the car of Roshan Singh on a temporary basis; (iv) a false claim was made by Rajinder Singh that he never visited the house of Sharda Jain; (v) refusal of Rajinder Singh to participate in the TIP proceedings and that the reason given by him for said refusal was not plausible.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 70 of 183The circumstances used by the learned Trial Court for convicting accused "Roshan Singh" are that (i) Roshan Singh was absconding from his house after 24.08.2002; (ii) testimony of Subash PW-38, establishes that Roshan Singh played a role in disposing of the body of the deceased; (iii) Roshan Singh was closely associated with other accused persons namely Rajinder Singh, Pushpender and Nirvikar; (iv) recovery of two country made pistols and the gold ring of the deceased at the instance of Roshan Singh; (v) Roshan Singh was arrested from Hoshangabad, M.P. and he failed to give any reason for his presence at M.P.; (vi) Roshan Singh failed to give any reason for his false implication in the present case;(vii) Roshan Singh pointed out the place of murder and disposal of the body of the deceased and (viii) the disclosure statement of Raj Kumar provided leads to the police.The circumstances used by the learned Trial Court for convicting accused "Pushpender and Nirvikar" are (i) recovery of I-cards of the deceased at the instance of Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 71 of 183 Pushpender and Nirvikar; (ii) Pushpender and Nirvikar were in need of a job inasmuch as said fact was not disputed by them;Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 71 of 183(iii) Pushpender and Nirvikar pointed out the place of murder of the deceased and (iv) disclosure statements of Pushpender and Nirvikar provided leads to the police.The circumstances used by the learned Trial Court for convicting accused "Sripal Singh Raghav, Satender Kumar and Rakesh Kumar" are that (i) testimony of Subash PW-38, establishes that aforesaid police officials played a role in disposing of the body of the deceased; (ii) they were found to be absconding; (iii) they could not give satisfactory reason for their false implication in the present case and (iv) they pointed out the places where the body of the deceased was found and disposed.Having convicted the accused persons, vide order dated 22.12.2006 the learned Trial Court proceeded to sentence them.For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Pushpender, Nirvikar hav been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in sum of Rs10,000/- each, in default to undergo SI for six months.For the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 120-B IPC accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Pushpender, Nirvikar have been Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 72 of 183 sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo SI for three months.For the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC for abducting and murdering the deceased in pursuance of a conspiracy accused Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Pushpender, Nirvikar have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in sum of Rs10,000/- each, in default to undergo SI for six months.For the offence punishable under Section 25, Arms Act, 1959 accused Roshan Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The testimony of Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, needs to be viewed with great caution.Having perused the evidence of Mahender Pal Gupta during the course of arguments of the present case, we have come to the conclusion that Mahender Pal Gupta is a witness who lives in an imaginary world and loves to revel himself.The evidence of the witness is also ipsi- dixit on the point of presence of accused Roshan Singh inasmuch as the witness deposed that accused Roshan Singh was present at spot A on 28.08.2002 in his examination-in- Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 87 of 183 chief whereas he denied the presence of accused Roshan Singh at spot A on 28.08.2002 in his cross-examination.The first fact sought to be established by the prosecution is that human blood was found at spot A. To establish the said fact, the prosecution placed reliance upon the testimonies of the police officials who participated in the investigation of the present case on 28.08.2002 namely HC Sunita PW-31, SI Ram Kumar PW-32, SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44 and Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 and the FSL reports Ex.PW-41/A and Ex.The aforesaid police officials deposed that the soil at spot A was found to be stained with blood at three different points and the said blood stained soil was lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW-44/D. The aforesaid testimony of the witnesses could not be shaken in the cross-examination.As already noted in foregoing paras, the FSL reports Ex.PW-41/A and Ex.A perusal of entry no.1560 recorded in the Malkhana Register Ex.A further perusal thereof shows that HC Dinesh Kumar PW-43, Malkhana Moharar, marked the three pullandas containing blood stained soil as 1, 1A and 1B respectively and pullandas containing earth control as 2, 2A and 2B respectively.(It may be noted here that the said witnesses were not cross- examined on the said point.The FSL report Ex.PW-41/A, which contains the description of the articles deposited at the FSL on 05.11.2002, records that exhibits 1 and 1A containing blood stained soil and exhibits 2, 2A and 2B containing earth control were deposited at the FSL.The question which stares in the face is that what happened to exhibit 1B.The submission advanced by the learned senior counsel was that the fact that exhibit 1B did not reach the FSL strongly suggests that the exhibits containing soil lifted from spot A were tampered with and therefore no reliance could be placed upon the FSL reports Ex.PW-41/A and Ex.PW-41/B. Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 93 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 93 of 183To solve the mystery surrounding the disappearance of exhibit 1B, it is most necessary to note the endorsement dated 28.11.2002 made in the entry No.1560 that on 28.11.2002 SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, collected the jaw and piece of flesh of the deceased as also blood stained soil from the FSL and deposited the same at Malkhana.(It may be noted here that SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, deposed to the same effect and that he was not cross- examined on the said point)A perusal of the FSL reports Ex.PW-41/A and Ex.The answer is clear.Exhibit 1B was collected from the FSL on 28.11.2002 while exhibits 1 and 1A remained deposited at the FSL and that is the reason why exhibit 1B does not find a mention in the FSL report Ex.PW-41/A.In the decision reported as State of UP V Anil Singh 1988 (Supp) SCC 686, the eye-witness wrote a report giving fairly all the particulars of the occurrence and lodged the same with the report within few minutes of the occurrence.An argument was raised by the defence that it was impossible for the witness to prepare such an exhaustive report and lodge the same with the police so soon after the occurrence.The said argument was repelled by Supreme Court on the ground that the witness in question was not specifically cross- examined on said point.PW- 34/A and Ex.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 109 of 183The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of Sharda Jain is that Sharda Jain misled the family members of the deceased when they made enquiries from her about the whereabouts of the deceased.As already noted in foregoing paras, Sumitra Gupta PW-18, the wife of the deceased, and Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, the younger brother of the deceased, deposed that Sharda Jain gave misleading and false answers to them when they made enquiries from her about the whereabouts of the deceased.In the said case, the accused person in whose company the deceased was last seen misled the investigation.Although the learned Trial Judge has held that he shall be separately discussing that two persons who came along with accused Raj Kumar to the house of Sharda Jain few days prior to 24.08.2002 were accused Roshan Singh and Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 123 of 183 Rajinder Singh, no such discussion is found in the impugned judgment.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 123 of 183The prosecution sought to establish through the testimony of Om Parkash Chauhan PW-11, the driver of Sharda Jain, that accused Raj Kumar along with accused Rajinder and Roshan Singh visited the residence of Sharda Jain on two occasions just few days prior to 24.08.2002 and that suspicious talks took place between Sharda Jain and Roshan Singh during the said visits.However, Om Parkash Chauhan did not support the case of the prosecution and denied that accused Raj Kumar was accompanied by accused Rajinder and Roshan Singh during his visits to the residence of the deceased or that he heard any talks between Sharda Jain and Roshan Singh.Accused Raj Kumar is the brother of Sharda Jain.Being councilor of MCD, Sharda Jain was a public figure and therefore number of people would have been visiting the office and residence of Sharda Jain to meet her.The visits in question could have been casual visits of a brother to meet and inquire about well being of his sister.The visits could also have been in connection with the public dealings of Sharda Jain.Suspicious conduct of Sharda Jain:The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge is that Sharda Jain went to the house of her driver in the late hours of night of 24.08.2002The evidence of Om Parkash Chauhan PW-11, the driver of Sharda Jain, that Sharda Jain sent a fat man to his residence in the late hours of night of 24.08.2002 and that the said person told him that Sharda Jain is calling him has not been controverted by the defence.Likewise, the evidence of Shanti PW-10, that on occasion a boy came to her house and told her that Sharda Jain is calling Om Parkash has not been controverted.In this regards, a submission was advanced by the learned senior counsel for the defence that there is a serious contradiction between the evidence of Om Parkash Chauhan and Shanti inasmuch as Om Parkash deposed that a boy came to his house to call him while Shanti deposed that Sharda Jain herself came to her house to call Om Parkash.To appreciate the submission of learned senior counsel, the following two depositions of Shanti PW-10, made by her in her testimony need to be noted.a) (Quote) Once Sharda Jain had come to my resident and sent a boy inside the house to call my son Om Parkash.b) (Quote) It was about 12 in the night when one boy came to me and asked that Om Parkash had been called by Sharda Jain.It is clear that when Shanti was told by the boy that Sharda Jain is calling her son, she perceived that Sharda Jain is present outside her house and has sent the boy inside her house to call her son and on basis of said perception formed by her, Shanti deposed that Sharda Jain came to her house.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 126 of 183The learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence of Om Parkash and Shanti in correct perspective inasmuch as the conclusion drawn by him from the testimony of said witnesses that Sharda Jain visited the residence of Om Parkash in the late hours of the night of 24.08.2002 is incorrect.However, the circumstance that Sharda Jain tried to contact Om Parkash in the late hours of night of 24.08.2002 is equally incriminating.It does not matter that she personally went to the house of her driver or sent somebody to summon him.In view of above discussion, we hold that the conduct of Sharda Jain of trying to contact Om Parkash in the late hours of the night of 24.08.2002 raises strong suspicion Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 127 of 183 against her and thus is a pointer towards the guilt of accused Sharda Jain.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 127 of 183Motive of Sharda Jain:The last circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Sharda Jain is the motive of Sharda Jain to commit the crime of murder of the deceased.As per the case projected by the prosecution in the charge-sheet (see para 48 above for reference), the motive of Sharda Jain to commit the murder of the deceased was (i) her love for deceased because of which she could see the deceased getting close to Memwati Berwala; (ii) hatred towards the deceased as the deceased for whom she left her husband was getting close to Memwati Berwala and (iii) jealousy as the deceased was promoting the political career of Memwati Berwala.A perusal of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the motive of Sharda Jain noted in paras 86 to 96 above shows that Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8, is the lynchpin of the case set up by the prosecution pertaining to motive of Sharda Jain.The most important statements in the testimony of Mahender Pal Gupta is that Sharda told him that she liked the deceased and that she expressed her displeasure over the fact that despite the fact that she is the Chairman of Education Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 128 of 183 Committee the deceased made Memwati Berwala as a Chief Guest in a function held at a school.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 128 of 183The aforesaid deposition of the witness could have easily been corroborated by the prosecution by adducing evidence to the effect that Memwati Berwala presided over as Chief Guest in a function held at a school.However, no such proof was adduced by the prosecution.Considering the fact that evidence of Mahender Pal Gupta PW-8 has been found to be false in respect of pointing out of place of murder of deceased and identification of the body of the deceased, we do not consider it safe to place any reliance on the aforesaid uncorroborated evidence of Mahender Pal Gupta.A close scrutiny of the evidence of Mahender Pal Gupta reveals that the same suffers from two serious infirmities.As per Mahender Pal Gupta, after getting elected as Municipal Councilor, Sharda Jain told him that she has left her husband because of her liking for the deceased.The election in question was held in July 2002 (The said fact was deposed to by Mahender Pal Gupta).The husband of Sharda Jain left her in the year 2000 as evident from the reading of the contents of the DD entries Ex.PW-28/A and Ex.PW-7/A. Therefore, the deposition of Mahender Pal Gupta that Sharda Jain told him that she left her husband in the year 2002 is incorrect.The second infirmity is that Mahender Pal Gupta in Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 129 of 183 his examination-in-chief deposed that Sharda Jain told him that she tried to commit suicide on account of the fact that the deceased was getting close to Memwati Berwala however, in cross-examination he stated that he does not recollect that whether any such fact was told to him by Sharda Jain.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 129 of 183This takes us to the remaining evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the motive of Sharda Jain.S.C.Rajput PW-3, was examined by the prosecution to prove the factum of close relations between Sharda Jain and the deceased.The close relations were sought to be inferred from the fact that Sharda Jain used to accompany the deceased to his visits to the clinic and that she offered to pay the expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased.Has Dr.S.C.Rajput PW-3, proved that the deceased used to visit his clinic.No explanation is forthcoming from the testimony of the witness as to why only the entries Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 130 of 183 pertaining to the visits of the deceased have been recorded in pencil.The witness has also admitted to the factum of overwriting in the entry register Ex.PW-3/A. In that view of the matter, no credence can be placed upon the testimony of Dr.S.C.Rajput PW-3 that the deceased used to visit his clinic.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 130 of 183It may be noted here that it was strenuously argued by learned counsel for Sharda Jain that a perusal of the entry register PW-3/A shows that an attempt was made by the prosecution to create false evidence against the accused persons, which fact has seriously tainted the veracity of the case of the prosecution.It is settled law that the infirmity in one piece of evidence adduced by the prosecution does not render doubtful the whole case of the prosecution.The next piece of evidence pressed into service by the prosecution to prove that Sharda Jain used to accompany the deceased during his visits to the clinic of Dr.S.C.Rajput is the recovery of a denture set from the car of Sharda Jain on which words S.C.Rajput were engraved.Nothing turns on the said fact for the reason the denture set recovered from the car of Sharda Jain was not put to Dr.He did not identify the same as prepared by him.Therefore, it has not been established by the prosecution that the denture set in question was made by Dr.S.C.Rajput.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 131 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 131 of 183The last piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the motive of Sharda Jain is the photograph Ex.PW-58/A which shows the deceased and Memwati Berwala standing close to each other in a public function.(It may be noted here that the function in question is not the function mentioned by Mahender Pal Gupta in his testimony) By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred from the mere circumstance that the deceased and Memwati Berwala were standing close to each other that the deceased and Memwati Berwala were having intimate relations.The prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased was having intimate relations with Sharda Jain or Memwati Berwala.The evidence Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 132 of 183 on record at best shows that the deceased and Sharda Jain were good friends and nothing more.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 132 of 183What is the impact of the failure to prove motive in the case set up by the prosecution against accused Sharda Jain.The prosecution has thus established that Sharda Jain was last seen in the company of the deceased in the afternoon of 24.8.2002 and thereafter the deceased went missing.He was killed on the same day.The destination of the deceased and Sharda Jain was Ghaziabad when they were last seen together.State of Assam, the deceased named Rahul was last seen on 24.1.1991 at 5:00 PM at a bus stand in the company of Taijuddin and Mohibur Rahman and his body was found 13 days after at a distance of 30 km to 40 km from the bus stand where the deceased and the accused were seen last alive.Accused Taijuddin had met the mother and the cousin of the deceased and falsely told them that Rahul i.e. the deceased had eloped with one Balijan Begum.State of Bihar a husband and wife were seen in a train at Chakand Railway Station at around 11:00 PM in the night.The train passed through Gaya Town.The dead body of the wife was found at the outskirts of the city of Gaya the next morning.The husband was convicted on last seen evidence.This Bench, while deciding a batch of appeals, lead Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 135 of 183 appeal being Crl.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 134 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 135 of 183The net result of the above discussion is that even ignoring the parts of the faulty reasoning of the learned Trial Judge and incriminating circumstances relatable thereto, the prosecution has been able to prove the complicity of accused Sharda Jain in the conspiracy to murder the deceased.CASE AGAINST ACCUSESD RAJ KUMAR Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 136 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 136 of 183Location of residence of accused Raj Kumar: The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to convict accused Raj Kumar is that he is a resident of village Gulawati which is situated in the vicinity of village Chajjupur where the murder of the deceased was committed.Merely because Raj Kumar was residing at a place which was situated in the vicinity of the place of the murder of the deceased can hardly be used as an incriminating circumstance against him.It could well be a coincidence that there was close proximity between the place of residence of accused Raj Kumar and place of the murder of the deceased.The view taken by the learned Trial Judge that it cannot be termed as a mere coincidence that accused Raj Kumar is a resident of village Gulawati and that the entire execution of Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 137 of 183 the conspiracy happened to take place at near village Chajjupur, in our opinion is incorrect.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 137 of 183Non-denial of accused Raj Kumar to his acquaintance with other accused persons: - The third circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to convict accused Raj Kumar is that he did not controvert the fact that he was acquainted with accused Roshan Singh and Rajinder during the trial.The aforesaid circumstance is factually incorrect inasmuch as accused Raj Kumar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that save and except Sharda Jain he has never met any other accused person at any point of time in his life.Sudden arrival of accused Raj Kumar at the residence of Sharda Jain on the day of her arrest: - The fourth circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to convict is the fact of sudden arrival of accused Raj Kumar at the residence of Sharda Jain on the day of her arrest.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 138 of 183As already noted in the foregoing paragraphs, accused Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar pointed spot A (which we have already held to be the place of murder of the deceased) to the police.The said knowledge can be inferred from the proved facts that Sharda Jain was present in the vicinity of spot A on 24.08.2002 and that mud found on the tyre of her car had similar physical characteristics as soil found at spot A. But, in the case of Raj Kumar, no assurance is coming from the evidence on record that he did point out spot A to the police.The watch was of make Citizen and was having a gold chain.The photographs Ex.DX and Ex.DX1 have been minutely looked by us.Nothing much turns on the said photographs inasmuch as they merely show a mark around the area of the wrist of the deceased.The photographs in question do not establish the presence of a watch on the wrist of the deceased.With regard to the manner of conduct of the Test Identification of the watch recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar, the learned senior counsel argued that the Test Identification of the watch in question was Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 147 of 183 conducted in a most unsatisfactory manner, which fact has rendered the evidence pertaining to identification of the watch in question most doubtful.Counsel pointed out that none of the watches mixed with the watch in question in the TIP were of make Citizen which made it very easy for the witness who participated in the TIP to identify the watch recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar as that of the deceased.Has said fact vitiated the evidence pertaining to the identification of the wrist watch recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar?Rajinder Pal Gupta PW-9, the younger brother of the deceased, identified the watch recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar as that of the deceased.Therefore, the witness who had seen the deceased wearing the watch in question almost daily for about six years could have easily identified the watch.Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of the witness which could cast a doubt on the veracity of his testimony.In the decision reported as Machi Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957 one of the factors which weighed with Supreme Court in coming to the conclusion that the witness in question was a truthful witness was that the version of the incident given by witness in court was similar to the version given by him in his statement to the police which was recorded four hours after the occurrence.The afore-noted decision brings out that a fact which is stated by the witness too soon after the incident generally has a ring of truth attached to it for the reason the Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 150 of 183 witness did not get much time to cook up a false story or embellish facts.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 150 of 183The watch of the deceased was an expensive watch as it was having a gold chain.The husband of Sharda Jain had left her.That is essentially for the High Court, as a Court of appeal, to investigate, and come to a conclusion, one way or the other."Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 152 of 183Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has committed an illegality by using the admission made by Sharda Jain against accused Rajinder Singh.Excluding the aforesaid admission of Sharda Jain as evidence against Rajinder Singh it needs to be seen by us that whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused Rajinder Singh.There is also another circumstance which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of his testimony.Manish deposed having identified accused Roshan Singh when he came to the police station to lodge a report about the missing of his mobile phone.It is difficult to fathom why coincidences keep happening in the life of said witness.He first happened to see the deceased in the car of Sharda Jain on 24.08.2002 by chance and then happened to come at the police station by chance at the time when accused Rajinder Singh was present there.That thereafter he traveled along with the deceased and accused Sharda Jain in the car of Sharda Jain for going to Firozshah Kotla ground.He further deposed that when he got down from the car of accused Sharda Jain on 24.08.2002 Sharda Jain told him that accused Rajinder Singh would drive the car in his absence and thereafter he saw accused Rajinder Singh driving the car of Sharda Jain.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 154 of 183The aforesaid testimony of Om Parkash Chauhan PW-11, was not seriously challenged on behalf of accused Rajinder Singh inasmuch as during the cross-examination a single suggestion was given to the witness that he was on leave on 24.08.2002, which suggestion was emphatically denied by the witness.No other suggestion/question was given/put to the witness.Rajinder Singh refused to participate in the Test Identification Proceedings on the ground that Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 155 of 183 the witnesses are known to him.The witness who was to identify accused Rajinder Singh in the TIP was Om Parkash Chauhan.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 155 of 183The aforesaid testimony of Om Parkash Chauhan establishes two things.The aforesaid circumstance is factually incorrect inasmuch as accused Rajinder Singh in response to question no.3 put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has vehemently denied that he was temporarily employed Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 161 of 183 with accused Roshan Singh as a driver.No evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that accused Rajinder Singh and Roshan Singh were known to each other or employment of accused Rajinder Singh with accused Roshan Singh.The only document on record showing the acquaintance of accused Rajinder Singh with accused Roshan Singh is the disclosure statement of accused Rajinder Singh, contents of which document are completely inadmissible in evidence.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 161 of 183But we find yet another circumstance which points towards the culpability of accused Rajinder Singh.The same has escaped the notice of the learned Trial Court.It has already been held by us that accused Rajinder Singh was driving the car of Sharda Jain in the afternoon of 24.08.2002 and that the deceased and accused Sharda Jain were present in the said car at that time.How did the car of Sharda Jain come back from spot A? Accused Crl.In such circumstances, this Court is justified in inferring from the above proved facts that accused Rajinder Singh drove the car of Sharda Jain which was occupied by Sharda Jain and the deceased to spot A on 24.08.2002 and thereafter he drove the car of Sharda Jain back from spot A after the conspiracy to murder the deceased was executed.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 162 of 183Abscondence of accused Roshan Singh: The first circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Roshan Singh is the abscondence of accused Roshan Singh.As already noted in foregoing paras, the evidence of that SI Kalicharan PW-57, that one Maruti 800 car bearing registration no.DDU-1371 was lying as unclaimed at Malkhana Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 163 of 183 from 09.09.2002 to 22.11.2002 till the time the custody of the said car was obtained by Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 and the evidence of Prabhat Kumar Chaurisia PW-64, that he sold Maruti 800 car bearing registration no.DDU-1371 to accused Roshan Singh has not been controverted by the defence.Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the car of accused Roshan Singh was lying as unclaimed at Malkhana since a considerable period which in turn establishes the abscondence of accused Roshan Singh.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 163 of 183At this juncture, a submission advanced by learned counsel for accused Roshan Singh deserves consideration.The response of accused Roshan Singh to the aforesaid questions was ignorance.Accused Roshan Singh has not controverted the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to establish his abscondence.He made a bald explanation of all the incriminating circumstances put to him, and had no explanation to offer.Place of arrest of accused Roshan Singh: The next circumstance against accused Roshan Singh is that he was arrested at Hoshangabad, M.P. and that there was no occasion for accused Roshan Singh to be present at said place.With respect to aforesaid circumstance, suffice would it be to state that said circumstance shows that accused Roshan Singh was absconding and the circumstance of abscondence of Roshan Singh has already been used as an incriminating circumstance against him.No reason for false implication of accused Roshan Singh: The next circumstance relied upon by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Roshan Singh is that no reason has been given by him for his false implication in the present case.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 168 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 168 of 183We do not consider it proper to infer the guilt of accused Roshan Singh from the aforesaid circumstance.Pointing out of places of murder of the deceased and the disposal of body of the deceased by accused Roshan Singh: The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Roshan Singh is that accused Roshan Singh pointed out the place of murder of the deceased as also the place from where the body of the deceased was thrown into the canal.Insofar as pointing out of place of murder of the deceased is concerned, nothing turns on the same as the said place was already in the knowledge of the police.Likewise, nothing turns on the fact that accused Roshan Singh pointed out the place from where the body of the deceased was thrown into the canal for the reason there is no evidence to show that the place pointed out by accused Roshan Singh was the place from where the body of the deceased was thrown into the canal.Recovery of country made pistols and the gold ring of the deceased at the instance of accused Roshan Singh: The last circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Roshan Singh is that two country made pistols and the gold ring of the deceased were recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 169 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 169 of 183Insofar as recovery of country made pistols is concerned, suffice would it be to state that it is settled legal position that the connection between the object recovered and the offence with which an offence is charged must always be established by evidence alinude.In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the pistols recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh were used to murder the decassed.Therefore, the circumstance pertaining to recovery of country made pistols at the instance of accused Roshan Singh cannot be used as an incriminating piece of evidence against accused Roshan Singh.Insofar as the recovery of the gold ring of the deceased is concerned, the ground of attack taken by the defence to assail the said recovery is that the family members of the deceased falsely stated that the ring in question was worn by the deceased on 24.08.2002 and the police took the ring in question from wife of the deceased and planted the same on accused Roshan Singh.It be noted here that a suggestion was given to the wife of the deceased that the Investigating Officer collected the ring in question from her on 18.12.2002 for the purposes of planting it upon accused Roshan Singh.It may be noted here that the prosecution examined Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62, SI Sukaram Pal PW-39 Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 170 of 183 and SI Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-44, to prove the said recovery.The aforesaid police officials deposed that a ring was got recovered by accused Roshan Singh from his residence.Sumitra Gupta PW-18, the wife of the deceased and Baldev Kumar PW-52, the jeweler who sold the ring to the deceased identified the ring recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh as that of the deceased.Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of the said witnesses which could cast a doubt upon the veracity of the said witnesses.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 170 of 183As already noted herein above, the evidence of Sumitra Gupta PW-18, the wife of the deceased, that the deceased was wearing a gold ring on 24.08.2002 has a ring of truth attached to it inasmuch as she stated the said fact in her statement to the police which was recorded just few hours after the missing of the deceased.A close scrutiny of the defence taken by accused Roshan Singh with respect to recovery of the ring in question reveals that the said defence has no merit.The evidence of Inspector V.S.Meena PW-62 and HC Dinesh Kumar PW-43, that the ring in question was deposited in the Malkhana on 22.11.2002 has not been Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 171 of 183 controverted on behalf of accused Roshan Singh.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 171 of 183In view of above circumstances, we thus hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that a gold ring was recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh and that the said ring belonged to the deceased.Testimony of Subash PW-38: The last circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Roshan Singh is that the testimony of Subash PW-38, establishes that the body of the deceased was thrown into the canal by accused Roshan Singh.A perusal of the testimony of Subash PW-38, contents whereof has been noted in para 98 above, shows that Subash was an inimical witness evident from the accused Roshan Singh defeated the father of the witness in an election and that Subash was a signatory to a complaint lodged against accused Roshan Singh.Inimical witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses though the fact that said witnesses have personal interest or stake in the matter must put the Court on its guard and thus the evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 172 of 183 close scrutiny.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 172 of 183A close scrutiny of evidence of Subash PW-38 reveals that he is not a truthful witness.He claims that through the newspaper reports, after three or four days of the dead body of Atma Ram Gupta being recovered he realized that the dead body of which he had informed Roshan Singh was that of Atma Ram Gupta.How could he do so remains a mystery for the reason Subash does not claim that he saw the dead body about which the children of the village had told him.He has deposed that when the children told him about a dead body near the Dak Bangla he proceeded to inform the police and on the way met Roshan Singh.Another fact which has cast a serious doubt on the testimony of Subash is that Subash did not come forward till about three months to report the police about the facts known to him about the body of the deceased.The learned Trial Court has also noticed the said fact but has not attached due importance to the same on the ground that Subash is a rustic villager and thus it could not be expected of him that he would approach the police on his own particularly when the matter is high profile.The aforesaid explanation given by the learned Trial Court to justify suspicious conduct of Subash is clearly untenable.He is not a rustic villager as has been projected by Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 173 of 183 the learned Trial Judge.He was signatory to a complaint lodged against accused Roshan Singh.His family members used to contest the elections.The two are sufficient to conclude his guilt.For instance, from Waliid Bux a Dua, a Jugnu and a patta were recovered.From Dori completely torn coat and a dhoti were recovered.From Chandu a lota, a tumbler, a longe were recovered.Nothing was recovered from the other respondents.They were not able to say to whom the articles belonged.In this view of the matter the learned Sessions Judge did not draw any inference from the fact that these articles were recovered from the possession of the aforesaid respondents.We arc of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the testimony relating to the recovery of the articles."Pointing out of place of murder of the deceased by accused Pushpender and Nirvikar: The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Pushpender and Nirvikar is that they pointed out the place of murder of the deceased.Nothing turns on the same as the said place was already in the knowledge of the police.Discovery of clues from the disclosure statement of Pushpender and Nirvikar: - The next circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of accused Pushpender and Nirvikar is that the disclosure statement of accused Pushpender and Nirvikar provided clues to the investigating agency.The aforesaid circumstance is factually incorrect inasmuch as the police did not get any clues from the disclosure statements of accused Pushpender and Nirvikar.The police got the clues from the disclosure statements of accused Raj Kumar and Roshan Singh.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 180 of 183 for illegally possessing and using the firearms recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh.No evidence was led by the prosecution to establish that the firearms recovered at the instance of Roshan Singh were possessed or used by accused Pushpender and Nirvikar.The only documents on record which contains a recording that the firearms recovered at the instance of accused Roshan Singh were used by Pushpender and Nirvikar are the disclosure statements of Pushpender and Nirvikar, contents of which are completely inadmissible in evidence.Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 180 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 181 of 183Pointing out of places of murder of the deceased and the disposal of body of the deceased by accused Roshan Singh: The last circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge to infer the guilt of the police officers pointed out the place of murder of the deceased as also the place from where the body of the deceased was thrown into the canal.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 183 of 183Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 183 of 183 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,543,310 | Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the lower court be called for.Also heard on I.A. No.7593/2015, which is an application under section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present applicant namely - Montu S/o Heeralal.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-It is directed that if, the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 07.01.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/- | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,653,231 | Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.:The appellant has been convicted under Section 323 IPC, for injuries on Om Prakash, by giving him a push, when he tried to intervene.By order of sentence dated 20th November, 2010 he has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year.Entry wound of fire arm 1.5 cm x 1 cm, lacerated punctured wound present over front of chest on left side 2 cm from left nipple above and 8 cm from mid line with abrasion collar and tattoing in CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 2 of 32 an area of 8 cm x 7 cm around wound margins inserted.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 2 of 32Exit wound of fire arm 0.7 x 0.6 cm, punctured wound present over back of chest just left of mid line 14 cm from right and 12 cm from left scapuler lower and with margin everted. Track:- Bullet entered through anterior chest wall through 5th intercostal space pears upper and lower lobe of the lungs.Infroposterial chest wall near vertebra into 6th intercostal space and came out through posterior wall.Chest: Chest cavity filled with partially clotted blood about 1.5 meter."The cause of death of Sunil, as opined by PW-13, was asphyxia and shock as a result of fire arm injury due to short gun firearm.The following external and internal injuries were noticed on the dead body of Somnath:Entry wound of fire arm 0.9 x 0.6 cm over front of chest at xiphisternum 12 cm from right and 16 cm from left nipple and 23 cm from umblicus just right to the mid line with abrasion collar present with tatooing all over the chest.Upper abdomen and biletral arm in an area of 15 cm x 14 cm above.After exploring the wound it enters into the stomach through left lobe of liver and then pierces into oesophagus and after piercing oesophagus to pharyngs and after it pierces the tongue and roof of mouth cavity and enters into the skull through middle cranial fossa and lodged at posterior cranial fossa.Entry wound of fire arm:- 0.8 x 0.5 cm, lacerated punctured wound present over back CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 3 of 32 10 cm from mid line towards left and 11 cm from lower part of scapula at 8th intercostal space with abrasion collar all around.On further exploration it enters into the chest wall fractured 9th rib in 8th intercostal space and then pierces the upper part of spleen and diaphram near stomach.Head: Subdural heamatoma and subarrachnoid heamorrage over inferior surface of occipital region and bullet was recovered from posterial cranial fossa.Hole in middle cranial fossa.Abdomen cavity filled with blood and food material.Chest: Left side of chest cavity contained blood."PW-13 similarly opined that Somnath had died due to Hemorrhagic shock as a result of fire arm injury to the chest and abdomen.The fire arm used was a shot gun.PW-13 had recovered one bullet from the dead body of Somnath.The said bullet was shown to him after opening a sealed packet having seal of SGM mortuary.The MLCs of Sunil and Somnath have been marked Exhibits PW-4/A and PW-4/B respectively.These were proved by Dr. Binay Kumar (PW-4), Medical Officer, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, who had examined Sunil and Somnath and prepared the said MLCs.He has deposed that the two of them were brought to the hospital at CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 4 of 32 11.50/11.55 P.M. with the alleged history of fire arm injury.On examination their pulse was not palpable, BP was not recordable and their ECG showed straight line.They were declared brought dead and shifted to mortuary.Both Dr. Binay Kumar (PW-4) and Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-13) were not cross-examined in spite of opportunity provided.Their testimonies went unrebutted.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 4 of 32The core issue raised by the appellant pertains to his involvement as a perpetrator of the said crime.As per the prosecution version, there are three eye witnesses; Om Prakash, Babli and Poonam, i.e., father, mother and cousin sister of the deceased.The appellant, on the other hand, relies upon their cross-examination which was conducted on 16th November, 2009 and it is submitted that the three eye witnesses have exonerated and denied that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime.Om Prakash (PW-1) in his deposition on 29th May, 2008 has in categorical terms stated that he along with Babli (PW-2) and Poonam (PW-3) were sitting outside their house on 22nd April, 2006 while his son Sunil was sleeping on the cot outside the house when, at 11 P.M., the appellant, who was identified by PW-1, came and fired a shot at Sunil.They raised an alarm and chased the appellant who ran towards CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 5 of 32 Rohtak Road.As a result of the push, he fell down and sustained injuries on both knees.On hearing the commotion, his second son Somnath, who was upstairs, came down and chased the appellant.When Somnath was about to apprehend him, near the corner of the street, close to Narang Hospital, the appellant fired at Somnath.After receiving the bullet injury, Somnath fell down.The appellant again fired second shot at Somnath.Thereafter, the appellant boarded a car, which was parked at Rohtak Road.One or two persons were already present in the car.Somebody informed the police and his sons were taken to the SGM Hospital but were declared brought dead.He had sustained injuries on his knee and was medically examined.At this stage, we may note that the MLC of Om Prakash (Exhibit PW-13/C) was proved by Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-13).The medical examination of PW-1 was conducted by Dr. Ritesh who had worked under PW-13 but had since left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.PW-1 proved his statement (Exhibit PW-1/A), which formed basis of the rukka.He has further deposed that on his pointing out the site plan (Ex. PW- 22/A) was prepared.When he was about to apprehend the appellant in the street opposite Narang Hospital, the appellant fired a gun shot.Somnath fell down and was again fired upon.The appellant escaped in a car parked on Rohtak Road.One-two persons were present in the car but she could not state who they were.Sunil and Somnath were taken to SGM Hospital where they were declared brought dead.She had not sustained any injury in person and was not medically examined.Poonam (PW-3) in her deposition on 29th May, 2008 identified the appellant as a perpetrator.Near Narang Hospital, the appellant grappled with her when she was trying to apprehend him.The appellant pushed her and shot at Somnath and then fired another shot at Somnath when he fell down.She deposed that father of the appellant was standing there and she rushed and pleaded with him.He caught hold of her hair and thrashed her.She started weeping again, during her deposition in the court and was consoled.She has testified that the appellant boarded a car parked on the Rohtak Road behind tractors and fled away.There was another boy in the car but she did not know/identify him.She has affirmed that she had certainly seen the appellant who had shot at her brothers and had grappled with her.The two brothers were taken to SGM Hospital by Om Prakash (PW-1).She did not accompany them to the hospital.Later on she was informed that her brothers had died.He has deposed that Poonam (PW-3) was ahead of them.PW-2 the mother due to her age could not have chased the appellant.PW-2 has admitted that her husband and Poonam were chasing the appellant faster than her.The presence of one or two persons in the car, as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2, and one person, as stated by PW-3, is not really a contradiction.PW-3 had a better view and look at the car as she ran faster and had tried to grapple with the appellant.In these circumstances, the witness is again put to the accused and his new counsel for cross examination but he has expressed his inability.XXX by accused Nil (opportunity given).RO&AC."PW-1 and PW-2 in their cross-examination took a somersault and deposed that it was dark and they had covered themselves with the sheet to avoid mosquitoes.They uncovered their face after hearing the noise of the gun shot.Assailant had already left the spot and was at a distance.Due to darkness and distance they could not identify/see the assailant.They deposed that the appellant was never shown to them by the police after the occurrence at the time of investigation.PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that their earlier statements made on 29th May, 2008 was at the behest of the police officers present outside the court who had tutored them and had asked them to identify the appellant as the person who had committed murder of their son.PW-1 went to the extent of stating that he had not signed papers of arrest of the appellant and police had never made any inquiry from him.Appellant was innocent and had been falsely implicated.PW-3 had stated that it was night time, there was no electricity at the spot and the deceased was sleeping at a distance from their house.At the time of occurrence she was sleeping and woke up after hearing the gun shot noise.She had not seen the person who had fired the gun shot at her cousins, as the assailant had absconded.She has claimed that her earlier statement was tutored and she had identified the appellant at the behest of the police.18. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were re-examined by the Public Prosecutor on 16th November, 2009 in view of the testimonies in their cross-examination.He has further deposed that he had not made any complaint to the senior police officers that he had been pressurized to make a statement against the appellant or that the appellant had not killed his two sons.PW-2, in her re-examination by the Public Prosecutor, denied having moved any application for cancellation for interim bail which is factually untrue and false.She, however, accepted that she had not complained to any police officer about pressure being put on her to implicate the appellant as the murderer of her two sons.PW-3 who had resiled from her earlier statement, in her re-examination, accepted that she was residing at E- CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 15 of 32 17, Camp No. 2 Nangloi which is adjacent to the residence of PW-1 and PW-2, E-18, Camp No. 2, Nangloi.First Sunil was shot while he was sleeping on the cot, at 11.00 P.M. at night and then Somnath came running from upstairs and was shot at, when he tried to catch him.The appellant had fired another shot at Somnath when he fell down after he was given a push.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 16 of 32The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Exhibit PW- 12/D) on 23rd April, 2006 at 5 A.M. The place of arrest as shown is "Kirari Phatk".He was posted, at the time of occurrence, as SI in Police Station Nangloi and has deposed that he had visited the crime spot soon after he had received call vide DD No. 72B (Exhibit PW-14/A) which was recorded at 11.20 P.M. in the Police Station, on the basis of information given by Police Control Room.PW-22 has further deposed that when he reached the spot he came to know that the victims had been removed to SGM Hospital.At that time he had seen pool of blood and two used cartridges.Constable Bijender and Constable Raj Kumar also reached the spot in the meanwhile.He left for the hospital with Constable Bijender.Constable Vijay and Constable Raj Kumar were left at the spot.At the hospital, he met Additional SHO Inspector Ishwar Singh and came to know that Sunil and Somnath were declared as brought dead vide their MLCs.Om Prakash (PW-1) was present in the hospital and PW-22 recorded his statement as Exhibit PW-1/A. He made endorsement on the said statement (Exhibit PW-5/B) which was signed by him at point A and sent it to the Police Station with Constable Bijender.Thereafter, along with Inspector Ishwar Singh he came to the spot, crime team was present and photographs were taken.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 18 of 32 He referred to the site plan (Exhibit PW-22/A) which was prepared.He identified his signatures.Those two used cartridges were produced in a parcel with the seal of FSL Rohini and were opened.He has deposed that sketches of the empty cartridges P-6 and P-7, were taken (marked Exhibit PW-22/B) which was signed by him at point A. The IO seized led of the bullet (Exhibit P-5) from near the staircase (seized vide memo Exhibit PW-12/C) which was signed by him at point B. He has deposed that they had secret information that the appellant was present near "Kirari Fatak" and they apprehended him and a pistol (Exhibit P-2) along with one used cartridge (Exhibit P-3) was recovered from him.The sketch (Exhibit PW-12/E) was prepared and was signed by him at point B. He proved the arrest memo of the appellant (Exhibit PW-12/D).The arrest had taken place early in the morning.The 8 mm/.315" cartridge cases marked exhibit EC1 to EC3 are fired empty cartridge.The individual characteristic of firing pin and breech face marks present on evidence fired cartridge cases marked exhibits EC1 to EC3 and on the test fired cartridge cases marked as TC1 to TC3 were examined and compared under the comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC and were found identical.Hence exhibit EC1 to EC3 have been fired through the country made pistol .315" bore marked exhibit F1 above."As noticed above, two fired or empty cartridges Exhibit P-6 and P-7 were recovered from the spot and the third empty cartridge Exhibit P-3 (one used cartridge) found in the country made pistol CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 23 of 32 when seized.Exhibit PW-10/D records that three cartridges of .315 bore were made available to the FSL for test firing.These were test fired.The microscopic examination of the test fired cartridges TC1 to TC3 and EC1 to EC3 reveal that they were fired from the same country made pistol F1, i.e., Exhibit P-2, which was seized from the appellant.The cartridge (Exhibit P-3) found in the pistol was fired from the said pistol.He has been sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for a period of CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 1 of 32 six months under Section 323 IPC.He has been acquitted under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1957 for having used and for having been found in possession of country made pistol.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 1 of 32The State or victims have not preferred any appeal against acquittal of the appellant under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.At the outset, we notice that the homicidal death of Sunil and Somnath was not disputed or challenged before us.Even otherwise, their homicidal death as a result of fire arm injuries stands established and proved from the post-mortem reports of Sunil and Somnath marked Exhibits PW-13/A and PW-13/B respectively.Bodies of Sunil and Somnath were sent by Inspector Ishwar Singh of Police Station Nangloi with the alleged history of gun shot wounds and the two of them were declared brought dead on 23rd April, 2006 at SGM Hospital at 11.55 P.M. The following external and internal injuries were noticed on the dead body of Sunil:"1. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over inside back with clotted blood.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 3 of 32He had identified the dead bodies of Sunil and Somnath vide identification statement Exhibits PW-1/C and PW-1/D, which were signed by him.He identified the pant (Exhibit PW-1/B), CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 6 of 32 which was worn by him when he had taken his two sons to the hospital.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 5 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 6 of 32In her testimony recorded on 29th May, 2008 she has implicated the appellant as the culprit who had fired the gun shot at Sunil at about 11 P.M. on 22nd April, 2006 when she was sitting with PW-1 and PW-3 outside their house.At that time, Sunil was sleeping on the cot outside the house.She has deposed that on hearing the commotion, her son Somnath came down and chased the appellant.She has stated that at 11 P.M. on 22nd April, 2006 her cousin Sunil was sleeping on the cot when he was shot at by the appellant.She became emotional and starting weeping in the court.She was consoled and her statement was recorded after some CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 7 of 32 time.She went on to further narrate that she, her uncle and aunt chased the appellant.On hearing the commotion, Somnath, who was upstairs, came down and tried to apprehend the appellant.She had sustained minor abrasions but was not medically examined.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 7 of 32Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the testimony of PW-3 on 29th May, 2008 is doubtful and debatable.She has referred to the father of the appellant, who was purportedly present at the spot and has stated that she had grappled with the CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 8 of 32 appellant while trying to apprehend him.Reference is made to the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the difference is pointed out.PW-1 and PW-2, in their depositions on 29th May, 2008, have not referred to the father of the appellant being present at the spot.We note that the father of the appellant was not prosecuted or charged.To this extent, PW-3 may have exaggerated and tried to implicate the father, i.e., an elder family member of the appellant but this by itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve her entire testimony.PW-1 and PW-2 have clearly affirmed presence of PW-3 at the spot.PW-1 has stated that he fell down after being pushed by the appellant and sustained injuries on his knees.The site plan placed on record marked Exhibit PW-22/A and PW-9/A show the two spots where Sunil and Somnath were shot.Sunil was shot in front of the house whereas Somnath was shot in front of Narang Clinic which was at some distance and at the T-point CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 9 of 32 where the street meets the Rohtak Road.The car was apparently parked on the Rohtak Road.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 8 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 9 of 32On the said date, the counsel for the appellant was stated to be unwell and the counsel appearing made a prayer and was granted adjournment.On 20th August, 2008, the appellant engaged another counsel Mr. Mahipal Singh.However, the previous counsel Ms. Bindia Malhotra, Advocate was present and stated before the court that she was ready for cross-examination.Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate, claimed that he was engaged only on the said date and was not in a position to carry out cross-examination.The trial court passed the following order:" The counsel submits that he has been engaged only today and wont be able to carry on the cross examination.Today, the accused has brought new counsel.The previous counsel Ms. Bindiya Malhotra is also present who is ready for cross CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 10 of 32 examination but the new counsel seeks adjournment.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 10 of 32It appears from overall circumstances that accused is deliberately avoiding the recording the cross examination of this witness.He even failed to inform his previous counsel who is ready with brief to cross examine the witness regarding the engagement of a new counsel by him.The witness is to be treated like a guest as per the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India he should not suffer any harassment or humiliation.Order sheet of the trial court reveals that on 20 th August, 2008 the appellant had filed an application for interim bail on the ground that his wife was unwell.This application was dismissed on 20 th August, 2008 recording that counsel for the appellant was not inclined to cross-examine witnesses and his conduct was not appropriate as he was avoiding cross-examination.It was recorded that there appeared to be something amiss and fishy.The appellant was subsequently granted interim bail vide order dated 30th September, 2008 by the High Court in Bail Application No. 1820/2008 for a period of six weeks on the ground that his wife was undergoing treatment.Om CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 11 of 32 Prakash (PW-1) and Babli (PW-2) thereupon filed an application for cancellation of bail wherein it was alleged that after the release the appellant had started threatening them.The said application was disposed of vide order dated 8th October, 2008 requiring PW-1 and PW-2 to move to the High Court, and through legal aid, if required.There was another change in counsel and on or about 7th March, 2009 an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for recalling of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3 for their cross-examination.This was allowed vide order dated 20th July, 2009 recording that only one opportunity would be granted and in case the said witnesses were present, no further date would be given.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 11 of 32She claimed that the appellant had never grappled with her and never pushed her and she had not received any injuries.She had not seen the appellant at the spot and CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 13 of 32 he had not uttered any word to her after the occurrence.She has claimed that the appellant was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the police.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 12 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 13 of 32We have narrated the court proceedings and how and in what manner the appellant failed to and did not cross-examine the three witnesses.After he was released on interim bail for six weeks, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were specifically recalled for cross-examination.PW-1 and PW-2, during this time, had moved an application alleging that the appellant had threatened them.The change in stand cannot be explained for any other reason.PW-1 and PW-2 are the parents and it is difficult to perceive that they would have made a false statement for monetary consideration.Similarly, PW-3 is the cousin sister and obviously was close to the two brothers who have died.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 14 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 14 of 32PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in the re-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor that they knew the appellant from before as he was residing in premises No. E-39, Camp No. 2, Nangloi.PW-1 further accepted that the appellant was granted interim bail by the High Court vide order dated 30th September, 2008 and he had filed an application for cancellation of the interim bail (Exhibit PW-1/PX), which was signed by him at point A. On the question, who had pressurized or tutored him to make a false statement, PW-1 has stated that he did not remember whether the police officer was Head Constable, ASI, SI or IO.She has accepted that the appellant was residing in the same street but claimed that his house was at a distance.She has accepted that on 29th May, 2008 she had not stated that a police officer had pressurized her and she did not remember whether the said police officer was a Head Constable, ASI, SI, Inspector or IO of the case.She did not make any complaint to a senior police officer.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 15 of 32Consequently, he was directed to be deleted from the list of witnesses.PW-1 is the complainant and on his statement (Exhibit PW-1/A) rukka was recorded and the FIR was registered.PW-1 has admitted his signatures on PW-1/A at point A. The said CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 16 of 32 complaint PW-1/A specifically refers and mentions the name of the appellant as the perpetrator who had fired the shots.It states that PW- 2 and PW-3 were present at that time.Thereafter, the accused was searched and one fire arm and an empty cartridge was recovered from him vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-12/E. The seal of IS was put (Exhibit PW-12/F).The defence counsel did not examine the said witness on the ground that first he would like to cross-examine the public witnesses.Thereafter, the counsel for the appellant did not ask for re-examination of PW-12 till the trial was over.However, before us, contention raised is that PW-12 was not produced and permitted to be cross-examined.The said contention was raised on 8th January, 2013 and was never raised before the trial court, i.e., during the final CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 17 of 32 arguments.It appears to be an argument of convenience.There is nothing in the cross-examination to dent his testimony.The FSL ballistic report (Exhibit PW-16/A) and the expert opinion as CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 19 of 32 discussed below supports the prosecution case that the pistol (Exhibit P-2) was used for firing used cartridges Exhibits P-6 and P-7 recovered from the spot.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 17 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 18 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 19 of 32It is apparent from the aforesaid statement and the statement of PW-1 (Exhibit PW-1/A) that the appellant was named as the assailant, immediately after the occurrence.It was submitted and argued before us that there was delay between the occurrence and when the rukka was sent to the police station at 1.15 A.M. and thereafter the FIR was recorded at 1.35/2.05 AM.We do not agree.The occurrence had taken place at about 11 P.M. Thereafter, DD entry 72B was recorded in the Police Control Room at 11.20 P.M. Police officials, including PW-22, then reached the crime spot but found that the injured had been taken to the hospital.PW-22 then reached the hospital where he found that the IO Ishwar Singh was already present there.The two injured were declared brought dead.The mental condition and status of PW-1 at that time can be understood as within a span of 50 minutes he lost his two young sons.PW-1 has deposed that he had earlier lost his third son Jai Prakash.It would have taken time for PW1 to compose himself and make statement to the police.PW-22 has stated that he reached the hospital only at 11.45 P.M. at night.We do not think the CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 20 of 32 time gap between when the police officer/PW-1 reached the hospital and when the rukka was sent to the police station, i.e., at 1.15 A.M. is belated or delayed to create suspicion that the appellant would have been falsely implicated.In the present case, only one person was named in the FIR, i.e., the appellant and no one else.The contention of the appellant, therefore, that there was a time gap between the occurrence and when the FIR was registered has to be rejected.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 20 of 32Another contention raised, on behalf of the appellant, was with regard to the recovery of the empty cartridges and the led.As per PW-22, the appellant was arrested immediate in the morning at about 5.00 A.M. after the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 P.M. at night.It would be difficult to find a public witness who would have agreed to join the proceedings at that hour.Regarding the recovery of the cartridges, there is enough evidence to show that two cartridges were and one led of a fired bullet were recovered from the spot in question.As per the police version and as deposed by PW-22 and PW-12, one used cartridge was found in the fire arm.However, we may note that the police had not sent the bullet/led recovered from the body of Somnath for FSL examination.However, this does not mean that the FSL report (Exhibit PW-16/A) and the findings recorded therein should be disbelieved.Exhibit PW-16/A was proved by V.R. Anand, Senior Scientific Officer, Ballistics, FSL, Delhi (PW-21) and Inspector Prakash Chand (PW-16) who had collected the said report.PW-21 has submitted that he had given the report after conducting test of the fire arm and ammunition.He was not cross-examined and his report, as well as, the testimony remained completely unchallenged.Exhibit PW-16/A records that the individual characteristics of striation marks present on fired bullets (Exhibits EB1 and EB2) were insufficient for comparison on whether they have been fired through the country made pistol (Exhibit F1) which was seized from the CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 22 of 32 accused.Eb2 was the intact bullet which was fired from the said pistol for the purpose of comparison.To this extent, therefore, the fired led EB1 or Exhibit P-5 could not be collated with the weapon/fire arm Exhibit P-2 which was recovered from the appellant.However, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of Exhibit PW-16/A read as under:CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 21 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 22 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 23 of 32He has deposed with regard to the deposit of the seized material.15 pullandas were sent to FSL for examination and thereafter the report was received.It was submitted that three cartridges of .315 bore were deposited belatedly on 30 th June, 2006 by Inspector Ishwar Singh.The appellant is trying to obfuscate the issue.Subsequently, three cartridges of .315 bore were deposited at serial No. 5360, in register No. 19, and on 3rd July, 2006 these were sent to FSL.This is clear from the malkhana register (Exhibits PW-10/C and PW-10/D).The three cartridges referred to as Exhibit PW-10/C, which were deposited on 30th June, 2006 were the three cartridges which were required and subsequently used for test firing.This is clearly mentioned in document Exhibit PW-10/D.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 24 of 32During the course of hearing before us, the counsel for the appellant had relied upon two extracts.It was important for the appellant to cross- examine PW-21 V.R. Anand, Senior Scientific Officer, Ballistics in case they wanted to question and challenge his report but he was not cross-examined.The first article relates to striation marks on the fired bullets.In the present case, as noticed, the striation marks on the one fired led, which was found at the spot Exhibit P-5, could not be compared with the test fired led/bullet.There can be number of reasons for the same.In case the report of PW-21 was incomplete or CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 25 of 32 he had deliberately favoured the prosecution, the appellant it is reiterated should have cross-examined and questioned PW-21 in that regard.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 25 of 32The clothes and belongings of the deceased and PW-1 were sent for FSL examination and as per the FSL report (Exhibit PW-15/A and PW-15/B) blood was detected on all exhibits except on the earth control.The blood ascertained was of group A or O. In the case of blood stained clothes there was no reaction.The blood group and the origin of the blood could not be ascertained.We may now deal with some other contentions raised by the appellant and citations relied upon by them.It is submitted that the neighbours from the colony were not cited as witnesses.It is submitted that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had pointed out that one-two persons were present in the car but no investigation was done by the police in that regard.The appellant was a neighbour and the occurrence had taken place at night at about 11 P.M. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not cross-examined on whether the neighbours had seen the occurrence.Further, the fact that no details or identity of one or two others who CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 26 of 32 were in the car could be ascertained, is inconsequential in the present case.Statements of such witnesses may require strict scrutiny but can be accepted when the court is satisfied that they were present at the spot and had seen the occurrence.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 26 of 32On the contrary, the efforts should be to ensure fair trial where the accused and the prosecution both get a fair deal.Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as much importance, if not CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 31 of 32 more, as the interests of the individual accused.In this courts have a vital role to play.CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 31 of 32In view of the aforesaid findings, we uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.The appeal is dismissed.(SANJIV KHANNA)(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE APRIL 8th, 2013 VKR CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 32 of 32CRL.A. No. 75/2011 Page 32 of 32 | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,826,459 | R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):Priya Jain, then aged 21 years, was going to her office at about 11:30 AM on 23.11.2011 in the area of Preet Vihar, Delhi.She suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident and died in the consequence.A first information report (FIR) no.337/2011 was registered by local police station Preet Vihar for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Priya Jain was unmarried at the time of her death.Her parents brought a claim petition under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 19.12.2011 seeking compensation, impleading Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as party respondent on the allegations that its bus no.DL-1PB-5436 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") had MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 1 of 5 caused the said accident due to rash/negligent driving by its driver Govind Lal who was also shown in array as the first respondent in the claim case.The offending vehicle was concededly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant/insurance company (the insurer), which was also arrayed as (third) respondent in the claim petition.MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 1 of 5It may be added that father of the deceased died during the pendency of the inquiry before the tribunal and the petition was prosecuted further by the surviving claimant (the mother) who is now first respondent in this appeal.The tribunal having registered the claim case as MACT petition no.02/2012 held inquiry and by judgment dated 25.03.2014 awarded compensation in the sum of `12,42,288/- with interest at rate of nine percent (9%) per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization holding that the claimants had proved that the accident had been caused due to rash/negligent driving of the offending vehicle.In reaching the said amount of compensation, the tribunal accepted the evidence led, inter-alia, through Shweta Joshi (PW2), an Executive (HR) of M/s Unique Infoways Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that the deceased was employed with the said entity as an executive-logistic at a gross remuneration of `7500/- per month at the time of the death.While calculating the loss of dependency, the tribunal added the element of prospects of increase in the income in future.No.586/2014 Page 2 of 5Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this court finds no substance in either of the contentions raised by the insurer in this appeal.It does appear that the contesting respondents had adduced evidence which included the testimonies of Govind Lal (RW1), Anuj (R1W2) and Ashok Sharma (R1W3).The evidence of Govind Lal (R1W1), the driver of the offending vehicle and that of Anuj (R1W2), conductor deployed by DTC on the same vehicle was meant to show that the bus in question was stationary and that the deceased girl was crossing the road from one side to other without observing the traffic rules.with a mobile phone held against her ear and she was crushed to death by another speeding vehicle.The evidence of Ashok Sharma (R1W3) was relied upon in corroboration, he stated to be a passenger traveling in the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time.This court agrees with the grievances that the tribunal did not even refer to the above mentioned evidence in the impugned judgment while reaching adverse findings.This was not proper.But then, having considered the said evidence now, this court finds that the conclusions of the MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 3 of 5 tribunal could not have been different from the ones reached even if the evidence of the respondents in the nature aforesaid had been considered.PW3 was a local police official patrolling in the area.He had seen the accident in the course of happening.He affirmed on oath that after collision by the offending vehicle, the deceased had come under its wheels and that it is he, who with the help of others, had taken her out from under the carriage of the vehicle and shifted her to a hospital where she was declared brought dead.The very fact that the girl was found and had to be extricated from under the wheels of the bus shows that the bus was not stationary and that it was moving when the girl was crushed to death.In these circumstances, the theory propounded by the witnesses of the respondents cannot be accepted.Coming to the issue of future prospects, the evidence of PW2 itself shows that though the deceased had been employed on probation initially, her income would have grown in future over the period.The appeal is, thus, devoid of substance and liable to be dismissed.By order dated 24.07.2014, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accumulated interest with the Registrar General of this Court within the period specified.Out of said deposit, `8,00,000/- was allowed to be released to the claimant (first MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 4 of 5 respondent), the balance having been kept in FDR for a period of one year to be renewed periodically.The Registrar General shall now take necessary steps to have the balance amount released to the claimant in terms of the impugned judgment.MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 4 of 5The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 29, 2016 ssc MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 5 of 5MAC APP.No.586/2014 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,388,539 | The petitioner is a nationally known public figure, active in politics and public affairs.In this regard, he has brought several cases, pro bono, to the notice of the Courts.He holds doctorate in Economics from the world famous Harvard University in the U.S.A., where he had also taught and still occasionally teaches Economics for over a decade.He has also taught Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, as a Professor.He is responsible and senior politician, a member of Parliament for five terms and has served as a member of several Parliamentary Standing Committees.Petitioner was also a Senior Cabinet Minister holding the portfolios of Commerce and Law & Justice (1990-91).Thereafter he held the post of Chairman of the Commission of Labour Standard, a post of Cabinet Rank.He regards the present litigation as a duty he owes to his country.Respondent No. 3 occupies a very high place in India, being the Leader of the Congress Party in Lok Sabha and is also the President of the All India Congress.It is alleged that on 3.04.2004 in terms of the directions, respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit (annexure-2) before the Returning Officer of Raibareilly Constituency from where she had decided to context the Parliamentary election, and in the process, she indicated her educational qualification as under:The petitioner claims that the information is false and he could come to know about the same through media.The petitioner made a representation (annexure-3) to the Chief Election Commissioner.Thereafter on 1.7.2004, respondent No. 1 forwarded the complaint to the Returning Officer concerned for proper action.Even the address of Sonia Maino is wanting.There is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to why the original letters could not be produced and why since 21.9.1992 and onwards the petitioner and his associates remained dormant.This is also pending with your office.JUDGMENT Dharam Veer Sharma, J.The petitioner informs that before filing of this writ petition, he had filed a petition in the Hon'ble Apex Court bearing writ petition No. C-89 of 2005, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India and Ors.and the same was dismissed in-limine on 11.04.2005 and accordingly the instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The conspectus of the facts are as under:Respondent No. 2 thereafter fixed a date 8.10.2004 for personal meeting.The petitioner submitted written submissions (annexure-8) annexing therewith copies of following documents:Thus it is contended that the respondent No. 3 was persisting in her false statement of educational qualifications, amounting to commission of offences under Sections 177, 181 and 191 read with Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.Thereafter the petitioner pursued the matter at the level of Chief Election Commissioner, respondent No. 1 and met with all the three Election Commissioners.On 12.01.2005, respondent No. 1 wrote to the respondent No. 2 (annexure-13) directing that a copy of the order may be furnished to the petitioner.On 19.01.2005, the petitioner received a registered post letter dated 15.01.2005 from respondent No. 1 enclosing a copy of an order dated 23.10.2004 (annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the petitioner's application.For convenience, it is reproduced as under:Dr. Subramanian Swami, President, Janata Party filed an application against Ms. Sonia Gandhi stating that she filed a false affidavit in 2004 General Election to Lok Sabha.The application was submitted by Sri H.A.Shankhdhar, President, Janta Party, Uttar Pradesh.Alongwith the application xerox of letter dated 1st July, 2004 of Election Commission of India was enclosed which mentioned that such complaints should be filed before Returning Officer along with documentary evidence.Heard the applicant and perused the documents submitted.The applicant had claimed that Ms. Sonia Gandhi had willfully made a false declaration on oath to mislead the voters about her high educational qualification.The application and accompanying documents were carefully examined by me.The applicant has not filed any affidavit nor has any personal knowledge about this matter.It is note worthy that Ms. Sonia Gandhi has filed a sworn affidavit regarding which no complaint was received at the time of election.Moreover, in her affidavit she has simply mentioned "Certificate in English from Lennox Cook School, Cambridge University, completed in 1965" which is a course in English language proficiency and not about any degree or advanced educational qualification, hence the argument of misleading the voters about high educational qualification is not tenable.Transcript copy of letter of Dr. Leedham-Green along with application itself mentions that she has studied in a language school in Cambridge.Since there is no documentary evidence or any other evidence to support the application, therefore, it is rejected.According to the petitioner, the above order makes no finding at all on the petitioner's complaint i.e. whether the respondent No. 3 had willfully made a false declaration on oath, but it holds that "the argument of misleading voters about high educational qualification" is not tenable.Thereafter on 19.01.2005, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No. 1 enquiring whether an appeal lay, to which respondent No. 1 replied that no appeal lay to the Election Commission.The petitioner filed petition C-89 of 2005 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the aforesaid order dated 23.10.2004 passed by the Returning Officer for 19-Raebareli Parliamentary Constituency.By its order dated 11.04.2005 (annexure-18) the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the same.The order reads as under:Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following:The petitioner, before filing this writ petition, had already filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court, claiming substantially the same relief.The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.It is not disputed that against the said order and judgment, no appeal was filed, with the result the said judgment has attained finality.We further find that corrupt practices and electoral offences are separately dealt with under Part VII of the Act from Sections 123 to 138, but these electoral offences also do not include any incorrect furnishing of educational qualification.Thus, furnishing of incorrect educational qualification does not come within the ambit of any penal provision of the Act.Section 125A of the Act under which the petitioner is claiming that a criminal case be lodged against respondent No. 3 refers to the false/incorrect information furnished by the candidates under Section 33(1) and 33A(2) of the Act, with intent to mislead the electors and to win the election, which relates to the information given in the nomination form and regarding the criminal antecedents in a prescribed form which has been made mandatory, pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (supra).The petitioner filed only photocopies of few letters written by unidentified persons.These papers are not admissible in evidence.These letters are said to have been written by some unidentified persons and were not even addressed to the complainant - petitioner Dr. Subramanian Swamy.It appears that whosoever may be the writer of those letters, he did not know as to what relevant information was being asked to verify or testify.They were not supplied with copy of the said form containing educational qualification of the respondent No. 3 and on which no question was asked from them as to whether this information is correct or not.The petitioner has failed to show that the person who allegedly made the enquiry was aware about the nature of the query.Consequently, photocopies of the copy of letters could not inspire confidence of the District Election Officer/ Returning Officer.Further, we find that the petitioner has not filed those letters which he had sent to these persons so as to know of the query he was making about.The petitioner concealed the query, which he was making about.Dr. E.S.Leedham-GreenThe petitioner has not furnished any details as to how he came in contact with all these three persons and on which date he could procure these papers from them.Admittedly, these are not counter-parts of the documents as against the parties who did not execute them.These papers are not based on oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.No effort was made to procure it, who was in possession of those documents.The wife had produced photostat copy of minutes of panchayat.The petitioner has also not furnished any explanation as to why he could not obtain the information from the University concerned and as to why these papers are being used after the year 1991 and 2003 in this case.He has also not obtained any letter from the person from whom he got the copies.Yet there is another aspect in this case.The petitioner has filed a copy of the letter sent by him to the Speaker Lok Sabha on May 10, 2002 which reads as under:Dr. Subramanian Swamy Ph.(Subramanian Swamy)A bare perusal of this letter leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner requested that the matter be forwarded to the Chairman of the Ethics Committee for determination of suitable reprimand on the ground that respondent No. 3 had not studied in any college any where in the world.The petitioner has not made any request and has also not sought any relief from this Court that Speaker may be directed to look into the matter or to decide the matter pending before him.Consequently, now it is not open for the petitioner to file the instant petition on the ground that Ms. Sonia Gandhi has committed a breach of ethics by falsely claiming that she had been educated at the University of Cambridge.The petitioner on the basis of news item states that it was mentioned that the word 'University' in the Lok Sabha publication was a 'typographical error'.The petitioner has failed to prove beyond the point of suspicion that a respondent No. 3 deliberately made a false statement or made a false averment about her educational qualification.The onus of proof lies over the petitioner to establish the case against respondent No. 3, for which at present he has no locus.It further appears that the petitioner has made allegation without proving the same.Thus, on the basis of the papers available on the record, it transpires that the petitioner might have filed the petition with collateral purpose without having any lis in the matter.As regard to the argument of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 has given a wrong impression giving an impression that she had studied in Cambridge University and obtained high education from there.In this connection, we would like to reproduce the entry made by the respondent No. 3 in the form of declaration:After looking to the above contents, it transpires that the respondent No. 3 had not claimed that she actually studied in the University of Cambridge.It does not mean that respondent No. 3 ever said that she was a student of University of Cambridge.From the above language, it can be easily concluded that respondent No. 3 obtained a certificate from Lennox Cook School.Once the existence of Lennox Cook School is not doubted and no record could be obtained from Lennox Cook School, it cannot be convinced that Lennox Cook School, was not in existence or it was not imparting educational facilities to student.What was the status of the Lennox Cook School in the year 1965 has to be established by the petitioner.We further find that petitioner was duty bound to check from the University of Cambridge about the status of Lennox Cook School in the year 1965 and should have also obtained a certificate to this effect that respondent No. 3 has never studied there.The Court has to peep into the matter on the basis of the record produced by the petitioner.The petitioner has also not filed any admissible documentary evidence before respondent No. 2 and also before this Court to establish this contention.The order dated 23.10.2004 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Returning Officer/District Election Officer is a speaking and a reasoned order.There is nothing on record to show any infirmity or illegality on the facts before us. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,891,204 | </span></span></font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></span></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"><span style="background: transparent">C.c as per rules.</span></span></span></span></span></font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> </font></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><font size="4">(J.K. Maheshwari)</font></font></font></p> <p style="text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="4"> Judge</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-US"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"><span style="background: transparent"><font style="font-size: 6pt" size="1">tarun/</font><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="3"> </font></span></font></font> </p> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font><p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> <span lang="en-US"><span style="background: transparent">This is first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant apprehends his arrest for an offence under Sections 498A, 506B of IPC and section 25 of Arms Act in connection with Crime No.1105/2014 registered at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna.</span></span></font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-US"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><span style="background: transparent"> Learned counsel for the applicant contends that as per allegation alleged in the FIR the ingredients of section 498A IPC is not available, however while recording her statement by the police the improvement has been made to implicate the applicant under section 506B IPC and section 25 of Arms Act merely to tarnish the reputation of the present applicant who is an advocate and to arrest him.However, prayer is made to enlarge present applicant on anticipatory bail.In the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of </span></span><span lang="en-US"><b><span style="background: transparent">Rs.25,000/- </span></b></span><span lang="en-US"><span style="background: transparent">with a separate surety of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the applicant during currency of bail. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,389,831 | Panaru and Ghurey, appellants, are residents of village Baradih which is situated to the east of village Khajraul about four furlongs away.Village Terhua is about it Ttos from village Khajraul to the north connected by meanB of a metalled road.On the morning of 27th Jane 1947, Sukhdeo deceased and two other villagers, Lakhan and Bhaggal, were returning from Ter-hua to Khajraul, Lakhan and Bhaggal were on foot and behind them was Sukhdeo on a cycle.The Canal Patrol, Abdul Karim, was also oil Sukhdeo's oycle sitting on the luggage.carrier.Village Raniabagh is midway between Terhua and Khajraul.The prosecution case was that when Sukhdeo came near Raniabagh between the canal culvert and the road culvert, Panaru.and Qhurey, appellants and Raghunath assaulted Sukhdeo.JUDGMENT Agarwala, J.Raghunath, Ghurey and Panaru were prosecuted under B. 302 read with 'S. 84, Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Sukhdeo on 27th June 1947, at about nine o'clock in the morning in village, Raniabagh, police station Adalhat, district Mirzapur, Raghunath was acquitted, but Ghurey and Panaru were convicted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to death.The latter have come up in appeal to this Court, and the learned Sessions Judge has also submitted the record to this Court foe confirmation of the death sentence.The deceased Sukhdeo Kunbi, son of Biahwanath, was & resident of village Khajraul.Raghunath accused was also a resident of this village.The Patrol who waa on the luggage-carrier jumped away, while Sukhdeo fell down, Lakhan and Bhaggal saw this occurrence and tan to the rescue of Sukhdeo.There were two betel leaf shops nearby one belonging to Sita Bam and the other to Matai.These persons also came out of their shops and saw the occurrence.It was alleged that Panaru had a lathi and Ghurey had a spear.One empty eke was coming from the north.Sukhdeo was seated in the ekka and taken to Bearable and from there wag taken to the police station Adalhat.Sukhdeo himself lodged the first information report at the police station at 10 a. m. As his condition was serious he was taken to Abraura for medical examination.L. Sharma, Medical Officer in charge of Ahraura dispensary, examined his injuries at 1-80 p. m,, and also got his dying declaration recorded in the dispensary at about 2 p. m. Sukhdeo died while the dying declaration was being recorded at 2-sop m.The injury report prepared by Dr. S. L. Sharma, Medical Officer in charge of Ahraura dispensary, showed thirteen injuries on the person of Sukhdeo.One was a compound fracture ; seven were punctured wounds two were convulsions ; and three were contused wounds.In the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Vishwanatb Singh in charge of the Chunar dispensary, only twelve in juried could be detected; one was a contused wound ; seven were punctured wounds; three were incised wounds; and one was ft bruise.It appears that what Dr. S. L. Sharma bad noted as contused wounds were, in the Opinion of Dr. Vishwanath Singh, really incised wounds, Thus, according to the post mortem examination, at the most, two injuries could be said to have been inflicted by a lathi, i. e., the Contused wound on the head and the braise on the left knee.The incised and punctured wounds were on the eye-brows, elbow, right forearm, left leg, left ankle, and left hand.Death was due to Shock and haemorrhage produced by the multiple injuries, especially the injuries on the right arm and elbow.It will be noticed that though there was no punctured or incised wound on a vital part of the body, yet death was caused very soon after the incident, on account of shock and haemorrhage produced by the multiple injuries.The defence of both the appellants was that they did not beat Sukhdeo and that they bad been implicated on account of enmity.That there was previous enmity between Dayal, father of Panaru appellant, and the deceased Sukbdeo has been amply proved upon the record.The prosecution case is that Panaru, Ghurey and Baghunath beat Sukbdeo to death on account of this enmity.In support of the prosecution case two sets of witnesses were examined.Lakban, Bhaggal, Sita Bam, Matai and Mustafa Shah were .the eye witnesses of the occurrence: while Bam Subbag, Laobman and Bishwanatb were witnesses to prove the previous enmity and the motive for the crime.We have gone through the entire evidence on record and have come to the same conclusion ourselves as did the learned Sessions Judge, namely, that the appellants attacked Sukhdeo in the manner alleged by the prose, cution and that the defence version is untrue, (His Lordship reviewed the evidence and continued,)So far as Ghurey is concerned, the multiple injuries inflicted by him with a spear were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death or, at any rate, were such as were likely to cause death.Since there were only two injuries which could have been inflicted by a lathi, Panaru could have given, at the most, two lathi blows.Panaru and Gburey were both going towards the place which the deceased was expected to reach, One of them was armed with a deadly weapon, namely, a spear, and the other was armed with a lathi, They had previous enmity with the deceased. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
139,013,425 | In all the cases when he was enlarged on bail by the Court, he was required to respect the law and not get himself involved in any other case.But he has violated the terms and conditions of the bail orders.There are two cases u/s 307 and other sections of I.P.C. registered against him wherein also, he has violated the terms and conditions of the order.Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, Sri D.N. Joshi and Sri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsels for the applicant; Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Farhan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1212 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 447, 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.The allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicant are that the informant purchased land of Gata No. 92 situated in village- Gayasuddinpur Uparhar, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Prayagraj and on 8.11.2019 at 11 a.m., he was digging his plot for raising boundaries when the applicant along with six unknown persons came with illegal arms and demanded illegal money of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Gunda Tax) from the informant and threatened him of life.There are two cases registered against the applicant regarding threat and abduction to commit murder of witness wherein also he was released on bail on the condition that he will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of crime after release on bail but he has violated the conditions.The applicant has committed several offences of extortion earlier also one being Case Crime No. 482 of 2011 u/s 504, 506, 386, 387 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Prayagraj and the same is the story in this case.The applicant snatched AK-47 rifle of the gunner of the S.P. Sadar and badly assaulted him.However, the police has submitted final report in the same.The applicant was involved in a case of gang rape also being Case Crime No. 341 of 2017 and after the mother of the victim filed a Criminal Misc.He was involved in triple murder of Raju Pal and his associates along with his gang leader, Atiq Ahmed and the F.I.R. in this regard was lodged as Case Crime No. 34 of 2005 at Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad.In the aforesaid murder case, a bail cancellation application was moved against the applicant but it was rejected by this Court.The applicant is companion of Atiq Ahmed and has scant respect for law and has violated the conditions of bail with impunity.He has finally submitted that keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the accused-applicant and the fact that he had violated the conditions of the bail orders granted by this Court, there is no ground made out for enlarging the applicant on bail.Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is a person whose release on bail would again affect the public order and he will again pose potential threat to the society.The applicant has not brought on record the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police nor the site plan of the scene of occurrence.When the victim's statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she stated that she filed affidavit against the applicant on the undue pressure of the police. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
139,064,984 | Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A.No.3731/2017 which is an application under Section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant- Mohan S/o Kishanlal.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during trial.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After going through the impugned judgment, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 25.10.2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.C.C.as per rules.(ALOK VERMA) | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
139,098,785 | "That you Smt. Rekha Nambiar being the wife of A-1 Ramesh Nambiar, and you A-3 Bhojraj Teli being the person In-charge of M/s. HYT Group of Companies during the period 14.10.1991 to 26.02.2010 instigated / intentionally aided by your acts and illegal omissions Shri Ramesh Nambiar acquiring assets to the tune of Rs.2,08,38,172.62 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereby abetted the commission of offence u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Ramesh Nambiar and thereby committed offence u/s 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13 (1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and within my cognizance and jurisdiction."Since, both the petitions arise from the same order, this Court has decided to dispose of these petitions by way of this common judgment.The case against the petitioners was registered on 22.02.2010, on the basis of a source information, against accused No.1/Ramesh Nambiar, husband of accused No. 2 Rekha Nambiar (petitioner in W.P.(CRL) No. 1432/2014 ) along with accused No. 3 Bhojraj Teli (petitioner in CRL.M.C. No. 4781/2014) Managing Director of M/s. HYT Group of Companies, Naveen Patil and Rekha Nambiar under Sections 13 (2) read with Section W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 2 of 45 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') on the allegations that accused Ramesh Nambiar while posted and functioning as AGM (Sport), Air India at New Delhi and other places, being a public servant, amassed assets worth about Rs.2,39,21,165/- during the period from 14.10.1991 to 30.06.1999 in his name, in the name of his wife, i.e., petitioner Rekha Nambiar and his family members, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 2 of 45The matter was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI'), whereby it was disclosed that accused Ramesh Nambiar joined Air India on 14.10.1991 as Sport Assistant at New Delhi.During the entire period of his office, he remained posted in Sport Division at Delhi in different capacities.During the period from September, 1995 to March, 1996, he remained posted as Assistant Private Secretary to the then Minister of State for Railways on deputation.Subsequently, during the period from March, 1998, he remained posted as Additional Private Secretary to the then Textile Minister on deputation.Thereafter, he was promoted as AGM (Sports) on 01.04.2009 and has been continuing as such since then.It was further disclosed that Ramesh Nambiar married to petitioner Rekha Nambiar on 15.09.1994, daughter of late Sh.During 2001, Sh.Gopalan went to Sharjah and worked there as Banking Consultant and thereafter worked in Real Estate business at Dubai and had income apart W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 3 of 45 from his pension.W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 3 of 45Accordingly, the investigation disclosed that source of income of accused Ramesh Nambiar was salary including perks, income from selling house property, income as interest on Bank accounts and dividend, income from investment etc. The source of income of petitioner Rekha Nambiar was salary from Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank, income from selling house property, income as interest from Bank accounts, dividend income from investment and consultancy fee etc. The income of Master Rishab Nambiar, son of accused Ramesh Nambiar is from interest on his Bank accounts and dividend income from investment.Thus, the total income of accused Ramesh Nambiar, his wife petitioner Rekha Nambiar and his son Master Rishab Nambiar from all sources comes to the tune of Rs.1,67,03,318.37/- as detailed in Annexure - IV enclosed with the chargesheet.Investigation further disclosed that petitioner Rekha Nambiar had abetted in acquiring the disproportionate assets by accused Ramesh Nambiar by receiving an amount of Rs.1,04,07,829/- as consultancy fee from accused No.3/Bhojraj Teli, Managing Director of M/s. HYT Group of Companies and creating assets out of the same, though she had not done any real consultancy work for petitioner Bhojraj Teli.Similarly, petitioner Bhojraj Teli abetted the offence in acquiring the disproportionate assets by accused W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 4 of 45 Ramesh Nambiar by paying the above amount as consultancy fees etc. to petitioner Rekha Nambiar without her having rendered any real consultancy and by allowing his credit card to be used by said accused Ramesh Nambiar and by making payments by cheque for expenditure of accused Ramesh Nambiar and his family members without proper justification.W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 4 of 45The case of the CBI is that about 15 to 20 years back, petitioner Bhojraj Teli came in contact with accused Ramesh Nambiar and his wife petitioner Rekha Nambiar and developed friendly relations with them.Initially, he went to the office of the Minister of State for Railways along with Shantaram Potdhuke, the then MP from Maharashtra as a courtesy meeting as Sh.Suresh Kalmadi, the then Minister of State for Railways belongs to Maharashtra.Subsequently, petitioner Bhojraj Teli used to meet accused Ramesh Nambiar in his office of Railways whenever he visited the Railway Board in connection with his business of supply of machines of Indian Railways etc. Petitioner Bhojraj Teli used to receive orders for supply of machines through various Railway Zones from 1981 onwards.It is further case of the CBI that name of M/s. Archana Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Naveen Patil figured in the FIR that accused Ramesh Nambiar obtained unlawful commission through petitioner Bhojraj Teli of M/s. HYT Group of Companies in the name of consultancy fee for his wife and routed W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 5 of 45 the same through M/s. Archana Traders Pvt. Ltd., wherein Naveen Patil and parents-in-law of accused Ramesh Nambiar were the major shareholders/Directors.Accordingly, the charge against Ramesh Nambiar was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) PC Act. As far as petitioner Bhojraj Teli is concerned, the learned Trial Court recorded that his role in this case is that he is connected with the payment of W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 7 of 45 consultancy charges / fee to petitioner Rekha Nambiar which itself is to be established during the trial.W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 7 of 45Naveen Patil and his father-in-law are the major share holders / Directors.Respondent No.3 was its General Manager.By way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), both the petitioners have challenged the order on charge dated 01.05.2014 and order dated 26.05.2014 whereby charges against the petitioners were framed as under:After the cross-examination, PW-10 was treated as hostile with the permission of the Trial Court.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 32 of 45It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to hold mini trial and delve deep into the matter for the purposes of appreciating the evidence and the evidence can only be weighed when the entire material will be brought before the Trial Court.The Court was required to see at the time of framing charge whether a strong suspicion exists for commission of the offence.The Trial Court found prima facie case against the petitioner, accordingly framed charges."I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Moreover, petitioner Rekha Nambiar had also disclosed the income received from M/s HYT Group of Companies in her ITRs, however the learned Trial Court has ignored both the documents mentioned above and opined that these documents are matter of trial.W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 43 of 45If there is no case made out against the petitioners, then why they should face the trial, which will definitely go for years together.The petitioners will also have to face the trauma of trial without having committed any offence by them.In addition to above, witnesses K.B.Surve (PW3), Satish B Sakpal (PW5), C.B. Arora-Income Tax Officer (PW8) and Roop Chand (PW12) all establish income of petitioner Rekha Nambiar.However, the learned Trial Court has ignored all these evidences and framed charges against the petitioners.In view of the above discussion and settled law, I am of the considered opinion that order on charge dated 01.05.2014 and charge dated 26.05.2014 have been passed by the learned Trial Court without application W.P.(Crl.) 1432-2014 & Crl.M.C. 4781-2014 Page 44 of 45 of mind by ignoring the clinching evidence available on record in favour of the petitioners. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
139,127,747 | As per the prosecution story, Javed along with co-accused Sanni Chouhan, Rahil Abbasi, Bhavin, Kevel, Sandu and Sharukh have closed their call centre in Ahmadabad in the month of August, 2018 and thereafter shifted to Indore.They established international call centre at PU-4, Scheme No.54, Vijay Nagar, Indore.They employed young boys and girls mainly belonging to the State of Gujrat and North Eastern States for calling to the USA citizens.In the call centre Javed and other co-accused used to threat the USA citizens by way of calls through social security numbers and extracted money.-2- MCRC NO.27481/2019 used to send voice messages to 10,000 contacts per day.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.105/2019 registered at Police Station, Cyber Cell, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B/34 IPC and under section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.After receiving the message they used to give a return call to the callers through employees and used to have conversation with them.They used to threat them in respect of blocking their social security numbers.They were also found involved in transfer of 60% of the illegal income by way of Hawala.The aforesaid offence came to the knowledge of Cyber Cell, Bhopal and the criminal case was registered against Javed and others.All the employees working in the centres have also been made accused because they had a knowledge about their nature of job which is illegal and punishable offence under the IPC and IT Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are unemployed youth.They came to Indore in search of job and they got employment in the call centre and they had no knowledge that they are being used in illegal activities and nothing has been recovered from them.Even the main accused in his statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act did not disclose anything against them.The investigation is almost complete.The applicants are in custody since 10.06.2019 and their custody is no more required for further investigation, hence prays for release of the applicants on bail.Shri Pavan Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by submitting that no case has been registered against applicant No.3 Tongatomonk Yimlonk and his name is not in the FIR.The applicants were also equally involved in the-3- MCRC NO.27481/2019 commission of offence as per the material collected against them, therefore, prays for rejection of the application.It is not in dispute that all the applicants were employed in the call centre on salary basis by main accused Javed and others.There is no material against them except that they were working in the call centre.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available against them, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.The applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties (out of which one local surety) of Rs.50,000/- each 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)C.c as per rules.(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2019.07.10 14:10:56 +05'30' hk/ | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
139,182,040 | For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Let the record of the court below be sent for.The appeal is admitted for hearing.Also heard on IA No. 4477/2016, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148 of Indian Penal Code to undergo one year (each) of simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- (each), under Section326/149 of Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment of three years (each) and fine of Rs. 2000/- (each) and under Section 232/149 (three counts) to under go simple imprisonment of six months (each) and fine of Rs. 500 (three counts).It is further submitted that appellants have deposited the fine amount.Learned Panel Lawyer was unable to dispute the aforesaid fact.In view of the aforesaid submissions and the fact that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future, I deem it appropriate to suspend the jail sentence imposed on the CRA.485/2016 Bunty Jaat and Ors.State of M.P.Accordingly, without commenting on merits, this application (I.A.No.4477/2016 ) is allowed.It is directed that execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Bunty Jaat, Bhoore Singh, Amod Singh, Akash @ Bhonda, Pramod Singh and Devendra Singh shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1 s t September, 2016 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Registry of this Court in that regard.Certified copy as per rules.(Alok Aradhe) Vacation Judge sarathe | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,847,644 | ap C.R.M. 4495 of 2017 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.05.2017 in connection with Sankarail Police Station Case No. 22 of 2017 dated 26.03.2017 under Sections 342/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code and read with under Section 08 of the Protection of Children form Sexual OfficesAnd In re: Soumen Hembram. ... Petitioner Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya....... for the petitioner Mr. Arindam Sen. .... for the State This application for bail is released from our list since the matter falls within the determination of the learned Single Judge.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,385,228 | 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,854,615 | The appellant herein, is the first accused in S.C.No.317 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC III ) Chennai.Case was registered by the respondent police against 5 persons and a juvenile for offences under sections 147 ,148, 341, 307, 324 and 506 IPC.The appellant herein is the first accused.On 13/02/2011 at about 12.00 pm, due to previous enmity, when the appellant herein was constructing a shop near his house, Tilak Raj (PW-1) the neighbouring house owner objected.First there was a wordy quarrelhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 between them.Later, the appellant and his relatives came with dangerous weapons and attacked Tilak Raj (P.W.1) and his family members who gathered there.In the said fight, A-1 and the split up accused Venkatesan (Juvenile) attacked Tilagaraj ( PW-1) with knife.Tilagaraj sustained grievous injury on the head. A-2 and A-4 attacked Gemini ( PW-6) the mother of Tilagaraj.She sustained simple injuries over her body.A-5 attacked Lazer ( PW-2).4.PW-1 reported the incident to the police.Based on his complaint, the first information report was registered in Crime No.130 of 2011 against 6 persons including the appellant herein.Venkatesan was shown as split up acacused being a juvenile at the time of occurrence.The trial Court convicted the first accused/the appellant herein for offence under section 326 IPC and the second accused for offence under section 324 IPC.Rest of the accused persons were acquitted.The second accused did not prefer appeal.2.The trial Court sentenced the first accused/appellant herein to undergo five years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for offence under 326 IPC though he was charged and tried for offence under section 307 IPC.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.On completion of the investigation, the respondent filed final report.Based on the report, the trial Court framed charges under sections 147 , 148, 341, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.5.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 11).12 exhibits (Exs.P.1 to P.12) and three material objects (M.Os.1 to 3) were marked.Held the offence committedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 by A-1 is punishable under section 326 IPC and also found A2 guilty of offence under 324 IPC.The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the above said sentence and conviction.6.The learner counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that when the appellant was constructing a shop behind his house, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) along with family members armed with weapons restrained the appellant from putting up construction since, it will affect their business.PW-1's mother Gemini (PW-6), his uncle Lazar (PW-2) and others came and assaulted Sakthivel A-4 and others.In the fight, free for all, PWs-1 and 6 sustained injuries.PW6 Gemini assaulted wife of the first accused.Without registering their complaint, the Police has taken up the defacto complainant case which is an exaggerate version to escape from the criminal prosecution.7.The prosecution witnesses does not corroborate the substantiated charges.The sole independent witness - PW-4 has turned hostile.Even amonghttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 them, there is no consistency.While PW-1 has deposed that A-2 and A-4 attacked his mother PW-6, the injured witness - PW-6 had said that all the accused attacked her (P.W.6) all over the body.The recovery of material objects from the residence of the accused is unbelievable, since, all the accused are not staying in one place.They all reside at different places.Since, the evidence of PWs-1 and are exaggerated, the trial Court itself has not believed the case of the prosecution, implicating all the accused.Due to the embellishment and falsehood, the conviction against first accused/appellant should also be set aside.8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that due to previous enmity, the accused persons attacked PW-1 and others.The Learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that PWs-1, 2 and 6 are the injured witnesses.PWs-3 and 4 are the witnesses who saw the occurrence.9.Dr Thanikaimani PW- 9 has opined that the injury sustained by PW-1 is grievous in nature.The nature of the injuries, the weapon used and the ocular evidence of the injured witnesses clearly establishes and proves the guilt of the accused, particularly, the appellant herein.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant has to be confirmed.10.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side).11.The contention of the appellant is that the prosecution case bristle with contradiction and infirmity.Pointing the contradiction between the evidence of PW -1 and PW -6 regarding the assailant and nature of injury sustained through them, the learned counsel for the appellant submit that their evidence is unbelievable and exaggerated.Magistrate has noticed one of the accused Sakthivel (A-4) with bandage over his left shoulder.She has interrogated that accused about the injury.The wound certificate along with the remand request indicates that A-4 was treated as outpatient at KMC Hospital on 1.11.2011 for the injury sustained on his shoulder due to fall from two wheeler.Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries found on one of the accused person (A.4) not explained by the prosecution and in the free for all fight between two groups one among the accused sustained injury appears to be not correct.13.The trial Court after due consideration of the evidence before it, has found few embellishments and exaggerations in the case of the prosecution.The fact that the injured witnesses gone to the place of accused objected him putting up construction and had invited trouble for themselves has beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 recorded by the trial Court.In view of that, the trial Court after removing the grain from the sheaf had acquitted all other accused of all charges and also acquitted A-1 and A-2 from all other charges except 326 IPC and 324 IPC respectively.14.While convicting A-2 for offence under 324 IPC the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- and imprisonment till rising of the court. A-1 the appellant herein sentenced to undergo 5 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 3 months simple Imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the punishment imposed on A-1 is excessive considering his age and the overt act alleged against him.He would also submit that the appellant is now in sick bed and will not sustain incarceration.15.The trial Court has held that there was no intention or knowledge to cause death and the fight has taken place in a fit of anger, therefore, tried the appellant for offence under section 307 IPC, held guilty only for offence under section 326 IPC.The embellishment and exaggerations in the prosecution case has led to acquittal of other accused and the appellant from the charge of unlawful assembly.It is true that the prosecution case is based on the evidence of the interested witnesses.16.In the light of the above proved fact, while confirming the judgement of the Court below, the sentence imposed on the appellant for offence under Section 326 I.P.C., is modified as under taking note of facts and circumstances of the case.Therefore, sentence of simple imprisonment for a term of 5 years and fine of Rs 1000/- in default 3 months simple imprisonment is modified as the period of imprisonment already undergone.The fine amount and default sentence stands confirmed.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.22.03.2019 jbm Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 101.The District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.3.The Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Pre Delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.No.615 of 2011 22.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,807 | ORDER Raghubar Dayal, J.Sumer was convicted by the Temporary Sessions Judge of Hamirpur at Orai of the offence under Section 412, Penal Code, and was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment.They were identified to be stolen property. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,856 | Accused Raghubirsingh had claimed title over the same, and 15 to 20 days before the date of occurrence he had restrained the informant to come upon the disputed land.On 2-9-1981 when the informant after leaving his oxen near a pond was coming back, the accused persons met him near a Pipal tree.Accused Bhagbalsingh caught hold of his hands and accused Raghubir gave him blows with an axe on his chest for which he bled profusely.The assault was witnessed by Mohansingh, Sukhalal and Bakhatasingh.The Chowkidar of the village, in order to control the bleeding tied a cloth on his wound.JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Thereafter the informant along with Gajrajsingh and Mukundsingh went to Narayavali police station and lodged F.I.R. On police requisition he was sent to the hospital where he was treated.X-ray plates of the wound were taken and they showed that there was a fracture of the bone of the right clavicle.There was seizure of the blood stained shirt (Ex.P. 4) in presence of witnesses.The axe, weapon used for assault, was seized under Ex.After completing necessary formalities charge-sheet was submitted to the competent Court on 19-10-1981, for offence under Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons-respondents.The plea of defence was one of complete denial and false implication.Their further plea was that informant Karansingh fell on his plough and had sustained the injuries.The prosecution to bring home the charges examined as many as 11 witnesses.l, 2 and 4; namely Mohansingh, Bakhatasingh and Sukhalal were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution; P.W.3 is the informant himself; P.W. 5 Govindsingh and P.W. 6 Gulabrani were examined as other eye-witnesses.P.Ws.7, 8 and 11 are the formal witnesses; P.W.9 is the Head Constable; and P.W.10 is the Assistant Surgeon who had examined the informant.Apart from the oral evidence the prosecution brought series of the documents on record.The defence examined one Rajendrasingh in support of its stand.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Magistrate came to hold that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of the defence was more believable and therefore, the accused persons were entitled to an order of acquittal and accordingly he acquitted the accused persons of the charge.He has also taken exception to the omission of this aspect in the statement of Karansingh before the police under Ex.He has also found discrepancies with regard to the manner of assault.Discrepancies relating to the time of occurrence as stated by various witnesses has also weighed with him.The learned Magistrate has also taken into consideration the non-support of the prosecution version by the independent witnesses and the reliance of the prosecution on the witnesses who are interested in the prosecution, because of their close relationship with the informant.Emphasis has also been laid on the non-seizure of the earth from the spot and non-sending of the weapon for chemical examination.We have scanned the evidence with utmost anxiety.On a perusal of F.I.R., Ex.The reason given by the learned trying Magistrate is quite unreasonable, for a rustic and illiterate villager is not expected to speak precisely in regard to time.The reason indicated for not accepting the evidence of Gulabrani, P.W.6 is that she had accepted in cross-examination that she was not able to see beyond 3 yards.This reason is not convincing inasmuch as the presence of Gulbarani has been mentioned in the FIR from the very beginning.It has been stated that hearing the cry of the informant she had rushed to the spot which was nearby.P.W. 10, the Doctor, who had examined him, had found an injury of 3"x 1" x 1 1/2" on the right side of the chest and has noticed that right clavicle was cut at medial end and the depth was more at upper and less at the lower end.He had advised for x-ray and further treatment.X-ray report and x-ray plates have also been brought on record as Ex.P.12 and Ex.From Ex.Furthermore, the testimony of that informant with regard to existence of dispute pertaining to the land is beyond reproach.The discrepancies in evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W.5 and inconsistencies with regard to the time of occurrence are too trivial to affect the prosecution case, more so, when the injured-informant has stood imbedded in his version and has deposed in details with utmost clarity with regard to the occurrence. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,889,695 | Shri Pramod Sharma, Advocate for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.149/2012 registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364 (A), 120- B, 302 of IPC and sections 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K.Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was released on anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.2.2014 in M.Cr.C.No.578/2014, where the offence under section 364 of IPC was added in the list of offence.Thereafter the police has added section 302 of IPC in the present case, and therefore, the Trial Court is inclined to arrest the applicant due to enhancement of crime.It is further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was found in the year 2012 itself and the crime which was committed was in the knowledge of the police as well as of the Court, but mischievously police is adding some sections one by one to harass the applicant.Under such circumstances the applicant prayed for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,892,222 | And Re: Mahabook Sk.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code by the wife of the victim.Apparently the victim called his wife on the mobile phone to say that the petitioner herein was one of the persons assaulting him.The State also submits that the petitioner has been on the run for more then three years.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,935 | JUDGMENT Govinda Menon, J.Agreeing with the majority verdict of 3 to 2 of the jury, the learned Assiatant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly Division at Tutioorin, convicted the appellant of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397, Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.Having carefully gone through the learned Judge's charge to the jury, the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Public Prosecutor and myself were not able to find any oiroumstance vitiating the charge, The learned Judge has clearly and concisely put before the jury the law on the point and explained to them the sections of the Penal Code which have application to the case. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,338,947 | JUDGMENT R.L. Gupta, J.Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.L for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default suffer further Ri for six months under section 467, Indian Penal Code, and for 2 years under Section 411, IPC.The sentences were made to run concurrently under both the counts.(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State.According to the learned ASJ.the age of the appellant in 1974 when he pleaded not guilty to the charg(r) was 27 years.I have carefully considered this argument. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,898,932 | DATE : 17th JUNE, 2019 P.C. :Heard learned counsel for the parties.By this second bail application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No. 342 of 2015 registered with the Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 504, 447, 506(ii) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 :::Vide the said order, the learned Sessions Judge was directedto complete the trial within nine months.Since there is no progress in thetrial, this application is heard on merits.4. Perused the papers.According to the First Informant - VijayWaigankar, the incident took place on 22nd June, 2015 at about 10.00 p.m. Itis alleged by the First Informant, that there was a quarrel betweenDhananjay Mandavkar and the applicant, with regard to the employment ofsome workers; that in the quarrel, the applicant started abusing Dhananjayand thereafter pulled out a sword, concealed in his clothes and assaultedDhananjay with the sword on his head, pursuant to which, Dhananjay's leftear was cut; that when the applicant again assaulted Dhananjay,Dhananjay obstructed the said blow with his hand, pursuant to which, hesuffered an injury on his finger.According to the First Informant, when hetried to intervene the applicant also assaulted him with a sword.OneVishnu Barey, office boy, also sustained an injury, when he intervened in ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 ::: 3/5 25-ba.3413.2018.docthe quarrel.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 :::Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicanthas been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the same is evidentfrom the statements of some of the witnesses.He submitted that thestatements show that the incident had taken place on 10th June, 2015 and noton 22nd June, 2015, as alleged.Similarly, some of the statements show thatthe applicant has not been named by the said witnesses.According to the learned APP, the applicant being a Gundafrom the area, there used to be regular quarrels and incidents such as this.He submitted that aforesaid offence was committed by the applicant, whilston bail in another offence i.e. C.R.No.471 of 2014, registered with theDindoshi Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections307, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.He further submitted that 110proceedings were also initiated as against the applicant.A perusal of the injury certificate of Vishnu Barey, office boy,shows that Vishnu was operated on 23rd June, 2015 by Dr.Bimal Mody in an ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 ::: 4/5 25-ba.3413.2018.docemergency re-implantation of left thumb, bone, artery and FPL tendo wasdone along with tendon repair of the right ring and little finger with repairof laceration repair of left ear pinna with repair of laceration of right middlefinger and left elbow.The Final Diagnosis is stated as 'Near totalamputation of left thumb, laceration at the posterior aspect of left pinna ofthe ear, tendon injury of right ring and little fingers, laceration on rightmiddle finger and left elbow.' The injury certificate of DhananjayMandavkar shows that he had sustained an injury on his head and on hisfinger.The injury certificate of the First Informant - Waigankar shows thathe too has received an injury over parietal region and shoulder.The injurycertificates are consistent with the statements of the injured and the FirstInformant.The applicant has committed the aforesaid offence whilst onbail in a 307 case.If the applicant is enlarged on bail, the possibility of theapplicant tampering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses cannotbe ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 :::However, the trial of the applicant is expedited.Thelearned Judge to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 ::: 5/5 25-ba.3413.2018.docpreferably within 9 months from the date of receipt of this order.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 01:29:31 :::Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected anddisposed of as such.It is made clear that the observations made herein are primafacie for deciding the aforesaid application, and the learned Judge shalldecide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced bythe observations made in this order. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,899,188 | Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Mr. Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate for the complainant and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.186 of 2017, under Sections 354A, 307, 376 IPC, Police Station Ataria, District Sitapur.In this case initially F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 354, 307 IPC.It is stated that on 22.09.2017 prosecutrix had gone for cutting grass in the field.At about 1.00 P.M. there the applicant dragged the prosecutrix by catching her hands.When she opposed applicant inflicted injuries with sickle due to which she sustained injuries on her hand and neck.Then this F.I.R. was lodged.When the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 04.10.2017 even then no allegation of rape was made.When the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.10.2017 allegation of rape was made.This Court vide order dated 19.12.2018 had directed the applicant to file statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial court.Today through supplementary affidavit copy of the statement and the medical report has been filed.In her statement prosecutrix has stated that the applicant had raped her.In the medical report there were four lacerated wounds found on chin and other parts of the body.Except injury nos. 1 & 2 other injuries were found simple in nature.However, later on after X-ray doctor opined that injury Nos. 1 & 2 were simple in nature.In her statement before the trial court the prosecutrix has stated that after coming from the field she had narrated entire story to her Jeth, thereafter to her husband but in the F.I.R. the allegation of rape is not there.It is also submitted that the injuries caused are simple in nature.Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.Let applicant (Gyanendra Yadav) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :- | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,339,052 | 1 Members of the accused and complainant party areclose relatives.In order to properly appreciate therelationship, the pedigree of the family is reproduced: 2 3 4 On 13.11.1977 a violent incident is alleged to havetaken place between the accused and members of thecomplainant party, namely, Moti, Gharroo and his sons overshare in plot No.165/2 measuring 1.88 decimals situated inVillage Shivpurwa, P.S. Manduadih, District Varanasi.It isadmitted case of the parties that Chhakkoo and his brotherPanchu were original tenure holders of the said plot alongwith some other plots.According to the prosecution, the disputed plotNo.165/2 is divided into two portions.One-third portiontowards north has been in possession of the accusedpersons since the time of their father Lalloo while the two-third portion towards south is in the joint cultivation of Motiand Gharroo.There is a Merh between the portion in theoccupation of the accused and that in the possession ofMoti and Gharroo.On 13.11.1977 at about 7.00 a.m. Tilakdhari PW.1and his father Gharroo went to their portion of the plot indispute along with the bullocks to plough the land.Immediately after they had started ploughing, all theaccused persons arrived there.Accused Banne aliasBaijnath and Binne alias Viswanath were armed with iron 7 rods while the other accused Nanhe alias Narain, Bhola andRamji were armed with sticks.The accused persons askedTilakdhari, PW1 and his father to get out of the field.Theyrefused to do so saying that the said portion of the field hasbeen in their possession for a long time and that they wouldcontinue to plough it.Thereupon the accused Banne aliasBaijnath instigated other accused persons to assaultTilakdhari and his father and drive them away, whereuponGharroo ran towards the house of Khatkhat in theneighbourhood.Hearing the hue and cry raised on thespot, Amardhari, Shangoo and Jagga arrived at the spot.The accused Ramji gave a lathi blow to Amardhari whoconsequently fell down because of the impact of blow.Banne alias Baijnath gave a thrust with the iron rod in theabdomen which punctured the abdomen of Amardhari.Theintestine of Amardhari protruded out through the woundand he also fell down.Sahangoo was attacked by Ramji,Bhole and Nanhe with lathis.He received lacerated woundson his head.He ran towards the house of Sahdeo and fell 8 down at his doorstep.Tilakdhari PW1 was also given blowsby the accused persons.The case of the accused persons is that the membersof the complainant party tried to forcibly dispossess themand in their right of private defence some injuries werecaused to the members of the complainant party.Tilakdhari PW1 dictated a written report Ex. Ka.He took Sahangoo, Amardhari to P.S.Manduadih where he submitted the written report Ex. Ka.1,in terms of which chick FIR Ex. Ka. 13 was prepared and acase was registered in the general diary.This appeal is directed against the judgment of theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad delivered in CriminalAppeal No.1358 of 1980 dated 1st February, 2000 by whichthe High Court had acquitted all the five accused who wereconvicted and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. underSection 147 I.P.C., three years R.I. under Section 307/149I.P.C. three months R.I. under Section 323/149 and toimprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section149 I.P.C. by the trial court.In a suit under Section 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act,Moti, Gharroo and Lalloo obtained one half share in thejoint Khata while the other half share went to descendantsof Panchu, namely, Vinayak and others.Lalloo, Moti andGharroo have since been recorded as co-tenure holders ofthe aforesaid plot along with other plots.Lalloo claimed one half share while according to Motiand Gharroo all the three daughters' sons Lalloo, Moti andGharroo had equal share.Thereafter the suit wasproceeded in the revenue court.The suit was ultimately restored on 6 21.2.1979 on the application of Moti and decided in hisfavour on 25.2.80 against which the appeal has been filedby the accused persons which is still pending.After the death of Lalloo, his five sons succeeded to theproperty.1 toSitaram on the spot.Sahangoo, Amardhari and Tilakdhari were escorted toS.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi, where they were examined fortheir injuries by Dr. A.K. Dwivedi at 8.45 A.M., 9.00 A.M.and 12.00 noon respectively.Sahangoo succumbed to theinjuries at 5.45 P.M. on the same day in S.S.P.G. Hospital,Varanasi and died.Inquest of the dead body was performed 9 by Ram Chandra Pandey S.I. on 14.11.1977 at 8.00 A.M.Dr.Narsingh Sharma, Medical Officer Incharge S.V.M.V.Government Hospital, Varanasi conducted post-mortemexamination on the dead body of Sahangoo at the mortuaryon 14.11.1977 at 2.30 P.M. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on his dead body.Lacerated wound 6= cm x = bone deep on the right side crown of head, 7 cm above right eyebrow.Contusion 10 cm x 4 cm on the back of right forearm, 2 cm above wrist joint, right Ulna bone fractured.Abrasion 4 cm x = cm on the outer aspect of upper part of right thigh.Abrasion 2-= cm x 2 cm on the right shoulder top.Lacerated wound 2 cm x < cm muscle deep on the inner aspect left dorsum of foot, 2 cm above the root of left big toe.On internal examination, he found the right frontal andtemporal bones fractured and the right fronto-parietal suture 10 separated, brain was congested.Middle cranial fossa wasalso fractured.Amardhari received injuries and was hospitalised fortwo and a half months.The prosecution examined 10witnesses in support of its case.The trial court though noted the injuries which werereceived by the accused persons, but the prosecution has notexplained those injuries on the body of the accused.It is pertinent to mention that Dr. A.K. Dwivedi PW.8examined accused Vishwanath alias Binney and found thefollowing injuries on him:Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm right parietal, 12 cm from right ear.2. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm back of left knee.Dr. A.K. Dwivedi PW.8 also examined the injuries of accusedNarain alias Nanhey and found the following injuries 11Lacerated wound 4 cm x = cm x bone deep on right parietal, 6 cm above right ear.Lacerated wound 2 cm x = x bone right ring finger back.The same Doctor also examined accused Ramji alias Ramanon the same day and found the following injury.:Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone on left side parietal 14 cm from left ear.Dr. R.K. Singh, DW.1 medically examined accused Bholaand found the following injuries:-Contusion 5 cm x 4 cm on the dorsum of left palm with tenderness at the base of II metacarpal bone, skin over it bluish pink.Restricted movement of left index finger.X-ray of palm was advised.Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the left side of neck 6 cm below the left ear, skin bluish pink.Contusion 6 cm x 1- = cm on the back towards right side 6 cm below the right scapula.Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm right side chest over 7th rib below the right nipple.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the back towards right side 8 cm.below the right scapula.The trial court, on appraisal of evidence, came to thefindings that at the time of incident the prosecution partywas in peaceful possession of the land in question and withthe dismissal of suit the accused persons came thereforming an unlawful assembly to extend their possessionover half share and interfered in the peaceful possession ofGharroo and Moti in the southern portion of the plot.Theyfirst assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased andother victims on prosecution side and injuries on thedefence side were caused during the course of incident andaccording to the learned Sessions Judge, the defenceversion of the incident was false and accordingly, thelearned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced theappellants under various counts as stated in the earlier partof the judgment.13 The accused-appellants, aggrieved by the judgment ofthe Sessions Judge, filed an appeal before the High Court.The High Court re-examined the entire evidence and cameto a different conclusion.The main grievance which hasbeen articulated by the High Court is that though theinjuries received by the accused persons were noted by thetrial court, there was no explanation by the prosecutionabout those injuries.On careful examination of the injuriescaused to the accused the High Court observed that injurieson them (accused persons) were not superficial or minor orself-inflicted.According to the High Court, itwas the bounden duty and obligation of the prosecution tohave given explanation about the injuries of the accusedpersons.14 The High Court, on examination of the evidence onrecord, came to the conclusion that it is difficult to hold thatthe complainant party was in settled and peacefulpossession of 2/3 share of the plot in question on the dateof incident and there seems to be weight in the defenceargument that the accused party was in possession to theextent of 1/2 share and in any view of the matter there wasa bona fide dispute between the parties regarding theirshares and extent of possession.This finding gives twist tothe entire prosecution version and it is not clear as to whowere in fact the aggressors and whether the injuries causedby the accused persons to the complainant party were infact caused in their right of their private defence or not.The High Court also came to the conclusion that PW.3Sahadeo and PW.4 Narayan cannot be said to be totallyindependent witnesses as the defence had fileddocumentary evidence to show that Lalloo, the father of theaccused persons had lodged an FIR against these witnessesfor an offence under Section 308 IPC.These witnesses were, 15 therefore, also somewhat inimical to the accused personsand their evidence cannot be given due weight especiallywith regard to the use of Lathi and Danda by theprosecution witnesses, particularly when such an importantfact had not been stated by them in their statementsrecorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statementsbeing contradictory to each other with regard to the use ofDanda by the prosecution witness.The High Court arrivedat the conclusion that the injuries of the accused personshave not been satisfactorily explained.The High Court in the impugned judgment arrived at adefinite finding that it is highly doubtful that thecomplainant party was in exclusive possession of thedisputed land at the relevant time and witnesses SahadeoPW3 and Narayan PW4 cannot be considered to beindependent witnesses.A serious doubt has been cast onthe credibility of the prosecution version.The High Courtallowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and 16 sentence of the appellants and they were acquitted of theoffences charged for.The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court.ii) The High court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record.February 10, 2009 32 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,390,736 | Item No. 31And In the matter of: Debashis Chakraborty Petitioner- versus -The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No. 1244 of 2013 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections 498A/323/406 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and the other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,915,283 | C.C.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the trial Court.Also heard on I.A.No.8839/2015 which is first application under Section 397 read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant- Sachin S/o Amar Singh.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-The applicant is reported to be under custody after passing of the judgment by the appellate Court.After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17.03.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,375,834 | The allegation against the appellant was that he was a neighbour of the prosecutrix and he had committed rape at about 11 p.m. on 28th April, 2005, while she was sleeping along with her two younger sisters on the roof of their house.After committing rape, the appellant ran away and absconded and came back to his house on 1st May, 2005, when father of the prosecutrix got in touch with the police and an FIR was registered and the appellant was arrested.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses.However, the evidence of PW-3, the prosecutrix, and her parents PW-4, Mr. Ram Prakash and PW-5, Ms. Devki is most relevant and material.Prosecutrix PW-3 in her evidence has stated that the appellant was their neighbour and residing in an adjacent house.About 1 years back, the appellant had sent his wife and children to his native village and was living alone and he had an evil eye and used to make gestures after seeing the prosecutrix.On 28th April, 2005, in the morning, the appellant had made gestures by twinkling his eyes when the prosecutrix was standing in the courtyard.The prosecutrix informed her mother, who asked her to ignore the incident.On 28th April, 2005, the prosecutrix after meals went to the roof of their house along with two younger sisters to sleep.At night she found that the appellant was sleeping next to her and he started pressing the hand of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix tried to call her mother but the appellant gagged her mouth with a blanket and threatened her that if she tried to make noise, he would strangulate her.The appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.Thereafter, the prosecutrix started weeping loudly and the appellant jumped and went to the roof of his house.On hearing the prosecutrix, her parents came to the roof and she narrated the CRL.A. No. 469/2009 Page 2 whole incident.On 1st May, 2005, father of the prosecutrix called the police and the accused-appellant was apprehended.On 4th May, 2005, statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which is Exhibit PW-3/B. The prosecutrix was also medically examined in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi and her medical report is Exhibit PW-9/A. Her under garments Exhibit P-1 were also seized and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.PW-4, Mr. Ram Prakash, father of the prosecutrix in his evidence recorded on 9th March, 2006 has stated that prosecutrix was about 13 years old on the said date and the appellant-accused was their neighbour.He has further stated that after dinner her daughter, the prosecutrix had gone to sleep on the roof of their house along with Soni and Moni and at about 11.30 p.m. he went to the roof and saw that the appellant was running from the roof of their house.The prosecutrix had stated to him that the accused had come to the roof of their house and had laid down besides her and had pressed her hand and gagged her mouth with the blanket so that the prosecutrix could not raise any alarm.The prosecutrix had informed him that the appellant had committed rape.They tried to trace out Mr. Manoj but he had run away.The present appeal by Mr. Manoj Kumar is directed against judgment dated 3rd January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge convicting him for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short).By order dated 7th January, 2009, the appellant has been sentenced under Section 376 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with the stipulation that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant will undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.For offence under Section 506 of CRL.A. No. 469/2009 Page 1 the Code, the appellant has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.6. PW-5, Ms. Devki, mother of the prosecutrix in her evidence recorded on 12th April, 2006 has stated that the prosecutrix was about 13 years old as on the said date and she knows the appellant-Mr. Manoj, who was their neighbour.She has stated that on 28th April, 2005 in the morning hours the appellant had teased the prosecutrix, who had complained about his behaviour but she had asked her daughter to ignore the same.On 28th April, 2005, after taking dinner, the prosecutrix along with her two sisters Soni and Moni went to the roof of their house for sleeping.At about 11/12 CRL.A. No. 469/2009 Page 3 p.m., she heard the cries of daughter, the prosecutrix and she along with her husband rushed to the roof and saw that the accused had jumped on the roof of the adjoining house.The prosecutrix narrated that the appellant had come to the roof of their house and had committed rape.It was stated by her that the appellant was lying besides her and pressed her hand and had threatened to kill her in case she raised any alarm.Thereafter, the appellant was not traceable.On 1st May, 2005, the appellant was noticed in his residence and thereupon her husband informed the police.The prosecutrix was taken to hospital for examination and on the statement made by her daughter, a case was registered.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are material contradictions between the statement of the PW-3 prosecutrix, PW- 4 Mr. Ram Prakash and PW-5 Ms. Devki.However, in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, Exhibit PW-3/B the prosecutrix had stated that her mother had come to the roof after she had cried and she had narrated the entire incident.It is also pointed out that the father of the prosecutrix, PW-4 Mr. Ram Prasad had stated that at about 11.30 p.m. on 28th April, 2005 he had heard the daughter Soni crying, whereas as per the prosecutrix and as per PW-5 Ms. Devki, the prosecutrix had cried and both Soni and Moni, the two younger daughters were sleeping.The so-called discrepancies in the statement of PW-3, the prosecutrix, PW-4 Mr. Ram Prakash and PW-5 Ms. Devki are minor in nature.On the basic and material facts, the statement of the witnesses PW3 the prosecutrix and PW5, Ms. Devki is identical and similar.PW-3, the prosecutrix, who is the victim, has been clear and forthright in her statement CRL.A. No. 469/2009 Page 4 under Section 164 Exhibit PW-3/B as well as her statement recorded on oath at the time of trial.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who had recorded the statement under Section 164 Exhibit PW-3/B, has mentioned that the prosecutrix was mature and fully understood what she was stating.The fact that she had gone to sleep on the roof top along with her two younger sisters is also stated and affirmed by PW-5, Ms. Devki her mother.In her examination in chief in the Court PW-5 Ms. Devki had stated that she heard the prosecutrix crying and thereupon went upstairs and her daughter thereupon informed her about the entire episode.PW-4, Mr. Ram Prakash in his statement had stated that he heard daughter Soni crying but this minor difference in the testimony does not make any material difference to the case of the prosecution.It is possible that the witness PW- 4, Mr. Ram Prakash may not have realized who was crying as he was down stairs.In his cross examination he has stated that he heard his daughter weeping.Even if we ignore the statement of PW-4 Mr. Ram Prakash, the father, the statements of PW-3 prosecutrix and PW-5, the mother is sufficient to prove and establish the charge.Moreover, the statement of the prosecutrix victim herself, it is well settled, is sufficient to bring home and establish the charge against the appellant if the said statement is credible, reliable and trustworthy.Interestingly, in the cross-examination, counsel for the appellant had suggested that the appellant had gone to the roof to advise the prosecutrix that he did not want to tease her and to explain that he did not have any bad intention.The suggestions given to prosecutrix PW-3 in the cross-examination suggest/shows that the appellant Mr. Manoj had accepted his presence on the roof at about 11 p.m. and that he had got in touch with the prosecutrix.Both Soni and Moni did not get up at the time of said incident, though CRL.A. No. 469/2009 Page 5 as per the case of prosecution they were sleeping on the roof along with the prosecutrix.This does not mean that the case of the prosecution is false or doubtful.Both Soni and Moni as per the judgment were of 7 years and 5 years old at the time of incident, and may not have woken up.Keeping view of their young age they would not have understood what had happened and had not produced and appeared as witnesses.Moreover, the prosecutrix has stated that her mouth was gagged with blanket.As noted above, in the suggestions given to the prosecutrix the appellant-accused has admitted his presence on the roof at night and that he had spoken to the prosecutrix.As stated above, the prosecutrix was hardly about 13 years old at the time of the incident.There is no reason and cause for her to falsely implicate the appellant for the offence of rape, which in a conservative society unfortunately can have implications and affect on her personal and future life.It is difficult to believe and accept that she would have falsely implicated the appellant allegedly on the ground that there was a demarcation of property dispute between the appellant-Mr. Manoj and her father PW-4, Mr. Ram Prakash and for this reason, the prosecutrix had made a false allegation that she was raped.It defies human probabilities.No father could stoop so low as to bring forth a false charge of rape on his unmarried minor daughter with a view to take revenge from the father of an accused on account of pending civil litigation.Again, if the accused could be falsely involved on account of that enmity, it was equally possible that the accused could have sexually assaulted the prosecutrix to take revenge from her father, for after all, enmity is a double edged weapon, which may be used for false implication as well as to take revenge..."CRL.A. No. 469/2009 Page 6 Similarly in Wahid Khan versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9 it has been observed as under:- | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,385,037 | Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.67/2015 registered at Police Station Bhedaghat, District Jabalpur for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that main allegations for fabricating documents and distributing the loans to 21 persons on the basis of fake and forged documents have been made against the co-accused Harishankar Dubey who was the Manager of the Society and was already arrested by the police.The applicant- accused, who allegedly took loan from the society an amount of Rs.2,02,140/-, has not prepared any fake and forged documents.Apart from this, the applicant-accused is ready to deposit the said amount which was allegedly given by the bank in his name.On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused, submits that it is a case of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.44.23 lacs which was distributed by the Society Manager Harishankar Dubey in connivance with 21 persons who allegedly took loans in their names on the basis of fake and fabricated documents.The applicant-accused is also one of them who took the loan on the basis of fake and forged documents i.e. Rin M.Cr.C.14960/2015 Pustika.The said documents are to be verified during investigation because the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC have been registered against the applicant-accused and; if he is granted anticipatory bail, it would not be possible to collect material evidence during investigation for the heinous offences as 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.Therefore, on the basis of undertaking given by the applicant-accused, he should not be granted anticipatory bail.Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary.On perusal of the inquiry report dated 16.1.2015, it transpires that Harishankar Dubey, who was the Manager of the Society, distributed loans to 21 persons on the basis of fake and forged documents.The applicant-accused Praveen Kumar Usrete was one of them.He had also taken loan on the basis of forged rin pustika. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,387,592 | ( 13 /9/13) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/01/1997 was passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Session Trial No. 182/1992, whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 148 and 326 read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and 3 years respectively, whereas co-accused Gendabai and Devkiya Bai have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148 and 307/149 of the IPC.Admittedly, appellants and the complainant party are the members of the same family and property disputes are prevailing between them.Prosecution case, in brief, is that, a day prior to the date of incident, appellant no.1 Sukhlal had put a lock on the door of the house where cattle of complainant Hargovind (PW2) were housed.Next day, on 13/7/1992 at about 6.30 a.m., when Hiriabai (PW3), wife of Hargovind, brought a mash for the cattle, she found that appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively armed with Axes and Lathi 2 Cr.A. 304/97 were sitting in the courtyard, where co-accused Devkiya and Gendabai were also sitting.Appellant no.2 exhorted others to beat Hiriya, upon which Devkiya and Gendabai caught her hair and appellant no.1 dealt an Axe blow on her head, while appellant no.2 wielded the Axe on her legs.Hearing her screams, Villagers Ramesh Khare and Bhagwandas reached at the spot, while the appellants and the co-accused persons fled.Further, Ramprasad (PW6) after coming from the field informed that the appellants along with co- accused Nanhe Bhaiya (since dead) had also assaulted Kamlibai (PW4) with Axes and Lathis and appellant no.1 had twisted and broken his hand.According to him, appellant no.2 had inflicted Axe blow on his left hand due to which his fingers had got cut while appellant no.1 had dealt an Axe blow on his right hand.Report of the incident was lodged by complainant Hargovind at Police Outpost Ghuwara upon which Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/16) was recorded and sent to concerned Police Station Mangwa, where on 13/7/92, First Information Report (Ex.P/30) was recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and contended that they had been falsely implicated.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(B. D. RATHI) JUDGE 13/9/13 (and) | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,390,741 | Trial will take sufficient time for its conclusion and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application of the present applicant namely Krishna @ Kinha under Section 439 of Krishna @ Kinha vs State of M.P.2 M.Cr. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,390,844 | She wanted to marry with the applicant and told to her parents, but they refused by saying that she is minor, therefore, marriage could not be performed, then she along with the applicant elope and went to Shujalpur and thereafter Gujarat where they stayed for more than two years.She also became pregnant.Thereafter, she came to Panwadi, where Vishnu has committed sexual intercourse with her.In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., victim has categorically stated that she was having love affairs with applicant and wanted to marry with him.She told her parents, but they refused, then Vishnu asked her to elope.Thereafter, they went to Shujalpur and Gujarat, lived as husband and wife for more than two years.She also gave birth to a child, who died after birth.Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the victim and the age mentioned by father of the victim coupled with the fact that she remained with the applicant for more than two years at different places and gave birth to a child, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.39/2014 registered at Police Station, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-a & 376 of the IPC and Section & 5L/6 of POCSO Act.As per prosecution case, complainant/Badrilal has lodged the report that his daughter, aged about 18 years has gone missing.Vishnu has also missing.During investigation, daughter of the complainant was recovered, her statement was recorded, wherein she disclosed that she was having love affairs with the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated.Father of the victim has clearly mentioned the age of the victim as 18 years.It is further submitted that victim has stayed with the applicant for more than two years and she was the consenting party.There is no likelihood of absconsion of the applicant, hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Case-diary perused.However, in the missing report lodged by the father of the victim, the age of the victim has been mentioned as 18 years.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,395,927 | P.C filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 57/2019 registered at Police Station Jaisinagar district Sagar for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code.As per prosecution on 13.3.2019 some altercation has taken place between the applicants and complainant Narwar Lodhi and at the time of altercation applicants have beaten the complainant with fists and kicks by which complainant sustained injuries.It is also alleged that at the same time applicants have also beaten his bhabhi Kala Rani and wife Yashoda Bai @ Kamlesh Rani.He lodged the report on the same day and on that basis Crime No. 57/2019 for offence under Sections 294, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 has been registered.Injury on the index finger of left hand of Yashoda Bai @ Kamlesh Rani was found to be grievous in nature, therefore, Section 326 read with Section 34 have also been added to the already Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 21/08/2019 16:22:53 2 MCRC-31052-2019 registered crime.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicants are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the offence.It is urged that the applicants are permanent resident of the address described in the application and there is no possibility of their absconding.The applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.It is submitted that a compromise has taken place between complainant and the applicants before the Trial Court; however, the Trial Court without considering the same and finding the offences to be non-compoundable rejected the bail application of the applicants.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Objector Narwar Lodhi is present in person and submitted that he and applicants belong to same village and they are neighbours and he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.His advocate Shri Sunil Kanojia has identified him.After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that initially Offence under Sections 294, 324 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C was registered against the applicants.Later on, on the basis of statement of some witnesses and also medical report Section 326 read with Section 34 has been added to the already registered crime.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to grant anticipatory bail to applicants.It is directed directed that in the event of arrest of applicants, they shall be released Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 21/08/2019 16:22:53 3 MCRC-31052-2019 on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicants shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The applicants shall remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when they are directed so and also appear before the concerned Court.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE vivek Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 21/08/2019 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,401,057 | sm CRM No.2242 of 2015 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.03.2015 in connection with Gangarampur P.S.Case No.602 of 2012 dated 23.10.2012 under 147/148/149/341/326/302/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Gangarampur P.S.Case No.602 of 2012 dated 23.10.2012 under 147/148/149/341/326/302/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been submitted.This is a case, where one person was killed.During course of investigation, the police examined several eyewitnesses to the occurrence, to which our attention has been drawn from the side of the State, which are at pages 10, 11, 12, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 63 and 64 of the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 3 (Ishan Chandra Das, J.) 1034 3.03.2015 sm CRM No.2300 of 2015 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.03.2015 in connection with Tehatta P.S.Case No.688 of 2014 dated 18.09.2014 under sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta P.S.Case No.688 of 2014 dated 18.09.2014 under sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is the husband of the victim-housewife, who has allegedly been killed by setting her on fire.We have gone through the case diary and more particularly to the daily clinical notes of the hospital, where she was removed after the incident.We find that at the hospital her statement was recorded as to how she sustained burn injury.Having regard to what transpires therefrom, we find no reason to decline the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner is allowed.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,540,561 | It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that although Girraj had received an incised wound 2 Cr.R.No.438/2017 on right side of parieto temporal region but since no bony injury was found, therefore, it cannot be said that any grievous injury was caused.Accordingly, it is submitted that the Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 326 r/w 149 of IPC as neither Murari had received any fracture on his head nor Girraj had received any fracture on his head.Per contra, it is submitted by the State counsel that according to the x-ray report of Girraj, he had suffered a fracture on his left hand and, therefore, the injuries sustained by Girraj is grievous in nature and accordingly the Trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge under Section 326/149 of IPC.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,029,390 | The prosecution case is that Baidyanath wild supplied between 3rd and 7th October 1951 a quantity of 1361 bags (2272 mounds) of dheaki rice to the Government procurement go-down at Sainthia, submitted bills claiming the procurement price as well as appropriate bonus in respect of stocks so delivered.It is alleged that Baidyanath in fact supplied this quantity of rice from old stocks purchased prior to the date with effect from which bonus was payable, and had thus to pay no bonus money to any one.JUDGMENT K.C. Das Gupta, J.Consequently when he was dealing with rice he was not dealing with property 'belonging to Government' as an agent of Government. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,939,670 | 1 10.12.2019 184 Saswata (Rejected).C.R.M. 11430 of 2019 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.12.2019 in connection with Mejia P.S case no. 35 dated 18.04.2019 under Sections 354A/306 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act In the matter of : Gouranga Nayak ...Petitioner Ms. A.Pathak ...for the Petitioner Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. M.Gupta .....for the State.Trial Court is, however, directed to expedite the trail and conclude the same at an early date preferably within six months from the next date fixed before the trial Court without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.This application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Suvra Ghosh,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,943,650 | C.C. as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vjHeard on 23648/2016 filed by the appellant/ accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad district Hoshangabad in S.T. No.400028/2016 vide its judgment dated 15.11.2016 convicting the appellant/ accused under Section 353 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 333 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned lower Court is contrary to law and there is fair chances of him to succeed in the case.The appellant - accused has deposited the amount of fine as imposed by the trial court.The disposal of this appeal will take time.On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned PL for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the period of sentence, this application is allowed.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellantaccused Mukesh shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and applicant/accused be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court, Jabalpur on 31.8.2017 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court.After receipt of the record, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course as per listing policy. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,956,917 | The present bail application has been moved by accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2019, under Sections 323, 452, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Simbhawali, District Hapur.It is stated that applicant has been falsely implicated.He has not committed any crime and no role has been assigned to him therefore applicant is entitled to be released on bail.However, it is evident from record that applicant is having seven other cases under different provisions, as detailed in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, which are as under : i. Case Crime No.274 of 2017 under Sections 147, 323, 354, 354-B, 452 IPC ii.Case Crime No.115 of 2015, Gunda Act iii.Case Crime No.15 of 2015 under Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act iv.Case Crime No.89 of 2008 under Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act v. Case Crime No.70 of 2008 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC vi.Case Crime No. 131 of 1998 under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 452, 324 IPC vii. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,966,202 | The prosecutions case, in short, is that on 30.4.1995 at about 7:00 PM the prosecutrix (PW-1) after completion of her work of making bricks was going to her house situated at Village Nakta (Police Station Govindgarh District Rewa).She was followed by her co- workers Kusum, Baby, Asha and Kalli.Near a Nala, the appellant appeared at the scene of crime and hugged her with a bad intention.He insisted for her permission to have cohabitation.It would be apparent that the prosecutrix completed her work of bricks at an open field and thereafter she was going back to her house.The incident took place at 7:00 PM and thereafter the prosecutrix went to her house and intimated her husband about the incident.(Delivered on the 5th day of May, 2015) The appellant has preferred the preset appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.7.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in Special Case No.22/1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act) and sentenced to one years RI with fine of Rs.500/-.On her shouting, when her follower workers came to the spot, the appellant ran away.The prosecutrix came to her house and informed her husband Babulal (PW-4) and also Up-Sarpanch Balmik (PW-5).After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court.The appellant-accused abjured his guilt.He took a plea that the prosecutrix and her co-workers had been picking some mangoes from his garden, and when he shouted they went out.Also there was a dispute relating to an election of Sarpanch and there was political enmity between the husband of the prosecutrix and the appellants.In defence Hiralal (DW-1) and Munindra Prasad (DW-2) were examined.The Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no caste certificate was filed by the prosecutrix to prove that she was a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.S.P. It appears that such rules were enforced in the month of March 1995, and therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out that the SHO of remote police station could not know about that rule.There is no need to frame a separate charge for inferior offence.In the present case, if the prosecutrix does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, then offence under Section 354 of IPC will be made out.The offence under Section 354 of IPC is an inferior of the same nature to the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act, hence the case is to be examined on the merits as to whether the offence under Section 354 of IPC is constituted against the appellant or not.The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is duly confirmed by the witnesses Kusum (PW-2) and Baby (PW-3).Babulal (PW-4), husband of the prosecutrix has also confirmed that in the evening the prosecutrix had informed about the incident.Balmik (PW-5) was working as Up-Sarpanch and the prosecutrix and her husband went to his house and informed the incident.Again she went to the house of Up Sarpanch Balmik.Hence it was not possible for her to visit the Police Station Govindgarh on the same night and in the morning after completion of her domestic work, she went to the police station Govingarh and lodged an FIR at 1:00 PM.If she had completed her household work at her house, before leaving for the police station, then it makes no much difference.Being an illiterate person, she could not know that immediately she had to inform the police.However, the facts of the case were intimated to Up Sarpanch Balmik soon after the incident and Balmik has confirmed, the story told by the prosecutrix.Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the FIR was belated or the prosecution case be discarded due to delay in the FIR.Also the appellant took two different pleas of enmity.Firstly that the prosecutrix was picking some mangoes from his garden, and therefore he was falsely implicated in the matter.However, such suggestion as given to the prosecutrix, but such suggestion was not given to her companions like Kusum (PW-2) and Baby (PW-3).Under such circumstances, the appellant could not prove that the incident of stealing mangoes took place on which particular date and thereafter the prosecutrix had lodged the FIR against the appellant due to that reason.Hiralal (DW-1) and Munindra Prasad (DW-2) have stated that the appellant had made a complaint that the women workers working on brick factory were in habit to pick up the mangoes from his garden.However, both the witnesses could not state that the appellant told him about such an incident against the prosecutrix in person and he told about the incident of particular date or time.On the basis of such evidence, the appellant could not prove his defence.It appears that hypothetical suggestion was given to the prosecutrix and the defence witnesses could not give the particulars of date and time against the prosecutrix so that she would have lodged a false FIR.The various prosecution witnesses were suggested that the appellant was the follower of Laxmi Prasad, who lost the election before one Vinod Singh and the prosecution witnesses were the followers of Vinod Singh.The defence witnesses Hiralal (DW-1) and Munindra Prasad (DW-2) have stated that there was political enmity between the parties, but they could not establish that the appellant was the follower or worker to the candidate of Laxmi Prasad.There is no evidence to show that the prosecutrix and other witnesses were the followers of Vinod Singh, who won the election.None of the prosecution witness has accepted about the suggestion of such enmity, and therefore it appears that hypothetical suggestions were given to the witnesses.The appellant could not prove that there was enmity between the appellant and the husband of the prosecutrix on the basis of election of Panchayat.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, nothing could be brought by the appellant so that the testimony of the prosecutrix may be disbelieved.She told about the incident to her husband and Up Sarpanch.Hence the trial Court has rightly found that the appellant forcefully hugged the prosecutrix, and therefore he used the criminal force and outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix.Hence he has committed the offence under Section 354 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant was the first offender, who has faced the trial and appeal for last 28-29 years.He remained in the custody during the trial for approximately a week.Hence it would not be proper to send the appellant back to the jail, but it would be proper to impose a heavy fine upon the appellant.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.His conviction and sentence of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from that charge.However, under the head of same charge, the appellant is convicted of offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to the jail sentence of the period for which he remained in the custody with fine of Rs.10,000/- .The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo RI for six months.If fine is deposited, then a sum of Rs.5000/- be provided to the prosecutrix by way of a compensation. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,029,688 | Public Works Department (Delhi Admn.) No. 2(1)/86-PWDCV(DA)/EII/76 15-32 dated the 20-11-1986 OFFICE ORDER Where Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaskar, UDC now attached to Dy.Director of Hort.And whereas, it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaskar which has led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in the public service undesirable/ the gravity of the charge is such as to warrant the imposition of a major penalty for misappropriation of a sum of Rs 300 (approx.) along with other accused, M an Singh, Jawala Das and Kewal Chander Kumar.The Ministry of Law and Justice has given the advice that the accused persons are required to be dismissed under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, without issuing any charge-sheet or show-cause notice, who have been found guilty by court of law.The respondent was employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Delhi Administration.The Special Judge, Jalandhar, by judgment dated 17.5.1985 convicted the respondent for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and on default in the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.The said order was passed under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an application (OA No. 1184 of 1987) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").The said petition of the respondent has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 25.7.1991 on the view that an order under Rule 19(i) of the rules could not be passed if an appeal against the conviction and sentence is] pending in a court and since the appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction? and sentence was pending in the High Court, the said order of dismissal could not be passed under the said Rule.In taking this view the Tribunal has placed reliance on its earlier decisions.The order of dismissal reads as under:No order as to costs. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,520,242 | In our opinion, ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to approach concerned Police Station on a specific date and if the petitioner approaches the Police Station concerned, the Police Station in-charge or officer of the said Police Station to take appropriate steps as provided under the provisions of law.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is ready to approach the concerned in-charge Police Station officer, tomorrow i.e. 01st February 2018 and the in-charge Police Station officer to take necessary steps as provided under the provisions of law."The aforesaid two appeals are presented by two accused persons namely, Namit Vinod Agrawal and Sandeepkaur d/o Nirmalsingh Bood.The respondent No. 2 herein, lodged a complaint to the police station, MIDC CIDCO, Aurangabad, alleging that she was working as an Admin Executive, with Junwei Electronics Pvt. Ltd. near 2/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: Cri.The accused Namit Agrawal was Legal Adviser and accused Sandeepkaur was HR Executive of the same company, where the respondent No. 2 was serving.It is further alleged that the accused Namit was sending messages to the respondent No. 2 on WhatsApp at late night and he was asking questions on the personal life of the respondent No. 2 by saying, whether she is married, whether she has a boyfriend ? The respondent No. 2 was avoiding the accused Namit, therefore, he started to give trouble to respondent No. 2 and also started to defame her in the office.It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2 noticed that the accused Namit recorded her video shooting on his mobile, on which the respondent No. 2 inquired with the accused Namit on which he raised his voice.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::On the instruction of the accused Namit, accused Sandeepkaur circulated the photographs 3/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: Cri.Apeal.613.18.odtamongst the staff of the office through mobile.It is further alleged that the accused Namit has started ill-treatment to the respondent No. 2 as she is good looking girl and he tried to develop the intimacy with her.She further alleged that the accused Namit tried to develop intimacy and once said that the respondent No. 2 is belonging to Mahar community.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::Heard, Mr. S. P. Brahme, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.613/2018, Mr. A. M. Hajare for the appellant in the Criminal Appeal No.458/2018, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Warama learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in both the appeals.The copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the other relevant document and has argued that there was a professional rivalry between 4/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: Cri.By referring the contents of the earlier complaint i.e. first in time dated 27.10.2017 and subsequent complaint dated 01.02.2018, argued that there are no specific allegation in the first complaint dated 27.10.2017 as regards humiliation of the respondent No. 2 in the public place on the ground of her caste, however, in the subsequent complaint the respondent No. 2 after thought made a material improvement and addition in the complaint and thereby, improved the version from the earlier complaint.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::Mr. Warma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has argued that when the respondent No. 2 approached to the concerned police on 26.10.2017 the police avoid to take the complaint and on 27.10.2017 the complaint of the complainant - respondent No. 2 was recorded briefly and entire grievance of the respondent No. 2 was not reduced into writing by the police.He further submitted that the police was insisting to compound the offence and they were not ready to register the offence.Mr. Warma, further submits that when the police refuses to take the cognizance, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was constrained to approach this Court and division bench of this Court in the writ petition gave certain direction to the police.On perusal of the copy of the order 5/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: Cri.Apeal.613.18.odtpassed in the writ petition No. 1621/2017 filed by the respondent No. 2, it appears that the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::After passing the aforesaid order, immediately, the respondent No. 2 went to the police station on 01.02.2018 and lodged a complaint as referred earlier.On perusal of the relevant papers, it appears that immediately on next date i.e. on 28.10.2017 the respondent No. 2 made a grievance before the Adhyaksh, Rajya Mahila Ayog, Maharashtra Rajya, and subsequently, by sending mail to the Commissioner of Police, the the respondent No. 2 made various grievance.Copy of the station diary of the concern police station dated 6/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: Cri.Apeal.613.18.odt26.10.2017 is placed on record, from which, it appears that the respondent No. 2 approached to the Police Station Officer for the purpose of filing complaint, however, as the complainant was intending to take lunch, therefore, she went away and at about 17:00 hours the respondent No. 2 again came to the police station along with her mother.The concern police station officer accepted the complaint, however, again the respondent No. 2 and her mother went away.This endorsement was taken by one Arshad Ahemad Ekbal, Head Constable.Looking to the contents of the station diary, it reveals that at the relevant time, there was no reason for this police station officer to record false entry in the station diary.Mr. Warma the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 was repeatedly harping on the point that the detail complaint and the allegations of the respondent No. 2 are not recorded by the police.The police officer was on duty at the police station and the complaint was recorded in brief.Prima facie, the argument of Mr. Warma is not acceptable because on perusal of the station diary dated 27.10.2017, it appears that on that day the complainant came along with typed complaint signed by her.On perusal of the complaint, dated 27.10.2017, it appears that it was received by the concerned police station 7/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: Cri.Apeal.613.18.odtat about 17:08 hours.It was already signed and it was type written.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::Since, prima facie, it appears from the record that the type written and signed complaint was tendered by the complainant to the police station, therefore, it cannot be said that the concern police officer has not recorded the complaint of the complainant in detail as per her version.So looking to the allegations in the complaint dated 27.10.2017, it appears that initially there was no allegation against the appellants that they have humiliated the respondent No. 2 on the ground of her caste.From the contents, it appears that the appellant Namit was sending messages on WhatsApp and he was asking personal questions as to whether the respondent No. 2 had a boyfriend and whether she is married.8/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::Mr. Warma the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the custody of the aforesaid person is required for the purpose of recovery of CCTV footage of the company.However, the investigating officer can very well investigate about the CCTV footage as well as he can recover the CCTV footage, if something is found objectionable.Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the observations in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.On perusal of the entire papers of investigation and the allegations in the first complaint dated 27.10.2017, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is required for the purpose of investigation.The investigating officer can very well investigate the matter without their custody.In such circumstances, the appellants can be granted protection from their arrest.The aforesaid observations are made prima facie for the disposal of the appeals and the trial court shall not influence about the same at the disposal of the trial.In view of the above, the following order is passed: 9/10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 :::Apeal.613.18.odt O R D E R i. The Criminal Appeal No. 613/2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 458/2018 are allowed and the impugned order in both the criminal appeals are set aside.In the event of arrest of the appellants they be released on furnishing their PR and SB of Rs.30,000/- each.The appellants to attend the concerned MIDC CIDCO Police Station Dist.Aurangabad on every Wednesday and Sunday from 09.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and maintain a diary of their attendance duly countersigned by the Investigating Officer or the police station officer till the filing of the charge-sheet.Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 02:16:30 ::: | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,520,278 | This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been preferred against order dated 11.05.2016, whereby charge for offences under Section 363, 366-A and 376(2)(N) r/w 109 of IPC and Section 16 r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been framed against 4 persons including the present petitioner Aarif.The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was enticed away by one Vivek with the help of Deepak and Abhay. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,520,357 | The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.4.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:(M.M.S.J.,) (M.N.K.J.,) 05.07.2019 Index:Yes/No mmi ToThe District Collector and District Magistrate Erode District, Erode.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.M.SUNDRESH, J. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,520,451 | In addition, Crl.At the same time, Crl.M.C. No. 3469/2014 had been instituted by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and her husband, Shri Surender Bhardwaj, who are the accused in FIR No. 155/2014 registered at the instance of Shri Ranveer Singh under Sections 186/332/34/353 IPC on 19.03.2014 at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar.In substance, all the aforesaid parties concerned are stated to have settled the matter amicably amongst themselves and now they jointly pray for the said FIR Nos. 154/2014 and 155/2014, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed.Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 2 of 8A photocopy of the said settlement deed has also been annexed to this petition.All the parties are also present in person.Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 & 1276/2014 are two bail applications moved by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and Shri Surender Bhardwaj respectively.M.C. 3473/2014 has been moved by Shri Ranveer Singh, who is the accused in FIR No. 154.2014 that was registered at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar on 19.03.2014 under Section 354 IPC at the instance of Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 2 of 8The aforesaid Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 and 1276/2014 were also taken up on 17.07.2014 where also the statements of all counsel including counsel for the complainant, as well as the State, to the effect that both the matters have been settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that the complainants in both the FIRs do not desire to press the matter any further or to continue with the prosecution, have been recorded.Today, counsel for the respondents in Crl.M.C. 3473/2014 and 3469/2014, enter appearance and accept notice.Counsel for all the parties involved are present today and have reiterated the position that the complainants in these matters have settled the matter to their satisfaction, and are no longer interested in pursuing the matter any further.When Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 7 of 8 there is peace in State, there will be peace in country.....M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 7 of 8FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."I am also of the view that the matters deserve to be given a quietus since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and both the complainants are now not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby diminishing the chances of prosecution succeeding in the matter.Under the circumstances, both the petitions, being Crl. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,527,392 | The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows :-On 26th February, 2002, the appellant, Susanta Chowdhury and others went to the house of the defacto complainant by five/six motor cycles at wee hours.After assailing the defacto complainant and his two daughters, they dragged the said daughters and outraged their modesty.The accused Susanta, Laxman and Bireswar committed rape upon the youngest daughter repeatedly.The other associates of Susanta threatened them and accused, Bablu Podder, put the barrel of a gun into the mouth of the husband of the defacto 3 complainant.They were far too scared to raise an alarm.They could not even gather the courage to lodge FIR.The defacto complainant some how succeeded to identify accused persons, namely, Susanta, Bireswar, Laxman, Ramesh, Naresh and Ripon Biswas.After entering into the house, they started assaulting them.4 Her two daughters were assaulted and then dragged.They outraged their modesty outside the house.As her husband tried to resist, accused Bablu took out his gun and put the same into the mouth.He threatened to kill him.Her elder daughter was assaulted by the accused persons at the verandah.They, however, left her, as she was then ill.They took her youngest daughter, Aparna, to the next room and accused Susanta, Bireswar and Laxman committed rape upon her.In cross-examination, she repeated that her youngest daughter was raped in the room and her modesty was outraged in verandah.She admitted that she could not see the accused persons committing rape, as the door was closed.She repeated that being scared, she could not inform the Panchayet Pradhan.He introduced himself as a teacher by profession.In cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the incident.He denied to have any involvement with politics.In his cross-examination, he further stated that Pratibadi Mancha was established in the year 2002 7 and antisocial activities were reported in the newspaper.Gokul Mondal was taken to doctor, Swapan Baidya.The Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar & The Hon'ble Justice Prabhat Kumar Dey C.R.A. No. 680 of 2004 Laxman Tarafdar Vs.The State of West Bengal With C.R.A. No. 718 of 2004 Susanta Chowdhury & Anr.The State of West Bengal With C.R.A. No. 314 of 2009 Ramesh Majumder & Anr.Learned Trial Court, by the said judgment and order, found the accused persons, namely, Susanta Chowdhury, Bireswar Dhali, Laxman Tarafder, Ramesh Majumder and Ripon Biswas guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448/354/376(2)(G)/506 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 376(2)(G) of I.P.C. The learned Trial Court passed separate sentences for the offences under Section 448, Section 354 as well as 506 of I.P.C.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convicts, as appellants, approached this Court by filing this appeal.On the basis of the said complaint which was treated as FIR, Police authority started Gaighata P.S. Case No. 158 dated 16.8.2002 under Sections 448/376(2)(G)/354/506 of I.P.C. and Section 25(i)(a)/27 of Arms Act. Such complaint was lodged on 16th of August, 2002 i.e., after about six months of the date of alleged occurrence.Police authority after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet.After commitment of the case and its subsequent transfer by the learned Sessions Judge, the case reached the learned Trial Court.Charges were framed against the five accused persons, namely, Susanta Chowdhury, Laxman Tarafder, Bireswar Dhali, Ramesh Majumder and Ripon Biswas under Sections 448/376(2)(G)/354/506 of I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the said charges and the same were read over and explained to them and they claimed to be tried.Defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination, is the denial of the prosecution allegations and the plea of innocence.Prosecution in order to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused persons examined as many as fifteen witnesses.Of them, P.W. 1 is the defacto complainant, who in her evidence in chief narrated the incident, which took place in her house on 26th February, 2002 at about 12:30 A.M. She stated that 15/16 persons under leadership of Susanta Chowdhury came to their house at that time by 5/6 motor cycles.Thereafter, they threatened them and said that in the event of approaching police station, hospital or divulging the incident to others, all of them would be killed.She being illiterate, one Barun Biswas wrote down the FIR as per her instruction.She put her LTI on it.She clearly stated that when she came to know that the accused persons had been arrested in connection with other case, she could muster courage to approach the police station.She was extensively cross-examined by the learned Advocates, appearing for the different sets of accused persons.In cross-examination, she clearly stated that the accused persons assaulted her husband and accused, Bablu Poddar, put the barrel of the gun into his mouth.In her cross-examination, she further admitted that since his elder daughter was physically ill, the accused persons left her.P.W. 2 is the husband of the defacto complainant (P.W. 1).In his evidence in chief, he corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 on all material points.He emphatically stated that the accused persons, after entering into the next room, committed rape upon his youngest 5 daughter.He specifically mentioned that the accused persons, namely, Laxman, Bireswar and Susanta committed rape upon her and other accused persons threatened them.The accused persons further threatened to kill them in the event the police was informed.Accused, Susanta, also demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from them and told P.W. 2 to send the said amount within a week to the house of Bireswar.Accused Naresh took all of them away thereafter.Local people came to their house after that.P.W. 2 was taken to a local doctor.In cross-examination, he stated that his wearing apparels got stained with blood.He, however, did not hand over the same to the police.He claimed that he was treated by a quack doctor named Swapan Baidya.His daughters were treated by a homeopathic doctor of Bangaon.He further claimed in cross-examination that he was taken to doctor Baidya in the midnight.He narrated the incident to him as well as to others, who came to their house.Panchayet Pradhan, D. Biswas, was also informed.She expressed her inability to do anything.P.W. 2 in cross-examination disclosed his occupation as a carpenter as well as a day labourer.P.W. 3 clearly stated that her elder sister was sick and so she was spared.Thereafter, she was taken to a room and they undressed her.She clearly mentioned that accused, Susanta, Bireswar and Laxman committed rape upon her.She tried to resist but she was threatened of dire consequences with a revolver.She further stated that out of fear and threat, they could not go to the police station.She claimed to have made a statement before the Magistrate.In cross-examination, she deposed that her brother used to sleep in verandah but on that day, her brother went to 6 attend a marriage feast and was absent.In cross-examination, she further stated that Nakul Mondal and some others came to their house after the incident and they were told about it.She, however, clarified that they did not come immediately after the incident.The local people came on the next morning and the bloodstained wearing apparels were shown to them.P.W. 4 repeated the statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to a significant extent.All such witnesses stood the test of cross-examination well.P.W. 5 introduced himself as a school teacher, who was associated with social work.In his evidence in chief, he sought to support the prosecution case further and there is nothing worth mentioning in his cross-examination.P.W. 6 in his evidence in chief stated that in the month of February, 2002, he came to know from the defacto complainant that accused, Susanta, Bireswar and Laxman committed gang rape upon her daughter, Aparna.He was further told that Gokul suffered fracture injury in the head being assaulted by the accused persons.He was further told about the accused persons outraging the modesty of the elder daughter of the defacto complainant.He too claimed that though he was told about the incident on the following day, he did not have the courage to go to the police station and lodge FIR.There had been persistent threats.P.W. 7 claimed to have visited the house of P.W. 2 and he found bleeding injury in the head of Gokul.In response to query, he stated that one Bablu Poddar assaulted him and the accused persons committed rape upon his younger daughter.They also outraged the modesty of his elder daughter.P.W. 7 arranged a van.There is nothing significant in his cross-examination.P.W. 8 is a retired doctor of West Bengal Health Service.On its basis, the formal FIR was prepared.Gaighata P.S. Case No. 158 dated 16.8.2002 was accordingly started.The formal FIR had been marked exhibit-5, being proved by him.P.W. 10 sought to support the prosecution case in his evidence in chief.P.W. 11 was declared hostile by the prosecution.In cross-examination, she stated that 'not a fact that the accused persons did not enter into the house of the victim.On the next morning Gokul narrated the incident to the local people.P.W. 14 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the victim girl, Aparna in connection with the present case.He clearly stated that he recorded such statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He identified such statement in his hand writing and it also bears his signature.He further deposed that on 20.9.2002, he recorded the statement of one Anjana Mondal in connection with the same case.P.W. 15 is the Investigating Officer, who in his evidence in chief stated that in course of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., forwarded the victim girls to the Court for getting their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He collected medical report and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet.Referring to the evidence of P.W. 11, who had been declared hostile, such P.W. 15 deposed that P.W. 11 stated before him that the accused persons assaulted the victims and their parents.He also stated that after committing the offence, they fled away.P.W. 15 was extensively cross-examined.He, however, could not be shaken the least.In cross-examination, he stated that it is a fact that he cited witnesses, who belong to other village.He also admitted that Jiten Bala, Nani Poddar and Barun Biswas are also witnesses in other cases against the accused persons.He further stated that it could be that some of the witnesses are members of Pratibadi Mancha.He, however, 9 categorically denied that being influenced by the members of Pratibadi Mancha, he submitted charge sheet in the case.This is all about the prosecution evidence on record.The accused persons just pleaded not guilty in their response to the questions put to them during their respective examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was, however, claimed that the people of 'Pratibadi Mancha' (Protester's Forum) conspired and implicated the accused persons in this case.Ms. Tanusree Ghosh, appearing as learned Counsel for appellants, Laxman and Susanta, submitted that evidence on record suffers from inherent inconsistencies and the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the same in the right perspective. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
765,298 | (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 201, 225, 238, 241, 250, 251, 252 and 283 of 1975 since these arise from the same facts.(2) The salient facts of the case as disclosed by the record are that on December 4, 1973 Dr. N. S. Jain, a well-known Eye Specialist of Delhi, came back to his house No. D-29L defense Colony, New Delhi, at about 7-15 P.M. He asked his wife Vidya Jain to get ready for a visit to his sister residing in C-489, defense Colony.After a few minutes the couple came out of the house.While Dr. Jain med towards the right of the car to open' its door his wife proceeded towards its left.Before Dr. Jain could unlock the door he noticed that his wife was missing.He went to the left side of the car and saw a prostrate figure lying in the nearby storm water drain.Just then a man jumped out of the drain, flourished a pistol at Dr. Jain and then ran away along with another man towards the north.Vidya Jain was taken out of the drain with the help of Thakur Ram Singh (Public Witness 8), his wife Kiran Bai both guests of Jains and the servants of Dr. Jain.She was found to be bleeding profusely.She was removed to the porch of the house first ; then put in the car and driven to Dr. Sen's Nursing Home near Tilak Bridge.Dr. Jain himself drove the car while Kiran Bai held the injured.(3) At about 7.45 P.M. Dr. S. K. Sen (Public Witness 51) saw Vidya Jain as she was taken out of the car and declared her dead.He rang up General Verinder Singh, brother-in-law of Dr. Jain, so that he could be of some help to the latter in the bereavement.He also directed his Receptionist to contact the police on the telephone.General Verinder Singh arrived at the Nursing Home and rang up the Lieutenant Governor, Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mr. Govind Narain, the then defense Secretary, and others.At 8.22 P.M. he informed the police control room about the murder of Vidya lam.The information was relayed to Police Station defense Colony by the Control Room, but by mistake the house number was taken down as 'D-29' instead of 'D-291'.The police, therefore, failed to locate the place of the incident.At 9.20 P.M. defense Colony police received another telephonic message from the police control room about the murder of Vidya Jain.This time the house number was properly recorded as 'D-291'.I went to the left side of my car from behind and saw nobody and wondered what had happened to my wife in that split second.Noticing some kind of a disturbance in the drain running along the wall of the houses, I peered and saw a prostrate figure and someone making some kind of movements.At once I began to shout frantically for help.At that time a man jumped out of the drain and I started questioning him and when he pointed at me some thing which appeared like a revolver in his hand.I kept shouting for help and realised it was my wife, Smt. Vidya Jain, lying there groaning.In the meantime, my guest Thakur Ram Singh and his wife Smt. Kiran Bai and servants Shri Kundan Siagh and Shri Ganga Singh came to the spot and lifted my wife who was still groaning.By this time I saw two men running away towards north.They appeared to me about 25 to 35 years of age about 5'-7" in, height.There was collection of blood clot along the track of the wound and there was also effusion of blood around the wound over the lung.Injury No. 9 had entered the chest cavity and had cut the left lung on its upper lobe 11/2" deep.There was clotted blood around the track of the wound as well as in the lung tissue.Left lung was collapsed and pale.There was collection of about 3/4 little fluid and clotted blood in the chest cavity on the left side.Right lung was pale.Heart was normal.Injury No. 12 had entered the abdominal cavity and had cut the small intestine at one place lumen deep.Total depth of the wound was 21/2".There was collection of effused blood in the soft tissues around the track of the wound.Lower abdominal cavity contained about half a litre of blood which was fluid and clotted.ONcutting the left arm at the site of fracture there was irregular fracture of left arm bone in oblique manner.There was no effusion of blood in the soft tissue at the side of fracture or around it.This fracture appeared to be post-mortem in nature.Blood and viscera were preserved for Chemical analysis and were sealed in my presence.The skull hair and nail clippings were preserved and were handed over to police duly sealed.All injuries were ante-mortem except injury No. 15 which was postmortem in nature."In the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. I to 14 were caused by a sharp edged weapon, such as knife with single sharp edge while injury No. 15 had been caused by blunt force or by throwing the body after death.(7) The investigating agency found that robbery was not the motive behind the murder, the crime had been pre-planned, the assassins were at least two in number, they did not harm Dr. Jain under whose very nose the murder was committed, there was no effort to pursue or organize a chase of the killers and the police was not promptly informed about the incident.On December 7, 1973 Inspector Faqir Chand (PW98) of the Crime Branch (C.I.D.) took over the investigation.He interrogated Dr. Jain as well as Chandresh Sharma and searched Dr. Jain's clinic on Barakhamba Road the same day.On December 8, 1973 statements of Karan Singh and Phool Dass P.Ws were recorded.Inspector Risal Singh was sent to Charkhi Dadri in search of Rakesh Kaushik, but he could not be traced out.Dr. Jain was placed under arrest on the following day.The police succeeded in apprehending Rakesh Kaushik on December 10, 1973 at 4 A.M. outside the unit lines in Delhi Cantonment.He was brought to Police Station Hauz Khas for interrogation and thereafter arrested formally.Search of his person yielded various documents including Exhibit P238 which rea,ds thus : "Vill.P.O. Sessan, Junhera, Tahsil Kama".The two underlined words are written in Roman script and the rest in Devnagri.Rakesh was taken by the police to village Ghori and Palwal where Kalyan and Bhagirath respectively were arrested and brought to Delhi the same evening.They were advised to keep their faces muffled till a test identification parade was held.That very day Chandresh was apprehended.She made a disclosure statement (Exhibit Pi 76) leading to the recovery of certain photographs revealing illegitimate intimacy between herself and Dr. Jain.On December Ii, 1973 Ujagar Singh and Kartar Singh were arrested at about 5.30 A.M. in their village Seshan (Rajasthan).The police recovered a. country made pistol of .303 bore (A-l) with one cartridge (A-8) in its chamber from the hand of Kartar Singh.Cartridges A-5 to A-7 of .303 bore and chadar (tehmat) (A-l 2) were also recovered from the person of this accused.On interrogation Ujagar Singh made a disclosure statement (Exhibit P37) with regard to the disposal of the knife.Kartar Singh and Ujagar Singh were told to keep their faces muffled and were brought to Delhi the same afternoon.At Delhi Ujagar Singh led the police to Lodhi Road and got knife (A-2) recovered from under bushes by the roadside referred to in his disclosure statement.Duty slip books related to the said taxis and certain other documents were also taken into possession.On the same d,ay Ramji was arrested at about 9-30 P.M. from his jhuggi.the was interrogated and a memorandum of information received (Exhibit Dl) prepared.He too was asked to keep his face muffled.(10) Execution of the plan presented quite a tough problem.Now Chandresh had known Rakesh Kaushik, a young man of about 25 years.He was working as Education Havildar in 17 Vehicle Battalion, Delhi Cantonment.Rakesh and Chandresh used to move about together quite frequently.He would introduce her to strangers as his sister, relation, friend or Bhabi (brother's wife) according to the demand of the occasion.There could be no hesitation for Chandresh to approach Rakesh in such a, situation for help.Rakesh was working under Naib Subedar Ram Phal (Public Witness 47).Ramphal belonged to Halalpur a village in Haryana and so did Kara" Singh (Public Witness 5), a bad character.Rakesh found out from Ram Phal that Karan Singh was living at Rajpur Road behind the office of the Municipal Committee.Sometime in or about September 1973 he (Rakesh) contacted Karan Singh and enquired if he would be willing to kill a doctor's wife.Karan Singh replied he would think over the matter.After a few days Rakesh visited him again.This time Chandresh accompanied him.Rakesh paid Rs. l,200.00 to Karan, Singh presumably to induce better concentration of his mind on the proposal.He offered to pay him Rs. 20.000.00 for the job, Rs. 10,000.00 in advance and Rs. 10,000.00 after it was done.Rakesh and Chandresh promised to come on September 14, 1973 to pay the first Installment and they stood by their word.However, the Sivana had gone out of the village and was not available for consultation.Rakesh tried to induce Ram Kishan to kill Vidya Jain with a rich reward and threatened him with the direst possible consequence, death, in the event of his leaving that job undone.Intimidated adequately, Ram Kishan put up a show of co-operation for some time and went to the extent of buying a knife from Ghaziabad as per Rakesh's directions.He was with Chandresh and Rakesh on November 28, 1973 when they went to Bhagwan Das (Public Witness 31), an astrologer, in the taxi driven by Ramji, for showing two horoscopes to him one of herself and the other alleged to be of Dr. Jain.Chandresh asked for the astrologer's prediction whether her friendship with the man to whom the second horoscope pertained could fructify into a marriage.Bhagwan Dass had his own reservations, however, because the man of Chandresh's dreams was already married.Instead of providing the encouragement desired of him, he told Chandresh, therefore, to come again sometime.Rakesh and Ramji brought Ra,m Kishan within a striking distance on a number of occasions but he allowed the prey to stay unhurt.He told them finally on December 1, 1973 that he would not do the job for all what they might do to him, and willy-nilly they let him off.In this way the second try of the conspirators to put an end to Vidya Jain's life also terminated in fiasco.(12) Ramji then told Rakesh that he would suggest a man who could do the job.He drove Rakesh and Ram Kishan the had not yet parted company with them) to the house of Kalyan Gupta at Bhogal and introduced Rakesh to Kalyan.Rakesh told Kalyan that he wanted a doctor's wife killed and requested him to arrange for the assassins.Kalyan Gupta replied that arrangement could not be made locally but his master, Bhagirath, a resident of Ghori in Palwal Tahsil, could do the needful.Rakesh desired that they go to Ghori.Ram Kishan was then dropped at Bhogal and Ramji, Kalyan and Rakesh left for and reached Ghori at about 2.30 P.M. Bhagirath was not, however, there he had gone to another village two kilometres or so away.The taxi was accordingly driven to that village and Bhagirath located.After they had been introduced to each other by Kalyan, Rakesh told Bhagirath that they wanted to have a doctor's wife killed and asked him to suggest assassins who could do the job.Bhagirath agreed to help.He sat in the taxi and took Rakesh and his companions to village Seshan in the jurisdiction of Police Station Pahari, .district Bharatpur (Rajasthan).Here Bhagirath introduced Rakesh to Ujagar Singh and Kartar Singh, and Rakesh enlightened them about the purpose of the visit.Ujagar demanded Rs. 25,000.00 as their remuneration for the job which Rakesh agreed readily to pay.All of them, i.e., Rakesh, Kalyan, Bhagirath, Ujagar and Kartar left Seshan in Raniji's taxi at about 8 P.M. and reached Bhogal (Delhi) at about 11.30 P.M. Bhagirath, Rakesh and Kalyan then left for the latter's house.Ujagar and Kartar stayed with Ramji and slept for the night in the taxi itself parked outside his jhuggi.On December 2. 1973 at about 8.30 A.M. all of them assembled at the house of Kalyan and drove there from to the defense Colony in Ramji's taxi.The vehicle was stopped at a distance from Dr. Tain's house and Rakesh took Ujagar, Kartar, Kalyan and Bhagirath to afford them a look at the said place.They returned at about lunch time for their meals.Ramji dropped Ujagar, Kartar, Bhagirath and Kalyan at Bhogal and took Rakesh to York restaurant where the latter wanted to collect money from Chandresh.Rakesh met Chandresh outside the York restaurant and took her inside the same.Rakesh came out alone at 3 P.M. and accompanied Ramji to Bhogal.From Bhogal Ramji picked up Kalyan, Bhagirath, Ujagar and Kartar and again drove them to a place in 'C' Block of defense Colony.Ujagar and Kartar left the taxi and went over and sat on a wall on the Nallah near Dr. Jam's house.Kartar and Ujagar carried a pistol and a knife respectively concealed in the folds of their tehmats.They returned to the taxi after about two hours and Ramji brought them back to Bhogal.Bhagirath went away with Kalyan while Ujagar and Kartar spent the night in Ramji's taxi as on the previous day.On December 3, 1973 once again all of them drove to the defense Colony at about 9 A.M. Ujagar, Kartar, Bhagirath and Kalyan got down from the taxi, while Rakesh asked Ramji to take him to the market of the defense Colony.There Rakesh made a telephone call and they returned to the place where the others had been dropped.From there Ujagar, Kartar etc. too boarded the taxi and they reached Nizam-ud-Dis at about 11 A.M. After having their food there they went to Eros Cinema (Bhogal) and saw the noon show from 12 Noon to 3 P.M. Then they proceeded to Faridabad, purchased two bottles of liquor there and after consuming them at an eating place came back to the defense Colony at about 8.30 P.M. Ramji parked the taxi in a lane near Dr. Jain's residence.Ujagar, Kartar, Bhagirath, Kalyan and Rakesh got down and kept hanging around the said place.At about 9 P.M. they started back for Bhogal.Leaving the rest of them Ramji and Rakesh went to Malhotra's house at about Ii P.M. Malhotra questioned them why the taxi had not been brought back on 1st and 2nd and Rakesh replied that he had been too busy with his engagements for getting some contract.Rakesh cleared the hire charges and asked Malhotra to book the taxi for the following day as well.On December 4, 1973 Malhotra sent Ramji with the taxi to a nearby workshop in Bhogal to have minor repairs done and its new registration number painted.After his assignm ent was fulfillled, Ramji drove the car to Malhotra's house in Lajpat Nagar and came back to his own place.(13) At about 4.30 P. M. Rakesh came to Ramji's Jhuggi and asked him to accompany him since the job had to be done 'now'.They hired a taxi and went to New Vig restaurant in Chandni Chowk.There they met Chandresh, Bhagirath, Kalyan, Ujagar and Kartar.All these people were having coffee etc. when Dr. Jain too arrived there.Dr. Jain talked to Ujagar so as to caution him to execute the job carefully and to assure him that he would get the amount he wanted.After Dr. Jain had left, Chandresh told Rakesh, Kartar, Ujagar etc. that she would be reaching Dr. Jain's house in the latter's car at about 6.30 P. M. and would get down outside the house.Chandresh informed them further that Dr. Jain would come out of his house with his wife and that would be the time for Ujagar and Kartar to kill her.She also told them to see to it that the doctor did not receive any knife injury.All of them then came out of the restaurant.Bhagirath and Kalyan returned to Bhogal in a taxi at about 5.45 P. M.amji went to his jhuggi while Bhagirath and Kalyan went away together.At about 5 P. M. Rattan Lal (Public Witness 12), who carries on the business of providing transport to the tourists under the name and style of Yadav Transport Motor Service at Chanakyapuri, received a telephone call.The person at the other end of the line gave his name as Rakesh Sharma and asked a taxi being sent to the York restaurant for a trip to Charkhi Dadri.Rattan Lal told him that he would be sending taxi Dly 552 with 0m Parkash as its driver.Rattan Lal prepared duty slip Exhibit P 39 and directed 0m Parkash (Public Witness 2) to take the taxi to the York restaurant, 0m Parkash's taxi had been parked at the York restaurant for about 15 minutes when another taxi came there and Rakesh, Ujagar and Kartar got down there from.The time then was 6.45 P. M. or so.After about 10 minutes Chandresh came there.She then called Ramji out.Both of them left towards the house of Dr. Jain while Rakesh, still sitting in the car, kept 0m Parkash engaged in small talk.As soon as Vidya Jain came close to Dr. Jain's car parked in front of house No. D-292, Ujagar and Kartar pounced upon her.Kartar grabbed and held her from behind while Ujagar stabbed her with his knife repeatedly.She was felled in the storm water drain closeby.The affair between Dr. Jain and Chandresh was neither ephemeral nor shallow.(22) It is also contended that horoscope (Exhibit Pi 32) was not recovered from Bhagwan Das but was recovered by the police from Shakuntia Devi (Public Witness 21) to whom Chandresh had entrusted some of her articles when leaving for Ambala.Shakuntia Devi (Public Witness 21) deposes that Chandresh had left some papers with her before going to Ambala.Mrs. Burman noticed that Vidya Jain proposed to go to Mathura in the company of Mr. Gupta.Dr. Jain proceeded to Jaipur to participate in the ceremony from the bride's side.He was accompanied by his son, Mrs. Burman.and her daughter.Ram Phal advised him to seek the help of the Commander who would write to the authorities concerned to settle the jhagra.A few days after this talk Ram Phal found Karan Singh present in the mess.On enquiry Karan Singh told him that he had come there in response to Ram Phal's call sent through a Havildar in uniform.He replied that he would think over the matter.Rakesh and Chandresh came to him 10 or 12 days later at the same quarter.They paid him Rs. 1.200/- and promised to pay Rs. 20,000/- more, Rs. 10,000/- on the 14th and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- when the job was done.Rakesh and Chandresh turned up again, as promised, at 8 or 9 P.M. on the 14th.All the three sat together in a room of Delhi Municipal Corporation School which was unoccupied at that time.Karan Singh deposed that he had been paid Rs. 10,000/-bywayof advance out of the total amount of Rs. 20,000/- proposed as the consideration for his killing Dr. Jain's wife.This statement has been corroborated by Ram Phal and Phool Dass by saying that Rakeshnd Chandresh had been making frantic efforts to get back the money paid by them to Karan Singh because he had failed to execute the job of murdering Dr. Jain's wife.It has thus been established bey(Tnd doubt that there was a conspiracy for the elimination of Mrs. Vidya Jain at work sometime in and about August/September 1973 and Rakesh and Chandresh were taking active steps towards the fulfillment of that objective.Karan Singh (PW5) deposed that the sum of Rs. 10,000/- referred to above was paid to him by Chandresh and according to the prosecution story she got this amount from Dr. N. S. Jain.She was out of job right from August 31, 1971 when her services with Kothari & Associates came to an end.She acquired a house at Delhi and was Realizing some rent therefore every month but she has never paid income-tax and we may, therefore, presume that the yield of her immovable property aforesaid was not of much consequence.It is patent she had no resources as could enable her to arrange payment of Rs. 10,000/- in one lump-sum to Karan Singh.The factum of the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- through cheque Exhibit P 158 and the disposal of the amount was put to Dr. Jain in the course of his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the reply which he gave was found by the trial Judge to be disingenuous and diversionary in nature.When Dr. Jain was confronted with the fact that his withdrawing Rs. 10,000/- through cheque Exhibit P 158 on September 14, 1973 and the other evidence placed on the record proved that the sum of Rs. 10,000 which Chandresh paid to Karan Singh was recieved by her from him (Dr. Jain) he gave a reply in the negative and said the amount was utilised towards the expense of furnishing his office by his wife.It was explained that soon after he returned from his world tour in the end of July 1973 office accommodation in the shape of a hall was handed over to him at Kanchanjunga, Barakhamba Road, by the builders and the same was required to be furnished and partitioned for consultation purposes.He himself was a very busy man professionally and his "wife was looking after the arrangement and financial side in putting the premises in proper shape".The expenses were heavy and it was his wife's job to make the arrangement and spend the money.In the months of September and October he issued bearer cheques of Rs. 5,000 on two occasions but subsequently his wife wanted more money and he withdrew Rs. 10,000 from his bank and passed on to her.He referred to withdrawal of Rs. 15,000 more from his own bank a little while later and making over of this amount also to his wife.A further mention was made of the issue of a cheque for Rs. 13,225 to his wife during the same period for payment of income-tax.It is true that one cheque (Exhibit D 33) for Rs.5,000 signed by him during the aforesaid period favored one P. N. Gupta and it was cashed by one Daryao Singh.We know that Dr. Jain had a driver of this name but the recipient of the amount could not necessarily be that Daryao Singh and even if it was Dr. Jain's driver, he might have performed the chore on behalf of P.N.Gupta.If the amount was to be had by Dr. Jain himself there could be no point in his mentioning P. N. Gupta as the payee" and encashing the cheque through his own servant.Exhibit D-34 the cheque dated September 18, 1973 for Rs. 13,225 a 'Self or Bearer' cheque like Exhibit P 158 was encashed by Mrs. Vidya Jain deceased herself and prima-facie in view of his claiming to be over-burdened with his professional work and his inability to cope for that reason with the job of furnishing the Kanchanjunga flat it was more probable for him to leave the collection of the amount of cheque Exhibit P 158 to Mrs. Vidya Jain who was supposed to spend the money rather than to go to the bank himself and waste his precious time.(37) The prosecution examined Lance Naik Jagdish Parshad Shanna (PW50) to show that an attempt was made by the conspirators in September, 1973 to enrol the help of mystical powers for achieving their nefarious design.He had told Rakesh that his 'cousin sala' had recovered from his malady after obtaining a 'ghat' from a Siyana.Rakesh told him that he wanted 'some ghat for his Bhabi.On September 29, 1973 Rakesh told Jagdish Parshad that leave had been arranged and that he should accompany Rakesh.A fiat car Dlj Ii was waiting outside the Line at about Ii or 12 Noon.Daryao Singh driver had brought this car.Rakesh enquired from the driver if the car had been sent by Dr. N. S. Jain.Rakesh was posing as a relation of Chandresh.That also supports Jagdish Parshad.This evidence also reveals that Dr. Jain's car could, at any time, be had by Chandresh and Rakesh and it could be kept by them even for more than one day continuously.Rakesh asked Ram Kishan to accompany him to Delhi for the purchase of rings for the engine of his Mercedes truck.Ram Kishan demanded Rs. 10 per day in addition to his diet expenses and bus fare.These terms were readily accepted by Rakesh.Ram Kishan secured the necessary leave and they reached Delhi the next day at 4 P. M. and proceeded to Hauz Qazi from the bus stand.There Rakesh gave him Rs. 5 for his tea etc. and asked him to wait for him.After about half an hour Rakesh returned.He took Ram Kishan to Delhi Cantonment in a taxi and gave him a bed for the night in his room.The following morning Ram Kishan accompanied Rakesh to Hauz Qazi and was asked by Rakesh to wait for him.Rakesh returned after about an hour and paid Ram Kishan Rs. 40 telling him that he had no money for the purchase of the requisite spares and he would be going home to arrange for the funds.Ram Kishan was advised to spend the night in Rakesh's room and asked to meet him again in the morning at Hauz Qazi.Ram Kishan kept hanging around the Kothi and on his return he (the approver) brought Rakesh and Ram Kishan to Hauz Qazi.His testimony mentions another visit to the York restaurant, their return there from to Hauz Qazi for dropping Chandresh there and his driving Rakesh and Ram Kishan to 18 Barakhamba Road where Dr. Jain's clinic is situated.It is also stated by him that Rakesh and Ram Kishan went upstairs; come to back after a short while; Rakesh told Dr. Jain's chauffeur that Ram Kishan's mother's eyes were to be operated upon and that as per instructions of the Doctor, Ram Kishan be given a bed for the night at the Kothi.According to this witness also Rakesh and Ram Kishan proceeded there from to Hauz Qazi where Chandresh Joined them and they went to R. K. Puram to meet an astrologer.After some time he drove these persons to Hauz Qazi for leaving Chandresh there.He was taken to Police Station defense Cotony and interrogated by Inspector Rama Kant.The information elicited from him was recorded in the case diary as 'Daryafat (Exhibit D1l).Ramji was produced on December 12 before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody till December 20, 1973 since he was to be put up for identification.On December 22, 1973 Inspector Faqir Chand again interrogated him and recorded a formal statement.On December 23, 1973 Ramji was removed from Police Station defense Colony to Police Station Civil Lines.The reason for this shifting, as given by Inspector Faqir Chand, is that it was more convenient for him to have Ramji near his office.Ramji, as a driver of Malhotra's taxi, came in contact with Rakesh about 2i months before the occurrence.He had taken Ramji with the taxi to Haryana Taxi Service where he met Rakesh.After settling the terms, Malhotra left Ramji with taxi Dly 544 at the disposal of Rakesh.Rakesh took Ramji to Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani and Pilani, and released the taxi the following morning.Ramji states that before dismissing the taxi Rakesh obtained from him the telephone number of Malhotra.Rakesh wanted the taxi at 10 A.M. the following morning at Kashmere Gate.Ramji and Malhotra took the taxi to Kashmere Gate bus stand as desired on the 26th.They waited for Rakesh.However, Rakesh did not turn up and so they returned at about 11 A.M. Rakesh phoned Malhotra again the same evening.This time Rakesh asked for the taxi at Ajmere Gate Petrol Pump at 8.30 P-M- and Ramji drove it to that place alone.Ramji met Rakesh who was accompanied by Chandresh.They were driven to York restaurant.Ramji was also taken inside the restaurant by Rakesh and Chandresh.During conversation, Chandresh took Ramji into confidence and told him that she needed the taxi for 3 or 4 days.She also told Ramji that she had arranged for a man to kill Dr. Jain's wife and that if the plan succeeded she would be able to live with the doctor as his wife.Ramji was promised a car as a gift as well as permanent employment.Ramji goes on to depose that being a poor man he succumbed to the allurement and agreed to provide the taxi.When he drove Rakesh and Chandresh back to Hauz Qazi at about 9.30 P.M., Rakesh asked him to bring the taxi to Hauz Qazi the following morning at 11 A.M. On November 27, 1973 Ramji took the taxi again to Hauz Qazi as desired by Rakesh.This time Malhotra also accompanied Ramji to recover his dues from Rakesh.From Hauz Qazi, Rakesh, Chandresh, Ram Kishan, Ramji and Malhotra came to Connaught Circus where Malhotra was paid his dues and he got down the taxi.The rest of them went to York restaurant once more.Suffice it to say that Rakesh accompanied Ramji to Bhogal.While dismissing the taxi at Bhogal, Rakesh told Ramji that he was going to his village but he would need the taxi on the following day as well.Rakesh made a note on the duty slip Exhibit Pi asking for the taxi at 8 A.M. On November 28, 1973 Ramji again drove the taxi to Hauz Qazi and met Chandresh, Rakesh and Ram Kishan.However, only Rakesh and Ram Kishan got into the taxi.They went to the defense Colony.Ramji describes in detail how Ram Kishan was asked to kill Vidya Jain and was taken to the defense Colony and 18 Barakbamba Road where Dr. Jain has his clinic and was ultimately left at Dr. Jain's house for the night.On this day Ramji drove Rakesh, Chandresh and Ram Kishan to Jyotshi Bhagwan Das P.W. Ramji also deposes that on November 29 he rebuked Ram Kishan for not having killed Vidya Jain and gave him the bed for that night.On November 30, he instructed Ram Kishan to ring up Malhotra for the taxi by impersonating Rakesh.But Malhotra did not send the taxi as he felt that the voice on the phone asking for the taxi did not sound like that of Rakesh.Ramji goes on to say that on December 1, 1973 Malhotra instructed him at about 9 A.M. to take the taxi to Hauz Qazi.Ramji came to Hauz Qazi and found Chandresh, Rakesh and Ram Kishan there.He drove them to Connaught Circus where Chandresh was dropped.Rakesh and Ram Kishan were taken to the defense Colony.Ramji stopped the taxi at some distance from the house of Dr. Jain.He states that finding Ram Kishan to be useless, he told Rakesh that he would suggest a man who would be able to complete the job.He then drove Rakesh and Ram Kishan to the house of Kalyan Gupta at Bhogal and introduced Rakesh to Kalyan Gupta.Rakesh told Kalyan that they were in need of assassins to kill a doctor's wife.Kalyan replied that the arrangement could not be made locally and that his master Bhagirath, who lived in village Ghori, could make the necessary arrangement.Rakesh suggested that they should go to his village.Ram Kishan was told off there and the rest of them left for Ghori at about 12 Noon and reached there at about 2.30 P.M. They came to know that Bhagirath had gone to his relatives in another village.Ramji, Rakesh and Kalyan proceeded to that village.Kalyan introduced Rakesh to Bhagirath, and Rakesh told him the purpose of the visit.Bhagirath took them t6 village Seshan in Rajasthan.There Bhagirath introduced Rakesh to Ujagar and Kartar.Rakesh agreed to pay Rs. 25,000 demanded by Ujagar and Kartar for the kill.They left Seshan at about 8 P.M. and came back to Bhogal (Delhi) at 11.30 P.M. Bhagirath and Rakesh went to stay at the house of Kalyan for the night, whereas Ujagar and Kartar stayed with Ramji.Ramji took them to the dhaba (eating house) of Kartar Chand which was quite close to Ramji's jhuggi.Kartar Chand, however, was not in a position to serve at this 'hour'.So Ramji took them to Ashram where they had their meals.Ujagar and Kartar spent the night in the taxi which was parked near Ramji'5 jhuggi.On December 2, 1973 all of them assembled at Kalyan's house at about 8.30 A.M. Ramji drove them to the defense Colony.The taxi was parked away from the house of Dr. Jain.Rakesh took A Ujagar, Kartar, Kalyan and Bhagirath to show the doctor's Kothi.They returned at about lunch time and went to Kalyan's house at Bhogal for meals.Thereafter Ramji drove Rakesh to York restaurant to meet Chandresh.On the way Rakesh told Ramp that he would collect money from Chandresh and return.At aboat 2.15 P.M. Chandresh met them outside the restaurant.Rakesh and Chandresh went inside the restaurant.After about half an hour Rakesh came out alone and Ramji drove him to Bhogal.Once more Ramji drove Kalyan, Bhagirath, Ujagar, Kartar and Rakesh to the defense Colony.The taxi was parked near a garbage bin in 'C' Block.This time only Kartar and Ujagar alighted from the taxi.They went and sat on a wall of the Nallah opposite the doctor's house.They returned after about two hours.Ramji brought all of them back to Bhogal.Bhagirath went with Kalyan, whereas Ujagar and Kartar spent the night in the taxi as before while Rakesh put up with Ramji.Ramji states that on December 3, 1973 all of them assembled at about 9 A.M. Ramji drove them to the defense Colony.As usual, the taxi was stopped away from the doctor's house.Ujagar, Kartar, Bhagirath and Kalyan got down from the taxi and Rakesh asked Ramji to drive him to the market of the defense Colony.After Rakesh had made a telephonic call from the market, they returned to the spot where others had been dropped earlier.Ramji picked up and drove all his passengers to Nizam-u-Din arriving there at about Ii A.M. After taking their meals in a hotel, they saw a picture at Eros Cinema (at Jangpura) from 12 Noon to 3 P.M. Thereafter Ramji drove them to Haryana border near Faridabad for drinks.After consuming two bottles of liquor, all of them went back to the defense Colony at about 8.30 P.M. This time the taxi was pulled up in a street near the doctor's Kothi.Ujagar, Kartar, Bhagirath, Kalyan and Rakesh got down the taxi, went towards the Kothi and kept hanging around for about half an hour.At about 9 P.M. Ramji drove them back to Bhogal.The taxi was dismissed at Bho.gal and Ramji took it to Malhotra's house at Lajpat Nagar.Ramji tells us that he used to disconnect the odo-meter so that it did not show all the distance covered by the taxi.He was not treating Rakesh like other customers obviously because he had been promised a car and permanent employment.On December 4, 1973 Malhotra's taxi could not be plied since its permit had expired on the 3rd.Ramji took the taxi to a nearby workshop for petty repairs and the repainting of its number as directed by Malhotra.After getting the aforesaid work done, he returned to his jhuggi.Rakesh came to him at about 4.30 P.M. and asked him to accompany him (Rakesh) since the job had to be done that day.They hired a taxi and went to New Vig restaurant at Chandni Chowk.Ramji found Chandresh, Bhagirath, Kalayan, Ujagar and Kartar present outside the restaurant.All of them went inside the restaurant.While they were taking coffee etc. Dr. Jain arrived there.They reached Bhogal at about 5.45 P.M. Bhagirath and Kalyan went to Kalyan's house while Ramji returned to his jhuggi.Ramji swears that at about 6.15 P.M. Rakesh again came to him.He asked Ramji to accompany him to the defense Colony.He also found Ujagar and Kartar waiting in the taxi with 0m Parkash P. W. behind the wheel.Rakesh and Ramji also got into the taxi and the same was driven to the defense Colony.It was parked facing north, about 40 or 50 yards away from the house of Dr. Jain.Ujagar and Kartar got down the taxi.Ujagar was carrying a knife while Kartar was armed with a pistol.As usual, they were carrying their weapons concealed in their tehmats.They went towards the doctor's Kothi.Rakesh engaged Om Parkash in some conversation.Ramji, who was looking behind through the rear glass of the taxi, noticed the arrival of the doctor's car which, after taking a 'U' turn, came to a stop facing south near the Kothi.He wanted to go outside Delhi to Haryana.Since no taxi was available with Haryana Taxi Service, Malhotra was contacted and he offered his Dly taxi.Malhotra has a telephone at his residence.He received a call at about 8 P.M. from Haryana Taxi Service, South Avenue.Malhotra was told that two customers wanted to hire a taxi for going to Charkhi Dadri and since Haryana Taxi Service did not have any taxi available for the purpose, Malhotra might provide one.Malhotra and Ramji went in their taxi Dly 544 to Haryana Taxi Service.Malhotra wanted to settle the matter of hire personally.He met Rakesh who was accompanied by a lady.The fare for the trip was settled at Rs. 120 plus the cost of petrol.Malhotra left his taxi along with Ramji at the disposal of Rakesh.Ramji then drove Rakesh to Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani etc., and returned to Delhi the following morning.Rakesh paid Rs. 120 to Ramji who in turn passed the same on to Malhotra.Malhotra deposes that on November 26, 1973 Rakesh rang him at about 8 P.M. and asked for the taxi to be sent at 10 A.M. to Kashmere Gate the next day.He corroborates Ramji that he accompanied Ramji to Kashmere Gate at 10 A.M. on November 26, 1973; waited for Rakesh till 11 A.M. and since Rakesh did not turn up, both of them came back.The same evening at about 7.30 or 8 he again" received a call from Rakesh asking for the taxi at Ajmere Gate Petrol Pump.Malhotra testifies that he told Rakesh that he himself would be bringing the taxi for the sight-seeing.Rakesh, however, insisted that only Ramji be sent since he would feel more at ease with Ramji.Malhotra agreed and sent the taxi.Ramji thereafter took the taxi to Ajmere Gate Petrol Pump where he met Rakesh and Chandresh.It seems that to begin with Malhotra prepared the duty-slip Exhibit Dll for placing the taxi at Rakesh's disposal as desired by the latter but on Realizing later on that the taxi permit expired on December 3 he crossed the duty-slip.The existence of Exhibit Dll shows that Rakesh must have gone and talked to Malhotra on the night of December 3, 1973 as deposed by Malhotra.(62) The prosecution produced Bhajan Singh (PW10) to prove that Ramji, Rakesh, Bhagirath and Kalyan were seen in village Seshan on the night of December 1, 1973 with Ujagar and Kartar.He admitted after some prevarication that Ujagar and Kartar were inimical to him and the cause of enmity was murder of his relation Bakhtawar Singh by their Bhua's son Lal Singh.He also conceded that he apprehended danger from Kartar and Ujagar.He was contradicted by his police statement on various points.There is nothing on record however to support this assumption.The indications on the other hand are that they were there for purposes of reconnoisance.Before lunch they had been taken to Dr. Jain's Kothi by Rakesh but their short stay at the site perhaps did not meet their satisfaction.He deposes that about 9 or 10 days before Ramji's arrest, the latter had come to his shop at about Ii P.M. along with two other persons whom he identified as Ujagar and Kartar.Ramji had enquired from him if he could provide them meals.He showed his inability since food was no more.After all, dhabas are not supposed to serve their customers by the clock.Moreover, as a frequent visitor and a neighbour, Ramji could have expected Kartar Chand's statement was recorded by Sub-Inspector Rama Kant were any eatables left over.Kartar Chand has stated that he could not accommodate Ramji because the food had finished.Ramji and others could not have taken their meals at Seshan either.They were on a secret and sinister mission and could ill afford to be observed by any local people which included enemies of Kartar and Ujagar like Bhajan Singh.In the circumstances no person of average intelligence would have tarried longer in the village than was absolutely necessary.We will present revert to his testimony.Recovery of chit Exhibit P238 from Rakesh at the time of his arrest on December 10, 1973 also connects Ujagar and Kartar with the conspiracy.The chit reads: "Vill.P.O. Seshan, Junhera, Tahsil Kama".The last four wards are written in Devnagri script whereas the first two words are in English.Rakesh does not deny that the chit is in his hand though he denies its recovery from him.According to Rakesh the police had made him write this chit.It was Narinder Singh (P.W. 9), Station House Officer of Police Station Hauz Khas, who recovered this chit from Rakesh.He had partly investigated the case.He went to Delhi Cantonment on December 9 for apprehending Rakesh, but could not find him there since he had gone on leave.At that time Chhotu Ram (PW24) and Sultan Singh (PW25) were present.Thereafter S.H.O. Narinder Singh and D.S.P. Harpal Singh went with Rakesh and other police personnel to Ghori where Kalyan was arrested.The party then proceeded to Palwal and apprehended Bhagirath.(67) Exception is taken to the statement of S.H.O. Narinder Singh on the ground that he did not deposit the chit Exhibit P238 at Police Station Hauz Khas.Narinder Singh explains that he had taken all the articles recovered from the personal search of Rakesh to the Investigating Officer Inspector Faqir Chand at Police Station defense Colony.There is no reason to reject the explanation.Malhotra could not have been shown this magazine on December 12 the way it was put to him in his cross-examination.Dr. Jain's own case too is that the two culprits had escaped towards the north (vide the First Information Report Exhibit P 315).Ramji has deposed that Ujagar and Kartar ran to the waiting taxi after they had completed their mission.0m Parkash has said that when he stopped the taxi near the Nallah in the defense Colony, Ujagar and Kartar got down and went in the A rear direction of the taxi.Rattan Lal runs a taxi stand at Chanakyapuri, Sardar Patel Marg.On December 4, 1973 at about 5 P.M. he received a telephone call.The caller gave out his name as Rakesh Sharma and asked for a taxi to be sent at York restaurant for going to Charkhi Dadri.Rattan Lal prepared duty-slip Exhibit P39 and dispatched his taxi at about 5.15 P.M. Om Parkash deposes that he drove to the York restaurant and parked the taxi.After about 10 or 15 minutes he noticed Rakesh, Ujagar and Kartar arriving in another taxi.Rakesh came to 0m Parkash and informed the latter that it was he who had summoned the taxi.All of them sat in 0m Parkash's taxi.Rakesh directed 0m Parkash to drive to Bhogal.At Bhogal he was asked to stop the taxi near the Taxi Stand Sahi Hospital, Mathura Road.Rakesh got out of the taxi and after about ten minutes came back accompanied by Ramji.Both got into the taxi.Rakesh then instructed 0m Parkash to drive to the defense Colony on the pretext that the (Rakesh) had some business there.In the defense Colony 0m Parkash was directed to turn to Divya Marg, and aftergoing a short distance along the Nallah Rakesh asked him to stop.0m Parkash brought the taxi to a halt, facing north.The time now was about 6.30 or 6.45 P.M. Ujagar and Kartar got down and went towards the rear of the taxi.Rakesh replied that the programme had been cancelled.Since the taxi stand of Yadav Motor Transport Service was on way to the Cantonment, 0m Parkash stepped the taxi when he reached the office to talk to bids employer about the change in Rakesh's programme.We have already discussed the evidence of 0m Parkash P.W. It lends very substantial corroboration to Ramji's version.On) Parkash not only brought Ujagar and Kartar near Dr. Jain's Kothi but also drove them away along with Rakesh.On the way either Ujagar or Kartar asked about the money since the job had been done.They left the taxi of 0m Parkash alt the place where Golf Links Road meets Lodhi Road.As already stated, the taxi was found to have bloodstains by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory which shows that assassins did travel in the taxi soon after the murder.(94) After Rakesh had been arrested on, the morning of the 10th and interrogated, the police decided to arrest Kalyan, Bhagirath, Ujagar and Kartar.D.S.P. Harpal Singh (PW79) was instructed by the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector General of Police to conduct raids in Haryana an,d Rajasthan for their arrests.A strong raiding party was organized.Six inspectors and 15 jawans from the Delhi Armed Police along with others were included.Rakesh was also joined.After arresting Kalyan from the fields near village Ghori and Bhagirath from Palwal, Rakesh was sent back to Delhi with Inspector Narinder Singh.The rest of the raiding party left for and reached Kama at about Ii P.M. The Station House Officer of Police Station Kama was not present at the police station.D-S-P. Harpal Singh then went to Police Station Pahari, perused the history sheets of Kartar and Ujagar, and discovered that they had been involved in robbery and Arms Act cases of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan.He brought two constables from that police station to Police Station Kama.Harpal Singh then went to Deeg and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the area who was requested to join the raiding party.It was planned to go to village Seshan early in the morning.At about 4.45 A.M. the police party arrived at that village.The vehicle was stopped about 2 Kms.from the village.One of the constables (Milap Singh) of Police Station Pahari was sent to the village to bring two local residents there from.The constable brought Bhajan Singh and Lachhman Singh.As it was suspected that there may be an encounter between the police and Ujagar and Kartar, necessary arrangements to meet the situation were made.The raiding party was divided into two groups-one for the house of Ujagar Singh and the other for the house of Kartar Singh.Bhagirath was kept by Harpal Singh in his party so that he (Bhagirath) could, if necessary, talk to and decoy Ujagar Singh.Both the houses were stormed simultaneously.As Harpal Singh's party entered the courtyard of Ujagar, a dog barked.The party rushed into the chhappar where Ujagar Singh, who was holding a rifle, was overpowered.During the scuffle Ujagar Singh succeeded in giving a butt blow to Constable Hari Siagh.Simultaneously Kartar Singh was overpowered by Sub-Inspector Surjit Singh and Constable Gurbux Singh.Kartar Singh was holding a loaded country made pistol.Ujagar Singh's chhappar was searched and 18 rifle cartridges were recovered.A sword was also found lying in the chhappar.The said articles were duly taken into possession under formal recovery memos.He got the leave extended for ten days by a telegram.First he tried to use Karan Singh for killing Vidya Jain but failed.Then he coaxed and coerced Ram Kishan to execute the job but in vain.He also took Ujagar and Kartar to defense Colony to enable them to survey the location.We have also found that Rakesh had been frequenting New Vig restaurant in Chandni- Chowk and visited that restaurant on December 2, 3 and 4 in the company of the other co-conspirators.December 4 was the last day of his extended leave.He was due to report to his unit by the evening of this day.The conspirators had finalized the plan in their meeting in New Vig restaurant at about 5 P.M. to perpetrate the murder that very evening.Rakesh had telephoned Rattan Lal to send his taxi Dly 552 to York restaurant that evening for the ostensible purpose of -visiting Charkhi Dadri. 0m Parkash P.W. brought this taxi to the York restaurant.He noticed Rakesh along with Ujagar and Kartar coming in another taxi. 0m Parkash drove his taxi to Bhogal as guided by Rakesh.Rakesh picked up Ramji and took the car to the defense Colony.At defense Colony 0m Parkash was asked to stop the taxi near the house of Dr. Jain.While Ujagar and Kartar got down, and later on Ramji too, Rakesh kept 0m Parkash busy in conversation.After some time Ujagar and Kartar came back occupied seats in the rear of the taxi and Rakesh asked 0m Parkash to hurry up.On the way Rakesh promised Ujagar and Kartar that he would arrange to send the money to their house within a couple of days.The recovery of chit Exhibit P238 giving the name of village 'Seshan' and its location shows his interest in that village.In order to prove that Rakesh did not report back to his unit on the night of December 4, the prosecution has examined Naib Subedar Durga Parshad (PW48) and Naib Vir Bahadur (PW49).Durga Parsbad was acting as a Company Havildar-Major and was posted to the Vehicle Battalion No. 17, Delhi Cantonment during those days.When Rakesh proceeded on 20 days' leave, it was Durga Parshad who came to occupy his room in the unit.Durga Parshad used to take roll call of the unit at 7.00 P.M. daily.She had persuaded Ramji to join the conspiracy with a luscious bait.On December 4 she, along with other co-conspirators, was present in the New Vig restaurant to give last touches to the murder-plot.She had promised others to be present at the scen,e to lend all her moral support to the dastardly design in the process of execution.The presence of Chandresh at the scene of occurrence is deposed to by Ramji and 0m Parkash P.Ws.Vidya Jain had taken a serious exception to it and had forced Dr. Jain to dismiss Chandresh who had been employed as his secretary.It is true that this had happened in May, 1967 but it is anyone's guess as to how much Vidya Jain knew of Chandresh and Dr. Jain continuing their affair.The fact of the matter is that he never opened his lips.They shall be hanged by the neck till they are dead.JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, J.The Station House Officer of defense Colony Police Station was on leave that day and Inspector Daijit Singh, Station House Officer of Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din Police Station, (Public Witness 80), was discharging the additional duty of looking after the defense Colony Police Station.He was apprised, therefore, of the commission of the murder.Inspector Daijit Singh came to the place of incident and, leaving Sub Inspector Deep Chand for the protection of the spot, proceeded along with some of his subordinates to Dr. Sen's Nursing Home.(4) Statement of Dr. Jain was recorded at 10.30 P.M. and sent to Police Station defense Colony for registration of a case under section 302, Indian Penal Code.Dr. Jain's statement reads thus : "TODAYat about 7.15 P.M. I arrived at my residence in defense Cony from my Chandni Chowk Office.I came inside and went to wash room and asked my Wife to accompany me to visit my sister, Mrs. S. K. Jain, in C-489 defense Colony.The two of us came out of the gate and moved towards the car parked outside in front of the house No. D-292, defense Colony.I proceeded to open the door of the car with key on the right side while my wife went towards the left side.Even before I could insert the key to unlock my car No. Dlv 4847, I heard some sort of scuffle which gave me a feeling that some thing was wrong on the left side of my car.They had no beard, full hair which were dishevelled, wearing off-white dhotis and off-white shirts.I immediately put my wife in the car and rushed to Dr. Sen's Nursing Home for medical aid, little knowing the seriousness of her trouble.She was pronounced dead on arrival at the Nursing Home.The two persons described above have committed the murder of my wife, Smt. Vidya Jain.Legal action may be taken against them."(5) Inspector Daijit Singh directed Sub Inspector Ram Mehar (PW77) to hold, an inquest.Some other policemen were detailed to guard the dead body and to take it to the police-surgeon for postmortem examination.From Dr. Sen's Nursing Home, Inspector Daijit Singh came back to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of a number of persons.He also took into possession car Dlv 4847 and blood stained clothes of Kiran Bai and Ram Singh.Detailed inspection of the spot was postponed to be done in better light in the morning.On December 5, 1973 Inspector Daijit Singh scanned the scene of occurrence closely and recovered one .303 live cartridge (A-16) as well as some golden beads and pearls worn by Vidya Jain from the storm water drain.At 11.30 A.M. that day Inspector Jagmal Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station defense Colony, (Public Witness IOO), who had resumed duty, took over investigation from Inspector Daijit Singh.(6) Dr. Bharat Singh (Public Witness 54), Police Surgeon, performed the post-mortem examination on the body of Vidya Jain on December 5 at 11 A.M. He found the woollen shawl covering the body and sari, pullover, blouse, brassiere and petticoat worn by the deceased having multiple cut marks.He noted the following external injuries over the body: "1.I incised wound over the front of neck lower part of the middle, place obliquely.Size of the wound was 1/2" *2/10"*2/10".I incised wound over the mid of left clavicle placed obliquely with tapering end on outer side.Size of the wound 1/2* l/4"x bone deep.Wound was covered by blood.I incised wound over the front of left side chest 4" above the nipple horizontally placed.Size of the wound was 1" x 1/4" X 1/4".I incised wound on the left arm on the upper part, obliquely placed.Size of the wound was I" x 1/4" X 1/4".I incised wound on the left arm I" below injury No. 4, placed obliquely.Size of the wound was 1/4"*2/10"*2/10".I incised wound over the left arm on outer side in the middle area placed horizontally.Size of the wound was 11/2"*1/4" *1/4".I incised wound on the left wrist on medial side including part of front and back of the wrist.Size of the wound was.2" X 1" *3/4".I incised wound over the outer upper quadrant of left breast placed obliquely with tail-end on the medial side.Size of the wound was l1/2"x1/4"x? (Chest cavity deep).I incised wound over the pit of left axilla in anterior axillary line, placed obliquely.Size l1/2'1/2"'x ? (Chest cavity deep).I incised wound over the lower part of left side chest on lateral side, placed obliquely.Size 11/4"*1/4"*1/4".Size of the wound was 1/4"1/10"*1\10".I incised wound over the front of abdomen on left side I" above and lateral to umbilicus, placed obliquely.Size of the wound was 11/4"*1/4" x abdominal cavity deep.Wound was covered by blood.I incised wound on the back of right side of abdomen near the costal margin placed horizontally with tail-end on the medial side.Size of the wound was 21/2"*1"1/2".Wound was covered by blood.I incised wound on the back of neck placed horizontally with tail-end on the left side.Size of the wound was 11/4"*1/4*1/4".ONopening the chest cavity it was seen that injury No. 8 had entered the chest cavity through third intercostal space, and had cut the lower lob of left lung 1/4" deep.Total depth of injury No. 8 was about 4-1/4".All the articles suspected of having bloodstains on them were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, R. K. Puram.On December 28, 1973 Ramji made a confessional statement (Exhibit D-3) before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh.The following day he submitted an application (Exhibit P2) for being made an approver.On January 3, 1974 the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted pardon to Ramji and recorded his statement (Exhibit P4).(9) The investigation revealed that Chandresh had become a widow in 1960 whe n she was about 20 years old.In January 1964 she married one Captain Y. D. Sharma.By the early part of 1967 she and Dr. Jain were caught up in a passionate love affair.They proceeded to Kashmir for an adulterous honeymoon and stayed in a houseboat in Srinagar (Photographs Exhibits P93/1-4).On April 1, 1967 Dr. Jain employed Chandresh as his secretary a,t a salary of Rs. 300.00 per mensern.Mrs. Vidya Jam got a scent of their liaison apd forced her husband to terminate Chandresh's services by the end of that very month.The termination of Chandresh's services was only an eye-wash meant to placate Vidya Jain,.Otherwise the affair between Chandresh and Dr. Jain continued with unabated vigour.In or about July 1972 she shifted her residence to Ambala.Soon after his return from a visit to various foreign countries, on August 1, 1973, Dr. Jain obtained a bank draft of Rs. l,600.00 for her.The prosecution alleges that they have had too much of the irksome constraints imposed by an extra-legal sexual connection and decided, therefore, to convert it into a proper legal bound.That could not obviously be done without pushing Vidya Jain out of the way With a decree of judicial separation already in her pocket and her husband meekly reconciled to the severance of the marital link Chandresh was in a position to secure a divorce and marry any other person she chose at her sweet will.Dr. Jain on the other hand was not so happily circumstanced.Not only his marriage was intact, he had a conspicuously high status in the capital's elite circles and asking for a divorce would have raised a scandal stinking right up to the lofty heavens.Death of the wife Vidya Jain would, the lovers thought, cut the knot without creating any social complications and planned therefore, to have her killed.On this day, 14th, Chandresh took out Rs. 10,000.00 from a bag and paid the same to Karan Singh.Dr. Jain withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 in one hundred currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100.00 each on September 14, 1973 from his account with the Indian Overseas Bank, defense Colony Branch.It is suggested that it was the same money which Chandresh passed on to Karan Singh.Karan Singh had, however, no intention to kill anyone.He just swallowed the amount and invested it in the purchase of a truck for himself.Rakesh's efforts to recover the amount from Karan Singh failed.The first attempt to have Vidya Jain done to death in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid thus flopped.(11) Rakesh is said to have utilized the services of Lance Naik Jagdish Parshad Sharma (Public Witness 50) for contacting a Sivana at Deeg for a Ghat (WT)(proper or suitable time or period for a work or action, opportune moment vide A Dictionary of Urdu Classical Hindi and English by John T. Plats).It was driven by Daryao Singh, Dr. Jam's chauffeur.They returned disappointed.Rakesh obtained leave from November 5 to November 24, 1973 through application (Exhibit Pi 87).The purpose disclosed was "wife expired" though the spouse of Rakesh was very much alive.This leave was got extended telegraphically for ten days (Exhibit Pi 84).The prosecution alleges that Rakesh had taken the leave for hiring assassins to kill Vidya Jain as conspired.Rakesh belongs to a village in Charkhi Dadri Police Station of Haryana.Ram Kisban (Public Witness 7) a young man of about 20 years, was working as a Mistri (motor mechanic) at Charkhi Dadri.On November 24, 1973 Rakesh brought Ram Kishan to Delhi on the pretext that his assistance was required for purchasings rings for the engine of his truck.Rakesh intended to use Ram Kishan, in fact, for Vidya Jam's murder.Rakesh had been hiring taxi Dly 544 owned by Dharam Vir Malhotra (Public Witness 3) for himself and Chandresh, and they had thus got acquainted with its driver, Ramji (Public Witness 1).In the course of their conversation over a cup of tea at York restaurant in the evening of November 26, 1973 Chandresh told Ram)i that she had arranged for one man to kill the wife of Dr. Jain whom she wanted to marry, and that his taxi was needed for 3 or 4 days in that connection.She promised to give Ramji a car as a gift as well as permanent employment if her plan was crowned with success.Ramji agreed to provide the taxi as desired.Rakesh contracted 0m Parkash and told him that his taxi had been hired by him for Charkhi Dadri.As they all sat down in the taxi, Rakesh directed 0m Parkash to proceed to Bhogal wherefrom he wanted to pick up someone.On reaching Bhogal, 0m Parkash was asked to stop the taxi near the taxi stand of Sahi Hospital at Mathura Road.Rakesh got down and returned after 10 minutes with Ramji.Rakesh then directed 0m Parkash to drive to the defense Colony where he had some sort of business, 0m Parkash drove all of them to the defense Colony and pulled up the taxi at the place indicated by Rakesh and that was a little distance beyond the house of Dr. Jain towards north.Ujagar and Kartar got down and walked towards Dr. Jain's house.They were armed with a knife and a pistol respectively.On seeing Ramji seated in the taxi she remarked "Ramji Too Bhi".Ujagar and Kartar then rushed back to the taxi and occupied its rear seats.Rakesh asked 0m Parkash to start and hurry up.He was directed to take them to Lodhi Road via Jangpura.On their way to Lodhi Road, Ujagar or Kartar asked Rakesh when the doctor would pay the money.Rakesh assured them that he would himself arrange to send it within a couple of days.When the taxi approached a triangular crossing near the Golf Links, Ujagar and Kartar expressed a desire to get down Rakesh directed 0m Parkash to stop.0m Parkash obeyed and Ujagar and Kartar left the vehicle.Rakesh then asked 0m Parkash to proceed to the Cantonment, 0m Parkash enquired from Rakesh as to what had happened to his plan of going to Charkhi Dadri.Rakesh replied that he had cancelled that programme.As the office of Yadav Motor Transport Service fell on the way to the Cantonment, 0m Parkash stopped the taxi there and asked Rakesh to settle up the matter of the hire charges in view of the cancellation of the trip.He told Rattan Lal that the trip to Dadri had not been made and Rattan Lal charged Rs. 40 for half day's use of the taxi from Rakesh.Rakesh left the place saying that he would make his own arranagement for travel to the Cantonment.In the meantime, Chandresh and Ramji, who had failed to catch 0m Parkash's taxi, went in the direction of the Petrol Pump in the defense Colony.They met Bhagirath and Kalyan in the street.Chandresh asked them to disappear and informed them that the job had been done.Ramji and Chandresh walked together up to the bridge and then parted company.(15) It is alleged by the prosecution that Rakesh did not report back to his unit on December 4, 1973 and was found absent at the evening roll call.The purpose stated was "to settle the home problems".His prayer was granted by the authorities concerned.(16) The trial court charged Dr. N.S. Jain, Chandresh Sharma, Rakesh Kaushik, Bhagirath, Kalyan Gupta, Kartar Singh and Ujagar Singh under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for having entered into a conspiracy along with Ramji, the approver, to commit the murder of Vidya Jain.It also charged all of them except, Ujagar Singh, under section 302/34 for having committed the murder of Vidya Jain, and Ujagar Singh was separately charged under section 302 for the last mentioned offence.Kartar and Ujagar were charged and tried separately under section 27 of the Arms Act in respect of pistol and cartridges and knife recovered from them respectively.The accused denied the allegations of the prosecution.However, the learned Sessions Judge found Kalyan Gupta and Bhagirath guilty only under the first count while the rest were found guilty of all the charges laid against them.All the accused were sentenced to imprisonment' for life.Kartar and Ujagar were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively under section 27 of the Arms Act. All the seven accused persons have filed appeals against their respective convictions and sentences.The State has, on the other hand, appealed to have the sentences awarded to all the accused enhanced to the exterme penalty of death.It may, however, be noticed that during arguments Mr. K. L. Arora, learned counsel for the State, did not press the appeal against Kalyan and Bhagirath.(17) MR.A.N.MULLA, learned counsel for Chandresh, and Mr. B.B.Lal, learned counsel for Dr. Jain, do not deny the affairs between Dr. Jain and Chandresh; their escaped to Srinagar; Chandresh obtaining a decree of judicial separation from her husband and the flow of money by cheques and bank drafts from Dr. Jain to Chandresh as proved by the prosecution.But, says Mr. Lal, there was no earthly reason for Dr. Jain to develop a devastating desire to marry Chandresh after their liaison had brought him all the desired gratification over so many years.The contention thus is that Dr. Jain had no motive whatever for having Vidya Jain killed.Mr. Mulla urges with equal vehemence that the crime in question could be committed without Chandresh being joined as an equal partner in the conspiracy.It is submitted that Vidya Jain's resentment and opposition to the illegitimate intimacy b etween Dr. Jain and Chandresh started as far back as April 1967, but Chandresh never did anything to harm Vidya Jain by way of retaliation or revenge.Nothing new having occurred to aggravate the hostility on Chandresh's part (if any) there could be no 'compelling motive' for her to get Vidya Jain slain.How different persons behave in and react to diverse circumstances is incapable of prediction.What may appear to one as a very minor matter, to another may strike as grave enough for committing the most heinous crime.It would thus suffice for the prosecution to lead evidence suggesting a motive and leave the matter at that.(19) In the instant case it cannot be gainsaid that there was a motive for both Dr. Jain and Chandresh to get rid of Vidya Jain.The affair continued and the infatuation prospered.He learnt it from his father who was a Hindi and Sanskrit teacher and cultivated astrology for his personal pleasure.Bhagwan Das deposes that Chandresh accompanied by Rakesh, another man who was in the uniform of a driver, and one more person of short stature, came to his house.Chandresh told him that she was carrying on friendship with some one and wanted to know whether this friendship would fructify into a marriage.When Bhagwan Das asked the name of the man whom she wante d to be her spouse, she replied that the name began with 'N'.On further enquiry she replied it could mean "Narayan, Nathu or Narender or anything of which the Rashi is Vrisiwchik".She gave out the age of her lover as '50 or 52 years' and stated that he was already married.Since Bhagwan Das had adopted astrology as a hobby and not for the lure of riches, he declined to make any predictions which would ruin the matrimonial life of someone else.Chandresh insisted that he should see the horoscopes and on their study he would be convinced that the said person (the wife of the man concerned in question) deserved to be discarded.She promised to come again on the next Sunday (i. e. December 2, 1973) to deliver the horoscopes.She visited him as promised and delivered horoscopes (Exhibits P131 and P132).On December 16, 1973 she came to Bhagwan Das's house with a police party when Bhagwan Das handed over the said horoscopes which were duly taken into possession by the police.It was put to him that he was serving the C.I.A. (1) in 1968 and so was Dsp Harpal Singb, one of the investigating officers.The insinuation was that Bhagwan Das was under some compulsion to oblige the Deputy Superintendent of Police.Bhagwan Das replied that he had never seen the face of Dsp Harpal Singh.Bhagwan Das tells us that he practises astrology on Sundays for four hours or so and 40 to 50 persons come to consult him.Such a large number of visitors would indicate that he does enjoy some reputation of proficiency as an astrologer.An additional reason for making him popular may be his rendering free service.Chandresh came to her house with the police on December 11, 1973 and asked for the documents which she had placed in her custody.Shakuntia produced those documents and these were taken into possession by the police.She also deposes that all the articles were seized by the police vide memo Exhibit P95 which bears her signature.It was not even, suggested to Shakuntia Devi that the police had taken into possession any horoscope or that a horoscope was one of the papers given by her to the police.In order to identify the articles seized by the police Shakuntia had signed all the photographs as well as the album.Had the police recovered horoscope Exhibit Pi 32 from Shakunda Devi, her signature would have definitely appeared on this horoscope.We are satisfied that horoscope Exhibit P132 was not taken into possession, by the police from Shakuntia Devi.It is established by the evidence on the record that these were prepared at the request of Chandresh and delivered to her.Chandresh in her statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not tell the court as to what had happened to those horoscopes.She, in fact, denied that horoscope Exhibit P132 belonged to her.We have no hesitation in holding that both the horoscopes were recovered by the police from Bhagwan Das to whom these were handed over by Chandresh.We are satisfied that Bhagwan Das is a truthful witness and the learned Sessions Judge was right in believing his testimony.(23) It is true that Dr. Jain had gone on a world tour with his wife Vidya Jain.But this fact does not necessarily show that Dr. Jain loved Vidya Jain, or that Dr. Jain had been cured of his infatuation for Chandresh.No sooner did Dr. Jain get back from this tour than he secured a bank draft (Exhibit P164) for Rs. 1,600 in favor of Chandresh.It was obtained on August 1, 1973 from Indian Overseas Bank, defense Colony, New Delhi.(24) Another motive on the part of Dr. Jain, as suggested by the prosecution, is that he suspected the fidelity of Vidya Jain.To prove this the prosecution has examined Mrs. Janak Burman (Public Witness 96).She forms part of the same strata of society to which Jains belong.She had known Jains for several years.Mrs.Burman deposed that about three years ago she and her husband had gone to Srinagar where Jains were already holidaying.One Mr.P.N.Gupta with his wife and children was staying with Jains.Burmans were of course putting up at a different place.Mrs. Burman noticed that Mr. Gupta and Vidya Jain were 'very good freinds'.After they had returned to Delhi, on one occasion, Burman,s decided to attend the marriage of Vidya Jain's sister's son who was living at Mathura.The barat was to go from Mathura to Jaipur where the bride was residing.During cross-examination she admitted all the material facts she had stated before the police.It is true that she did not in so many words talk about the unusual intimacy between Gupta and Vidya Jain.She belongs to a section of society which would not readily call a spade a spade.Rakesh appellant was working as Education Havildar in the same Battalion.Ram Phal deposes that sometime in September, 1973 Rakesh approached him for a short leave after lunch for meeting one Jaggi, a notorious bad character, in Central Jail, Tihar, for some important work.Ram Phal told him that he knew that Jaggi was a bad character and enquired from him about the nature of work.Instead of answering the query, Rakesh asked Ram Phal as to how he knew that Jaggi was a bad character.Ram Phal informed him that he came to know about Jaggi from Karan Singh who belonged to his (Ram Phal's) village and was a bad character like Jaggi.Rakesh became interested in finding out Karan Singh's whereabouts and Ram Phal told him that Karan Singh was living behind the Municipal Committee's office at Rajpur Road.Ram Phal again enquired from Rakesh about the nature of work for which he needed the assistance of a bad character.Rakesh replied that a jhagra in his family was giving a lot of trouble.Ram Phal informed him that he (Ram Phal) had not sent for him.Ram Phal, however, asked Karan Singh to wait there till he returned after taking his meals.When Ram Phal returned he saw Rakesh and Karan Singh talking to each other.Rakesh begged of Ram Phal to intercede on his behalf and request Karan Singh to do his work.Ram Phal told him that there was no such necessity since he (Rakesh) was already talking to Karan Singh.He, however, advised Karan Singh not to do anything involving risk to the latter and left the place.Ram Phal deposes further that after a few days Rakesh informed him that he had paid Rs. l,200/- to Karan Singh for the job.After a few days more Rakesh complained to Ram Phal that Karan Singh was neither doing his job nor returning his money, and so Ram Phal should speak to Karan Singh.After some days Ram Phal accom- panied Rakesh in a scooter rickshaw to Hauz Qazi where Rakesh introduced him to Chandresh.All of them went to a tea shop where Chandresh asked Ram Phal to speak to Karan Singh to do the work of Rakesh'.Ram Phal also deposes that after an interval of a few days Rakesh requested him to keep some money and pay the same to Karan Singh if he did the job, Ram Phal declined to do so since he did not want to get involved in the rigmarole.Some days thereafter Rakesh informed that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- to Karan Singh for the job.Subsequently Rakesh complained to him that Karan Singh was neither doing the job nor returning the money and beseeched Ram Phal to intervene.A couple of days later Ram Phal accompanied Rakesh to Connaught Circus.They went to a restaurant and met Chandresh.All of them took a taxi and went to Karan Singh's house at Rajpur Road but Karan Singh was not in the house.After waiting for some time they left the house in a taxi.On the way Chandresh was complaining to Rakesh that Karan Singh would not do the job and that she would, therefore, not get any comfort in life.The taxi was stopped near the Chowk fountain and they got down.Ram Phal took Rakesh aside and enquired as to what was this all about.Rakesh replied that a well-known eye surgeon wanted to marry Chandresh and that the doctor was fed up with his wife since she was ruining his house.Rakesh also told him that the doctor wanted to get rid of his wife.While they were talking, Chandresh came there and so Ram Phal boarded a bus and left.After about two days Rakesh brought Karan Singh to the unit.Ram Phal asked Karan Singh to return the money taken from Rakesh and advised him not to do any such work.Karali Singh replied that he had spent some amount and would return the balance.Ram Phal goes on to depose that after about a month or so Rakesh met him again when he came back from leave.Ram Phal asked him as to how he had spent the leave.Rakesh replied that he had spent it all right and enquired if he had read the morning newspaper Ram Phal replied in the negative.Rakesh told him that the work had already been done and that it involved an expenditure of Rs. 40,000/-.The statement of Ram Phal is assailed on 'the ground that he is an accomplice.It is contended that in case Karan Singh had committed the murder, Ram Phal would have been in the same position as Kalyan and Bhagirath.We have already discussed what an accomplice is.There is no evidence on the record to show that Ram Phal knew that Rakesh was looking for a bad character to assassinate Vidya Jain.In fact, when Ram Phal.questioned Rakesh about his anxiety to meet Karan Singh, Rakesh put him off by saying that he wanted to sesttle some family dispute.It is true that Ram Phal mentioned the name of Karan Singh to Rakesh but that was in an entirely different context.There is no reason to impute Ram Phal with the knowledge that Karan Singh was being sought for the murder of Vidya Jain.(32) Another ground on which Ram Phal's testimony is criticised is that the police got his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.We have not been shown any law under which the testimony of a witness whose statement has been got recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be rejected.It is common knowledge that whenever an investigating officer sees a likelihood of a witness going back on his statement, he gets the statement of the witness recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Neither any mala-fides can be attributed to the Mivestigating officer nor the statement of such a witness can be discarded on this ground alone.In the instant case, Ram Phal and Rakesh were working in the same Battalion.He holds a responsible position.Rakesh had at one time approached a Minister of the Haryana government to secure a job for Ram Phal's nephew.Ram Phal testified in court that he had stated to the police that Rakesh had told him that Dr. Jain was the doctor to the President, that the doctor was fed up with his wife and the doctor wanted to get rid of her but none of these facts finds a mention in his police statement (Exhibit D37).These are important omissions bearing on a motive being imputed to Dr. Jain.We will, therefore.exclude this part of his evidence from our consideration.He had been allotted quarter No. 4 at 16 Rajpur Road.Karan Singh P.W. was known to him for the last 2% years.He deposes that Rakesh-came to his quarter one day with Karan Singh and he paid a visit to his quarter again in the company of Chandresh 15 or 20 days thereafter whe n Karan Singh was also there.About a month later Rakesh and Chandresh again came to his house and enquired about Karan Singh.He told them that Karan Singh was not there.Rakesh requested him to tell Karan Singh to see him.The two appellants came once more after about a month and asked him to convey to Karan Singh that either he should return their money or they would make him face his village Panchayat.When Phool Dass enquired from them what the matter was, they told him that they had paid Karan Singh money for getting someone murdered.After about 10/12 days Karan Singh met him.He gave him the message of Rakesh and Chandresh.Karan Singh told him that he had been paid for murdering one Dr. Jain's wife and that the amount had already been utilised for the purchase of a truck but he was not going to kill the woman.Phool Dass further deposed that Karan Singh again came to him after 5 or 7 days.Karan Singh was taking his bath when Rakesh too turned up and there was an altercation between the two.According to Phool Dass, Rakesh and Chandresh had come to his quarter at about Ii or 12 in the day while Karan Singh's statement, on the contrary, is that Rakesh and Chandresh had met him at Pool Dass's residence at 8 or 9 P.M. and at the time of this visit Phool Dass too was present.Otherwise there is no suggestion of any bad blood between Phool Dass on the one hand and Rakesh and Chandresh cn the other so as to actuate the former to perjure himself.The payment according to Karan Singh was made not in the quarter of Phool Dass, it was done in a nearby Municipal Corporation room which was unoccupied at that time.Phool Dass had not been taken into confidence at that stage of the matter and he was expected, therefore, not to be a witness to the money changing hands.The testimony of Phool Dass has a ring of truth.Karan Singh (PW5) deposes that he was staying with Phool Dass in Quarter No. 4 Civil Lines, Delhi, when Rakesh came to him.Rakesh told him that he was Ram Phal's colleague and that Ram Phal had sent him.When Karan Singh enquired from Rakesh the object of his visit he was told that a doctor's wife bad to be killed.Chandresh brought out a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from her bag and paid the same to him.They told him that they would let him know the woman who was meant to be killed and he would have to remain on the look out thereafter.The balance of Rs. 10,000/- was stipulated to be.paid after the event.Karan Singh swears that he received the sum of Rs. 10,000/- without any intention of killing any one.Rakesh continued his contacts with the witness for sometime but then he (Karan Singh) left the place to avoid him.One day Phool Dass told him that Rakesh had been coming to the house frequently and insisting on the job being done or the money being returned.He told Phool Dass frankly that he wanted to grab the money and was not going to kill any one.After 7 or 8 days Rakesh found Karan Singh at the same quarter and demanded the money back.Rakesh threatened to call a Panchayat if the money was not returned- Karan Singh retorted as to what for he would summon the Panchayat.Karan Singh is, no doubt, a bad character.But it is such like persons who are sought for by those who want to get some one killed.He must have sized up Rakesh and Chandresh that they could not harm him if he double crossed them.He turned out to be right.Rakesh's threat to summon a Panchayat cut no ice.He know that Rakesh dare not tell Panchas the purpose for which money was given.(35) It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that Karan Smgh is shown by the prosecution itself as guilty a conspirator as any one else and being an accomplice the court should not accept his evidence in the absence of strong independent corroboration.We have seen that though Karan Siogh had no scruples to deter him from accepting Rs. ll,200/- from Rakesh and Chandresh as a part of the consideration for the murder of Mrs. Vidya Jain yet he had no intention of committing any murder; he simply wanted to cheat the conspirators out of the amount they had brought to hire him for the assassination.As has been seen the motive for the murder of Mrs. Vidya Jain was provided by the infatuation which Chandresh and Dr. Jain had developed for each other.Though Rakesh was very much in the conspiracy and was playing a rather directorial role in the achievement of its object he was not supposed to spend any considerable amount from his own pocket to remove the hurdle separating the two lovers.When Dharam Vir Malhotra contacted him to realise the fare for the use of his taxi amounting to Rs. 145/-in all he could not manage to meet his claim and left the taxi, with Malhotra, Ramji and Chandresh sitting in it, near the Fire Brigade, to obtain the necessary funds from somewhere.It is true that Karan Singh does not remember the month when Rs. 10,000 were paid to him though he is certain that the date was 14th.It is also true that that Karan Singh does not seem to have an accurate memory for time.But there was nothing extraordinary about his being sure about the date since on that day he got a very substantial amount for nothing.As we have already discussed, the only source of income of Chandresh was Dr. Jain.She could not have received this huge amount from any other person.But we hesitate to agree with the trial court that from the aforementioned circumstance conclusion is irresistible that Rs. 10,000 given by Chandresh to Karan Singh were the same which were withdrawn by Dr. Jam.The driver replied in the affirmative.Rakesh and Jagdish Parkash left for village Nogaya.On the way the car had some trouble and so they reached the village very late at night.Next morning the said brother-in-law accompanied them to Deeg where the Siyana lived.At Deeg, Rakesh and the said Sala went to the Siyana.They, however, returned after some time and told Jagdish Parshad that they could not find the Siyana.Thereafter they left for Delhi.However, the car again suffered a breakdown near Faridabad.The car and the driver were left there, and Rakesh and Jagdish Parshad travelled by a bus to Delhi.(38) Dr. Jain in his statement recorded under section 313 of title Code of Criminal Procedure does not deny that his car Dlj Ii was taken by Daryao Singh in the end of September 1973 and that it broke down near about Faridabad and had to be brought to Delhi for repairs.According to Dr. Jain, Daryao Singh had informed him that he had taken the car at the request of some relations of Chandresh and that two men and one woman had requested Daryao Singh to drop them near Faridabad.But, says Dr. Jain, Daryao Singh had taken the car without his permission.Jagdish Parshad admits that he did not apply for leave but explains : "I had not myself taken any leave for going with Rakesh Kaushik but since he was my superior and he had granted the leave I went with him." Since Jagdish Parshad was subordinate to Rakesh he had no reason not to trust Rakesh.Statement of Durga Parshad (PW 48) that Rakesh was never absent from the roll call in September and October, 1973, is referred to make out that Rakesh never left the unit as suggested by Jagdish Parshad.Durga Parshad categorically deposes that there was no register for roll call and it was an oral affair.Absence from roll call was not entered in the attendance register which was being maintained.The attendance register for September, 1973 was not before Durga Parshad when he made the statement.Therefore this part of Durga Parshad's statement cannot be of any help to Rakesh and cannot be used to discredit Jagdish Pershad.He had no reason to depose falsely against his immediate superior who was facing a murder charge.Even Dr. Jain does not deny Daryao Singh taking the car away at the request of some relations of Chandresh and the car breaking down near Faridabad.Next day Ram Kishan reached Hauz Qazi by the earliest bus.Rakesh turned up at 2 P.M. and asked him to wait.After a short while Rakesh came back with Chandresh whom he introduced as his relation.Rakesh hired two cycle-rickshaws, one for himself and Chandresh, and the other for Ram Kishan.They proceeded to the 'New Vig restaurant' in Chandni Chowk where Ram Kishan was given a seat on the ground-floor whereas the other two went upstairs.After taking tea etc. Chandresh paid the bill and parted company.Rakesh and Ram Kishan left for the house of the former's relations in Company Bagh.Ram Kishan deposes that next morning they met Cndresh again at Hauz Qazi.Rakesh telephoned from a nearby tea shop and a taxi.Dly 544, arrived thereafter about half an hour.Ramji was driving and the owner of the car was sitting in it.Rakesh paid the fare for the taxi to its proprietor and all of them travelled from Hauz Qazi to Connaught Circus.After dropping the owner of the taxi in Connaught Circus, they went to the York restaurant.Rakesh and Chandresh took their seats on the first-floor while Ramji and Ram Kishan stayed on the ground-floor.Rakesh and Chandresh came down after about two hours.Chandresh then left by herself whereas Rakesh, Ramji and Ram Kishan went to Motia Khan.When they were back from Motia Khan, Rakesh told Ram Kishan that the purpose for bringing him to Delhi was not to buy the rings.He disclosed that Chandresh was a friend of a doctor and that she was to be enabled to marry him.To achieve that end, Ram Kishan was further informed, the Doctor's wife had to be killed and this job was to be done by him.In case he failed to do so he would not be able to reach back Dadri Rakesh warned him that he was a bad man and repeated the threat a number of times.At the same time Rakesh gave him the inducement that if the mission was fulfillled Ram Kishan would be given enough money.Ram Kishan pleaded time and again that he was a humble person and the task was beyond him.But Rakesh persisted in his threats.Being a meek person he (Ram Kishan) was frightened.Rakesh gave him Rs. 40/-, brought him to the bus stand, and instructed him to buy a knife from Raka's shop in Ghaziabad.The location of the shop was duly explained to him.Ram Kishan purchased the knife, as instructed, for Rs. 8/- and spent the night .in Delhi Cantonment in Rakesh's room.Ram Kishan goes on to state that the next morning he came to Hauz Qazi as advised where Chandresh and Rakesh met him.They went to a shop and telephoned from there.Ramji with his taxi arrived after about an hour.They drove to York restaurant.This time Ramji, Rakesh and Chandresh were accommodated on the first-floor while Ram Kishan got a seat on the ground-floor.Ram Kishan came out first, Ramji half an hour after him and Chandresh and Rakesh last of all.Chandresh then went away.Rakesh told Ram Kishan that they would be showing him the Doctor's Kothi.He was taken to the Doctor's house, No. D-291, defense Colony, and given an opportunity to have a good look at it.The car was then parked at a long distance from the Kothi and he was remainded that if he did not do the job he himself would have to die.He had, on his part, no intention to kill any one.He went to the Kothi and whiled away about half an hour.Rakesh and Ramji came back and rebuked him for having stood there quietly while she (meaning ostensibly the Doctor's wife) had left.Ram Kishan testifies further that from defense Colony he was taken to Hauz Qazi.Rakesh got out of the car and brought Chandresh.They paid another visit to the York restaurant.From there they went to a Jyotshi who lived in a 'Chaubara' in R. K. Puram.Chaadresh had a talk with 'the astrologer and the latter asked him to come again on Sunday.They returned to Connaught Place where Chandresh parted company with them.They then went to a Kothi at Barakhamba Road where Rakesh showed Ram Kishan the Doctor's shop.On the walls of the clinic there were photographs showing the Doctor shaking hands with the Rashtrapati.Rakesh brought these photographs to Ram Kishan's notice and pointed out that the Doctor was a big man and that there was no reason for him to feel panicky.Ram Kishan again told Rakesh that the job was impossible for him to handle.After coming downstairs Rakesh told the Doctor's driver, Chowdhury, that the Doctor would be operating upon Ram Kishan's mother's eyes and that he (Ram Kishan) would be spending the night at the Doctor's Kothi where a bed should be provided to him.Rakesh and Ramji then took him to a tea shop and warned him again that he would lose his life if he did not do their bidding.In the evening Rakesh left Ram Kishan with Chowdhury.Chowdhury suggested that he should sleep in the car, to that, however, he did not agree.He spent the night in Chowdhury's Kothri and had a sound sleep.Ram Kishan further deposes that he got up in the morning and decided to flee for his life.He travelled up to the Delite Cinema by a bus and then hired a scooter for the Bus Stand.However, Rakesh happened to see him when the scooter was passing through Hauz Qazi and shouted for him to stop.Rakesh dismissed the scooter, abused Ram Kishan hand brought him to a small Kothri.Ram Kishan touched his fleet and begged him to let him go.He spent the night, as dictated by Rakesh, at Ramji's house where he was scolded by the latter for his failings to accomplish the job.Ram Kishan held out a false assurance to finish the job.On the following morning Ramji gave him a slip of paper bearing the number of a telephone and instructed him to ring from Hauz Qazi in the name of Rakesh for a taxi being brought there.Ram Kishan rang up.But he received a reply from the other side that the taxi could not be sent.Then Rakesh set him and asked if the job had been done.He replied in the nagative and stated that he was incapable of doing it.Rakesh took him to Kapasheda where they spent the night.The next morning they came again to Hauz Qazi and met Chandresh.There was the usual telephone call and the arrival of the taxi with Ramji at its wheel.They came to the York restaurant where he (Ram Kishan) took his tea at the ground-floor while the other three went to the first-floor.Ram Kishan finished his tea and came out.The others emerged after about two hours.Chandresh then left them.They drove to the defense Colony.Near the Doctor's Kothi they (Rakesh and Ramji) again asked Ram Kishan to go and finish the job.Ram Kishan now told them that he could not do it and if they so wanted they could kill him.The taxi was then driven to Bhogal and there Ramji and Rakesh brought Kalyan Gupta.They had some talk amongst themselves and let Ram Kishan off.When he was leaving Rakesh threatened him that if he leaked out anything to anybody he (Rakesh) would be there to deal with him.Ram Kishan took a bus for Dadri and threw the knife which he had been carrying into a Nallah near Jhajhar.Rakesh met him on the 7th of the same month and told him that his stars had doomed him to break his head against steel scrap, that the job had already been done and that if he opened his lips to anyone about it he would not be left alive.He implored Rakesh to leave him alone urging that he had a small child to bring up and that he should not be involved in the matter unnecessarily.The police came to him on the 13th December at Dadri and brought him to Delhi.He was interrogated that very day and produced before a Magistrate on the 15th of the same month when his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded (Exhibit P29) (41) We would presently discuss the statement of Ramji (PW 1) in detail.It is to be noted that according to the approver when he went to Hauz Qazi for the collection of his dues along with his employer, Dharam Vir Malhotra, on November 27, 1973, he found that Rakesh Kaushik was accompanied by Chandresh Sharma and a young boy whose name he subsequently came to know as Ram Kishan.After Malhotra had parted company at Connaught Circus they proceeded to the York restaurant and took tea there.He also speaks of his driving Rakesh Kaushik and Ram Kishan to Motia Khan.They returned to the York restaurant after two hours and there Rakesh told Ram Kishan to kill Dr. Jain's wife because a marriage between Chandresh and Dr. Jain had to be brought about.It is again in his deposition that at 8-30 A.M. on November 28, 1973 when he met Chandresh and Rakesh in Chowk Hauz Qazi, Ram Kishan was present with them.Leaving Chandresh behind, he drove Rakesh and Ram Kishan to the defense Colony where Rakesh told Ram Kishan to kill Dr. Jain's wife.Ram Kishan was then armed with a long knife.They then came to his Jhuggi in Jangpura.His taxi was taken to the defense Colony for the second time at about 9 P.M. He stopped near D-291 where Rakesh told Ram Kishan to put up with the driver and kill the Doctor's wife.His version is further in accord with the statement of Ram Kishan as to his having come to his (Ramji's) house the next evening (November 29), his having scolded him for not committing the murder, and as to his giving Ram Kishan a bed for the night on the latter's assuring him that he would do the job the next day.1973 to telphone Malhotra by posing as Rakesh Kaushik from Hauz Qazi, Malhotra receiving a telephone call purporting to be from Rakesh, and Malhotra not sending the taxi to Hauz Qazi because the voice of the person asking for the taxi did not resemble that of Rakesh Kaushik.Ramji further testifies that when he took the taxi to Hauz Qazi on December 1, 1973 in compliance with the directions of Malhotra he found Chandresh, Rakesh and Ram Kishan there.He drove them to Connaught Circus, dropped Chandresh there and then took Rakesh and Ram Kishan to the defense Colony.The taxi was stopped at some distance from D-291 and both Rakesh and he himself brought a lot of pressure to bear on Ram Kishan to go and stay in front of D-291 and kill Dr. Jain's wife when she came out.Ram Kishan did go as directed and they waited for him for some time but when Ram Kishan came back he (Ramji) told Rakesh that Ram Kishan was not up to the job and that he (Ramji) would suggest another man who could do it.He then drove them to the house of Kalyan Gupta at Bhogal.(42) Dharam Vir Malhotra (PW 3) has deposed that when he went to Hauz Qazi to collect his dues from Rakesh Kaushik on November 29, 1973 at about Ii A.M. a boy described a? 'Kishan', whose name was later on discovered to be Ram Kishan, was also with Rakesh.When he insisted on the payment of the amount Rakesh went into a Gali and returned with Chandresh.She remonstrated with the witness (Malhotra.) for not trusting his driver and insisting on immediate payment, but in view of his presistence they sat with him in the car and drove to Connaught Circus.The taxi was parked near the Fire Brigade.Rakesh then left the taxi staling that he would return with the money after getting it from Pandit Brothers or someone of such name, and till his return Ram Kishan, Chandresh, Ramji and he himself continued sitting in the taxi.Malhotra, who is a reliable witness, corroborates the presence of Ram Kishan with Rakesh, Chandresh at the relevant time.The appellants could produce evidence from the records of Kirloskar & Company if they had any doubts about Ram Kishan's veracity that he had not been attending to his duties at Charkhi Dadri from November 27 to December 1, 1973, but not only they omitted to do it, the subject was not broached to Ram Kishan at the time of his cross-examination even.The trial court found that Ram Kishan was moving in the company of the aforesaid conspirators on the dates mentioned above and we see no reason to take a different view.(43) It is contended by the appellants that Ram Kishan was by his own showing an active member of the conspiracy and so the version put forward by him should be discarded in toto.As has already been noted, Ram Kishan was duped by Rakesh to come to Delhi on the false pretext of his services being needed for the purchase of rings for a Mercedes truck.When the real design was revealed to Ram Kishan,.he told Rakesh in unambiguous terms that he was just a milksop and the job thrust on him was simply beyond his might.There is nothing on record to show that Ram Kishan had any previously committed offences to his credit.Rakesh and Chandresh having already burnt their fingers in enlisting the services of a hardened criminal (Karan Singh), it might have been thought that a raw youth inexperienced in such like affairs had better be bluffed into accepting the assignment.We have noted already that Rakesh threatened Ram Kishan that if he (Ram Kishan) did not fulfill the mission he would not reach Charkhi Dadri alive, and this threat was repeated a number of times for the requisite impact.Ram Kishan knew that Rakesh belonged to the army which is trained for killing persons when necessary.Ram Kishan also came to know during his stay at Delhi that Rakesh and his friends were making all out efforts to kill a woman belonging to a very high stratum of society with the blessings of her husband who had the advantage of top-most contacts.He himself was a callow youth hailing from a small place in a backward region of the country trying to earn his keep as a small-time mechanic.The repeated threats must have instilled an adequate amount of terror in his mind that if he did not at least pretend that he would be carrying out Rakesh's command there was very little chance of his survival.He made, therefore, the motions of purchasing a knife from Ghaziabad and sticking out an hour or so close to Dr. Jain's Kothi to avoid the wrath of his tormentor.But the circumstances eloquently speak of his never falling in line, from the heart of his hearts, with the design of Rakesh and others to do away with Vidya Jain.The little show he put up as a would-be-killer had no conviction behind it, it had its roots in irresistible coercion and it is absolutely undeserving of being accepted as proof of his joining Rakesh, Chandresh or Ramji in the conspiracy to do away with Vidya Jain.(44) The learned Sessions Judge has remarked that Ram Kishan had opportunities galore to run away from Delhi but virtually paralysed by extreme fear as he was he could not possibly think of leaving Delhi without Rakesh's permission.There were no impregnable walls around Dadri as could ensure safety for him in the event of Rakesh deciding to carry out his threat because he had been, in the wake of a treacherous hope of his turning out to be as an effective instrument, placed in possession of a dangerous secret.According to the trial court, again, Ram Kishan did not inspire confidence and was unreliable.In its view his statement was chockful of discrepancies and improbabilities.It did not care much, however, to elaborate this rather sweeping observation.To bring the point home it said that it was difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Ram Kishan was threatened and coerced in joining Rakesh, Chandresh and Ramji in this conspiracy, that he was made to go to Ghaziabad for the purchase of a knife and that he kept staying at Delhi throughout this period for fear of Rakesh.Now so far as Ram Kishan's staying at Delhi at the instance of Rakesh and purchasing a knife from Ghaziabad are concerned, Ram Kishan's story appears to have been unreservedly accepted by the trial court because paragraph 18 of its judgment reads "This much is, however, clear from the evidence aliunde discussed under sub-head (d) above that Rakesh Kaushik had tried to use Ram Kishan P.W. as an instrument for committing the murder of Vidya Jain between November 24, and December 1, 1973".The one reason given for the disbelief springing from Ram Kishan's testimony is that "if he really wanted to go back to Dadri earlier there were opportunities galore for him to do so.For example, he could have quite conveniently gone to Dadri instead of Ghaziabad on November 27, 1973 when he says that he was sent to Ghaziabad for the purchase of a knife".The circumstance relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge was, in fact, put to Ram Kishan in his cross-examination and his reply was: "It is true that I had many opportunities to escape to Dadri but I did not do it for I was afraid of my life".When questioned by another defense counsel on the same point he said: "I did not try to run away because I knew that they would not let me to do so".The learned trial Judge has himself said that Ram Kishan was a coward but added 'who somehow ventured into and joined this criminal conspiracy on some allurement and that after his failure to do the part assigned to him, he was sent back".We have already referred to Ram Kishan's statement as to his having been engaged by Rakesh to help him in the purchase of rings for his truck at a daily allowance of Rs. 10 plus bus fare and diet expenses.It was testified by him that he had joined as an apprentice with Mistri Jeet Singh and worked with him for a year and a half.Thereafter he assisted his father who was blacksmith for sometime, and then he joined Kirloskar & Company.The cross-examination by Rakesh's counsel shows that Ram Kishan did have experience of handling truck repairs.There is no ground, therefore, not to believe him when he says that he came to Delhi with Rakesh on the latter representing that his assistance was needed for the purchase of rings.He was duly paid all the allowances promised to him so long as he stayed at Delhi by Rakesh and the illusion about the function he was supposed to discharge might have been sustained by Rakesh's statement that the rings were not being purchased straightaway because he was short of money and the same had to be brought from home.When Rakesh disclosed his cards in the parking lot of the York restaurant about the contemplated murder Ram Kishan told him that he was a humble person and incapable of executing any such job.The learned trial Judge fell into an error in conjecturing that Ram Kishan had joined the criminal conspiracy on some allurement.There is no evidence to bear out the insinuation.Ram Kishan has, no doubt, stated that Rakesh had offered to pay him 'enough' money if the job was done, but not even the foggiest idea of the quantum of money likely to be paid was conveyed to him.There is no material on record to suggest that Ram Kishan was taken in by this inducement proceeding from a person who had brought him to Delhi by playing a trick on his confidence and had been reminding him ad nauseam that the moment he refused to do the job he would be no more.It is just not possible to conclude, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, that Ram Kishan had failed to do the part assigned to him because, as already discussed, there is no material to suggest that he ever undertook to play the said part.Mere acquisition of a knife to buy a little time is neither here nor there.There is total lack of evidence that be ever enquired from Rakesh or any one else how to identify the woman whom he was supposed to put to death or that he made faintest effort to gain entrance to that part of Dr. Jain's house where she could be expected to be found.He admittedly spent one night in D-291 but that was in the driver's Kothri.No one has told us that there was any direct access from that Kothri to the room where Mrs. Jain used to sleep or that Ram Kishan ever set his foot down the bed, given to him by Chowdhury, to have even a peep at that place.Had it been anywhere in his mind to kill Mrs. Jain he would have been worrying his head how to get at the throat of the woman marked for liquidation.On the contrary, as he says, he went into sound sleep.We would not, therefore, agree with the learned Sessions Judge that be was a coward who failed to play the role assigned to him in the conspiracy.He was told by Rakesh on December 7, 1973 that the job had been done even without his help.Ram was interrogated further on the 23rd.Since nothing new was disclosed by him the necessity for recording anything did not arise.Whereas Ramji was being produced before the Magistrate for remand along with his other co-accused previously, he was taken to the court along for police remand on December 24, 1973 because his co-accused had been sent to judicial lock-up.Mr. Satnam Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class on duty, granted the police remand till December 26, 1973 only.Inspector Faqir Chand had given the reason for police remand as "spectacles of the deceased have not been recovered as yet and the accused is to be interrogated further in order to ascertain the source of supply of knife, the weapon of murder, pistol and cartridges relating to this case".These reasons were frivolous.The knife had already been recovered from Ujagar and the pistol from Kartar.The source of supply of these weapons could have been ascertained from them.It had also become obvious by this time that Ramji could not have possibly anything to do with the spectacles of the deceased since he never came to the spot where Vidya Jain had been felled.The reasons best known to him, did not inform the Judicial Magistrate of C.I.D. (Crime) (C.I.D. crime do not have any lock-up of their own) used to mess at that police station and that Ramji was under his charge.This reason is as trivial as the reason for shifting him (Ramji) to Police Station Civil Lines.It is obvious that the only purpose to shuttle Ramji from one police station to another was to ensure that no relation or any other outsider gets an opportunity to meet him.The Magistrate granted remand as prayed for.In this application Inspector Faqir Chand states that Ramji "wants to make his confessional statement in the court voluntarily.Ramji was, therefore, taken to the S.D.M. who remanded Ramji to Judicial custody till December 27, 1973 because the Magistrate found that Ramji was being produced before him in police custody.The above-mentioned facts show that Inspector Faqir Chand, for reasons best known to him did not inform the Judicial Magistrate about Ramji's willingness to make a confession.The reason given to the trial court was that the Judicial Magistrate was working as a 'Duty Magistrate' for that day and 'was too busy'.But the Inspector h ad not informed the A.D.M. (South) that he had already obtained an order for judicial custody, nor did he apprise the S.D.M. about it.The result was that on the same day two orders for judicial custody of Ramji were made by different magistrates.The first order was by a Judicial Magistrate whereas the second one was by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate.Ramji and Rakesh pressed Ram Kishan to go and stay in front of Dr. Jain's Kotfu, and kill doctor's wife when she came out.Ram Kishan went as directed but returned to the taxi after some time without doing the job.At this stage Ramji decided to play a vital role in the conspiracy.After Dr. Jain had left, Chandresh told the other conspirators that she would also be reaching Dr. Jain's Kothi in the doctor's car at about 6.30 P.M. She informed them further that she would get down from the car outside the Kothi and that when the doctor would come out of his Kothi along with his wife, Ujagar and Kartar would kill her.She also cautioned Ujagar and Kartar to see that the doctor did not suffer any knife injury.From the restaurant Ramji along with Bhagirath and Kalyan left for Bhogal in a taxi.Dr. Jain and Chandresh stepped out of the car.While Dr. Jain went inside the house, Chandresh came to the taxi, Chandresh talked to Rakesh in English and then asked Ramji to come out of the car.Ramji got down.He had hardly gone 40 or 50 paces when he saw Dr. Jain walking out of the house with his wife.Dr. Jain was leading and his wife was following.Ujagar and Kartar pounced upon her and while Kartar caught hold of her, Ujagar inflicted 10 or 12 knife blows and felled her in the Nallah.Ujagar and Kartar then rushed to the car and boarded it.The car sped away.Ramji and Chandresh could not make to the car.They then went in the direction of the petrol pump where they met Bhagirath and Kalyan in the street.Chandresh advised them to disappear as the job had been done.(55) After going through the evidence on record we are satisfied that Ramji is a reliable witness.He had known Bhagirath and Kalyan for more than a year before the incident.Sometimes in 1972 he drove Bhagirath and Kalyan to village Ghori where Bhagirath has a farm.He smuggled wheat to Delhi in the dicky of the taxi under instructions from Bhagirath.Malhotra discovered some grains of wheat in the dicky and suspected Ramji of smuggling wheat on account of Bhagirath.Malhotra made a grievance of the same to Bhagirath and dispensed with Ramji's services for some time.Bhagirath does not deny that he had hired the taxi earlier with Ramji as its driver.He also admits that Malhotra had made a grievance of wheat being smuggled in his taxi though he characterises this charge as false.Even Kalyan concedes hiring the taxi earlier.Kalyan has been living in Bhogal and Ramji's jhuggi is situated nearby across Malhotra Road and in front of the Sahi Hospital.They would thus have many occasions to meet each other.Whenever Bhagirath was in Delhi he would also stay in Bhogal.Therefore, there is no doubt that Ramji had known Kalyan and Bhagirath intimately before the incident.Malhotra explains the circumstances under which he had suspected Ramji of smuggling wheat and, therefore, had complained about the same to Bhagirath and suspended Ramji for some time.Malhotra confirms that the taxi returned at about 10 or Ii P.M. and Ramji told him about Rakesh asking for the taxi for the following morning at Hauz Qazi at about Ii A.M. Malhotra supports Ramji by affirming that on November 27, 1973 he accompanied Ramji: in the taxi to Hauz Qazi to collect the dues from Rakesh.He met Rakesh, Ram Kishan and Chandresh there.In fact, Malhotra had an argument with Chandresh when he insisted on payment of his dues.Malhotra also testifies that when Ramji returned with the taxi he handed over slip Exhibit PI.This slip carries an endorsement (Q-2) in the hand of Rakesh asking for the taxi for the following day.It may be noticed at this stage that Rakesh does not deny that Q-2 was written by him.He, however, alleges in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Investigating Officer Faqir Chand had, got his writing and signature on duty-slip books and he could not say "what he got written from me that day".Rakesh admittedly did not make any grievance about the investigating officer having forced him to write something on a duty-slip till Inspector Faqir Chand came in the witness-box.If he had been compelled to write Q-2 on Exhibit Pi, we see no reason why he did not raise a hue and cry with regard thereto in the very beginning.He did not even suggest to Ramji that he (Rakesh) had not made that writing.The statement of Ramji that Rakesh had noted down something on this slip before he discharged the taxi was allowed to go unchallenged.On December 3 he received a telephonic message that the taxi was in the town and it would be returned that very day.Malhotra swears that Ramji came to his residence with the taxi and Rakesh at about Ii P.M. and he questioned them for not bringing the taxi earlier.Rakesh explained the delay to Malhotra by saying that he was too busy in his engagements in connection with some sort of contract in which he was taking the help of a member of the Parliament.(57) Malhotra has produced Duty Slip Books kept by him in the course of his transport business.So has Rattan Lal P.W. These are printed books stating the name of the taxi service.The particulars required to be filled in are printed on the slip.These are, about date, number of the car, driver's name, opening and closing odometer readings, name and address of the hirer, time of departure and arrival etc. There is no legal obligation on the taxi owners to keep such slip books, but we find from the evidence of Dharam Vir Malhotra, Rattan Lal and 0m Parkash P.Ws.that a practice has developed among the owners of Dly taxis to keep such slip books and we can see why.These taxis do not carry any fare meters nor are they required to be painted black with yellow top like ordinary local taxis.It seems that in order to calculate the fare to the satisfaction of customers, it is considered necessary to keep a record of the opening and closing odometer readings.It is common knowledge that government servants and persons working in business establishments using taxis for their official work insist on receipts to show the distance travelled by them in order to claim the traveling allowance due to them.Such receipts may be needed by a businessman to show the expenses in connection with income-tax assessment, as well as by the owner of the taxi as a proof of his income for the same purpose.We, however, find that these duty slips are not filled in with meticulous care as one would expect from a businessman.Mr. Malhotra goes on to depose that many a time the slip is not prepared in order to avoid income-tax liability.We notice that these duty slips are prepared in, duplicate with the help of a carbon paper.Where a customer wants a receipt, the original is given to him while the carbon copy remains in the duty-slip book for the taxi owner's record.Some of the original duty-slips along with their carbon copies are still in the book.Apparently the original slip was not perhaps demanded by and, therefore, not handed over to the hirer.A perusal of the duty-slips shows that most of them have been, filled in rather carelessly, some of them are partly written in Hindi, some have signatures of the hirers while in others the space meant for such signatures is left blank.Exhibit P6 is carbon copy of the original duty-slip.It mentions the name of the hirer as "Mr. Kaushik, 152 North Avenue, Telephone 386737".The name of the driver, the time etc. are not legible.The signature of the hirer also cannot be deciphered though it appears that the hirer did make one.On the other hand, there is some arithmetical exercise to show that 82 Kilometres were covered.Similar calculation in ink appears on the back of the preceding duty-slip.It may be noticed that such figure work appears on the backs of some other duty-slips too.Duty-slip Exhibit Pi is also a carbon copy.It remained with the hirer from Ii A.M. to 8 P.M. and covered 77 Kilometres.It carries the signature of the hirer.It is this duty-slip which has an endorsement in ink asking for the taxi for the following day in the following words: "I require tomorrow also at 0800 Hrs. (initials).We may repeat that the writing was proved by Ramji who deposed that before dismissing the taxi Rakesh had made it to get the taxi for the following day also.In spite of very lengthy cross-examination by each of the appellants nothing was suggested to Ramji to dispute the truth of this statement.No reason has been advanced at the Bar as to why Ramji was n.ot questioned on this aspect.It can, therefore, be safely presumed that the accused admitted the correctness of this part of his testimony.Moreover, we find that the use of figures and letters "08100 Hrs" is very significant.They use figures.Rakesh, who is an Education Instructor in the army, would mention the time in the afore- said style or a matter of habit.It was contended that apparently the endorsement was written on the carbon copy after the original had been removed whereas had it been genuine it should have been made by Rakesh on the original itself.The original is meant for the hirer.If written directions are to be given by a hirer, the same should be recorded on the carbon copy to be retained by the owner of the taxi and not on the original.It is true that Dharam Vir Malhotra was confronted with his police statement where it was recorded that one day Rakesh Sharma himself came and wrote on the duty-slip in his own hand that he needed the taxi next day as well.Dharam Vir Malhotra swears to the fact that duty- slips Exhibits Pi 8 and Pi 9 in book Exhibit PI3 were signed by Kalyan Gupta.These slips are dated November 18 and 20, 1972, Nobody bothered for the detachment and delivery of the originals and the same are still in the book.Ramji was the driver on both the occasions.On all these occasions Ramji was the driver of the taxi.The closing meter entry has to be made after the discharge of the taxi and it cannot be made anywhere else except in that duty-slip in which the commencing meter reading was noted.We also find some dutyslips only partly filled for one reason or another.It is to be noted that whenever the taxi had been hired to some government department all the entries in the duty-slip were filled in scrupulously.We have mentioned these facts just to appreciate the practice prevalent with Malhotra & Company with regard to the maintenance of the duty-slip books.The hirer's name is mentioned 'Mr. Rakesh'.The driver is shown as Ramji.The time of hiring recorded is 8.00 A.M. According to the entries made in respect of the commencing and the closing meter, the taxi covered 79 Kms.It was on this day that Ramji had driven Rakesh, Chandresh and Ram Kishan from Hauz Qazi to the defense Colony, Barakhamba Road and R. K. Puram.Chandresh, Rakesh etc. had gone to R. K. Puram that day to consult Bhagwan Das whose testimony has already been found to be reliable.Exhibit P7 appears thus to depict the true state of affairs.The duty-slip next to Exhibit P7 is dated November 30, 1973, the hirer mentioned is 'H.C. Taxi', driver is 'Dharam Vir' and, apart from that, entries only against 'commencing Meter' and 'Time of Departure for duty' have been filled in.Both the original and the carbon copy of the slip are there in the book.gives the 'total mileage'.There was nothing strange, therefore, in his disconnecting the odometer when proceeding to Ghori and thereafter to Seshan in order to avoid suspicion which the long miles traversed were likely to raise.We have already noted from the slip books that it was not uniusual for the taxi being taken away for more than one day.The taxi was meant to be hired out and its longer detention by the hirer was sure to be welcome because it would make the bill for hire charges heavier.Why should, therefore, Malhotra have bothered if his taxi remained engaged for three days instead of one.Rakesh had kept the taxi overnight when he hired it for the first time.must have been made on December 1, 1973, the date to which this slip relates.He has been keeping a diary about his personal account.All the entries except marked 'A' & 'B' in Exhibit P8, as rightly concluded by the trial court, are in the hand of Ramji.In this shp the car number stated is 'DLB 9680', driver's name 'Ramji' and commencing meter entry '4401 Kms.'.Evidently Malhotra had used his erstwhile taxi Dly 544 (its registration number was changed to Dlb 9680) for hire without a permit but such like violations of the law are not uncommon among taxi owners who keep on using private cars as taxi on the sly.The importance of this slip lies in making Out that all the slips contained in book Exhibit P10 have been presented to the court as they were and were not forged to serve the ends of the prosecution as suggested on behalf of some of the appellants.(63) Association of Kalyan and Bhagirath with Rakesh and Chandresh during the fateful days is affirmed by Krishan Lal Nagpal (P.W.9).Nagpal was working as a waiter in the New Vig restaurant, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.The prosecution cited Nagpal and one Satish Chander, another waiter of the same restaurant, as witness.We are told that Satish Chander died in an accident before he could enter the box.Nagpal had been working in the restaurant for about five.Nagpal deposes that he knew Rakesh and Chandresh accused since they used to come to the restaurant frequently and were wont to tip the waiters more generously than others.He had come to know their names as well.He swears that on December 2 and 3, 1973 Chandresh and Rakesh along with Bhagirath and Kalyan and one other person visited the restaurant.On December 2, 1973 they came at about 4 P.M. He tried to bring them to his own table but they sat at the table served by another bearer.On December 3, 1973 they came to the restaurant at about 9 P.M. This time they sat at the table served by him.They stayed for about half an hour to 45 minutes.His statement has been assailed on various grounds.The main thrust of the argument is that it is not possible for a bearer to remember either the name or the face of a particular customer for the reason hundreds x of customers visit a popular restaurant like the New Vig every day.Admittedly New Vig is not a very posh restaurant.It caters to all and sundry who care to visit it.Yet there is nothing extraordinary about the bearers being able to identify persons who frequent their restaurant, more so if a customer is given to tipping more generously than other customers.It is also not uncommon for a bearer to remember a female customer who happens to be favored with good looks or is unusually smart.There is no wonder therefore if Nagpal remembered the faces of Rakesh and Chandresh and came tknow their names as well.Let me explain why I cannot do it.This is because one can remember faces and names only in the context of an accident or important event which registered itself on one's mind".This is a very convincing explanation indeed.He gives one more reason for knowing Chandresh.It is this.One day, when Nagpal was standing at the counter, Chandresh came to him and asked him whether the gentleman, who usually accompanied her, had arrived or not.Nagpal told her 'that he had not yet come.Thereupon, Chandresh went to the balcony and waited for him.We are quite impressed by his statement and the manner in which he faced the searching long cross-examination on behalf of the appellants.It is submitted that when Nagpal gave his statement at the trial, Dsp Ram Murti of Police Station Kotwali as well as the proprietor .of the New Vig restaurant were present in the court room, and the circumstance casts a grave doubt on voluntary and truthful character of his testimony.Whether the said persons were there to ensure that the witness speaks what he has been told or to see that nobody lures or threatens him to prevent him from speaking the truth is anyone's guess.However, Nagpal has explained that he had been sick prior to his examination and that the proprietor had enquired about his health when the latter met him in the Court.On February Ii, 1975 he complained of indisposition three times and finally the court discharged him for the day.The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the witness did appear to be unwell.In these circumstances no importance can be attached to the presence of his employer.As regards the presence of Dsp Ram Murti the witness deposed that he did not know him- Many police-officers played a part in the investigation of this case and someone or another of them might have been coming to the court during the trial to watch the proceedings, but how could have Ram Murti's presence in the court room mattered when Nagpal did not know who he was.Moreover, had Nagpal been in fact deposing under the pressure of police he would have supported it about the presence of Dr. Jain in the restaurant on the 4th.We are fully convince that his statement was entirely voluntary as well as truthful.(64) It is canvassed on behalf of the appellants that Kalyan could not have visited the New Vig restaurant on December 2 and 3, as testified by Nagpal.This contention is based on the statement of Ramji who is silent about the visits to New Vig restaurant on these dates.Let us examine this part of Ramji's evidence.The relevant portion of Ramji's statement with regard to December 2, 1973 is to this effect.Rakesh came out of York restaurant at about 3 P.M. and Ramji drove him to Bhogal.There he picked up Kalyan, Bhagirath, Ujagar and Kartar, and took all of them to the defense Colony.He stopped the car near a garbage bin, and Kartar and Ujagar got out of it.Ujagar and Kartar went over to a wall o n the Nallah near Dr. Jain's house and kept sitting there for nearly two hours.Then they returned and he brought all of them back to Bhogal.It is contended that since Ramji's taxi was meant to be used as a get-away-taxi after the murder, Ramji and others could not have left the place till Ujagar and Kartar had returned.This argument is based on the assumption that Ujagar and Kartar were sitting near Dr. Jain's house with the object of killing his wife.They had joined the other conspirators in the plot to slay Vidya Jain for no high sounding ideals; their motive was purely mercenary.Men of this ilk would never risk their necks in a fit of bravado, making sure of a safe escape is their foremost concern.Ujagar and Kartar could not do without scanning thoroughly the site of the crime under contemplation before embarking on its commission.Iwas absolutely imperative to size up the situation in all its details.They must have studied the flow of traffic along the nearby road at different hours of the day, the lay of the land, the location of other houses in the neighborhood and the chance of their residents rushing out to frustrate their job or to nab them redhanded.Two hours were not too much for such a deep scrutiny of the environment, and there could be no point in Rakesh.An excursion to the New Vig to while away some idle moments could certainly be such a trivial detail from Ramji's stand point.We may recall Ramji's telling us that on December 3 he had taken his co-conspirators to the defense Colony at about 8.30 P.M. and stopped the taxi in a street near Dr. Jain's Kothi.This time not only Ujagar and Kartar but Bhagirath, Kalyan and Rakesh also got down from the taxi and kept hanging around for about half an hour.It may be that Ujagar and Kartar were out for a kill.We say so because Rakesh, who could identify Vidya Jain, was with them.There is nothing on, the record to show that Ujagar and Kartar had been shown Vidya Jain before.It may be that this was the reason why Ramji waited till all of them returned.P.M. when he drove them to Bhogal.He does not talk of their visiting the New Vig restaurant.Now Nagpal tells us that on December 3, 1973 they visited the restaurant at about 9 P.M. and they stayed there for about half an hour to 45 minutes.The statements of Ramji and Nagpal show that they are giving an approximate idea of time and are in no way exact about it.They could not possibly have consulted their watches because the time of the visit was immaterial to them.There was thus nothing strange if Rakesh, Kalyan and Bhagirath decided to apprise Chandresh about the outcome of their visits to the defense Colony and visit New Vig restaurant before part" ing company.Malhotra deposed about Rakesh coming to his house with Ramji in the taxi.We have already discussed Malhotra's evidence and found it trustworthy.Of course he says that they came at Ii P.M. But again this is an approximate time.In our opinion statements of Nagpal, Ramji and Malhotra can co-exist.Kartar Chand lives in a Jhuggi near Sahi Hospital, Bhogal.He runs an eating shop (popularly called dhaba) in his Jhuggi.This is near the Jhuggi of Ramji.Kartar Chand tells us that his customers are mostly drawn from the class of truck drivers and the labourers working with trucks.He has employed three servants for preparing food.He uses a petromax lamp at night.Cooking is done on a Tandoor.His statement is assailed on the ground that there was no occasion for Ramji to go to this dhaba since he should have known that Kartar Chand does not serve food after 10.30 p.m. It is also suggested that Ramji and others could have taken their meals in village Seshan if they had in fact gone there and would not have waited for their food till Ii P.M. Kartar Chand's dhaba is practically next door to Ramji's Jhuggi.It was but natural for Ramji to have tried it first.There was no question, therefore, of their filling their stomachs at Seshan before starting for Delhi.(66) One more plea raised is that no weight should be given to Kartar Chand's identification of Ujagar and Kartar in Court.Ramji was arrested when he returned to his jhuggi the same day but as late as about 10 P.M. Since Ujagar and Kartar refused to take part in the test identification parade, Kartar Chand got no opportunity to identify them in the jail.We may at this stage say that we agree with the trial court that Ujagar and Kartar were justified in refusing to take part in the test identification parade and no adverse presumption can be drawn against them on that score.It is true that thereafter Kartar Chand had seen Ujagar and Kartar at the police lock-up on December 22 and had identified them as the persons who had accompanied Ramji on the night in question.As we will presently discuss the holding of test identification parades at the instance of the police is to enable the investigating officer to have this assurance.However, the fact remains that this witness correctly identified Ujagar and Kartar in Court.The learned trial Judge has relied on his evidence and we see no reason to take a different view of the matter.He, therefore, waited for Rakesh in the Cantonment area.On December 10 at about 4 A.M. he apprehended Rakesh outside the Unit Line and took him to the police-station for interrogation.The person of Rakesh was searched and the chit Exhibit P238, along with various other articles, was recovered.Obviously, therefore, there was no question of depositing this chit in the Malkhana of Police Station Hauz Khas.It may be noticed that it was never suggested to Narinder Singh that he got this chit written by Rakesh.Exhibit Pi 10, seizure memo, was prepared by Narinder Singh in respect of personal search of Rakesh.It shows that as many as 14 items were seized.It bears the signatures of Chhotu Ram and Sultan Singh witnesses of the recovery.It is urged against his veracity that he is a stock witness of the police.There is nothing on the record however to show that he had ever appeared as a prosecution witness on a previous occasion.He admitted he had been visiting Police Station R. K. Puram on account of some incidents pertaining to his village but he had never gone to Police Station Hauz Khas.We are satisfied that the chit Exhibit P238 was recovered from Rakesh.This chit contains the name of the village from where Kartar and Ujagar hail.Mr. Bhargava, the learned counsel for Ujagar and Kartar, submits that since the chit does not contain the names of Ujagar and Kartar, it cannot be used against them.The chit shows that Rakesh was interested in that village somehow or other.Rakesh had, according to the deposition of 0m Prakesh (PW2), assured Ujagar and Kartar that "he would himself arrange to send the money at their house within a couple of days", and it was thus necessary for him to have the complete address of their village.It also corroborates Ramji as to Rakesh and others having gone to that village and brought Kartar and Ujagar to Delhi.(68) Mr. Bhargava seriously contends that Ramji had never gone to village Seshan.This contention is based on the route described and the distance given by Ramji.Ramji deposes that he drove his taxi from Palwal on Mathura Road for about 20 or 25 Kms.and thereafter he took a canal embankment to reach village Seshan.He went nearly 5 or 6 miles along this embankment before entering the village.The terrain from the embankment to the village was described as uneven and kacha.The distance from the embankment to the village from the point where the barrier is situated was given as one mile.Ramji also stated that before reaching Hodal he left Mathura Road and crossed the border into Rajasthan.It is to be noted that Mr. Bhargava has made an application for the appointment of a commissioner to find out if before reaching Hodal any road branches of Mathura Road and leads to village Seshan.The State has filed a reply.It is supported by an affidavit of D.S.P. Harpal Singh.A rough sketch showing the route taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police while coming back from village Seshan is annexed to his affidavit.Mr. Bhargava does not dispute that Now this sketch practically tallies with the route described by Ramji.The only difference is that the road leading to the village branches off Mathura Road after crossing Hodal and not before reaching Hodal.Mr. Bhargava also showed us some road maps.We noticed that there is a bypass for Hodal and one need not' enter this town for proceeding ahead on Mathura Road.Ramji explains that he did not know the route to village Seshan and was just following the directions being given to him.It may also be remembered that he was driving after sunset and the odometer had been disconnected.In these conditions if Ramji makes a mistake about the point where he turned off Mathura Road near Hodal, we cannot hold that he never went to village Seshan in fact.It is common knowledge that highways in India are not lighted at night and the roa.d lights are to be found only in the Municipal limits of a town.We cannot lose sight again of the fact that Ramji was describing the route on which he had been guided by others after about 14 months all spent under custody.Much has been made of the distances given by Ramji between Delhi and Seshan but it is not difficult to appreciate that having disconnected the odometer and driven the car at night according to other person's instructions Ramji was in no position to assets the distance covered by him with any amount of exactitude.It was December 1973 issue of 'Filmi Duniya' published in Hindi. 'Rakesh Roshan' is written at various places in Roman script on its title cover.Malhotra concluded that it must have been left by Rakesh in the taxi.Being a film magazine he gave it to his children for browsing.After the police had interrogated him and seized the taxi on December Ii, Malhotra realised the importance of his find.The recovery of this magazine as alleged by the prosecution is denied by Rakesh and it is contended that it was recovered by the police when it searched Ms belongings lying in his unit at Delhi Cantonment.There is no dispute that the magazine belongs to him and the writing 'Rakesh Roshan' appearing at various places on its front page is in his own hand.In his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.Rakesh pleaded that "the police took this magazine from my room on December 14".If this statement was true.It may be noticed that Rakesh was present when on December 14 the police searched his things at Delhi Canton- meat.It was Inspector Narinder Singh (PW69) who took Rakesh to Delhi Cantonment on that day and conducted the search.Naib Subedar Durga Parshad (PW48) was also there.All the articles taken into possession by the police are mentioned in the seizure memo Exhibit P189 which is signed by Durga Parshad.This memo shows that magazine Exhibit Pi I was not one of the articles seized by the Inspector.Now, had this' magazine been actually recovered by Inspector Narinder Singh on December 14 from Rakesh's effects, Rakesh could not have slept over the matter.He would have raised hullabaloo at the earliest stage of the proceedings about the recovery having been falsely shown as made on December 12 from Malhotra.It is not denied that long before the trial started the accused were given copies of all 'the doduments sought to be proved by the prosecution.It must have been apparent to the defense that it was Malhotra who was going to depose about the recovery of the magazine from his taxi.la any case, when Malhotra was being cross-examined it would not possibly have been put to him that the magazine was shown to him.by the police on December 12 if it had in reality been recovered on the 14th.Ramji thus stands corroborated in another material particular.Rakesh picked up Ramji from his Jhuggi at about 4.30 P.M. and took him to the New Vig restaurant in a hired taxi.They reached the restaurant at about 5 P.M. Kartar, Chandresh., Kalyan, Bhagirath and Ujagar were present outside the restaurant.All of them went in.While they were taking tea, coffee, etc., Dr. Jain walked in, talked to Ujagar and left.Chandresh told them that she would be reaching in Dr. Jain's car at about 6.30 P.M. and that Dr. Jain would bring out his wife when she should be killed.It was Satish Chander, bearer, who served them in the restaurant.Satish Chander, as already stated, died before he could appear in the court.Krishan Lal Nagpal (PW9) was the other bearer who was assisting Satish Chander.Nagpal's statement has been partly discussed earlier.Nagpal deposes that at that time Rakesh, Chandresh, Bhagirath, Kalyan, UJagar and Kartar along with another person were sitting at the table.It is true that Ramji's statement shows that on November 26, 27 and 28, 1973 Rakesh and Chandresh went to York" restaurant.Again on December 2, 1973 at about 2.30 P.M. Ramji took Rakesh to York restaurant where Rakesh met Chandresh.But would these visits prove York restaurant as the normal rendezvous ? On November 26, 1973 Ramji met Chandresh for the first time, and was taken to the restalurant for tea.It was on that occasion that Ramji was asked to join in the conspiracy and was promised a car and permanent employment.For aught we know Rakesh and Chandresh went to York restaurant to impress on Ramji that they were affluent enough to honour their commitments.On November 27 Ram Kishan was taken to York restaurant.Now Ram Kishan was a person, as already discussed, whom Rakesh had brought from Charkhi Dadri.On November 28, 1973 Rakesh and Chandresh were moving about with Ramji and Ram Kishan.On this day Rakesh, Ramji and .Ram Kishan had visited Dr. Jain's Kothi in the forenoon.In the afternoon they had gone to Dr. Jain's clinic at Barakhamba Road from York restaurant.On December 2, as already discussed, Rakesh had an appointment with Chandresh at York restaurant at about 2.30 P.M. for receiving money.Rakesh went there from Bhogal whereas Chandresh came from Hauz Qazi.York restaurant admittedly is situated between Bhogal and Hauz Qazi.It could, therefore, be that York restaurant was visited on the atoresaid days in the peculiar circumstances currently obtaining and not that it was the usual meeting place of Rakesh and Chandresh.On the other hand, there is nothing unusual in Rakesh and Chandresh visiting New Vig restaurant in Chandi Chowk which, as already staled, receives customers from all walks of life.People like Bhagirath, who describes himself as a farmer, could easily be taken to New Vig restaurant.Moreover, by December 2, the conspiracy had reached a final stage.Persons with notorious past had been hired as assassins.Ujagar and Kartar, who were wearing tehmats and looked like rustics, were sure to appear to be a natural part of the rest of the crowd and nobody would have been surprised to see them there.In these circumstances we find no force in the argument that December 4 meeting of the conspirators at the New Vig restaurant was all a cooked up affair.(72) We shall now deal with another contention of the appellants.It is argued that since Nagpal must have come to know of the assassination: of Vidya Jain he would have informed the police in case the appellants had assembled on December 4 evening in the New Vig restaurant.Even it he suspected that the persons who had come to the restaurant that evening might have had a hand in the assassination, he could not possibly have the guts to contact the police.It is very rarely indeed that a citizen in this country goes to the police to disclose his suspicions about some particular persons' involvement in a serious crime.After all Nagpal's suspicion could have turned out to be baseless.He cannot be blamed, therefore, for not rushing to the police immediately after he learnt about the murder of Vidya Jain.(73) It is urged that there was no necessity to associate Ramji on December 4 becatee of his taxi not being available and a crude attempt has been made by the prosecution to make him a witness to the killing.It is submitted, moreover, that if Rakesh wanted Ramji to be present at the time of murder, then he would not have allowed Ramji to go back to his jhuggi from the restaurant so as to necessitate another visit to his place at 6.15 P.M. In this connection refe- rence is made to Exhibit Dl, Ramji's statement to the police on December Ii, 1973 in which there is no reference to his being a witness to the actual murder.We would deal with Exhibit Dl first.It is a statement made to the police by Ramiji soon after his arrest in answer to the questions addressed to him.The trial court observes : "If we read Exhibit Dl as a whole, it will be seen that its outlines and broad features tally with the deposition in court".In our opinion the learned Sessions Judge fell into an error in reading Exhibit Dl as a whole.It is a statement recorded by the police under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, and cannot be used as legal evidence to seek corro- boration of a statement made in court.Under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only those parts of Exhibit Dl, by which Ramji was sought to be contradicted, could be taken into consideration.When Ramji was confronted with exhibit Dl he admitted that he did not tell the police about the accused meeting at New Vig restaurant, nor did he inform it about his having seen the killing.During his cross-examination with regard to Exhibit Dl, Ramji had this to 'say : ."I was interrogated for about two hours.They asked me to tell what I knew.Whatever occurred to me at that time was told by me and the rest I did not tell.I had not deliberated at that time as to what to tell and what not to tell.I would say that I did not suppress such and that whatever happened in my presence was disclosed by me".When confronted with Exhibit Dl in respect of ommission about the promise of car made by Chandresh in York restaurant on November 26 and of meeting her at Hauz Qazi on 27th, Ramji's explanation was that the police did not record those facts.He also explained that he concealed from the police the conversation he had with Rakesh outside York restaurant on November 27 since he had been given a temptation.When further grilled about Exhibit Dl Ramji stated "As I have already told you, I am not sure as to what I disclosed that night and what not.He was taken to the police-station and interrogated.At that stage Ramji was an ordinary accused person and would not have liked to involve himself and his fellow conspirators too deeply.After they had met and given, the ultimate touches to their strategy, their dispersal from outside the restaurant was a cautious step so as to allay any suspicion which might have arisen in the mind of anyone.Evidently she was not expecting Ramji to be there.But having found Ramji present, she called him out of the taxi and deputed him to doubly ensure that Dr. Jain was not injured in the course of the attack on Vidya Jain.(76) Another ground on which the statement of Ramji about his visiting New Vig restaurant is subjected 'to criticism is that whereas in Exhibit Dl Ramji talks about delivering the car back to Malhotra at 5 P.M. that day, he swears in court that he did it at about I P.M. We have already noticed that Ramji was not giving full and correct details in Exhibit Dl and was suppressing and distorting some facts.Now, Ram Singh with his wife and his nephew were guests of Dr. Jain and were putting up with him in those days.When Dr. Jain and his wife had gone to America they had stayed with Ram Singh's mother-in- law.Ram Singh has studied up to 5th class though he has married an American girl.When he came to the court he brought his lawyer also with him.Ram Singh deposes that on December 4, 1973 at about 2 or 3 P.M. he with his wife and nephew went in Dr. Jain's car from defense Colony to Dr. Jain's clinic in Chandni Chowk.In all seven persons including Dr. Jain and his driver travelled in the car- When they reached the clinic Dr. Jain advised Ram Singh to go about sight-seeing with his wife and nephew.They returned to the clinic at about 6 P.M. and left for defense Colony- According to Ram Singh only five persons travelled in the car.These were Ram Singh, his wife, his nephew, Dr. Jain and the driver.The Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him.He did not deny the suggestion.He replied thus: "I had not seen Chandresh Sharma here at all.If she went with the doctor to Kacharia or Bombay or Ujjain or for that matter any other place I did not see her".This memo was prepared when his shirt and vest, both bloodstained, were taten into possession.We have no doubt that Ram Singh was out to suppress the truth- in order to help Dr- Jain he went even to the extent of denying making any statement to the police.He would not even admit his signature on seizure memo Exhibit P31- He must have been feeling so much ill at ease to appear in court that he found it necessary to bring his lawyer.It was a routine examination of the witnesses.A bare reading of Ram Singh's statement made in court shows that Exhibit P30 was recorded at the dictation of Ram Singh.However, Exhibit P30 can only be used to contradict the witness and not as substantive evidence.The one thing which we can safely conclude from Ram Singh's court statement is that he was in his room when Kundan Singh came there and told him that the doctor was calling for help.Thereafter, he with his wife, his nephew, Kundan Singh and Ganga Singh came downstairs He noticed that the doctor was standing in front of Kothi No. D-292 near his car, and on his (Doctor's) asking they pulled out Vidya Jain from the storm water drain where she was lying.They carried her inside the Kothi and put her down in the porch.Vidya Jain was found quiet.They laid Vidya Jain in the car.Ram Singh's wife sat in the car holding Vidya Jain and Dr. Jain himself drove the car away.Ram Singh responded to Dr. Jain's call for help not by carrying Vidya Jain's inert body from the drain into the car alone but also by tailoring his testimony to suit the doctor's interest.(78) It has been urged by Mr. Lal that the prosecution was highly unfair to the court and did in fact, substantial damage to its own cause by not examining certain witnesses whose evidence was essential for unfolding its story.The witnesses in question are Kiran Bai, Daryao Singh, Kundan Siagh and Ganga Siagh.As we have already seen the story with which this case is concerned is a long long one.Now we have with us the statement of Ramji who claims to have been there at the time of the commission of the murder and saw it being perpetrated with his own eyes.There is then 0m Parkash who was at the wheel of taxi Dly 552 which brought the murderers within a few paces of the house of Dr. N. S. Jain and was utilized to rush them away from the site of the murder immediately after it had been committed.After about ten minutes Chandresh approached the taxi from its back.On seeing Ramji she remarked 'Ramji Too Bhi.Rakesh greeted Chandresh with 'Hallo Devi'.Chandresh told Rakesh in English "The car is outside".She called out Ramji and both of them went behind the car in the direction from which Chandresh had come.Rakesh kept sitting in the car and talking to 0m Parkash.After 10 or 15 minutes Ujagar and Kartar returned hurriedly to the taxi and sat in the rear seat.Rakesh asked 0m Parkash to hurry up.0m Parkash started the car.Rakesh directed him to go to Lodhi Road via Jangpura and under the bridge.On the way Ujagar and Kartar asked Rakesh when they would be paid since the job had been done.Rakesh told them that he would arrange to send the money to their house within a couple of days.When the taxi readied near the triangular road crossing near Golf Links, Ujagar or Kartar expressed an intention to get down.Rakesh asked 0m Parkash to stop the taxi and Ujagar and Kartar left the taxi.Rakesh now directed 0m Parkash to proceed to Cantonment.0m Parkash enquired whether be would not be going to Charkhi Dadri.Rattan Lal asked Rakesh to pay Rs. 40 as charges for half the day.Rakesh made the payment and left the ple saying that he would make his own arrangement of conveyance for going to Cantonmeat.Duty slip book Exhibit D5 containing duty slip Exhibit P 39 was also taken into possession.On December 14, 1973 the police sent the taxi to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, R. K. Puram.We have already discussed as to who can, be termed an accomplice.We have not, however, been referred to any evidence on the record which would show that 0m Parkash was taken into confidence by the conspirators.It was not: even I suggested to 0m Parkash during his gruelling cross-examination that any such information as aforesaid was afforded to him expressly or indirectly by Rakesh or anyone else.We have seen the circumstances under which 0m Parkash took the taxi to York restaurant and brought it to defense Colony.Rattan Lal had prepared duty-slip (Exhibit P 39) before directing 0m Parkash to take the taxi.Exhibit P 39 mentions the name 'Rakesh Sharma' as the hirer and the place where it was wanted as 'Opposite York restaurant'.Rakesh, who had engaged the taxi, directed the witness at what point to stop the car and 0m Parkash just complied with his wish.Rattan Lal had signed the same.It was sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory R. K. Puram for tracing out bloodstains, if any.The seizure memo reveals that the police did not notice any stains of blood in the taxi.However report Exhibit P350 of the Junior Scientific Officer-cum- Assistant Chemical Examiner refers to "one faint green coloured Ambassador Taxi bearing No. Dly 552, stained with two faint brown stains on the left side lower region of back seat rest, one speck of dark brown stain on the ceiling near the light above the back seat and seven small specks of dark brown/faint brown stains on the top ceiling left side above the left front door".and so the police must have fabricated this evidence.But there is data to hold that the back seat rest, ceiling or other part of the taxi on which the said blood was detected, had not been washed after December 4 till it was taken into possession by the police.It is common, knowledge that stains of blood are not removed by cleaning with a simple duster.After the blood dries up, it can be removed only by the use of water or other suitable liquid and good rubbing.Moreover, if the police had fabricated the evidence, it would not have failed to mention in the seizure memo the presence of suspicious looking stains in the taxi.We, therefore, agree with the trial court that there is no doubt as to this taxi having been used as a get-away-vehicle by the assassins and their associates.This fact also corroborates 0m Parkash driver as well as Ramji.Ujagar was carrying aknife whereas Kartar was armed with a pistol.They had hidden their respective weapons in the folds of their tahmats.Ramji saw Kartar and Ujagar pouncing upon Vidya Jain as she came close to the car.While Kartar held her, Ujagar gave knift blows.Mr. S. C. Bhargava, the learned counsel for Ujagar and Kartar, seriously argues that the murder could not be the handiwork of these appellants because they are hardened criminals expert in the use of their weapons and they would not have wasted so many knife blows for killing a hapless woman.He also contends that the police of Rajasthan and U.P. were inimical to the appellants and they had, from time to time, arrested them in a number of criminal cases of robbery and dacoity.Since they did not succeed in their designs of securing their convictions they got them falsely implicated in the present case.Mr. Bhargava no doubt suggested to Inspector Faqir Chand in his cross-examination that the names of Kartar and Ujagar were suggested to him by Mathura Police and Bharatpur Police and that he had implicated them at their instance.But the suggestion was stoutly refuted.However, the appellants went on the prove Exhibits D56, D57 and D58 in order to convince the court that Ujagar and Kartar were previous convicts and history-sheeters.Kartar had been convicted for dacoity under sections 395/397, Indian Penal Code, and cases under sections 399/402, 394 etc. were still pending against him (Exhibit D58).Ujagar had been convicted under section 307/333/34 and section 456, Indian Penal Code.anyone inflicting knife blows to the deceased after she had fallen".It must be remembered that Ramji was witnessing the assault from a distance.While Kartar was holding her from the back, Ujagar was giving the knife blows from the front.The deceased was bound to make an effort to wrench herself free and put up resistance as long as she possible could.Dr. Bharat Singh, who performed the post-mortem examination, was not asked a single quetion on this issue.One .303 cartridge Exhi- bit A-8 was removed from the pistol and seized.D.S.P. Harpal Singh interrogated Ujagar Singh.Ujagar made a disclosure statement Exhibit P37 offering to get a knife recovered from the bushes on Lodhi Road.They were warned to keep their faces covered since they would be required to be identified by witnesses in a test identification parade.The police party left for Delhi along with Ujagar, Kartar, Kalyan and Bhagirath.It reached police station Kalkaji at 3.30 P.M. While Kartar, Kalyan and Bhagirath were left in the police station, Ujagar was handcuffed and was taken by Harpal Singh to Police Station Hauz Khas.Mehar Chand and Balwant Singh P. Ws.were joined from Yusuf Sarai market.The party first went to Dr. Jain's Kothi as desired by Ujagar and from there Ujagar led the police party to Lodhi Road.At the junction of Lodhi Road and Golf Links Road Ujagar got the Police van stopped.He got down and went into the bushes and from there brought out the knife Exhibit A-2 in a folded condition.A sketch of the knife was made and it was duly taken into possession vide re- covery memo Exhibit P50 and was converted into a sealed parcel.The party returned to Police Station Hauz Khas where the knife and other articles recovered from these appellants were deposited.Kartar Singh, Kalyan and Bhagirath were summoned from Police Station Kalkaji and locked up at Police Station Hauz Khas.(95) Mr. Bhargava submits that nothing was recovered from Ujagar and Kartar at Village Seshan.In fact, according to Mr. Bhargava, they were not even arrested in the village but they were summoned to Police Station Pahari where they were put under arrest and a drama of their arrest was enacted in the village.We are not inclined to agree with him.According to Mr. Bhargava's own submission both the appellants are notorious and dangerous criminals.There was no necessity to stage a farce in the village if the appellants had already been arrested.Harpal Singh explains that he did not know that it was Police Station Pahari in whose jurisdiction the village Seshan was situated, and so Le made the mistake of going to Police Station Kama.In consultation with the local Police Officers Harpal Singh decided to raid the houses of the appellants early in the morning so as to take them by surprise.He had used a constable of the local police to summon two residents of the village to find out if these appellants were in the village.If the constable brought with him Bhajan Singh and Lachhman Singh, Harpal Singh could not be blamed for it.He is a responsible police officer who was specially detailed to affect the arrest of the appellants.He admits that his normal duty is not to conduct raids and he had been particularly deputed for appellants' arrest because the present was an exceptional case.(98) We will now revert to the statement of Dewan Siagh (DW2), produced by the appellants.He admits that both the appellants belong to his brotherhood.He states that on December 10, 1973 at about 12.30 P.M. he was on his way from the village to Bharatpur when he met three police constables, including Milap Singh of Police Station Pahari, and saw the present appellants with them.On enquiry he (Dewan Singh) was told that they were going to Police Station Pahari.Assuming that to be so, it does not follow that they were not arrested on the morning of December Ii as deposed by D.S.P. Harpal Singh and Inspector Rao Jagmal Singh (P.W.I 00).It is pertinent that no suggestion was made to D.S.P. Harpal Singh and Inspector Jagmal Singh that the appellants had been summoned to Police Station Pahari on 10th night and brought to village Seshan next morning to spin the yarn of a fake arrest there.The recovery of knife Exhibit A-2 is corroborated by Inspector Rao Jagmal Singh as well as Balwant Singh and Mehar Chand P. Ws.Mehar Chand (PW 14) is a Chakki (grinding mill) owner.Balwant Singh (PW 17) deals in building material.Both of them are residents of Yusuf Sarai.They support the prosecution version about the recovery of knife Exhibit A-2 at the instance of Ujagar Singh.Mehar Chand is a social worker.He admits attending meetings at the police station as a social worker once or twice a year.He also conceedes that in case of need the people of the locality take him to the police station.He deposes that it was he who called Balwant Singh P. W.' He states that the bushes, from where the knife was recovered, were growing wild and were 2 or 3 feet high.Balwant Singh is a member of Beopar Mandal of Yusuf Sarai.He swears that he has never been to the police station.Both Mehar Chand.and Balwant Singh depose that they have never appeared as witnesses for the police.We see no reason to disbelieve them.They are respectable persons and were under no compulsion to oblige the police by perjuring themselves in a murder case.Dr. Har Narain Sharma was Medical Officer in charge Primary Health Centre, Jurhera.He deposed that Kartar Singh accused is known to him and that he came to hi as an out-door patient on December 3 for treatment of constipation.In this connection he referred to an entry in the out-door patieni register brought by him.He admits 'that' he -hatdnot noted the parentage of Kartar Singh in the register, that another Kartar Sing: a patient of constipation, visited the dispensary on December Ii, 1973 ; and still another Kartar Singh came to him on 'the last mentioned date for the treatment of bronchitis.It is undisputed that the parentage or the name of the village of patients is not mentioned in the register.Exhibit D 74, copy of a chargesheet, speaks of one Kartar Singh son of Sardar Singh, Rai Sikh, resident of Seshan.Kartar Singh is a common name and there may be any number of Kartar Singhs in village Seshan.The out-door patients' register produced by Dr. Har Narain Sharma does not corroborate him at all.The doctor, posted at the same place where the appellant resides, could not displease him because of the terror his past misdeeds would inspire.Evidently Dr. Sharma's evidence destroys this plea because it tends to establish that Kartar Singh was an out-door patient as against an indoor one.The learned Sessions Judge was correct in rejecting the testimony of this witness.(100) The prosecution has produced Dr. Arun Sagar (PW73) to prove the injuries found on the person of Ujagar and Kartar.He found abrasions over and near about the right knee of Ujagar and some abrasions on the right upper arm and left shoulder of Kartar Singh.The injuries appeared to be eight days old.The doctor admits that the same could be more than eight days old.Since we cannot form a definite opinion that the injuries were sustained on the date of the occurrence, the circumstance may not be used against the appellants.The prosecution has also relied on the blood of group 'B' being found on the tehmat of Kartar.Since the blood group of the deceased was also 'B', it is suggested that the appellant had the deceased's blood on his tehmat.We cannot forget that Kartar was found to have bruises round about his elbow and shoulder.The prosecution has not ruled out the possibility of Kartar himself having 'B' group blood, which indeed, we are told, is very common.In our view blood found on the tehmat after about 7 days of the occurrence cannot be accorded much significance.(101) In our opinion the learned Sessions Judge was justified in refusing to draw an adverse inference against Ujagar and Kartar for their refusal to participate in the test identification parade.Both these appellants were with the police from the morning of December 11, when they were arrested at village Seshan, till the evening of the following day.Inspector C. N. Ludhani, Pw 97, obtained their judicial remand on December 12 but did not send them to judicial lock-up though other appellants were dispatched at 4 P.M. Ujagar and Kartar were taken to the Police Hospital for medico-legal examination.However, the doctor 'was not available there and they were brought to the defense Colony Police Station.They were kept there for a few hours and brought back to the police hospital at 8 P.M. and ultimately admitted to judicial lock-up at about Ii P.M. There was no reason for not getting these appellants medically examined before they were produced for judicial remand.The police should have specifically requested the Magistrate to allow it to take them to the doctor for medico-legal examination if that was its plan.any view of the matter, the police had no business to take these appellants back and to keep them for nearly seven hours.There was thus enough opportunity for the police to show them to the witnesses before sending them to judicial custody to await a test identification parade.Their appearance at such a farcical parade would have served no purpose.(102) We will presently discuss the conduct of the other coconspirators which, as already stated, can be used against these appellants (Kartar and Ujagar).We have no hesitation in holding that Ujagar and Kartar were the hired assassins; they had been brought from village Seshan to Delhi on the night of December I, 1973; they had reconnoitred the area on December 2 and 3; and on December 4 while Kartar held Vidya Jain as she came out of her house, Ujagar stabbed her fatally.The weight to be attached to such identification would be a matter for the Courts............".It accepted the bona-fides of Dr. Jain when he lodged the First Information Report and registered a case of murder on its basis.Finding that the motive for murder was not robbery, the police began spreading its net wide to get hold of some lead.It was on December 7, 1973 that Inspector Faqir Chand of the Crime Branch took over the investigation.In the meantime, Phool Singh and Karan Singh P.Ws. were called to the police station on December 8, 1973 and interrogated and their statements were reduced to writing.Admittedly Karan Singh and Phool Singh ha d come to the Police station defense Colony when Chandresh was present there for interfogation.Both of them admit seeing Chandresh at the police station.After his interrogation Rakesh was taken to village Ghori from where Kalyan was rounded up and then Bhagirath was apprehended from Palwal.Thereafter, Rakesh was brought back to the police station.up to this time the police had not felt the necessity of directing Chandresh and Rakesh to keep their faces muffled and to warn them that a test identification parade will be held to establish their identities for the reason it had not yet found any witness who should be called upon to identify these accused, 0m Parkash P. W. was contacted on the afternoon of December II.Thereafter Chandresh had been called many a time to the police station before she was finally arrested.Rakesh-was found absent on December 4 at the evening roll call.Naik Vir Bahadur was the Platoon Havildar who, according to the practice, "Okays the presence of each one in his unit at 10 P.M.".Vir Bahadur found Rakesh missing at that hour.Durga Parshad reported Rakesh's absence to the Battalion Havildar.According to Rakesh (see his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code), he came to Delhi at 1.30 P.M. on December 4 and straightaway went to his office.But there is no material on the record to support his pleas.Durga Parshad categorically states that he slept in Rakesh's room during the night between December 4 and 5, and Rakesh remained absent throughout the night.Durga Parshad left the room at about 6 A.M. on December 5 for P.T. Even at that time he did not find Rakesh in the room.He whistled the parade at 6.15 A.M. and found Rakesh present for the first time in the parade at 6.30 A.M. that morning.It is true that no record of attendance has been produced to show that' Rakesh was riot present at the evening roll call but Durga Parshad tells us that no register is maintained for that purpose and that the absence of a Jawan is reported verbally.Now, the maximum punishment which can be awarded to an absentee is imprisonment while the minimum is a verbal admonition.Unless the absence is communicated to the Officer Commandin^fiobody records a report about the absence.When Durga Parshad was questioned as to why he did not report Rakesh's absence in writing, he had this to say : "I did not report in writing about the absence of Rakesh Kaushik on December 4, 1973 evening because he was present in the morning parade on December 5.......... .......There are no written orders about it, but this much accommodation is shewn by us to a Jawan that if he turns up at the morning P.T. reportt)f absence in writing is not made".It is a very reasonable explanation indeed.Absence of a Jawan being a serious matter, this much latitude was bound to be given to the absentee by his colleagues particularly when no duty was to be performed by him during the night.This evidence leaves no doubt that Rakesh was absent on the night intervening December 4 and 5, 1973 from his unit.He blames for the misrepresentation the telegram he had received about the expiry of his wife.His plea is he did not mislead the authorities intentionally.If that was so, why -did he not come back an,d get his leave cancelled ? Why did he get it extended by ten more days instead ? According to Rakesh, his wife was sick and her treatment was still continuing.No evidence has been adduced however to support this contention.The defense witnesses.Har Nath an,d Prabhu Ram, who are illiterate arid have no idea about the months according to Gregorian calendar, have rightly been disbelieved by the trial court.As already stated Mr. Frank Anthony did not even refer to them in the course of his arguments before us.Moreover, the question still remains as to why he did not inform his officers that the information received by him was false, that his wife continued to be sick and he needed further leave for her treatment.This time the purpose for the leave was given as "to settle the home problems Urgent".How the 'home problems' had acquired urgently within two days of his return specially after he had been on leave for 30 days already, is anyone's guess.Rakesh in his statement explains that he "needed this leave to collect some money from the members of the family for the celebration of the death anniversary of my grandfather".The lie is patent because the date of the anniversary must have been, known much earlier and 30 days' leave afforded more than the requisite time for the arrangement of the funds.Mr. Frank Anthony makes a serious grievance of the appellant being) not permitted to summon the defense witnesses.The order sheet of the trial court shows that on April 21, 1975 all the accused were called upon, to enter on their defense and adduce such evidence as they might have iri support thereof.An application was made on behalf of Ujagar and Kartar for summoning defense witnesses.Dr. Jain, Chandresh and Bhagirath informed the court that they did not wish to produce any .evidence in defense.Though the learned counsel for Rakesh did not make any statement, he preferred an application for requisitioning various documents from the military authorities.It was also requested that "Major R. S. Khanna and Shri Durga Parshad and such other or further P.Ws.as the learn,ed court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be recalled for further cross-examination".On the same day another application for summoning 12 witnesses along with the documents mentioned against their names respectively was filed on behalf of Rakesh.It may be noticed that all the documents mentioned in the first application are mentioned in the second application too.All the documents asked for by this appellant were duly summoned.Some of the witnesses were also directed to be produced.The casual way in which this application is made is apparent from the fact that in respect uf the witness at serial No. Ii only name of the person was given and no further particulars like parentage, place of residence or; .the office, so very necessary for the service of the process, were stated.Similarly no details were mentioned in respect of documents sought to be called from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.Except witnesses mentioned at serial Nos. 6,7,8,11 and 12, the other witnesses were described by their official designations and were required to produce the documents specified.Since all the, documents had been, requisitioned and were actually produced the appellants cannot have any grievance on that score.(107) Now what happened was that the military authorities deputed Major R. S. Khanna to produce all the documents asked for by the appellant and he brought the same to the court.The order dated April 30, 1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge reveals that though Major R. S. Khanna had brought some documen,ts, he had not brought some record which was needed by the defense.He was, therefore, directed to come with the entire record on the following day.This order further reveals that the learned counsel for Rakesh moved an application alleging that Major Khanna had been seen in the company of the police-inspectors and "the defense would, therefore, pray that Lance Naik R. K. Hooda be summoned with the records".The application was placed on record as it did not call for any order.In, our opinion the learned Sessions Judge was right in not passing any order.The appellant was interested in the production of records by the military authorities and it was immaterial as to who produced them.On May 1, 1975 the statement of Major Khanna about the records brought by him was recorded without oath since he was not to be examined as a Witness.The counsel for Rakesh made a statement to the effect that Major Khanna may be allowed to be cross-examined since he was a prosecution witness.The order sheet of May 1, 1975 goes to show that the trial Judge asked the defense if they wished any of the records brought by Major Khanna to be placed on the record.Then "Shri P. P. Malhotra made a statement in, which he did not indicate whether he wanted any of these records to be placed on the file or not.He, however, prayed that he may be allowed to cross-examine the witness.However, Major Khanna was asked to come the following day and 'to bring some more documents.Major Khanna duly brought those documents on the next day.A grievance was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that "since Major R. S. Khanna was a prosecution witness and the records have been brought by him, I do not wish to produce him as a defense witness with reference to these records.However, as already submitted, in an application under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, the witness may either be examined as a court witness or allowed to be cross-examined with reference to the records brought by him today and yesterday for the purpose of eliciting the truth".The court thereupon ordered that since the witness was summoned only to produce the records and not for being examined as a witness, he might take back the records since the defense was not interested in placing any of the records on the file.It appears that the defense was only interested in further cross-examination of Major Khanna which was rightly disallowed.(108) To sum up, we are satisfied about the complicity of Rakesh with the conspiracy from the very start right up to the accomplishment of its object.His conviction under 'section 120B(1) and section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian, Penal Code is, therefore, upheld.(109) Chandresh Sharma does not deny that she had a passionate affair with Dr. Jain over a number of years.The prosecution has produced evidence to show that she was getting regular payments from Dr. Jain.As late as August 1, 1973 a bank draft for Rs. 1,600 was sent to her though it was received back by Dr. Jain due to her account at Ambala having been closed.We have already found that she had got her horoscope Exhibit P-132 cast by Anand Mani (PW55), and another horoscope Exhibit P-131 for a person belonging to Jain Vaush.She was anxious to marry Dr. Jain as soon as possible because she had crossed the peak of her youth already and the time was running against her mercilessly.She had "one to astrologer Bhagwan Das P.W. to find out if she would succeed in marrying Dr. Jain.She had accompanied Rakesh to Karan Singh P.W., a notorious shady character, and paid a sizeable amount to him for getting Vidya Jain liquidated.As already discussed, her presence there was in conformity with the plan finalised in the New Vig restaurant.Her presence in, the New Vig restaurant and again at the site of the crime was just in the fitness of things because the conspiracy was designed to serve her ends primarily.We have already discussed in detail the evidence of 0m Parkash and found him a reliable witness.Chandresh was anxious about two things-liquidation of Vidya Jain and safety of Dr. Jain.Both these objectives were equally important for her.Any false move by Dr. Jain during and immediately after assassination of Vidya Jain could give rise to a suspicion in the minds of the assassins about their personal safety and in such a situation the assassins would not have hesitated to finish off Dr. Jain too, if necessary.When Chaudresh approached the taxi of 0m Parkash she spoke in English.This was to ensure evidently that 0m Parkash, a driver and presumably not conversant with English, should slay in the dark about what was going on.Little did she realise that these days young taxi drivers are likely to have a working knowledge of English.The result was that whereas Ramji did not understand as to what had been said in English, 0m Parkash could follow it.Sin,ce 0m Parkash had no inkling of what was happening, he paid no attention to the words "The car is outside".After all this was a statement with reference to the context.As already discussed, she felt surprised on seeing Ramji there and remarked 'Ramji Too Bhi".However, since Ramji was already a member of the conspiracy, she decided to utilize him for making doubly sure that Dr. Jain did not suffer any injury in the course of the attack on Vidya Jain.We are satisfied that she was rightly convicted.(110) The trial court has acquitted Kalyan of the offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, but has convicted him for conspiracy to murder Vidya Jain.It is contended on behalf of this appellant that there is no evidence to show if he joined the conspiracy at all.were known to each other.We have already discussed the evidence showing that Kalyan had hired taxi Dly 544 on a number of occasions.Moreover, both Ramji and Kalyan live in Bhogal.It has again been found that Ramji was well acquainted with Bhagirath who had at one time smuggled wheat in taxi Dly 544 as a result of which Dharam Vir Malhotra had suspended Ramji for some time.We may now extract the relevant portion of Ramji's evidence qua this appellant.He has this to say : "Ithen told Rakesh that Ram Kishan was not up to the job and that I would suggest a man who could do it.I then drove them to the house of Kalyan Gupta at Bhogal.I identify Kalyan Gupta now present in court.I introduced Rakesh to Kalyan Gupta.Rakesh told Kalyan Gupta that a doctor's wife had to be killed and that he should arrange for the assassins.Kalyan replied that the arrangement could not be made locally and that his master, namely, Bhagirath, who lives in village Ghori, Tahsil Palwal, District Gurgaon, could make the necessary arrangement.Rakesh suggested that we go to village Ghori.Kalyan Gupta introduced Rakesh to Bhagirath.Rakesh told Bhagirath that they wanted to have the wife of a doctor killed............"We find that there is nothing on the record to corroborate Raniji about Kalyan joining the conspiracy.Mr. K. L. Arora, the learned counsel for the State, has failed to point out any such evidence.Moreover, Ramji himself knew Bhagirath who was living in village Ghorf.Ramji and Bhagirath had earlier joined in committing minor infringements of law by smuggling wheat into Delhi.Ramji also admits that at one time he had gone to village Seshan with Bhagirath.However, there is nothing on the file to find that Kalyan Gupta had, at any time, taken any liberties with the law.In these circumstances it is doubtful if Kalyan would be requested to arrange for the assassins.Assuming that Kalyan was asked to make arrangement for the murderers, Ramji's statement, quoted above, does not show that Kalyan had agreed to provide the assassins.On the other hand, Kalyan showed his inability to do so and told Rakesh that his master, namely, Bhagirath, could do it.There was evidently no necessity for Kalyan to say this to Rakesh since Kalyan knew that Ramji himself was quite intimate with Bhagirath.After the party reached the village at Nuh Road it contacted Bhagirath.Kalyan's role there was only to introduce Rakesh to Bhagirath.Since Ramji knew Bhagirath, Ramji was the proper person to introduce Rakesh to him and introduction by Kalyan would seem to be Superfluous.We have no doubt that Ramji picked up Kalyan from Bhogal and proceeded to village Ghori for Bhagirath.But this must have been done in order to use Kalyan to trace out Bhagirath in case he was not found in the village.In fact, it did happen that Bhagirath was not at his abode and had to be traced out somewhere else.Kalyan must have been helpful for this purpose.But to conclude from this much alone that he became a member of the conspiracy will be going too far.Of course, Kalyan accompanied the party also to village Seshan from where Ujagar and Kartar were picked up and brought to Delhi.This was probably because he could have no better conveyancc for returning to Delhi than the car which had taken him to Ghori.We have also no doubt that Kalyan went with Bhagirath to the New Vig restaurant, Dr. Jain's house and other places on different occasions as alleged by the prosecution but he seems to have acted as such as an inert satellite of Bhagirath and did nothing besides hovering around him.The prosecution does not assign any active part to Kalyan in the long course of the conspiracy and the gravemen of the charge against him is just what he said in Bhogal when Ramji approached him for the first time, i.e., he was no good in the matter of contacting any assassins but Bhagirath could help.As already stated, we do not find that Kalyan ever joined the consipracy for murdering Vidya Jain.He is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt in respect of this charge also.He had at one time been smuggling wheat into Delhi in the taxi driven by Ramji.Bhagirath was approached in his village by Ramji and Rakesh for hiring assassins for the murder of Vidya Jain He had taken them to village Seshan and introduced Ujagar and Kartar to Rakesh as the competent persons for the job.Ramji stands corroborated about Bhagirath by Krishan Lal Nagpal P. W. who had seen Bhagirath in the company of Rakesh, Chandresh and Kalyan on December 2 and 3, 1973, in the New Vig restaurant and on December 4, 1973 in the company of Ujagar and Kartar also.The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted him of the charge under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, but convicted him under section 120B(1), Indian Penal Code.In December, 1971 Mrs. Janak Burman (PW96) had broken the engagement of her daughter with the son of Jains.This was because of the conduct of Vidya Jain.Dr. Jain had felt offended.It is true that Dr. Jain had taken his wife Vidya Jain on a world tour on May 15, 1973 and returned on July 27, 1973 but it does not necessarily follow that Dr. Jain was enamoured of his wife as sugges(J ted by Mr. Lal.It shows that Dr. Jain's liaison continued with undiminished vigour.Remitting moneys to Chandresh by cheques and bank drafts proves positively that Dr. Jain was no more attempting to hide this adulterous intimacy.Dr. Jain's fiat car Dlj Ii was used by Rakesh on September 27, 1973 to go far a ghat from a savana.We have in the earlier part of this judgment discussed the circumstances under which Rakesh hired taxi Dly 552 with 0m Parkash at the wheel and got it stopped about 50 yards away towards north from the house of Dr. Jain.Ujagar and Kartar got down from this taxi and took their positions near the gate of Dr. Jain's Kothi.This was at about 6.45 P.M. After about 10 minutes Chandresh came there from the direction of Dr. Jain's house.Ramji states that he had seen Dr. Jain coming in the car, taking a 'U' turn near his house and parking the car facing towards the south.Ramji further deposes that he saw Dr. Jain and Chandresh coming out of the car, and while Dr. Jain went inside the house Chandresh walked to the taxi.(113) Mr. Lal submits that Ramji should not be believed about Chandresh arriving at the scene in Dr. Jain's car.It is contended that if Ramji had seen Dr. Jain arriving in his car he could not have missed seeing Ram Singh P. W. and his wife Kiran Bai entering the house irrespective of the fact whether they came with Dr. Jain or walked in thereafter since they were present in the house immediately after the incident and helped in taking out Vidya Jain from the drain.We have already discussed Ram Singh's statement.He was produced by the prosecution to prove that Chandresh along with Ram Singh, his wife Kiran Bai, his nephew Man Singh, Dr. Jain and his driver came in Dr. Jain's car from Chandni Chowk and that Dr. Jain dropped all of them except Chandresh near about Petrol Pump in the defense Colony.But Ram Singh did not support the prosecution case.However, the prosecution accepts that Ram Singh and Kiran Bai were present in the house at the time of the incident.This means that in case they were dropped on the way they reached the house after Dr. Jain's arrival and before the incident.In this state of affairs Ramji would certainly have noticed Ram Singh and Kiran Bai cntering the house if the only entry to this house was from the front gate and there was no door at the back of the house.A plan of the locality has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant.We find that there is a service lane at the back of all the houses of the locality.We can take judicial notice of the fact that all the houses have doors opening on this lane.Now, Ramji could not have seen Ram Singh and Kiran Bai entering the house if they used the door at the back of the house.We have already rejected Ram Singh's evidence.We do not agree with Mr. Lal that since Ramji does not talk about Ram Singh and Kiran Bai entering the house, he should not be believed about Chandrash getting down from Dr. Jain's car.Assuming that Ramji did not see Chandresh alighting from Dr. Jain's car, what we find is that she was present at the scene according to the plan finalized at New Vig restaurant.She was seen approaching 0m Parkash's taxi from the side of Dr. Jain's house by Ramji immediately after the arrival of Dr. Jain's car. 0m Parkash P.W.. as already discussed, states : "a women . ..came from behind the car.Both Ramji and that woman went behind the car in the direction from which she had come'".It shows that she had come from the direction of Dr. Jain's house.The inference is irresistible that she must have come in Dr. Jain's car.(114) Let us examine the conduct of Dr. Jain before, during and after the incident.We find that the car was parked at an unusual place.No reason has been given to us for not parking it in front of his own house especially when within 15 minutes or so Dr. Jain, on his own showing, was to drive away.In winter, normally, one would take the car inside the house and park it in or near the porch when the lady of the house is to be taken out.Now, the site plan shows that the gates of the Kothis of Dr. Jain and his neighbour, Khanna. adjoin each other.The car was parked immediately beyond the gate of Khannas.Sheela Khanna (PW4) tells us that Dr. Jain used to park his car usually in front of his own house.Her house has a glass plate fixed at the gate lo indicate the number of the house.An electric light is installed behind it.Mrs. Khanna, however, deposes that ever since they had shifted from the ground-floor to the first-floor of the house, this light was never switched on, and.in those days the ground-floor was lying vacant.Her statenicnt has gone unchallenged.Thus the car had not only been parked at an unusual place but this place was comparatively dark since the light of the number plate was off.It may be recalled that the storm water drain, which is about V wide and 21' deep, runs next to the boundary wall of the houses.So this drain, would be between the car and the boundary w;all of Khannas' house.There is not an iota of evidence to show that Dr. Jain had any previous engagement to visit his sister, nor Dr. Jain explains the occasion or the necessity of his visiting his sister at that time.We have no doubt that the assassins, who were lying in ambush, knew that Dr. Jain was soon going to come out with his wife.It is for that reason that no sooner Vidya Jain stepped outside the gate than she was grabbed, held, stabbed and felled.There is total absence of evidence to the effect that Ujagar and Kartar had been shown Vidya Jain before the incident.As it is, Kiran Bai wife of Ram Singh was also living in that house.There was a maid-servant too by the name of Madhuli.Likelihood of some other lady coming out of this house.after a social call etc., was always there.The way Rakesh and his associates were pressed for action showed they were not to wait for long.The confidence exhibited by them could be inspired only by prior information that Dr. Jain was soon going to come out of his house with his wife.This knowledge could be imparted to the coconspirators by Dr. Jain himself and none else.He could also convey it through Chandresh.We have already noticed that at the New Vig restaurant Chandresh had told the assassins that Dr. Jain would bring out his wife and at that time she should be killed.(115) What did Dr. Jain do during the incident ? Ramji tells us that Dr. Jain was leading to his parked car and Vidya Jain was following him.He also tells us that Dr. Jain was on the right side of the car while Vidya Jain was on the left.Dr. Jain describes this incident thus :"Iproceeded to open the door of the car with key on the right side while my wife went towards the left side.I heard some "sort of scuffle which gave me a feeling that something was wrong on the left side of my car.I went to the left side of my car from behind and saw nobody and wondered what had happened to my wife in that split second." (See Fir Exhibit P317).Dr. Jain is 5'-9" tall (Exhibit D56), whereas Vidya Jain was 5-5 (passport Exhibit D64).We know that the height of a fiat car is 4'-ll".Dr. Jain would thus, while standing on the right side of the car, be in a position to see clearly his wife and anyone else present there.It has been noted that as many as 14 knife blows were inflicted on Vidya Jain.It is true that she was being held but she was sure to ofler resistance.Receiving those injuries and then falling in the storm water drain was bound to take not a split second but several minutes.We, therefore, refuse to believe that Dr. Jain did not see the killing and hold without hesitation that he witnessed the full incident.How would a husband happy with his wife (as suggested by Mr. Lal) normally react when he finds her being held and stabbed by some criminals ? The least expected of him would be to raise a hue and cry.Here we find that Dr. Jain had sealed his lips.When Vidya Jain was being hacked he did not know that any of the assailants was carrying a firearm and he had no reason to stand still and mute.This could not be the conduct of an innocent husband.No sincere human being will be a silent spectator to the butchering of one's life companion.The assassins (Ujagar and Kartar) did not harm Dr. Jain at all.They knew that Dr. Jain had clearly seen them holding and hacking his wife.How could they be sure that he would not raise hell to alert the inmates of his house and even the residents of the whole locality and also not ring up the police ? This could only be if they were armed with Dr. Jain's own guarantee that he would do no such thing.And this could happen only if Dr. Jain was in the thick of the consipiracy.Dr. Jain did not certainly shout during the killing otherwise Ramji would have heard him.There was a likelihood of 0m 'Parkash also hearing him because he was hardly 50 yards away from the scene and in the stillness of the night sound travels a greater distance.Ramji and 0m Parkash do not talk of hearing any shouts.During their cross-examination the defense did not dare question them to obtain support of Dr. Jain's plea.Dr. Jain does talk about his shouting in the First Information Report- That is what he says :"NOTICINGsome kind of a disturbance in the drain running along the wall of the house, I peered and saw a prostrate figure and some one making some kind of movements.At once I began to shout frantically for help- At that time a man jumped out of the drain and I started questioning him and when he pointed at me something which appeared like a revolver in his hand.I kept shouting for help and realized it was my wife, Smt. Vidya Jain, lying there groaning."It would imply that Dr. Jain started shouting before one of the assassins came out of the drain.In other words, when he started shouting he did not suspect that his wife was being subjected to any foul play.This shouting "frantically for help" was thus just for taking her out of the drain.Even after "a man jumped out of the drain"-and we now know that he was Kartar carrying a pistol-he "kept shouting for help".This shouting was, as is apparent from this statement, for taking Vidya Jain out of the drain.Why did he not shout about Vidya Jain having been attacked and for catching the culprits at least after he had seen a fire-arm ? Even in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, he does not say that he shouted about his wife having been stabbed and for bounding out the culprits.Had he shouted, we have no doubt the assassins would have immediately silenced him by using their weapons.Otherwise, as we have just now discussed, Ramji was quite close to the crime scene and 0m Parkash too was within earshot- Assuming that Dr. Jain did shout for help at one stage, then this must be after the assassins had made good their escape.Again there are shouts and shouts.We know that Dr. Jain's shouts were not heard by Ram Singh or his wife Kiran Bai or his nephew Man Singh.It is only Kondan Singh who is said to have informed Ram Singh and others about them.Kundan Singh is Dr. Jain's servant and the cry for help A may be a figment of his loyal imagination.We do not know again whether Dr. Jam shouted from the site of the murder or from inside his Kothi near the servants' quarters.The plan reveals that the distance between the servants quarters of Dr. Jain's house and the outer gate is 12.70 meters.It also shows that the servants quarters are at the back of the building whereas the living rooms start about two meters from the outside gate.We do not know in which room Ram Singh was at that time, but he was definitely much nearer to the said gate than the servants.The so called shouting of Dr. Jain was therefore at such a pitch and from such a place that it could only be heard by Kundan Singh.There is no indication in evidence that anyone other than Kundan Singh, including the servants of the neighbours, heard this shouting.(116) Dr. Jain gave near about exhaustive description of the assailants in the first information report.According to him they appeared to be about 25 to 35 years of age and of about 5'-T' in height; the were wearing off white dhotis and off-white shirts; and their hair were dishevelled.We know that UJagar and Kartar were wearing tehmats.Obvio^ly Dr. Jain made it a point to give wrong ages of the assailants.If he had not seen them clearly he need not ha referred to their ages.But pinpointing their ages only means that had a good look at them.As a doctor, he would be in a comparatively sound position to judge their ages.He could not have committed such a big blunder in judging their years.Such vital discrepancy as we notice could result only because he was out to put the police on a wrong scent.Ram Singh P.W. tells us that he, Kundan Singh and Ganga Singh lifted Vidya Jain from out of the storm water drain and took her the porch.Bloodstains have been found in the drain and on passage leading from the gate to the porch of the house.The do of Ram Singh had become smeared with blood.It shows Vidya Jain must have been bleeding profusely.did not admittedly enter the drain, which is hardly 2i' deep, to out her condition.The record would bear out and even Dr. Jam's statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, does not claim that his hands or clothes had received any stains of blood.This attitude of a husband, who is a doctor, was neither in consonance with his calling nor becoming of a human being who happened to be the husband of the unfortunate woman.We know that Dr. Jain is an eye-surgeon but he had passed his M.B.B.S. examination and, again, while answering question No. 25, he claimed the experience of 25 years as a doctor so as to be immediately able "to discern the difference between dead and alive as well as the urgency for the need for medico surgical services".Dr. Jain seemed to be singularly afraid of having the blood of his wife on his hands.(117) We may at this stage notice the controversy about the fracture of the left arm of Vidya Jain being post-mortem or ante-mortem.Dr. Bharat Singh, who conducted the post-mortem examination, deposed that this fracture appeared to be post-mortem in nature.During cross-examination he agreed with Taylor that it was not easy to say whether a fracture had been produced before or after death, and that a fracture produced shortly before or after death would present similar characteristics.In reply to another question Dr. Bharat Singh stated : "There is more possibility of effusion of blood in cases of ante-mortem fracture.But there may not be effusion of blood even in ante-mortem fracture if much bleeding had taken place prior to the fracture".But nothing turns on the question whether this fracture was post-mortem or ante-mortem.However, we may make it plain that we do not agree with the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge for concluding that the possibility of the dead body sustaining the fracture after the inquest report had already been prepared could not be ruled out.This conclusion is based purely on surmises and conjectures since there is not an iota of evidence to show that it could have happened.The persons, who had handled the dead body and guarded it till the post-mortem examination, have not been even suggested this possibility.Probabilities are that Vidya Jain was dead the time she was removed from the drain.The fracture, as already discussed, could have been suffered before or after death.Even if she was alive at the time it was sustained she might have expired before she was lifted out of drain.There is nothing to show, except Dr. Jain's own word, that she was alive in the porch.His answer to question No. 25 was : "She did not die instantaneously.She was groaning.Her pulse was feeble".Dr. Jain is belied by Ram Singh who categorically states "Bahu Ji was quiet at that time".However, as already indicated, the question whether she lay dead in the porch or was still alive does not have any material bearing on the case.The prosecution strongly contends that the conduct of Dr. Jain in taking Vidya Jain to Dr. Sen's Nursing Home instead of a nearby institution like Mool Chand Charitable Hospital or Safdarjung Hospital, clamours of Dr. Jain's guilt.We know that in Delhi immediate expert medical aid in a hospital cannot be had unless a person is a V.I. P. or has an effective pull with the doctors.A frequent common complaint here is that many of the injured persons taken to the local hospitals die because of lack of prompt expert medical care.We would, therefore, not hold this fact against Dr. Jain.(118) Though Dr. Jain would have us believe that he did shout he does not tell us why he did not immediately ring up the police.Even if he was greatly upset as a result of the incident he could have told the servants to telephone the flying squad or the police-station concerned.At least when he left the house with his injured wife for Dr. Sen's Nursing Home, he could have asked Ram Singh, who stayed behind, to inform the police of the occurrence.Every person.who owns a telephone or has average intelligence, knows that police can be contacted by dialling 100'.It is true that one would be too worried for the life of the injured person to waste time in other matters, but in this case we find that Dr. Jain was in no such hurry.According to Ram Singh P.W's statement, he had sent his driver Kundan Singh to bring a doctor and he must have been waiting for him for some time.The telephone was evidently not used in order to afiord adequate time for the assassins to escape.All the facts discussd above are consistent with one and the only hypothesis of the guilt of Dr. Jain.We would, therefore, uphold his convictions under sections 120B(1) and 302/34, Indian Penal Code.The appeals of the other appellants arc dismissed.In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Intha Ramana Reddy and another, , the two accused, who were Naxaliti cs, killed a person in pursuance of their ideology.The trial court found it a case of "planned, deliberate and cold-blooded murder" and sentenced the accused to death.On appeal the High Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on the ground that the accused acting out of genuine and passionate motive according to their conscience did not merit extreme punishment.On appeal by the State the Supreme Court held that "the only ground which the High Court considered sufficient to commute the sentence of death to imprisonment for life is not a valid ground in law", and remanded the case for fresh decision.We find that the case of Ujagar and Kartar is clearly distinguishable from that of the other accused.As already discussed, Ujagar and Kartar, on their own showing, are professional hardened criminals.They are mercenaries.They agreed to assassinate an innocent woman for the lure of money.They came all the way from village Seshan in Rajasthan to Delhi to kill an utter stranger.Ujagar armed himself with a knife, whereas Kartar carried a untry made pistol which could fire a .303 calibre bullet.For two days they reconnoitred the area in the defense Colony to determine how to kill the lady without interference from any quarter and to escape to the safety of their far flung village.After cold deliberation and perfect pre-planning, they pounced upon their hapless, helpless and unsuspecting victim as she stepped out of her house to visit a relation.Whereas Kartar grabbed and silenced her, Ujagar inflicted as many as 14 knife blows, all aimed at the vital parts of her body.They left her only after they had made sure that she had not a shadow of chance to survive.Mr. Bhargava, the learned counsel for these appellants, was at a loss to advance even a single plea for not invoking the extreme penalty provided by the law for such "a. ruthless assassination.There was a faint attempt at submitting that distinction should be drawn between Kartar and Ujagar since it was Ujagar who had settled the 'fees' for the crime and it was he who had inflicted the fatal blows, while Kartar had only held the victim.This is a distinction without a difference.The circumstances demonstrate that the murder could not be committed by one of them alone.In order to ensure that Vidya Jain should die positively without involving the slightest risk of apprehension for the assassins it was necessary to pin her down and render her incapable of shouting or shrieking for succour.This end could be achieved only if someone held her steady for well aimed blows as well as sealed her mouth to stifle her cries.Kartar rendered that indispensable service and enacted a part no less potent than that of the man who wielded the knife.Kartar had equipped himself, moreover, with a .303 bore pistol and adequate ammunition had furnished a guarantee to Ujagar that nobody would impede his execution of the murderous design or endanger their easy access to the get-away-car.He did not use his weapon since no necessity arose therefore.- In our opinion the extreme penalty of law is equally deserved by Ujagar and Kartar.(121) There is no gainsaying the fact that Dr. Jain, Chandresh and Rakesh were present at the time of incident. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,531,059 | RC.1252 of 2005 M/s.R.John Satyan in Crl.RC.No.1170 of 2005 For Respondent : M/s.A.D.Jagadish Chandra, APP in all the cases.Petitioner in Crl.MP.No.55 to 58 of 2009COMMON ORDER These revision petitions are filed by (a) accused 2, 3, and 4 (b) accused 1, 5 and 11 (c) accused 6 to 9 and (d) accused 10 respectively against their conviction and sentence for the following offences under Section A1 to A4 120b, 450 and 307 r/w109 IPC, A5 120(b) and 307, r/w109 IPC, A6 to A9-120(b), 450 and 307 IPC, A10 and A11 120(b), 307r/w, 109 IPC.The prosecution case is briefly as follows : The accused A1-Swaminathan, A5-Thiayagarajan, A11-Sarboji were during the relevant point of time employees of Thiruvaduthurai adeenam situated at Kumbakonam and PW40 and A10 are the Senior and Junior Pontiffs.A2-Tamilselvan is owner of one Krishna medical at Alliakulam main road, A3-Sankaran is the brother of A2; A4-Sivakumar is closely known to A2; A6-Sakthi @ Sakthivel, A7-Vivek, A8-Siva @ Sivakumar and A9-Niyaz Ahamaed do belong to Pudukottai and A2 to A5 are closely associated with each other and there was some sought of misunderstanding between PW40-senior pontiff and A10-junior pontiff because of certain acts of commission and omissions by IO in respect of financial management of adeenam.PW40 having been not satisfied with the management and administration of A10 during his absence in adeenam between 1994 and 1999, cancelled Ex.P54-Power of Attorney executed in favour of A10-junior pontiff for the purpose of Management and Administration of adeenam during his absence under, Ex.P55-cancellation deed PW40-senior pontiff was also during 2000 transferred A5 to Kurukuthurai under Ex.P31-transfer order and transferred A1 to Thiruvizhimailai under Ex.P30-transfer order, while A1 joined in the transferred place, A5 challenged the transfer order and obtained stay and continued at adeenam.A10 on coming to know about the transfer was not inclined to comply with the same and A1, A5 and A10 nurtured ill felling against PW40 due to cancellation of power of attorney and due to transfers as above referred to.3.As a result, they hatched a plan to do away with senior pontiff and sought the help of A2 who in turn along with A3 and A4 conspired with A1, A5 and A10 at Krishna Medicals and decided to engage hirelings from Pudukottai and the act of conspiracy inside the Krishna Medical was seen and over heard by PW9-Raji who is the regular chocolate supplier to Krishna Medicals and PW13-Pethaiyan who is one of the cycle shop owners in the nearby area, when they came to the medical shop to supply chocolate and to purchase some medicine respectively.In furtherance of the criminal plan so arrived at A2, A4 and A5 engaged the taxies driven by PW15-Sekar and had been to Pudukottai on 06.07.2002 to engage A6 to A9 belonging to Pudukottai and paid them Rs.10,000/- and came back to Kumbakonam and again had been to Pudukottai in the same Tata sumo car and brought A6 to A9 at 2.00pm on 07.07.2002 and accommodated them at Gemini Tower lodge and A2 and A4 at 5.00pm on the same day had been to Adheenam in separate two wheelers along with A6 to A9, who came in Ambassador car driven by PW-16 Jafar Ali and before entering adeenam they stopped the vehicle near one Kalyana Mandapam and met A5 and all of them together had been to adeenam and they were all seen by PW19, who was the then supervisor in Thiruvalankadu Vadiveeswar Temple who was in the Kalyana Mandapam in connection with the marriage of his niece.Thereafter, they entered Thiruvaduthurai adeenam through main gate and were seen by PW1-Dhanapalan adeenam driver, PW2-Lakshmanan and PW3-Pasupathi and PW5-Seeni watchmen of adeenam and they all met junior pontiff inside his chamber as seen by the persons as above referred to.At the same time, PW9-Raji also came to adeenam and wanted to meet junior pontiff and was waiting outside junior pontiff and left the place without meeting junior pontiff within five minutes.Thereafter, A1-Swaminathan, A2-Tamilselvan and A3-Sankaran and one of the four persons name not known came out and left adeenam and the remaining four persons stayed back inside the chamber of junior pontiff and they with the help of A10 and A11 gained entry into the room of senior pontiff and waited inside hiding themselves behind two doors leading to the room of senior pontiff.While so, senior pontiff was in dharsan hall and he summoned PW12-Varadharajan his security officer (bka;fhtyh;) to go and bring sweets from his room and PW12 went up and when he was about to enter the main room he found four persons hiding themselves on two sides of the doors and they were seen with gloves, syringe with cyanide fluid and two pillows and when they were questioned about their presence and identity they attacked PW12 and started running away.While doing so, they left the gloves, syringe and pillows in the place of their hide and near the steps and they were all chased by PW12-Varadharajan, PW4-Natesan bell man, PW6-Radhakrishnan coolie and PW30-Shivaji Electrician, and the four persons ran to upstairs and broke open the office room window and left adeenam and in the course of commotion all the persons inside adeenam came there and PW12-Varadharajan informed PW11-Shanmugam office staff who in turn informed PW40-Senior Pontiff as instructed by PW10 and PW11-Shanmugam also informed the police over phone and explained in detail regarding the occurrence and on receipt of the information PW43-Inspector of police, Kuthalam police station along with police personnel reached adeenam and went round entire adeenam, while doing so noticed syringe with cyanide and gloves and pillows but did not seize the same.He also enquired PW11 and he then asked PW11 to lodge complaint and PW11 told him that he will prepare written complaint and bring it to police station.Then police left the scene of occurrence to police station and PW11 after consulting PW40 got Ex.P28 complaint typed and went to police station and lodged the complaint.On receipt of the same PW43-registered Ex.P83-FIR in Kuthalam police station in Cr.No.475 of 2002 and commenced his investigation and had been to adeenam and prepared Ex.P8 observation mahazar and Ex.P84 rough in the presence of PW8-VAO and one Maruthappan and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2-hand gloves and M.O.3-Syringe M.O.4-two pillows, PW43 also caused the FIR to be sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate court through PW38-Head constable and PW43 also sent for dog squad and dog squad headed by PW36 came to the scene of occurrence and the dog by smelling the hand gloves ran to various places inside adeenam and ran inside the room of A10 and then to the office of adeenam and IO obtained statement from the witnesses.On the next day PW9-Raji-chocolate supplier went to police station and voluntarily gave information about the conversation between A1 to A5 at Krishna medical on 05.07.2002 and the same was recorded by PW43/IO.PW43 also obtained statement from PW40 on 11.07.2002 PW43/IO his team along with VAO and Maurthappan set out in search of the accused and arrested A1 in the bus stop and on his being arrested he gave a voluntary confessional statement and on the basis of Ex.B12 admissible portion of the same, he surrendered M.O.5 knife from the bureau inside his house and IO seized the same under Ex.P13-seizure mahazar and the police team along with witnesses had been to Tiruvidaimaruthur at Mayildauri where they arrested A5 in his house and A2, A4, to A6 and obtained Ex.A14 to A17 voluntary confession statement from A2, A4 to A6 and on the basis of P15 to P17 admissible portion of the same IO seized M.O.6-Bullet Motor cycle and M.O.7-Cellphone under Ex.P18 from A5 from his house and M.O.8-Syringe under Ex.P19-mahazar from the house of A4 and M.O.18-Motor cycle under Ex.PW43/IO in the course of his investigation further arrested A3, and A7 to A8 in the presence of PW17-VAO Shanmugam and another on 12.07.2002 and A3 gave his voluntary confession statement and on the basis of Ex.P36 admissible portion of the same, IO seized M.O.9 Bajaj M.80 from his house.Thereafter IO arrested A7 to A9 on Pudukottai bus stand on being identified by A3 and IO obtained their voluntary confession statement and on the basis of Ex.P38 to Ex.IO also arrested A10 in the presence of PW18 VAO 13.07.2002 and obtained his voluntary confession statement in Ex.P44 and IO seized M.O.16 under Ex.Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order made on 18.03.2005 in C.A.No.4 of 2004 on the file of Principal Session Judge, Nagapattinam confirming the conviction and sentence made on 22.12.2003 in S.C.No.286 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.For Petitioners : M/s.S.Ashok Kumar, SC for C.D.Johnson in Crl.RC.847 of 2005 M/s.A.Abdul Hadri in Cr.RC.773 of 2005 M/s.R.Shanmugasundaram, SC for R.Mahalakshmi in Crl.For Intervener : M/s.S.Prabhakaran for C.Raja Kumar.P45 seizure mahazar IO arrested A11 on 14.07.2002 and recorded his Ex.P48 voluntary confession statement and in the presence of PW20/VAO and another and seized M.O.17 torch light under Ex.IO also collected Ex.P50 and Ex.The trial court on the basis of the available materials framed the charges against the accused for the offences as follows :As the accused pleaded innocence the trial was held in the course of which prosecution examined PW1 to PW43 witnesses and produced Ex.P1 to P87 document besides M.O.1 to M.P.18 material objects.No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on the side of the accused.P28 complaint is the outcome of consultation, discussion and deliberation; (4) prosecution witnesses are not consistent in their evidence regarding the manner and time at which Ex.P28 complaint is prepared and Ex.P.83 FIR is lodged; (5) unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and sending FIR to court; (6) serious flaw and procedural violation amounting to irregularity in the manner of holding identification parade; (7) doubtful manner of arrest of the accused and seizure of M.Os; and (8) expression of biased attribute and personal regards, respect and appreciation for adeenam and senior pontiff by the trial court.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.As far as the transfer of A1 and A5 are concerned A1 admittedly obeyed Ex.P31 dated 03.06.2000 is the transfer order of A5 and what A5 did against the same was to approach the civil court and obtained an interim order as evident from Ex.P64 summons in the suit and Ex.P65 and Ex.P66 copy of the petition and interim order dated 12.07.2000 respectively.Further both A1 and A5 were not paid their salary and A1 and A5 issued legal notice to PW40 calling upon him to pay their salary arrears and the salary arrears was thereafter paid to them.As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the steps taken by A1 and A5 as above referred to have their grievance redressed through legal notice and through civil proceedings cannot be at any stretch of imagination construed as enmity.Regarding A10 the Power of Attorney-Ex.The Power of Attorney came to be executed to enable the junior pontiff to administer adeenam affairs, while PW40-Senior pontiff was away at Kasi and the cancellation of Power of Attorney was effected immediately after the arrival of senior pontiff to adeenam from Kasi.It is mentioned so in Ex.The enmity between A10 and PW40 is only spoken by PW11-one of the adeenam staff, PW14-adeenam Manager and PW40-Senior Pontiff, while PW11 deposed about the execution of Power of Attorney, abuse of power of the authority by A10 and cancellation of Power of Attorney and transfer of A10, his refusal to accept it and nurturing ill feeling against the senior pontiff, PW11 in the course of his cross examination admitted that he did not refer to the same to IO during investigation.As far as PW14 is concerned he deposed in his chief examination about mismanagement of adeenam by A10 and consequential cancellation of Power of Attorney and dissatisfaction of PW40 about the performance of A5 and consequential transfer of A1 and A5 and warning issued to A10 not to have any sort of connection with A1 and A5 and the suit instituted by A5 against his transfer.Thus the evidence of PW14 about the alleged previous enmity between PW40 and A10, is not based on any direct knowledge but only hearsay.The next competent witness to speak about it is Pw40 who has in the course of his cross examination raised serious allegations against junior pontiff as if he was inimical, indifferent and insubordinate to senior pontiff and refused to obey his transfer order and had close contact with A1 and A5 who were already transferred, Pw40 also spoke about the alleged financial indiscipline of A10 and about his investment in Bank without the knowledge and permission of senior pontiff etc. But here again PW40 did not choose to inform the same during investigation to IO.The allegations referred to above are for the first time disclosed in the witness box.PW40 further admitted in the course of his cross examination that A10 is not his subordinate but he is only his descendant or disciple and he is the next competent person to perform all poojas and there is no monetary benefit available in adeenam and account need not be shown for the money received by either of the pontiffs for pade poojas (ghj g{iI) and the management of adeenam is only in terms of scheme decree.It is further admitted by PW40 that A10 was after cancellation of Power of Attorney and even after his transfer to different place obediently and faithfully carrying out the instructions of senior pontiff and participating in the poojas and extended all respect to senior pontiff.Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW14 being hearsay and PW11 and PW40 having not disclosed the factors constituting motive to IO during his investigation and having deposed so only in the witness box cannot at all be attached any importance.The trial court not only placed serious reliance upon the motive theory as put forth by prosecution side witnesses in the witness box same but arrived at its own conclusion without any iota of evidence as if A1 and A5 had by instituting suit and issuing notice to PW40 acted ungratefully towards PW40 and A10 indulged in all sorts of activities against PW40 with ulterior motive to capture adeenam administration.18.Regarding A11 the motive sought to be introduced is that he made earlier aborted attempt to kill PW40 by giving different medicine for his sugar problem, but the same is not spoken by either PW40 or any other adeenam staff.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authorities reported in (i) AIR 1976 SC 975 (Bhargirath V. State of M.P.) and (ii) 2002 Crl.LJ 3737 (Thoran Singh V. State of M.P.) clearly laid down that the prosecution should rest on its strength and must stand on its own legs and can succeed substantially proving the very allegations and it cannot take advantage of absence of explanation or weakness of the defence raised by the accused nor the court can make out a new case for prosecution and convict on that basis.PW9 is admittedly chocolate supplier to Krishna medicals which is the scene of occurrence for the alleged act of conspiracy and Krishna medicals belong to A2-Tamilselvan who is none else than the brother of A3 Sanakaran, A4 Selvam is according to prosecution closely known to A2 and A3, A2, and A3 and A4 are in turn said to be the friends of A5-Thiyagarajan/adeenam staff.It is the prosecution case that A1 to A5 conspired together inside Krishna medicals at 9.00 pm on 5.7.2002 and the same was seen and overheard by PW9 Raji who came there to supply chocolate and PW13-Pethaiyan, who came there to buy medicine.In so far as PW9 is concerned, he turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution as if he had been to Krishna Medicals on 5.7.2002 at 9.00 pm, where he saw A1 to 3 along with 4 unidentified persons and heard A5 asking A2 as to whether he can make arrangement to kill Senior Pontiff and A2 agreed to do so either by himself or by engaging hirelings from Pudukottai and A3 and A5 also insisted that they should some how carry out their plan and he again went to adeenam on 5.45 pm on 7.7.2002 to meet junior pontiff and was waiting outside A10 room but A10 was inside his room along with A2 to A4 and with four unidentified persons and A10 told A2 that they should some how murder senior Pontiff by using gloves with the help of Pudukottai persons and they should do so where Senior Pontiff was in the upstairs portion and A10 locked four unidentified persons inside the room etc. Whereas, PW9 did not admit making one such statement to IO.According to him he had been to the medical shop on 05.07.2002 and A2 and A3 were not there and when he asked for A2 & A3, he was informed that they went to Kutralam police station and again, he went to the shop of A2 on 8.7.2002 and again A2 was not there and again he was informed so and he went to the police station where the police enquired him about his acquaintance with A2 and thereafter he was let off.He has in the course of his cross examination further stated that he gave his statement to PW42 Judicial officer only as instructed and tortured by the police.Thus, the witness retracted from his Ex.P22 Section 164 statement made before Judicial Officer.However, his retracted statement is one of the grounds based on which the conspiracy theory is believed by the trial court.It is true that he has in his statement supported the prosecution theory that on 5.7.2002 at 9.00pm he was present in the medical shop and at that time, A2 & A3 and three more persons had discussion regarding their plan to kill senior pontiff within one or two days and he identified A1 to A5 as that of the 5 persons.He also mentioned the presence of PW9 chocolate supplier.However, his evidence does not inspire the confidence of this court for the following reasons:Further, PW13 did not inform anyone about the same till he informed the same on 9.7.2002 to the Investigating Officer and such conduct appears to be unnatural.The reasons given for his failure to do so, are totally inconsistent.He deposed on one hand that he was under the impression that they will not carry out the plan but he stated on the other hand that they were about to carry out the same within one or two days.He identified A1, A3, A4 and A5 for the first time in the open court.He denied making one such Ex.In so far as other M.O.7 cell phone having cell phone no.10188 is concerned, it is seized from A2 in the presence of PW8, Village Administrative Officer, Thiruvadudurai on 11.7.2002 under Ex.P18 seizure mahazar.Here again, the assistance rendered for the same by PW8 Village Administrative Officer to the Investigating Officer during his working hours, is not established by any document in the office maintained by Village Administrative Officer.Though VAO is required to maintain one such dairy and record for his accompanying Investigating Officer for the purpose of arresting the accused and seizure of MO it is not admittedly recorded and the same raises a doubt regarding his evidence about the manner of arrest of A2 and A10 and M.O.16 cell phone.In my considered view, the courts below ought to have rejected the conspiracy version as not properly made out.Further, prosecution theory is that A1 to A5 in continuation of their conspiracy, engaged Tata sumo having PW16 as its driver to go to Pudukottai and A2 to A5 had been to Pudukottai and on 06.07.2002 met four persons and engaged them by giving Rs.10,000/- and came back to Thiruvadudurai and again went to pudukottai on 07.07.2002 in the same Tata sumo and brought them in the same car and accommodated them in Gemini Tower Lodge.Thereafter engaged the taxi having PW15 Sekar as its driver and took them all to adeenam at about 5.00 pm and all of them were taken inside A10 room where four of them stayed back and A2, A3, A4 and one more unidentified person left adeenam.The same is sought to be proved by the prosecution through the witnesses viz., PW1 adeenam driver, PW2 and PW3 watchmen, PW5 senior watchman PW19 Supervisor of Amman temple at Thiruvalangadu and PW22 lodge owner.In so far as PW15 and PW16 are concerned, they are the drivers of the vehicle engaged to go to Pudukkottai to hire A6 to A9 and to bring them down to Kumbakonam and to take them to adeenam.The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution to substantiate their case is Exs.P32 and P34 Trip sheets.PW15 driver is not the owner of the vehicle and no statement is obtained from the owner of the taxi.P32 is not the original trip sheet and the same contains only entries for the trips made between 01.07.2002 to 10.07.2002 and according to PW15, the original was with the owner but the original was not seized from the owner.As per the particulars contained therein the taxi is except on 06.07.2002 and 08.07.2002 used only for personal trip.The same does not also contain the particulars regarding the time at which the vehicle is taken and waiting time etc. According to PW15, he left the taxi stand at 4.30pm on 07.07.2002 and the same is also mentioned, out of his own memory and not entered in the trip sheet.Further Ex.P32 trip sheet relating to taxi Ambassador car driven by PW15 reveals that the trip on 07.07.2002 is recorded as from Kodunthai to Thiruvaduthurai and from Thiruvaduthruai to Kodunthai.Further, it is deposed by him that he was engaged by a known person for the trips from Gemini Tower lodge to Thiruvaduthurai adeenam.But that known person is neither cited as witness nor arrayed as accused.The evidence of PW16 Jabar Ali would reveal that Tata Sumo belonged to one Advocate Manohar, but no statement is obtained from Advocate Manohar and he was not examined as one of the witnesses herein.According to PW16, he was engaged by A5 Thiagarajan and he along with A5 went to Krishna Medicals and picked up one person.Both of them went to Panipallam at Pudukottai, where they stopped the vehicle and both A5 and other person spoke to another man and all of them left for Mayiladuthurai at 10.00p.m and on the way, the third person was dropped at Narasimhampettai.Thereafter, they reached Mayiladurai at 1.45am.He identified A2 and A3 as other two persons who came to Pudukottai and A6 to A9 as the four persons brought to Kumbakonam.Though, the fare comes to Rs.2,430/-, he was unable to explain as to how he was paid Rs.3,250/- as total fare.Regarding their identification of A6 to A9, it can be dealt with at the latter part of this judgment.P52 register, only two persons stayed there.Though an explanation is sought to be given that only two persons name will be entered in the register, the same is falsified by the particulars contained in the same document, as per which, more than two persons names are mentioned in respect of few other rooms.Further, as per the entry in Ex.P52-lodge register, the purpose of visit is mentioned as temple visit.Further, Ex.P52 did not contain any entry regarding the inmates of the lodge between 11.7.2002 and 15.7.2002, the date on which it is seized.Above all, no identification of A6 to A9 is held through PW22 and A6 to A9 are also not identified by PW22 in the open court hall as the persons accommodated in the lodge.Hence, neither Ex.P52 nor the oral evidence of PW22 can be attached any importance.The cursory glance at the trip sheet Ex.P32 and Ex.P34 and Ex.52 lodge register would reveal that the documents are not maintained in the course of regular business and the entries contained therein do not reflect the actual and correct particulars.He is neither cited as one of the witnesses nor arrayed as one of the accused for the reasons best known to the prosecution.As already referred to, the witnesses who are examined to support the prosecution version that A2 to A9 came to adeenam and they are allowed to stay inside adeenam and they entered into A10 room are PW1-adeenam Driver, PW2, PW3, PW5-adeenam Watchman, PW6-Coolie, PW7 and PW19 Superintendent in one of the temples at Thiruvalankadu who happened to be at Nataraja Sundarambal Tirumana Mandapan Thriuvaduthurai where the taxi was said to be stopped was by PW15 before reaching the adeenam was allegedly stopped.It is deposed by PW19 Gurunathan that he was present in Tirumana Mandapan in connection with the marriage of his close relative and A5 and five more persons came there and A5 came in M80 motor cycle and other five came in car and when he asked A5 about the presence of other persons, he was informed by A5 that they are going to Mandapam for personal matter and all the six went inside Mandapam and he was in the Mandapam till 9.00pm by that time A5 and other five persons came to Mandapa vasal and the persons whose names not known to him appeared to be tensed and they conveyed some message to A5 and A5 left the place in bullet and he did not know the whereabouts of others.On one hand he says that he was during the relevant point of time appointed as supervisor of one of the temples at Thiruvalankadu, whereas it is stated in Ex.P46 marriage invitation that he is employed as adeenam writer and he is not able to explain why he made such false statement in his Ex.P46-invitation and whether he is the adheenam writer or superintendent of other temple is not clarified by the prosecution.It is also not clarified as to how he was identified by the police, who came to his house on 12.07.2002 and enquired him about the occurrence.PW19 identified A5 alone in the open court hall.But, he is not able to identify either of the accused as that of other five persons.The test identification of the accused was also not held through this witness.Other witnesses are adheenam driver and watchman.As per PW1 watchman version, he was standing on the southern entrance where he met A1 and A2 Tamilselvan and his brother A3-Sanakaran, who came in M80 and Yamaha motor cycle respectively and one Ambassador car came in and five unknown persons got down and all of them went inside madam and at about 6pm A1 to A3 and one of the four persons names not known came out and A10 had been to garden at 6.10pm and at 8.45pm there was a commotion inside adeenam and he rushed there where he was informed by PW12-Varadarajan that four persons hide near the senior pontiff's room and he was thereafter summoned to sub jail on 22.07.2002 for identification parade and he identified A6 and on the next day his statement was recorded by Judicial Magistrate No.II.It is submitted by him in the course of his cross examination that he is the only person who happened to see four persons coming out of the adheenam.It is the evidence of PW2 Lakshmanan that he was standing at Kolu Mandapapam (near therku vasal) at 5.00pm and he saw A1, to A3 along with five unknown persons entering adeenam and after one hour A1 to A3 and one of unknown persons left adeenam and other four persons stayed inside adeenam and as usual A10 had been to garden at 6.10pm and at 8.30pm there was commotion and he along with PW5 Seeni rushed inside and were informed by PW12-Varadharajan that few persons came there to kill senior pontiff and they escaped after assaulting him.Thereafter, he was summoned to test identification parade and he identified A6 in the identification parade.Here again, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the failure of the prosecution to conduct test identification parade of the accused is to be usefully quoted.In that event the failure to conduct any test identification parade of A2 through this witness assumes importance.Further PW2 laxmanan has not stated to both to PW43-IO and PW42-Judicial Magistrate in the statement recorded by them about his presence in the Kolu Mandapam but for which he could not have seen the accused entering adeenam, when this material aspect is omitted in his earlier statement, his further statement in the witness box has to be treated as improved version and cannot be attached any importance, If his evidence is disbelieved then the evidence of PW5-Seeni to the effect that he was along with PW2 in Kolu Mandapam is also to be necessarily disbelieved.PW3 is another watchman according to whom, when he was guarding near Namachivaya Moorthi Sannathi A1, A3 and five unknown persons entered adeenam and while A2, A3 and one more person stayed inside A10 room A1 along with other unknown persons went to senior pontiff room.Thereafter all eight persons were talking with A10 and at that time one Pw9-Raji came there to meet A10 and he waited outside in A10 room for five minutes and thereafter A1, A10 and one of the five unknown persons left adeenam and remaining four persons stayed inside adeenam and A10 locked his room and went to garden and returned after 10 minutes and asked PW3 not to allow any one to go inside the room and he heard noise in the senior pontiff room at 8.10pm and he saw PW12-Varadharajan running after four persons and four persons escaped through office room window by bending window rod and he identified A6 in the identification parade and he was not able to identify other persons.But he has in the course of his cross examination admitted that one can meet pontiff only on prior permission and he has no authority to give one such permission and only in the absence of receptionist he used to go and obtain permission from pontiff and when PW9 Raji came the receptionist was not available, but he did not get one such permission for PW9-Raji.If that is so, no one could admittedly go and meet pontiff without permission and his evidence PW9-Raji who had no such permission went to meet A10 and waited outside his room for 5 minutes and left thereafter cannot be true.He has also further admitted that normally one staff by name Sivalingam used to guard that particular place and Sivalingam was on leave on that day and he was asked to guard on that place.Though he would say that Maniakarar informed him about the absence of Sivalaingam, Maniakarar was also not examined on this aspect.But for his presence in the particular place he had no occasion to see any one entering adeenam and in the absence of any proof regarding his presence in the particular place on 07.07.2002 his evidence looses its significance.Next witness is PW6-Radhakrishnan/coolie, it is his evidence that he was waiting near dharshan hall at 5.00pm at that time he saw A1 taking to four persons at low voice near Varandha and all the five persons went to adeenam room and he was at 8.00pm in dharshan hall and he saw PW12 came shouting and running after four persons and all the four persons ran towards office room and they escaped through the window, and he was enquired by PW7-Swaminathan and he informed him about the details and while he was returning back he saw one hand glove near Natarajar Sannadhi, thereafter he was summoned to identification parade and he identified Sakthivel, Vivek, Sivakumar, Niyaz Ahamed, (i.e, A6 to A9).He has in the course of his cross examination stated that he was employed in one printing press at Poondi situated at the distance of 50kms from Thiruvaduthuri adeenam and his working hours is between 8.00am to 4.00pm and he came to adeenam to collect rice from granary and he left Poondi and reached adeenam at 5'clock.In that event his evidence that he came to adeenam at 5.00pm to get rice from granary cannot be believed.Further PW42-Judicial Magistrate in the course of his cross examination admitted that Pw6 has not in his Ex.P6 statement recorded by PW42 stated that he was in Kolu Mandapam (Dharashan hall).It is to be seen that but for his presence in Dharshan hall he had no occasion to eye witness the events above referred to, as such his failure to refer to material aspect in his Section 164 statement would render his statement in the witness box unsafe to be accepted in toto.This court is at loss to know as to why PW43/IO went back to police station to receive the complaint and received the written complaint from PW11 in the police station and thereafter registered FIR and again returned to adeenam to commence his investigation.P28 and its contents.Viewing from any angle the lodging of FIR at police station at 10.15pm appears to be doubtful and the oral evidence of PW43 and endorsement made in Ex.It is also to be noted when the first information regarding the occurrence was received in the police station through telephone, neither the complaint nor the general diary as admitted by IO did mention about the telephonic message and first visit of PW43 to adeenam, immediately thereafter.The complaint proceeds as if Ex.Regarding the nature of MOs seized while the hand gloves seized are said to be white in color MO produced before the court are not white hand glove but gGg;g[ epwk; and one of the gloves is torn one and the witnesses in the course of cross examination admitted that the MOs gloves are not the gloves seized in their presence.As far as two syringes MO3 and MO8 are concerned, the same are seized by the police under Ex.P10 and Ex.P19 seizure memos on the basis of Ex.P15 admissible portion of Ex.P11 confession statement from the scene of occurrence.As per Ex.P19 the syringe seized from A4 are six inches length having 5ml measurement with white colour fluid.Whereas one of the witnesses in whose presence the syringe is seized says that it is without fluid.P74 and Ex.P78 which are the chemical examination report would reveal that it is 6= inches plastic syringe, needle printed with 1,2,3,4,5ml dispovan and one of the syringes contains whitish turbid liquid and other contains colourless liquid.The difference in the capacity of syringe availability or non availability and colour of the fluid inside the same, as per the chemical analysis report, is inconsistent with the prosecution theory regarding the nature of M.Os.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, other vital and important aspect seen herein is the deep respect for and appreciation expressed by the trial court about senior pontiff and adeenam in its judgment which appears to be unnatural.As rightly contended on the side of the accused, by reason of such respect, the trial court omitted to go into many material aspects which stand adverse to the prosecution case.The trial court directed itself in favour of the prosecution theory and the same renders the judgment of conviction as biased.The lower appellate court has without duly appreciating the evidence in the manner as required to be done by the trial court, simply confirmed the findings of the trial court.In my considered view, the contradictions in the prosecution case and the evidence adduced on material aspects, if viewed in the light the failure of the prosecution to prove its theory regarding motive and act of conspiracy and in the light of the failure of the IO to produce GD and in the light of manner of investigation, in respect of seizure of the articles and the legal infirmities regarding the manner in which test identification parade held would only compel this court, to hold that both the courts below have committed serious error in overlooking very many glaring discrepancies in the prosecution case and lack of evidence to connect different set of accused with that of commission of different offences at different stage of the occurrence and the findings of conviction recorded by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court are totally lacking in evidence and by overlooking material legal and factual aspects and are hence perverse, biased and contrary to well laid down legal principles.Thus, on the failure of the prosecution to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence for the charges laid against them beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and entitled to be acquitted.During the pendency of these revisions the 3rd accused Sankaran who is the 2nd petitioner in Crl.RC.No.847 of 2005 died and the revision stands abated and charges against 3rd accused stands terminated. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,533,407 | 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-The deceased in this case was one Mr.On 21.11.2009, at about 7.30 pm, the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle on the Thenkanikottai Anjetti Road.When he was nearing the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies godown, the accused 1 and 2 intercepted him.On stopping the vehicle, the deceased questioned the accused as to why they had stopped him.Immediately, it is alleged that A.1 pulled the helmet of the deceased and A.2 pushed him down.Then, A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased with helmet as well as stones on his head and other parts of the body.They also strangulated the deceased with rope.The deceased died on the spot.Abandoning the dead body and the motor cycle as well as the helmet at the place of occurrence, both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.The dead body of the deceased was found on 21.11.2009 at 7.30 am by P.W.1, who went to the place of occurrence for morning exercise.On seeing the dead body at 8.00 am on 21.09.2009, he made a complaint to Thenkanikottai Police Station.P.W.7, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.15.Multiple pressure abrasions over left infra clavicular region, stermum, right infra clavilular region16.left side shoulder dislocation present.The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them.J) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.104 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.They stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.332 of 2009 for offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.14 is the F.I.R. P.W.7 forwarded both the documents (Ex.He visited the place of occurrence on 21.11.2009 at 10.00 am and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.2 and another witness.Then he made arrangements for the photographer to take photographs at the place of occurrence.Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the place of occurrence and forwarded the body for post mortem.4.P.W.5, the Doctor conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-1.Lacerated injury of 3x2x bone deep over right ear side of forehead2.Lacerated injury of 7x3xbone deep over a right supra orbital region lateral side3.Right zygoma fracture4.Lacerated injury of 3x3xbone deep over right zygoma present5.Punctured wound of 2x3xbone deep right side cheek6.Punctured wound of 4x3xbone deep over right side madibular region7.Right side madible body fractured exposing bone8.Punctured wound of 2x2 over right side submandibular region9.Cut injury 4x4 cm over right lobule of ear10.Lower central and lateral incisor ...... contusion present11.Left side body of mandible fractured12.Contusion of 10x3 over left side of face13.Multiple pressure abrasions present over anterior aspect of neck present.14.Lacerated injury of 6x2xbone deep over right side of parietal region of skull5.In continuation of the investigation, P.W.8 recovered the broken helmet; one pair of chappal; blood stained earth; sample earth and Titan watch from the place of occurrence under a mahazar.The broken pieces of the indicator light of the motor cycle were not recovered.He took police custody of A.1, on the orders of the learned Magistrate concerned.While in custody, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a stone (M.O.6) and a shirt (M.O.10).Both were recovered on being produced by A.1 under a Mahazar.P.W.9 took police custody of A.2 on the orders of the learned Magistrate concerned.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a brick stone.In pursuance of the same, he took Police and witness to the place of hide out and produced the brick stone (M.O.9).P.W.9 recovered the same under a mahazar.On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against these accused.8.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited, besides 16 Material Objects.9.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated that on 21.11.2009, at 7.30 a.m., he found the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence.He has also spoken about the complaint made by him.P.Ws.2 & 3 have also spoken about the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found at the place of occurrence.P.W.4 is the star witness for the prosecution case.According to him, on 20.11.2009, at 10.30 pm, he found these two accused and the deceased quarreling with each other near the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies godown.P.W.5 has spoken about the post mortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased. P.W.6 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the accused and the consequential recoveries.P.W.7 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.Ws.8 & 9 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.10.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did they marked any documents on their side.Their defence was a total denial.13.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused 1 & 2/appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In order to prove the same, the prosecution relies on two circumstances.The first one is according to P.W.4 on 20.11.2009 at 10.30 pm, these two accused were found quarreling with the deceased.But, this witness has not disclosed about the same to anybody.The conduct of this witness in not disclosing about the same would make his evidence unbelievable.15.Apart from this, the prosecution relies on recovery of the stones on the disclosure statements made by the accused.The Court of law, cannot convict an accused on mere surmises and conjectures.Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof.In this case, the prosecution has not even succeeded in creating a very strong suspicion against these accused.17.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 & 2/appellants by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.104 of 2010, dated 20.03.2013, is set aside and the accused 1 & 2/appellants are acquitted.The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused 1&2/appellants, shall stand discharged.(M.J.J) & (S.N.J) 29.03.2016jbmIndex:Yes To1.The Additional District SessionsJudge, Krishnagiri.M.JAICHANDREN.J.,and S.NAGAMUTHU,J jbm Crl.A.No.245 of 201329.03.2016 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
765,364 | It is directed against the order of Shri C.B. Kekre, District Judge, Chhindwara, arising out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri S.M.I. Alvi, Civil Judge, Class I, Balaghat.The plaintiff-appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police at Tendu Kheda in charge of the Police Station House.The matter was not taken up further by the prosecution against the said acquittal.The prosecution version was that the Sub-Inspector had been to the house of one Gokal to carry, on investigation in connection with a theft alleged to have, been committed by the deceased Mozi.The charge in the said criminal case was that on the night of 7-2-1944, the deceased Mozi was treated by third degree methods; as a result of which, two of his ribs were fractured and his spleen was ruptured and the death was said to have been caused on account of the beating alleged to have been administered by the Sub-Inspector.The Magistrate, while acquitting the accused under Section 258 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, held that there was no beating in the house of Gokal on the night of 7-2-1944 and that after the investigation, the deceased Mozi went back to his house-alive, where his mother, wife and daughter met him some time in the mid-night.The plaintiff claimed Rs. 4,724/5/- as arrears of salary and paid court fees on the consequential relief without paying any Court-fees on the declaration.The departmental charge was as follows :Therefore, there could be no occasion for him to do any of the things or to conceal facts relating to the same crime.The cause of action was alleged to have, accrued on 22-12-1945, the date of dismissal.So far as the relief claimed by the plaintiff was concerned, the prayer clause was not worded properly.As he had paid Court-fees on the consequential relief relating to arrears of salary, it was not necessary for him to pay separate Court-fees on the relief of declaration.In the trial Court, the plaintiff had claimed Rs. 4,724-5-0 towards such arrears.But in the first appellate Court and this Court he reduced the said claim to Rs. 1,000/-.I would have been inclined to grant a full decree for the arrears of salary for the period of 3 years prior to the date of the suit.The orders of dismissal dated 23-12-1945 and 9-4-1947 are declared to be void and inoperative.As regards the appellant's salary from the date of the suit, namely 8-12-1952, the respondent shall settle the same on the basis that the appellant was in service and on duty.For the reasons aforesaid, the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts cannot be sustained. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,536,569 | It is also alleged in the complaint that the applicants with the connivance of the officers of the Commercial Tax Department purchased the property on very low price and the officers of the Commercial Department without considering the fact that the property was also attached by the other departments and was declared sick industry, took possession forcefully and misappropriated some property of the industry.(Delivered on 27th day of March, 2017) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad against them in criminal case no. 364/2013 arising out of the Crime No. 367/2011 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 448 and 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Hoshangabad.The Managing Director of the M/s. Kabra Agro Industries Ltd. i.e. respondent no. 2 submitted a complaint under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Piparia, District Hoshangabad alleging that the accused persons by entering into a criminal conspiracy and by playing fraud established a firm in the name of M/s. Arjun Palia Banskheda which tried to grab the said property by illegal means and with mala fide intention; and the accused persons with the connivance of the officers of the Commercial Tax Department and by hatching into criminal conspiracy prepared forged documents and Panchnama with intention to cheat the complainant.In the order of the Collector against the petitioners, nothing has been pointed out but the police have filed challan against the petitioners only and none of the officers of the Commercial Tax Department has been charge sheeted while the petitioners have not committed any act which may be said to be constituted any offence.The petitioners have not violated any direction given in the W.P.No.4325/2001 as they were not the party in the case and the direction was given only against the M.P. State Electricity Board with regard to recovery of its dues as the company was sick industry.Similarly, with the oblique motive and to wreck vengeance patently false, frivolous and vexation allegations have been made against the petitioners to put them to unnecessary harassment and it is nothing else but misuse of provisions of law.It is also submitted that very ingredients to constitute the offence is completely missing and there is no evidence on record to justify initiation of the aforesaid proceeding then the interest of justice requires to set aside the entire proceedings.Hence, the aforesaid proceedings be quashed. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,542,199 | (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 orderdated 11.06.2014 passed in P.D.O.No.04/2014 by the detaining authority whohas been shown as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameSudhakar and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Namanasamuthiram Police Station assponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority,wherein it is stated to the effect that the detenu has involved in thefollowing adverse cases:(i)Crime No.79 of 2014 on the file of Ganesh Nagar Police Stationregistered under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 148,364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.(ii)Crime No.55 of 2014 on the file of Namanasamuthiram Police Stationregistered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 22.05.2014, oneBalasubramanian has given a complaint against the detenu and the same hasbeen registered in Crime No.56 of 2014 under Section 392 of the Indian PenalCode on the file of Namanasamuthiram Police Station and ultimately requestedthe detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.4.The detaining authority viz., the second respondent herein afterperusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connecteddocuments has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenuis 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 wife of the detenu as petitioner.5.On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed,wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made inthe petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thaton the side of the detenu two representations have been submitted and thesame have not been properly considered and therefore the detention order inquestion is liable to be quashed.7.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been filed wherein ithas been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in betweenColumn Nos.7 and 9, six clear working days are available and in betweenColumn Nos.12 and 13, four clear working days are available.Likewise withregard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 and 9, ten clearworking days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, six clearworking days are available and no explanation has been given on the side ofthe respondents with regard to such huge delay and that itself would affectthe rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitutionof India and on that ground alone, the detention order in question is liableto be quashed.8.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionorder dated 11.06.2014 passed in P.D.O.No.04/2014 by the secondrespondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondentsare directed to set the detenu viz., Sudhakar, S/o.Govinda Udayar at libertyforthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with anyother case.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.3.The Inspector of Police, Namanasamuthiram Police Station, Pudukottai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,138,602 | The appellant Dinesh Chand Yadav has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21st November, 2016 and order on sentence dated 9th December, 2016 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 328/376/392/411 IPC and sentenced as under:(i) U/S 328 IPC : to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.Law was set in motion on a Police Control Room on 29th December, 2013 at about 2:10 am being informed by the PCR van as under:-"AKSHARDHAM PULL KE UPPAR EK LADY JO ROO RAHI HAI PARESHAN HAI YAHAN PAR BAITHI HUI HAI"The information was received vide DD No.3A at PS Pandav Nagar, SI Sachin Tomar (PW-10) alongwith W/Ct.Geeta reached the spot in ERV-12 (gypsy) and found the complainant 'A' (name withheld to conceal her identity) sitting there in drowsy condition.She was taken to LBS Hospital where her MLC No.21328 was prepared and at that time she was 'Unfit for statement'.At about 8.00 am, she was declared 'Fit for statement'.Her statement was recorded wherein she stated that she was forced to consume alcohol by the appellant/convict and thereafter she was raped by him and his friend namely Dharmender @ Parvesh and also robbed of her jewellery, cash CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 2 of 13 and mobile.On the basis of statement made by the complainant, FIR No.629/2013 under Section 328/392/411/376 IPC was registered at PS Pandav Nagar.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 2 of 13Geeta had to accompany him to render necessary assistance to the lady victim.As per MLC Ex.(i) She was aged about 31 years and got married 12 years ago.Her daughter was aged 11 years and son was aged 7 years at that time.(ii) About one month prior to this occurrence, she received a call on her mobile No.88xxxxx642 (number withheld) from mobile No.9654193234 which was a wrong number.But thereafter she started receiving calls frequently from the same number and the caller disclosed his name as Dinesh Yadav employed as Cab Driver with a Call Centre.(iii) The caller used to insist for meeting for which initially she declined.(iv) A day before 29th December, 2013, he again called on her mobile to meet him as he was in Kamla Nagar near her house.She left home to meet him and accompanied him in his vehicle which was of white colour.(v) They continued roaming here and there for about two hours and thereafter he called one of his friend asking him to bring two bottles as there was someone with him.(vi) Dharmender (friend of convict) was made to sit into the vehicle who was carrying two bottles of alcohol and glasses and she was forcibly made to drink alcohol saying that it was cold drink.(vii) When she was under the influence of alcohol and was losing her consciousness, she was raped by the appellant as well his friend in the moving vehicle and thereafter she was dropped near the flyover.(viii) Before dropping her they also took the golden chain weighing 2.5 tolas, ear kundals, diamond nose pin, purse containing 20,000/- and mobile phone.(Ex.PW-2/A).In her statement (Ex.PW2/K) under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix 'A' has stated that she was married to Mohd. Sharif about CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 6 of 13 12 years ago and had two children.She started knowing the convict one month prior to this incident when she received a call from unknown number informing that company was selling affordable phone for which she refused.Same day she received a call from the convict informing her that the person who called from the company had given him her mobile number and he started insisting her for which she refused.When he repeatedly insisted for meeting and asking about her problem, as she was passing through a disturbed matrimonial life, she went to meet him on 4 th December, 2013 at ISBT treating him as his brother.When she was going on rickshaw he called on her mobile and projected himself to be her friend and requested her to give him some money as he was in need.She treated the appellant as her friend.But the appellant was insisting her to marry him at all costs despite being informed that she was already married.He wanted her to elope with him with ornaments and money and also to give him some money to arrange their Court marriage for which once he had taken 12,000/- from her purse.She again received a call about 6-7 days prior to her making the statement (statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded on 6th January, 2014) and she again went to meet the convict who was alone in the vehicle.The appellant purchased liquor from a theka and forced her to consume the same.She started feeling giddy.He also called one of his friend Dharmender @ Parvesh.Both of them committed rape on her after removing her salwar and she was also given beating.He also projected himself to be unmarried.She admitted having met the appellant first time in December, 2013 near ISBT.She also stated that on the intervening night of 28/29 th December, 2013, she was called by the appellant at Ghanta Ghar, Subzi Mandi and then she was taken by him in his white car and on the way, he purchased liquor and forced her to consume.Their frequent talks, meetings, feelings for each other are admitted facts.The fact which the prosecution was required to prove to base the conviction of the appellant was that the physical relation by the appellant with her on the night intervening 28/29th December, 2013 was without her consent.While noting that during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC the appellant has totally denied the incident despite suggestion to PW-2 during her cross-examination that he had physical relations with her only with her consent, the plea of consent even at this stage fails for the following reasons:-CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 9 of 13(i) Had the complainant been a consenting party to the physical relation, she would not have been left on Akshardham Flyover by the appellant past midnight and that too after depriving her of her woollens.Her cap and shawl were recovered from his car and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D.(ii) During the last week of December in Delhi, the winter is at its peak.The physical and mental condition of the complainant when she was found sitting at the flyover was such that her speech was slurring and she was crying.She had neither the woollen clothes over her body to protect herself from the cold nor the mobile phone to seek any help by calling the police or friends/relations.Had she been a consenting party, she could not have been left there in a chilly winter night in that condition.(ii) U/S 376 IPC : to undergo RI for ten years and CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 1 of 13 to pay a fine of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 1 of 13(iii) U/S 392 IPC : to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.(iv) U/S 411 IPC : to undergo RI for two years.During investigation, Dharmender @ Parvesh friend of the appellant could not be traced, hence chargesheet was filed only against the appellant.The appellant was charged for committing the offence punishable under Sections 328/392/411/376-D IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 30 witnesses.Although initially, the appellant suggested to the complainant (PW-2) that he had physical relation with the complainant (PW-2) with her consent but during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, it was a case of total denial.Learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 328/392/376/411 IPC and sentenced in the manner stated above.The appellant is challenging his conviction inter-alia on the following grounds:-(ii) The wife of the appellant was not examined by the prosecution to ascertain where he was on that night.(iii) There is discrepancy in the statement of complainant as to whether the liquor was purchased by the appellant or was brought by his friend namely Dharmender @ Parvesh.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 3 of 13(iv) The solitary statement of the complainant was not sufficient to convict him especially when she has admitted that she was having friendly relations with the appellant and they used to talk frequently on phone and she had met him earlier also.(v) The learned Trial Court failed to consider the material contradictions in her deposition that initially the complainant stated that she consumed alcohol willingly thinking it to be a cold drink but subsequently, she stated that she was forced to consume alcohol by the appellant.Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State has submitted that in a case of rape and that too of a married lady, no lady would put her married life to risk by making such type of statement and her solitary statement is sufficient to base the conviction.Learned APP for the State has submitted that on 29th December, 2013 at 2.10 am she was seen sitting on the flyover in the cold winter night.When she was taken to the hospital she was 'unfit for statement' which is sufficient to prove that the complainant was not a consenting party and that the appellant has rightly been convicted for the aforesaid offences.I have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the Trial Court Record.It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix herein is a married lady having two grown-up children and that on the night intervening 28th/29th December, 2013 she was present with the appellant in his vehicle and accompanied him on her own sweet will.The entire controversy revolves around the issue as to whether the appellant had physical relations with the prosecutrix with her consent or she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 4 of 13DD No.3A at 2:10 am was recorded at PS Pandav Nagar on the basis of the information received from the Police Control Room reporting about the lady present on the flyover on 29th December, 2013 and her condition, W/Ct.PW7/A, prepared at 3.10 am by PW-2 Dr.Virender Kumar who found the complainant to be in a drowsy state with alcohol smell positive and slurring speech.She was 'Unfit for statement' at that time.It is also recorded on the MLC that at 8.00 am she was declared 'Fit for statement' by the doctor at LBS Hospital.Thereafter her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded which formed basis for registration of FIR No.629/2013, PS Pandav Nagar wherein she narrated the following facts:-The convict Dinesh also removed her chain, kundal, pendal, nose pin as well as her mobile.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 6 of 13CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 7 of 13When the prosecutrix was examined during trial as PW-2, she stated that though she was married and having two children, she was having some dispute with her husband.The appellant started calling her frequently and insisted on marrying him despite knowing her marital status.He also called his friend.She was raped by them and the ornaments which she was wearing at that time and her other articles were robbed.During her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that she was deposing against the appellant under pressure of her husband.She also denied the suggestion that she made physical relations with the appellant of her free will and consent.The appellant has tried to establish the plea of consent in having physical relationship with PW-2 mainly on the basis of the following admissions by PW-2:-(i) She was frequently in contact with the appellant as is established from the Call Detail Records of their mobile.(ii) She herself left the some on the evening of 28 th December, 2013, to join the appellant in his car.(iii) Prior to that date also she had been frequently talking to the appellant and had been meeting him.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 8 of 13(iv) On the date of occurrence also she left her home voluntarily to join the company of the appellant and the appellant had no reason to have forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix who was a married lady with two grown-up children and was providing the money to the appellant to arrange for their Court marriage.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 10 of 13(iii) Had there been a consent by the complainant to have physical relations with the appellant, he would not have taken away her jewellery, mobile and cash and leave her far away from her house to suffer in that winter night in drowsing condition.(iv) The recovery of mobile phone and ornaments of the complainant from the possession of the appellant and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/J respectively further prove beyond any doubt that it was not a case of having physical relations on the consent.She accompanied the appellant in his car voluntarily and thereafter she was made to consume alcohol.But for the intimation given by Police Control Room to the concerned Police Station informing about her location and condition she would have remained there throughout the night.All these facts negate the plea of consent.It has already been noted that during cross examination of PW-2 'A' - the complainant, the appellant has specifically taken a plea of having the physical relations with her on that night with consent but during his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, it was a case of total denial.In the case Munna Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 174 it was held as under:-CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 11 of 13'It is settled law that the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the Accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him.'The contention of the appellant that his wife was not questioned by the police as to where he was during that night is of no relevance when the entire recovery has been effected from his car/house at his behest.The appellant has filed to explain how the belongings of the prosecutrix (PW-2) came into his possession and recovered from him.Since the plea of the consent taken by the appellant during cross examination of PW-2 fails, the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated her testimony to hold the appellant guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC which calls for no interference by this Court.Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and on appreciation of entire evidence supported by the doctor's opinion, I am of the considered view that there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix.The appeal seeking acquittal on the plea of consent fails and is accordingly dismissed.As no argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant in respect of the conviction under Section 328/392 IPC, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 328/392 IPC is also maintained.CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 12 of 13In view of the above discussion the appeal is dismissed except to the extent that his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC is set aside for the reason recorded in para 24 above.TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.Copy of the order be also sent to the appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent.PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) AUGUST 16, 2017 'st' CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 13 of 13CRL.A. No.451/2017 Page 13 of 13 | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
761,422 | Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2002Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Punjaband Haryana High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondents.The 1 High Court heard four appeals but we are concerned with the two appeals onlyi.e.Criminal appeal no. 537 DBA of 1997 and .Criminal appeal No. 170- DB of 1997 (Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab) and disposed the appeals alongwith two other appeals.Respondents faced trial along with two others namelyMohan Singh and Paramjit Singh for alleged commission of offencespunishable under Sections 148, 302,307,326,325,323/302 read with Section149, 307 read with Section 149, 326/149, 325 read with Section 149 and323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (in short the `IPC').Another accusedHarbhajan Singh died during trial.The trial court held that the accusations were not established so far as thepresent respondents are concerned but found the two co-accused personsMohan Singh and Paramjit Singh guilty of various offences.Criminal AppealNo.537 DBA of 1997 was filed by the State questioning acquittal of therespondents.The connected Criminal appeal No. 587 of 2002 has been filed bythe accused Paramjit Singh who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 170 DBof 1997 before the High Court.Prosecution version leading to the trial of the accused persons is asfollows:On 6th September, 1987 at about 6.30 PM Jit Singh and Jaswant Singh(both deceased) alongwith Nishan Singh (P.W.7), Ghula Singh (P.W.8), 2 Swaran Singh and Bakhshish Singh were sitting near the office of the TruckUnion, Khanauri Mandi when accused Mohan Singh armed with a SBBL gun,Paramjit Singh, Sukhchain Singh and Swaran Singh armed with gandasas andHarbhajan Singh unarmed came to the spot in Truck No. HYA 6595, beingdriven by Harbhajan Singh.After parking the truck at a distance of 6-7 kadamsfrom the Cabin, the accused got down and raised a lalkara that they wouldteach them a lesson for being instrumental in making them lose the electionsheld to the various offices of the Truck Union.Mohan Singh accusedthereupon fired two shots at Jit Singh Singh and Ghula singh.HarbhajanSingh then snatched the gun from Mohan Singh and fired one shot hittingJaswant Singh on his arm and back.Swaran Singh, Paramjit Singh andSukhchain Singh accused also caused injuries to Swaran Singh, Nishan Singhand Ghula Singh.All the accused thereafter re-boarded the truck and escapedfrom the spot.Jit Singh and Jaswant Singh died almost immediatelywhereas Ghula Singh, who was in a serious condition, was taken to theHospital by some persons who had come to the spot whereas Nishan Singh andSwaran Singh left for Police Post, Khanauri.Along the way, however, theycame across a police party headed by ASI Shamsher Singh(P.W.12).ASI Shamsher Singh (P.W.12) also went to the place ofoccurrence and made the necessary inquiries and amongst other articles pickedup three spent cartridges cases of .12 bore.The accused were arrested on12.9.1987 and Truck No. HYA-6595 belonging to Harbhajan Singh was takeninto possession.Mohan Singh accused also produced his .12 bore gun and twolive cartridges.The spent cartridges and the gun belonging to Mohan Singhaccused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Laboratory in itsreport (Exh.PRR) opined that the said cartridges had been fired from the gun inquestion.On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged foroffences punishable under section 302 and other offences of IPC as notedabove and the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the `Arms Act') and as they pleadednot guilty, were brought to trial.Before the High Court it was contended by accused, who wereconvicted, that the FIR was lodged belatedly and on that basis the prosecutionversion was vulnerable.There was no motive for five of the accused persons tocome to the spot fully armed and cause the death of two persons and injuries tothree persons.The State questioned correctness of acquittal on the ground that 4 the conclusions of the trial court were erroneous, the acquitted personssupported the acquittal.High Court after noticing the argument came to the followingconclusions.These two eye witnesses had clearly stated to the motive far the offence and detailed the actual incident.We have also considered Mr. Narula's argument with regard to the culpability of Paramjit Singh.As per the evidence of Nishan Singh(P.W.-7), accused Paramjit Singh, who was armed with a Gandasa, had given a blow hitting Swaran Singh on his left arm.It is true that Swaran Singh has not been examined as a witness but from the eye witness account as also the statement of Dr. Gurcharan Singh (P.W.-5), it is clear that there was one incised wound measuring 3.5cm x 1 cm and one contusion 2 cm wide on the lateral aspect of the abdominal wall on his person Dr. H.L.Garg (DW 2), had also X/rayed the injuries of Swaran Singh but no bone injury had been detected.We find that the injuries suffered by Swaran Singh have been reflected in the medical report.Section 374 allows appeals from convictions.In that case, the accused was acquitted bythe trial court.The Provincial Government preferred an appeal which wasallowed and the accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections302 and 323 IPC.The High Court, for convicting the accused, placed relianceon certain eyewitnesses.The aggrieved accused approached thisCourt. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,144,035 | ... Petitioners Mr. Siladitya Sanyal Mr. Sujan Chatterjee For the petitioners Mr. Debojyoti Deb For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Bagdah Police Station Case No. 1064 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 under Sections 341/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 24 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.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 341 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. |
761,643 | Brief facts of the case are that Accused No. 2, Somashekhara, Accused No. 8, Thammaiah and PW 8 Krishnaiah were running a Chit Transaction in which successful members were given articles like vessels, watches, sarees, cloth-pieces, etc. The said transaction was conducted once a week in the shop of PW 8 Krishnaiah and also at Kollapuradamma Temple at Hanumanthapura.It is the case of the prosecution that on October 30, 1989, one such transaction was held at about 5.30 p.m. in which one Nagaraj, the successful bidder was given a copper vessel (Kolaga).Nagaraj returned the vessel with his maternal uncle as it was old and demanded a new vessel.But the request was refused by the proprietors of the Chit Transaction.The accused caused injuries to all the three persons.It is alleged that when the quarrel was going on and PWs 2 to 4 were injured, deceased Anjinappa came forward and intervened and went ahead to stop the quarrel.Accused No. 8 Thammaiah took out a button knife from his pocket and stabbed Anjinappa on the left side of his chest, due to which Anjinappa slumped and fell on the ground.Complainant Veerabhadraiah along with one Krishnaiah, s/o Oblaiah carried Anjinappa in an autorickshaw to the hospital.On the way to hospital, Anjinappa breathed his last.The dead body of Anjinappa was then taken to the General Hospital, Tumkur.The accused persons after committing assault, threw the clubs and rippers at the spot and ran away.At about 11.30 p.m., PW 13 Madhukar Musale, Circle Inspector of Police, Tumkur received an information about the incident of rioting that took place at Hanumanthapura.J U D G M E N THon.On being intimated by PSI, PW 7 A.R. Shariff about the rioting and the injured being admitted to General Hospital at Tumkur, PW 13 went to the hospital and learnt that Anjinappa had died and the other three injured persons were taking treatment.The information given by him was recorded in writing as per Ex. P-1 as complaint and was registered as Crime No. 86 of 1989 for offences punishable Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Accused No. 7 Tukaraiah died during the pendency of the case and the trial abated against him.Inquest over the dead body of deceased Anjinappa was done and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.PW 11 Dr. Hanumakka who conducted the postmortem opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature.She found a punctured wound over the left 3rd inter costal space extending from medial edge of the areola of left nipple obliquely downwards and medially 2" x 2" size with clean cut margin and fat protruding through the wound the depth of which was 3= inches.Likewise, injuries to PWs 2 to 4 were also proved by PW 12, Dr. Chandrasekhara Prasad.After completion of investigation, all the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.PWs 1 to 4 were portrayed as eye witnesses and amongst them, PWs 2 to 4 were shown to be injured persons.They supported the case of the prosecution as to Chit Transaction, the incident which took place at about 5.30 p.m. on October 30, 1989 as also the assault at 9.30 p.m. on the same day.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, considering contradictions and discrepancies in the deposition of eye witnesses, non-examination of Nagraj who was the root cause of quarrel and Krishniah, son of Obalaiah, who accompanied deceased Anjanianappa to hospital, conflicting version as to injury sustained by accused No. 1 Chandrappa, presence of the deceased and injured witnesses at the Hanumanthapura Bypass at 9.30 p.m., mudamal knife not being the same with which the deceased was assaulted, medical evidence as to injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses and other circumstances, held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be conclusively established that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.He, therefore, held that the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted them.In an appeal against an order of acquittal by the State, the High Court reversed the order of the trial court.It observed that on careful examination of evidence of PWs 1 to 4, it was clearly established that deceased Anjaniappa was done to death by Accused No. 8 and PWs 2 to 4 sustained injuries in the course of incident.The High Court, accordingly, set aside acquittal recorded by the trial court and convicted the appellants for various offences as ordered in the final paragraph 55 of the judgment.Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court.Notice was issued by the Court on August 07, 2006 on appeal as also on application for bail.We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.The aggrieved accused approached this Court. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,165,053 | Tija Pawar as per duties assigned to her, proceeded to village Kajlas on 30.3.2016, accompanied by her team.During inspection, applicant Kalu Singh was found committing the breach of this policy and was seen coming back from open space with a tumbler in his hand.The complainant Tija Pawar confronted him and asked him as ... 2 ... CRI.No.1846/2020 to why he is not complying with the Government policy.To this, the applicant told her that he is not having funds for making a lavatory at his residence.Tija Pawar then asked him that if he can purchase a mobile worth Rs.10,000/- why can't he build a lavatory ?.The applicant got incensed and filthily abused the complainant, which tended to insult her modesty.The witness states that she became stunned to hear these words.Applicant told the witness that she should not be seen in the village again or else she would be killed.... 4 ... CRI.Shri Manoj Saxena, Advocate for the applicant.Ms. Drishti Rawal, Public Prosecutor for State.******** (ORDER) 21.10.2020 This revision has been filed under Section 401/397 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 8.6.2020, pronounced by the learned ASJ Susner, affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 509 of IPC pronounced by JMFC Laalkheda in Cri.The JMFC had found applicant Kalu Singh guilty under Section 509 as well as 294 of IPC and the appellate Court allowed the appeal in respect of Section 294 of IPC.The prosecution story in short was that the complainant Tija Pawar was posted as CEO Janpad Panchayat, Susner and one of her duties was to follow-up the Government policy of "Clean India Movement" ensuring that the villages may become free from malaise of open defecation.He also misbehaved with the members of the team.Consequently, the report was lodged.In the revision application, it has been mentioned that the ingredients of offence under Section 509 of IPC are not attracted because the incident occurred on the spot all of a sudden and that the complainant has lodged report as an after thought; that the applicant is a poor villager and is a first offender and that the complainant has not been able to prove that she was on Government duty and that applicant has been implicated due to political rivalry.The question before this Court is that whether applicant was wrongly convicted under Section 509 of IPC by both the Courts below in view of the grounds contained in the revision application.The evidence of Tija Pawar was perused.She has stated that she as CEO Janpanchayat was assigned the duty of morning and evening follow-up and the implementation of Government scheme of "Clean India Mission".On 30.3.2016, she had left along with her staff in Government vehicle towards village Kajlas.She states that she had to identify persons who are not complying with the Government scheme.She states that while she was crossing village Kajlas and moving towards village Parsuliya, applicant accused ... 3 ... CRI.No.1846/2020 (Kalu Singh) was seen carrying a vessel meant for answering to his natural call.He was stopped and asked as to where he is coming from.The applicant replied in an antagonizing manner that can't she see from where he is coming from ?.As per witness, she told the accused that when his village Panchayat has been declared to be "free from open defecation village" then why he is breaching the Clean India Movement.The accused told her that Government is not giving him money for making a toilet.At this, complainant asked him as to what is the cost of mobile which is keeping with himself.The witness then asked him that if he can purchase such a costly mobile then why he can't build a lavatory at his residence.The accused got incensed and used words which the witness felt ashamed to state in open Court.The Presiding Officer then gave her a piece of paper and told her to write the very words used by the applicant.The witness then wrote out a sentences which were uttered by the applicant.A complaint was lodged in writing by her which is Exhibit P/1, her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C were also recorded.There are two other eyewitnesses namely Khudabaksh (PW1) and Lokendra Jain (PW2).He states that on 30.3.2016, while Tija Pawar (PW3) was on inspection to Bharukhedi and was coming back, she saw persons going with vessels in their hands.The vehicle was stopped by the witness and Tija Pawar alighted from the vehicle along with Lokendra Jain and Bharat.After 15 to 20 minutes all the three came back to the vehicle and told the witness to take them to Nalkheda police station.This witness has been declared hostile and was questioned further.He admits that the complainant had stopped Kalu Singh while he was coming after answering to the call of nature.However, he denies that Kalu had filthily abused the CEO.He also denies that Kalu Singh also manhandled Lokendra Jain.When he was examined further, he admits that there is a log book which driver has to carry while driving a Government vehicle.In para 5 he states that two persons were seen coming with vessels in their hands, but he cannot identify those two persons.The witness is hostile and in cross he has failed to even identify the accused.However, he supports the prosecution to the effect that the complainant had made inspection in Government vehicle and she had also stopped a person who was apparently breaching the Government scheme.Lokendra Jain (PW2) is also a hostile witness.He states that at ... 5 ... CRI.No.1846/2020 around 9.00AM to 10.00 AM during tour of villages by CEO, two to three persons had been stopped by CEO and had told them not to breach the Government policy of 'no defecation in open'.The witness states that applicant Kalu Singh was also one of those persons so stopped.However, he does not remember as to what Kalu Singh has stated and therefore, he has been declared hostile.He denies the suggestion that Kalu Singh had filthily abused the CEO.In further cross examination by accused, he reiterates that he had accompanied CEO and CEO had questioned 4 to 5 persons regarding breach of Government policy.Thus, the two witnesses who accompanied Tija do not support the prosecution story that applicant had filthily abused the CEO.Now the evidence of Tija Pawar (PW3) is the sole piece of evidence which exists supporting the prosecution story.This question has been answered by her, stating that she does not know regarding such political rivalry.She was then asked as to whether she knows that the applicant is a member of Congress party whereas the Sarpanch of Kaslas is a BJP man.No.1846/2020 official and suggestion that Kalu Singh was implicated due to political rivalry between applicant and Dinesh and between applicant and Sarpanch is very far fetched.Both the other witnesses, though hostile, have admitted that Kalu Singh had been stopped with empty vessel in his hand.A suggestion has been given to Tija Pawar is that the accused was carrying a vessel because he had watered the plants of oranges.Such suggestion is also not creditworthy because many plants could not have been watered with one tumbler.Oranges plants are watered through an irrigation system and watering them with a tumbler is not a suggestion which can be believed.In order to attract the provision of Section 509 of IPC, it is important to prove as to what exact words were uttered by the accused.In the written complaint which is Exhibit P/3, it has barely been stated that the applicant had used inappropriate words and had abused and misbehaved with the complainant.On the basis of this complaint, FIR Exhibit P/8 has been recorded. | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,168,882 | (a) The first and second accused in this case are close friends.The deceased Sangaiahwas running a sweet stall and a computer shop in the name and style ofSathya Sweets and Sathya Kids Sports World.Before that, the deceased was working in a Kerosene shop as a Coolie.A1 and A2 are rowdy elements and they used to threaten the deceased and extract money.Three days prior to theoccurrence, while the deceased Sangaiah and PW1 was conversing in front ofSathiya Sweets Stall, A1 and another person came there and threatened the deceased to give money.But, the deceased had stated that he has no money and thus, refused to give money.A1 threatened the deceased stating that hisdeath would be only at his hands and went away.(b) On 29.09.2007 at 5.45 p.m. A1 and A2 with a common intention tomurder the deceased, trespassed into the Sathya Kids Sports World shop of thedeceased and threatened him to give them money.Since the deceased refused to give money, A1 and A2 took knives and stabbed the deceased indiscriminately.One Sundaramoorthy, who was in the shop, obstructed theaccused persons from inflicting injuries on the deceased.The 2nd accusedinflicted injuries on the left elbow and right hand thumb of the saidSundaramoorthy with the same knife.When one Amutha, who was working in the said shop of the deceased tried to obstruct the accused persons frominflicting injuries on the deceased, the 1st accused with the same knifeinflicted simple injury on the right upper-arm of Amutha.At that time, PW1,along with his wife Dhanalakshmi, came there to visit the deceased.At that time, A1 and A2, who came out of the shop aftercommission of crime, threatened PW1 saying that ?if you come near, you willalso face the same consequences?.Then, A1 and A2 ran away from the occurrence.PW1 immediately took the deceased through an auto to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where it was informed that the deceasedsuccumbed to the injuries.(c) On the same day at 7.30 p.m., PW1 went to the Police Station andlodged a complaint ? Ex.On receipt of the said complaint, PW13 ? thethen Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.1789 of 2007 underSections 307 and 302 IPC, and forwarded the complaint (Ex.P1) and FIR (Ex.P12) to the Court and to PW21 ? in-charge Inspector of Police forinvestigation.Thereafter, he recovered bloodstained cement slab and sample cement slab.P14 is the Accident Register of PW3(h) During the course of investigation, PW22 enquired PW3, PW5, PW6 and others and recorded their statements.[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This appeal has been filed by the appellants / A1 & A2 against theconviction and sentence, dated 31.08.2016, made in S.C.No.175 of 2015 by thelearned V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.There are totallytwo accused in this case and they were charged for the offences punishableunder Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.(e) On 30.09.2007, PW22 took up the investigation and went to thehospital at 7.00 a.m. and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceasedin the presence of panchayatars and forwarded the dead body of the deceasedto the hospital through one Head Constable for postmortem.(f) PW20 ? Dr.Natarajan conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 30.09.2007 at 10.45 a.m. He found the following injuries on thebody of the deceased:"1.An oblique stab injury 3 x 1 cms x pleural cavity deep noted on thefront of left side of chest, 1cm above the nipple.2.An oblique stab injury 3.5 cms x 1 cm x cavity deep noted on front ofleft side of chest 1 cm medial to nipple.3.An oblique stab injury 3 x 1 cm x cavity deep noted on the front ofleft side of chest, 1 cm below the nipple.4.An oblique stab injury 3 x 2 cms x cavity deep noted on front of leftside of chest, 3 cms below the nipple.5.An oblique stab injury 4 x 1.5 cms peritoneal cavity deep noted onthe left loin.6.An oblique stab injury 4 x 1.5 cm x 2 cm along the muscle plane notedon the middle of right side of neck.7.An oblique stab injury 4 x 2 cms x muscle deep noted on the marginsof right lower jaw.8.An oblique stab injury 5 x 2 cms x 2 cm along the muscle plane notedon the outer aspect of right elbow.An oblique stab injury 5 x 2 x 2 cms along the muscle plane noted onthe inner aspect of right hand.An oblique stab injury 4 x 2 x 1 cm along the muscle plane noted onthe front of right side chest in the costal margin.An oblique stab injury 3 x 1 x 1 cm along the muscle plane noted onthe left side of neck.An oblique stab injury 3 x 1 x 1 cm along the muscle plane noted onthe left side of margin of mandible.13.An oblique stab injury 5 x 1 x 2 cms along the muscle plane noted onthe left side of chest, 5 cms above and medial to nipple.14.An oblique stab injury 4 x 1 x 1 cms along the muscle plane noted onthe left side of chest, 1 cm below the nipple.An oblique stab injury 5 x 2 cms x muscle deep noted on the middleof left upper arm.16.An oblique stab injury 4 x 1 cms x muscle deep noted on the middleof left upper arm.?PW20 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to external injuries No.1 to 6 and its corresponding internalinjuries and cumulative effect of all other injuries, 16 to 20 hours prior toautopsy.(g) On 30.09.2007 at 2.10 p.m. the said Sundaramoorthy and Amutha (PW3) were brought to the Government Rajaji Hospital.PW17 ? Dr.Amalraj wasinformed by them that they were attacked by two known persons with knives on29.09.2007 at 5.30 p.m. PW17 found the following injuries on the saidSundaramoorthy:?1.Incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm over left elbow sutured S & D outside.2.Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm right thumb.?P13 is the Accident Register of the said Sundaramoorthy.PW17 has found the following injury on PW3:?A lacerated injury 6cm x 2 cm x 0.5 at the right arm sutured anddressed outside.?A2 surrendered before the Court.On 10.10.2007, PW22 took A2 under custody for investigation by filing apetition.On enquiry, A2 gave a voluntary confession statement in thepresence of PW10 and PW11, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden out the weapon and the clothes used at the time of occurrence.Inpursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the Police and witnessesto the place of hide out and produced a bloodstained pant (MO.2),bloodstained shirt (MO.1), yellow colour plastic bag (MO.3) and bloodstainedknife (MO.4).PW22 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the Police Station, PW22 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remandand handed over the material objects under Form 95 to the Court.(i) On getting information that A1 surrendered before the Court, on23.10.2007, PW22 took A1 under custody for investigation by filing apetition.On enquiry, A1 gave a voluntary confession statement in thepresence of PW12 and one Lakshmanan, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden out the weapon and the clothes used at the time of occurrence.Inpursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the Police and witnessesto the place of hide out and produced a bloodstained knife (MO.5),bloodstained shirt (MO.6), Lungi (MO.7) and black colour plastic bag (MO.8).PW22 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the Police Station, PW22 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed overthe material objects under Form 95 to the Court.The admissible portion ofthe voluntary confession statement of A1 is marked as Ex.(j) At the request of PW22, the learned Judicial Magistrate conductedidentification parade and the report of the same is marked as Ex.(k) During the course of investigation, PW23 collected the medicalrecords and examined medical witnesses and few more witnesses, and recorded their statements.PW23, after completion of investigation, laid charge sheetagainst both the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court had framed as many asfour charges against the accused.When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence.In order to prove thecharges, on the side of the the prosecution as many as 23 witnesses wereexamined as PWs.1 to PW23 and Exs.P1 to P25 were exhibited, besides eight Material Objects (MOs.1 to 8).When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, theaccused denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.On theside of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked.The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentaryevidence, has acquitted both the accused from the charges under Sections 307and 506(ii) IPC.But, the trial Court found A1 and A2 guilty of the chargeunder Section 302 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated supra.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/ A1 and A2 have come up with this appeal.The learned counsel for the appellants / A1 and A2 would submit thatexcept the official witnesses, all the witnesses, including PW3, who is,according to the prosecution, injured eyewitness, have turned hostile.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that thoughthe eyewitnesses and recovery witnesses have clearly stated in their 161statements against the accused, they have turned hostile for the reasons bestknown to them.But, the official witnesses have clearly deposed against theaccused.The accused are rowdy elements.Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissionsmade on either side and perused the materials available on record.One of the injured eyewitness viz., Sundaramoorthy, was not examined by theprosecution for the reason best known to them.PW1 is the brother-in-law ofthe deceased and author of Ex.P1 - complaint.PW2 is the sister of thedeceased.PW3, who is the injured eyewitness, was the employee of the deceased.But, all the eyewitnesses, including the injured eyewitness, haveturned hostile for the reasons best known to them and they did not supportthe case of the prosecution.PW4, who is the wife of the deceased, wasexamined to speak about the motive for the occurrence.But, she also turnedhostile for the reasons best known to her.The other witnesses, who wereexamined to speak about the case of the prosecution and also recovery of thematerial objects, have also turned hostile.Virtually, except the officialwitnesses, none of the witnesses have spoken about the case of theprosecution.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, thetrial Court only based on the statements of witnesses recorded under Section161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P1 - complaint and relying upon the evidences of officialwitnesses and recovery of the material objects from the possession of theaccused after their confession, has convicted the accused.It is arudimentary principle of law that the statement of witnesses recorded underSection 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and reliancecannot be placed on such statements, unless they are corroborated orstrengthened by the testimony of such witness in the witness box.It is alsoa well settled principle that the First Information Report is not asubstantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to discredit thetestimony of the maker thereof.So far as the recovery is concerned, as per the provision ofSection 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not a material recovery whichhas to be proved, but the disclosure statement based upon which the recoveryis made.As the recovery witnesses have turned hostile in this case, nostatement disclosing the fact/material discovered was proved before the Courtand hence, there is a missing link between the accused and the weapons /material objects.Mere recovery of weapons / material objects does notcreate any offence against the accused.As stated earlier, except the official witnesses, none of thewitnesses have spoken about the case of the prosecution.A perusal of therecords would go to show that all the occurrence witnesses backed out fromwhat was stated during investigation for the reasons best known to them.It is the duty of the Police to protect the witnesses from being threatenedby the accused.But, for that reason, the Court cannot go beyond the wellsettled principle of criminal jurisprudence to convict any person formingopinion based on conjectures and surmises, and on legally inadmissibleevidence.The occurrence witnesses could alone point out about the culpritinvolved in the commission of the offences.They are like the root of a tree.If root eroded by itself, the tree cannot stand.In such a way, based on theinadmissible evidences, the trial Court ought not to have imposed convictionand sentence on the appellants / accused and hence, the same are liable to beset aside.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction andsentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants /A1 and A2 inS.C.No.175 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC are set aside and the appellantsare acquitted from the said charge.1.The V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,169,050 | 1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction 27.09.18 CRR 3 of 2018 Debendra Nath BeraThe State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu Mr. Diptangshu Basu ... for the petitioner.Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought for leave to file a supplementary affidavit as the Kotwali Police Station Case No. 955 of 2016 dated October 15, 2016 under Sections 354/354C/376/511/323/307/506/109 IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 3474 of 2016 now pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Paschim Medinipur has ended in filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation.Leave is granted to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit within a week. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,534,374 | During investigation, the police arrested the co-accused Ashu and on the basis of his memorandum, the applicant was arrested and jewellery was recovered from his possession.This is the First application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No. 296/2017 registered at Police Station Chhapara District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 452, 411, 454 r/w 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 31.08.2017, the complainant lodged the report to the effect that on 14.08.2017 at about 9.30 p.m. Her wife after coming from village Jhiri kept her jewellery in a suitcase.On 26.08.2017 at about 9;00 a.m., when she searched for jewellery, it was not found.On that report, police registered Crime No. 296/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC against unknown person. | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,535,007 | With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, case is finally heard.This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the Judgment dated 20.09.2012, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.16/2011, by learned Sessions Judge, Harda, whereby the judgment delivered by learned JMFC, Harda on 25.01.2011, in Criminal Case No.1011/2008, convicting the applicant under Section 323 (two counts) of IPC and sentence of R.I. for three months and fine of Rs.100/- (on each count), with default stipulation, has been confirmed.The facts in brief are that on 18.06.2008 at 07:00 am applicant was going to sell the household articles.On an objection taken by the complainant, the applicant abuse him and committed 'Marpeet' with him.The wife of complainant also interfered and tried to escape the complainant, the applicant also beaten her.Report of the same was lodged by the complainant and on the said report Crime No.73/2998 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed charges punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant, who abjured his guilt; therefore, he was put to trial.In order to bring home the charges against applicant, the prosecution has examined five witnesses and exhibited seven documents to prove its case.During the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the evidence put forth against him and pleaded innocence.The learned Courts below found the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC (two counts) and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, hence this revision.Learned Courts below failed to appreciate the material available on record and passed the judgment and findings on conjectures and surmises.Now, the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence.The revision, to that extent, is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified.The applicant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,538,240 | The complainant/applicant has preferred the present application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) in ST No.151/2014 whereby respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the charge of Section 376(1), 376 read with Section 511 and 450 of IPC.Prosecution's case, in short, is that prosecutrix (PW-2) lodged a written report at Police Station Mugalsarai that on 22.02.2014 that respondent No.1 had committed rape upon her at about 10 pm.Thereafter, respondent No.1 assured her that he would marry with her.Again on 03.04.2014 when Bharti Joshi (PW-3), mother of the prosecutrix, had gone to attend a meeting of Aanganwadi, respondent No.1 forcefully entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to commit rape.On her shouting, respondent No.1 left the spot.Thereafter, prosecutrix told about the incident to her neighbour Suneeta (PW-7).On lodging the FIR, 2 Mcrc.9120.2016 Ku.Pooja Joshi Vs.The prosecutrix was sent for her medico-legal examination.Heard on leave application.Dr. Leena Sharma (PW-6) examined the prosecutrix and gave her report Ex.According to her, no external or internal injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.Therefore, the trial court has rightly found that she was a consenting party because she herself has stated that since respondent no.1 had promised to marry her she did not lodge any FIR and therefore the trial court has rightly acquitted respondent no.1 from the charge of Section 376 of IPC.According to the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her complaint Ex.P-2 an attempt of rape was committed whereas her mother Smt. Bharti Joshi (PW-3) has stated that on receiving 3 Mcrc.9120.2016 Ku.Pooja Joshi Vs.Naresh and another the intimation she immediately came back to her house and found that her daughter to be ravished who was weeping.Thereafter, she provided clothes to the prosecutrix and then they went to the police station.There is a lot of difference between the offence of rape and an attempt to commit rape.If description of the prosecutrix is considered then the overt act as alleged against respondent No.1 may fall within the purview of Section 354 of IPC.There is no allegation against respondent No.1 that either he tried to insert his penis or any other object in the vagina of the prosecutrix and therefore the overt act as alleged against respondent No.1 does not fall within the purview of Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC.So far as offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, according to the prosecutrix her clothes were torn by respondent no.1 but no such clothes were deposited at police station while lodging the criminal complaint.Such clothes were not shown to any witness before the court to show that such tears in the clothes could be done in the offence of an attempt to commit rape.It is pertinent to note that if the prosecutrix was all alone in the house and respondent no.1 tried to 4 Mcrc.9120.2016 Ku.Pooja Joshi Vs.Naresh and another commit rape upon her then there was no reason as to why respondent No.1 did not commit complete rape because he had already one intercourse with the prosecutrix in the past.Also if Smt. Bharti Joshi (PW-3) immediately had come back to her house on receiving the intimation then it was expected from her to take the prosecutrix to the police station immediately, however, the incident took place at about 01:00 pm whereas FIR Ex.P-5 was lodged at about 09:00 pm.No explanation is given about the delay in lodging the FIR.The most important fact in the case is that according to the prosecutrix she informed about the incident to her neighbour Suneeta (PW-7) and her friend Sakshi (PW-4), however, Suneeta (PW-7) and Sakshi (PW-4) have turned hostile.They have stated that no story of such crime done by respondent no.1 was told by the prosecutrix or her mother.Since it is not proved beyond doubt that respondent no.1 entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to commit rape then respondent no.1 could not commit any house trespass even or offence under Section 5 Mcrc.9120.2016 Ku.Pooja Joshi Vs.Naresh and another 354 of IPC.Looking to the conduct of respondent no.1 as depicted by the prosecution and story told by the prosecutrix and her mother where the witness Suneeta (PW-7) has turned hostile, entire prosecution story comes under the clouds of doubt that no such incident took place with the prosecutrix.The Trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent No.1 from the aforesaid charges.Consequently, the leave application filed by complainant/applicant, namely, Ku.A copy of the order passed today be sent to the trial court along with its record for information. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,540 | JUDGMENT V.B. Bansal, J.(1) By way of this revision the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th November, 1990 holding that a prima facie case for the offence \ under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code or in the alternative 304B Indian Penal Code against Shanti Devi and. offences under Ss. 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code against Mange Ram, Ram Bilas and Suresh Kumar and a case under Sec. 498A against Smt. Shanti Devi has been made out.(2) It would be necessary to give some facts before dealing with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties.Mange Ram and Smt. Shanti Devi are the parents while Suresh Kumar is the brother of aforesaid Ram Bilas.After her marriage Trishla Rani started residing with her in-laws.However, her in-laws including parents-in-law, husband, brother-in-law Suresh and sister-in-law Sunita were not happy with the dowry brought by her in the marriage.They used to give harassment to her and even taunted her by saying that such type of dowry is not being given even by sweepers.Ram Bilas and Suresh even used to give beatings to her.Suresh even' stopped her from using water from the fridge by saying that in case she wanted to have cold water she should bring a refrigerator from her parents.(4) On 15th June, 1988, Trishla was got admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi by Inderjeet brother of Ram Bilas with the alleged history of accidental burns while cooking on stove.Her statement was recorded by S.I. Azad Singh after she was declared to be fit for statement by the doctor.Apart from giving the facts already stated it was also claimed by her that on that day she poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter set herself on fire and wanted action to be taken against her parents-in-law, husband, brother- in-law Suresh and sister-in-law Sunita.(5) Statement of Trishla Rani was recorded by Sdm on the same day in which she claimed having been harassed by her mother-in-law and there used to be a complaint of not bringing refregerator.She also claimed that after pouring kerosene oil on her she was set on fire by her mother-in-law and that she was removed to the hospital after about one hour of the accident.302 and 498A Ipc was made out against Smt. Shanti Devi and offences under Section 498A read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code were made out against Mange Ram, Ram Bilas, Suresh Kumar and Sunita.Separate challan was filed against Sunita in children Court and the petitioners were challenged separately.(7) I have heard Shri R.K.. Naseem learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Bhatia learned Counsel for the respondent.I have also carefully gone through the records.married on 10th March, 1^88 and she died at the house of her in-laws on 17th June, 1988, i.e. in less than four months.Prosecution has placed reliance upon the statements of witnesses including those of the deceased Trishla, her father Sita Ram, brother Amar Chand Rameshwar Dass cousin brother.(13) According to the prosecution story statement of Trishla Rani was recorded by Sdm on 15th June, 1988 in which she had specifically stated about the pouring of kerosene oil on her and thereafter setting her on fire by her mother-in-law Smt. Shanti.It is on the basis of this evidence that a charge under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code has been framed by the learned trial Court against Smt. Shanti Devi.(14) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alternative charge under Ss. 302 and 304B Indian Penal Code could not be framed and it was for the prosecution to decide as to on which evidence they are placing reliance. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,542,377 | At that juncture, Chhotu alias Kantar, Golu, Vivek Yadav and Chhotu belonging to Sukuludhana came there and took Santosh with them to Fwara Chowk for consuming liquor, where Bablu and Durgesh also came.They all went to the Stadium for having liquor.no.1-State in Cr.A. No. 2539/10, as well as, for applicant-State in M.Cr.As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 27 days.Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.Heard on admission.Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal.Cr.A. No.2539/10 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), whereas M.Cr.C. No.12770/10 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 9/9/10 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act")), Chhindwara, in Special Case No.114/09, whereby accused Durgesh, Narendra, Lekhram, Golu and Dwarka have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 in alternative 302/149, 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), whereas Lekhram, Golu and Dwarka have also been acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6/8/09, Ajay alias Chhotu Soni lodged a report at Kotwali Chhindwara to the effect that Santosh (since deceased) had informed him that two days back, he had a quarrel with Chhotu alias Kantar.On 5/8/09 at about 8.30 p.m., when complainant was standing with Santosh at a Pan Shop, Santosh told him that Chhotu alias Kantar was planning to kill him.On the roof of stadium, while taking liquor, Chhotu entered into an altercation with Santosh, in pursuance of which, Dwarka assaulted Santosh with a Bottle, while Chhotu and Golu beat him with kicks and fists.Sustaining injuries, Santosh died.On the aforesaid report, morgue was registered and offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 201 of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Act were registered against the accused persons.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.Eye witness Ashish Soni (PW1) has testified in his evidence that he did not see any quarrel of deceased Santosh with anyone. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,543,403 | He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not to seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,544,481 | [Order of the Court was made by S.VIMALA, J] This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the relief ofappropriate direction to treat the sentences awarded for the offence underSection 302 of IPC and the sentence award in respect of the offene underSection 392 r/w 397 of IPC, by the Judgement, dated 29.01.2007 in S.C.No.219of 2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli to runconcurrently and not to consecutively.2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.We have also perused therecords carefully.3.The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition:- | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
815,450 | JUDGMENT D.R. Khanna, J.On a reference being made by the single Judge for consideration of the propriety of grant of bail to an approver who has been now in detention for over two years, and whose statement has already been recorded by the Sessions Court, this matter has come before the Full Bench.The entire background has been given in the order of the single Judge, reference to which is advisable for resolving the controversy involved.It is, however, unfortunate that at the time of the hearing before the Full Bench, none appeared from the side of the State, This has been in spite of the notice having been served upon the Attorney General since the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Section 306(4)(b) of the Criminal P.C. has been assailed.Appearance was made on behalf of the accused only, and they contested the release of the approver during the trial as had been done before the, single Judge,The brief background is that three persons, Satinder Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Sarvjeet Singh are being tried in the Court of Session in two separate cases under Sections 394, 397,342 & 341 IPC.They are as a result of two bank robberies committed in the months of June and September, 1981 in New Delhi.The same set of accused was said to be involved in each of the robberies.Prem Chand, petitioner, was also taken into custody in both the cases in April, 1982, but he has turned approver on being granted pardon.So far the evidence of the approver only has been recorded and in one of the cases, one further witness was examined.There are said to be about 100 witnesses in each case.Earlier in Criminal Misc.(Main) No. 525 of 1983, G. C. Jain, J. had directed on 11-7-1983 that the cases would be fixed for recording of evidence at least three days in a week, and every possible effort should be made to expedite their disposal However, in spite of that, there appears to be no early possibility of conclusion of trials.The petitioner's grievance is that although formally the hearings used to be fixed thrice a week, they often were of short durations as the accused persons have been delaying the expeditious disposal.At present the accused are on bail for short durations because of special reason.Similar bails were allowed to them earlier too at one time or the other.The petitioner too was allowed interim bail for a shortwhile once. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,546,303 | "B) It may please be issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction of like nature, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to protect the life and property of the petitioners and to provide all sort of protection for protecting the same"C) It may please be issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction of like nature, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to investigate the cases filed against respondent Nos. 4 to 20 and also to take the action against the respondent Nos. 4 to 27."On 10th October, 2016, the Division Bench of this Court had expressed its displeasure on formulation of the prayers.The said order of the Division Bench reads thus :Mr Patni, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the order of this Court, dated 10th October, 2016, an::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 ::: 1379.15crwp (3) application was presented in this Court bearing Criminal Application No.6254 of 2016 with a prayer for amendment of the petition and formulating appropriate prayers clubbed in prayer clause (B-1).The reference is made to these prayers in para 4 of the application, which reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 :::The offences which were registered against the respective respondents is as under :e) C.R. No. I-86/2015 registered with P.S. Shivoor for an offence punishable under Sec. 143, 144, 148,149, 323, 504 of I.P.C. against respondent Nos.4 to 15 and 22 to 27."Mr Sangle, learned A.P.P., on instructions, submitted before this Court that insofar as C.R. No. I-86/2015, registered with Police Station, Shivoor is concerned, the same resulted in acquittal of the accused persons.Insofar as C.R. No.Insofar as C.R. No.I-99/2014, registered with Police Station, Shivoor and C.R. No.Insofar as C.R. No.Now, coming to the other prayer i.e. prayer clause (B), it deals with directions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Home Ministry, the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad and Police Station In-charge, Police Station, Shivoor to take steps so as to protect the life and property of the petitioners.It may not be out of place to state that in support of this prayer, Mr Patni, learned Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the copy of the application submitted to respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad placed on record at Exh.'C'.Now, this representation is more on a issue of the civil proceedings initiated by the petitioners and::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 ::: 1379.15crwp (6) the orders passed by the Civil Court.Insofar as the grievance of the petitioners that no steps are taken on a grievance of apprehension to the petitioners' lives, the only reference finds place in the concluding part of the application, that too vague reference.There are no details of approaching the police station by making a request to look into the matter of threats nor there is a specification of those alleged police officials.It is submitted by Mr Patni, learned Counsel for the petitioners that even post filing of the petition, the petitioners received certain threats.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 :::Now, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to approach respondent No.2 by filing a comprehensive application giving all the details for a prayer of providing protection to them on an apprehension to their lives and also their willingness to deposit charges, if any, so that respondent No.2, being competent authority would be in a position to consider the application on merits and can take appropriate decision.Accordingly, we permit the petitioners to file appropriate application to respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad with all necessary details within a period of two weeks from today.On receipt of such application within two weeks, respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad shall::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 ::: 1379.15crwp (7) pass appropriate orders on its merits, as expeditiously as possible and not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of such application.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 :::With the aforesaid directions, criminal writ petition is disposed of.Needless to state that the pending criminal application is also disposed of.(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 22:53:12 ::: | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,546,926 | 1. Heard the respective Counsel for the parties.When the victim Prabhakar Sawant was driving his autorickshaw, PW-1 Chandrakant Govalkar, PW-2 Dhanaji Dhopate and PW-5 Babu Patel accompanied with him and when they came in front of "Laxmi Hotel"at Shivaji Nagar on Daftary Linking Road, Malad, a massive assault was committed upon victim Prabhakar probably by three persons, who were armed with sword and choppers and they thrashed the roof-top over the head of autorickshaw driver and tore it apart.Due to the said attack, the said autorickshaw collided with an electric pole and thereupon Prabhakar Sawant got out of the said autorichskaw and started running away from the spot, but the assailants chased him and they chopped him with sword and choppers causing multiple injuries on his legs, hands, and a huge injury on his head.Resultantly, Prabhakar fell down in an injured condition on the spot in front of Laxmi Hotel.At this juncture, Police Head Constable PW-3 Dinkar Bhimaji Rokde and Police Naik PW-8 Vasant Vithal Kale were on patrol duty at the mosque in Islampura area due to tense situation on account of Kashmir Hazrat Baug Dargah and they were not far away from the place of occurrence of the incident.Hence, nearby people ran towards them and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 4 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw informed them about the incident.Thereupon, both the said police personnel arrived at the spot and found that victim Prabhakar Sawant was in injured condition.PW-4 Fulgensingh Umrao Singh, Proprietor of Laxmi Hotel, in front of which the aforesaid incident took place, had allegedly witnessed the assailants assaulting on victim Prabhakar with sword and choppers.It is also alleged that PW-6 Saraswatibai, mother of Prabhakar Sawant, learnt about the said incident of assault on her son through some boys and as such she also rushed to the spot.According to her, victim injured Prabhakar stated before PW-3 Dinkar Rokde and PW-8 Vasant Kale the reasons for causing injuries to him and the persons who had caused the said injuries and names of the said assailants were disclosed i.e. Angad (accused No.2), Dilip accused No.3 and Vilas @ Hari Om (accused No.1) respectively.Thereafter PW-3 Rokde and PW-8 Vasant Kale both personnel put the injured Prabhakar in an autorickshaw and was removed to Asha Hospital.He also stated that it did not happen that the injured had stated his name to them.She stated that she had three sons and one daughter.The eldest was Atmaram, the youngest was Suresh and the middle son was Prabhakar.She knows the accused Vilas Ghag and Dilip and identified them in the Court stating that they reside in the same locality where she resides.She further stated that her son was murdered about 10 years back and she had seen the assault committed on him.She further stated that she came to know about the same when her injured son was in Asha Hospital.She also stated that she came to know about assault on Prabhakar at about 11.30 a.m. She also stated that this she could know from the members of the public who had come running to her house after the incident.Hence, she immediately rushed to the spot where Prabhakar was lying and she lifted Prabhakar from the spot ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 20 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw with the help of two more persons and removed him to Asha Hospital and from there Prabhakar was removed to Cooper Hospital, but at 5.30 p.m. Prabhakar succumbed to his injuries.She further stated that police personnel recorded her statement about the incident.She also attended the I.T. Parade and identified accused in police station.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::In cross-examination, she stated that she met police personnel first time in Asha Hospital after the incident.She went running to the spot and found that number of people had gathered around when Prabhakar was lying in injured condition and two persons had accompanied with her.She further stated that she was present when Prabhakar was lifted from the spot and removed to Cooper Hospital and till the time he died.She further stated that her son stated to her the names of accused persons as assailants in the presence of police.They possessed big weapons.They tried to commit assault with sword on the roof of autorickshaw.The driver of auto rickshaw tried to come out and run away from the auto-In the process, auto rickshaw dashed against the electric pole.By the present two Appeals, the appellants i.e. Original accused No. 1- Vilas @ Hari Om Tatoba Ghag and accused No.3 - Dilip Ramchandra Suryavanshi (hereinafter referred to as "the accused" for the sake of brevity), have taken the exception to the conviction and sentence imposed upon them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and directing them to undergo imprisonment for life and directing the accused No.1 to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and also directing the accused No.3 to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- by Judgment and order dated 12th March, 2004 rendered by the learned Addl.Admittedly, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 3 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw accused No.2 Angad Malkhansingh Mahajit was expired during the trial and the case against him was abated.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Due to the said incident, nearby shop-owners and restaurants put their shutters down.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::According to the prosecution, while proceeding towards Asha Hotel, victim Prabhakar made the oral dying declaration before PW-3 Dinkar Rokde, that the three persons i.e. Hari Om, Angad and Dilip i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 3 and deceased accused assaulted him by chopper.After reaching Asha Hospital, initial medical treatment was given to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 5 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw him, but as per advice, he was shifted to Cooper Hospital for further treatment by an ambulance and was admitted to I.C. Unit.It is the case of the prosecution that since Prabhakar was not in a condition to speak anything about his injuries, API Jadhav (PW-10) recorded the statement of PW-3 Dinkar Rokde and names of the assailants were figured in the said statement coupled with the cause of injuries.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Accordingly, the criminal law was set into motion and the investigating agency i.e. PW-10 API Jadhav and API Nadaf PW-9 proceeded to the incident and drew the panchnama and seized the blood samples fallen on the spot and also the autorickshaw at the spot.PW-10 API Jadhav recorded statement of PW-4 Fulgensingh i.e. proprietor of Laxmi Hotel and his relative i.e. Somnath Kurmi and also recorded statement of PW-1 Chandrakant Govalkar, PW-2 Dhanaji Dhopate and PW-5 Babu Patel, being eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the incident and also recorded statement of PW-8 Vasant Kale.Thereafter, PW-9 API Nadaf took charge of investigation and received the clothes of the injured and also recorded statements of witnesses.On ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 6 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw 23.10.1993 at about 5.30 p.m., the victim Prabhakar Sawant succumbed to the injuries at Cooper Hospital and his dead body was sent at Addl.Coroner's Court, Juhu for post-mortem.Meantime, accused No.1 Vilas Ghag and Dilip Suryavanshi were arrested Their identification parade was conducted on 2.6.1995 by S.E.M. Sitaram Jadhav and they were identified by the identifying witnesses PW-1 Chandrakant Govalkar, PW-2 Dhanaji Dhopate, PW-6 Saraswatibai and also by PW-5 Babu Patel.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Accordingly, after completion of investigation, PW-11 Parab filed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 7 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw charge-sheet against the accused before the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court Borivali, Mumbai.Thereafter, C.A. Reports dated 21.8.1994 and 8.9.1994 were received and the same are produced.The C.A. Report of blood samples of accused No.3 Dilip Suryavanshi disclosed his blood group as "B" and C.A. Report of blood sample of accused No.1 Vilas Hari disclosed is blood group as "O"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::whereas the seized articles i.e. wrist watch, half pant,shirt, chaddi and full pant bore human blood of "A" Group and blood stains and other articles were inconclusive/unsuitable.Thereafter, the learned Addl.However, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 herein pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses as mentioned below :-PW-1 - Chandrakant Govalkar - eye-witness - turned hostile.PW-2 - Dhanaji Laxman Dhopate - eye-witness - turned hostile.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::PW-4 Fulgen Singh - Proprietor of Laxmi Hotel - independent witness.not supported the oral dying declaration made - turned hostile.The defence of the accused Nos. 1 and 3 is of total denial.Both the said accused neither examined themselves on oath nor examined any defence witness.Considering the oral, documentary and medical evidence on record and also after considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court found accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty and convicted ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 9 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, they challenged the same by filing the present appeals and prayed for quashment thereof and consequently acquittal of the appellants herein.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::They have submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and committed grave error while convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 3, According to the learned Counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 3 both PW-1 Chandrakant Govalkar and PW-2 Dhanaji Dhopate are the eye-witnesses, but have not supported the case of prosecution, and therefore, they were declared hostile and even nothing could be elicited from the questions put to them in the form of cross-examination by the learned APP, and consequently, their testimonies were not believed by the learned trial Court.They further stated that the evidence of T.I.Parade adduced by PW-12 Sitaram Jadhav and recovery of the articles at the instance of the accused were not believed by the learned trial Court.In substance, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the only incriminating evidence against the accused is of alleged dying declaration made by victim Prabhakar before PW-3 PHC Dinkar Rokade and the evidence of PW-6 Saraswati Sawant i.e. mother of the victim but the said evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::In paras 19 and 20, it was observed as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::It is also to be seen that the deceased was very seriously injured, so much so that according to the witnesses, he died immediately after allegedly making the said dying declaration, the time of which is not fixed by the prosecution.The most important circumstance about this dying declaration is that, firstly, it is oral and secondly, there is no medical evidence suggesting that the deceased was in a fit medical condition to make such a dying declaration.There can be no dispute that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, however, such a dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful and further that the maker thereof must be in a fit medical condition to make it.They differ from witness to witness.Some witnesses say about the name of the village of the appellant having been uttered by the deceased and some others do not.Further, Dr. Ningombam Shyamjai Singh (PW12) was also not cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in this case about the medical condition of the deceased and further fact as to whether he was in a fit condition to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 12 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw make any statement."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandar s/o Laxman Rakhunde & Anr.vs. The State of Maharashtra 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 859 observed in para 23 as follows :-The witnesses can only say that such a statement was made by the dying person.Therefore, to hold a dying declaration as reliable, the Court must be satisfied regarding two aspects, viz., that witnesses,who say that the deceased made a particular statement are reliable and trustworthy, and further, the version of the deceased, as reflected in the said statement i.e. dying declaration, is also reliable and trustworthy.In case of oral dying declaration, of which no record has been made by the concerned witness, it would be still more difficult to place implicit reliance on the dying declaration, because the accuracy of the statement, made by the deceased, may be affected in the reproduction of it, by the witnesses."Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that solitary piece of evidence of alleged dying declaration made by victim Prabhakar ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 13 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw before PW-3 Dinkar Rokade is not creditworthy and no credence can be given to it, and therefore, it deserves to be discarded, and consequently, the present Appeals deserve to be allowed and urged that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused Nos. 1 and 3 be quashed and set aside and they be acquitted for the offences with which they were charged.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::The learned APP countered the said arguments and opposed the present appeals vehemently and submitted that PW-4 Fulgen Singh is an independent eye-witness, who supported the case of prosecution, and hence, his testimony is required to be believed.Moreover, the learned APP also canvassed that the evidence of PW-6 Saraswatibai i.e. victim's mother also involves the accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the crime.Moreover, from the testimony of PW-7 Dr. Vasant Vanmore, we find that victim Prabhakar met with the homicidal death.Accordingly, in substance, the learned APP submitted that the learned trial Court has assessed and appreciated the evidence before it in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 14 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw proper perspective and has not committed any glaring mistake while convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 3 and hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order dated 12.3.2004 and therefore, urged that the present Appeals be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::In order to advert to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is useful and necessary to refer to the material evidence adduced/produced by the prosecution and in the said context, coming to the deposition of PW-7 Vasant Vanmore, he has stated that he was attached to Addl.Coroner's Court, Juhu as a Medical Officer and on 23.10.1993, dead body of one Prabhakar Sawant was brought from Dindoshi Police Station and he performed the post mortem thereon at 1.30 p.m.on the same day.He noticed following external injuries on the said dead body :-Sutur wound over left peritooccipital region of skull 10 cm long total 10 sutures present.2. Cut I.W over right arm later to medial aspect 9 cm long 5 cm width bone deep injury muscles nerves cut bone right numerous cut.Cut I.W.over right forearm 10 cm long and 10 cm width right bone radioulna cut muscles nertes cut.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Mhi 15 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw4. I.W. Over right thigh anteriourly 8 cm long 3 cm width muscle deep.I.W.over right knee jt.4 cm above knee jt. 5 cm long 1 cm width muscle deep.6. I.W. Over right knee jt.Just below patella 15 cm loong 4 cm width right tibia fibula cut the depth of injury 7 cm.7. I.W. Over right shin of Tibia 8 cm loong and 3 cm width right tibia cut injury 3 cm deep.I.W. Over right foot medial aspect 10 cm width bone muscle deep.9. I.W. Over left ankle jt.6 cm long 4 cm width bone muscle deep.I.W.over left knee jt.Laterally 5 cm long 2 cm width bone deep (2 cm).I.W. Over left forearm laterally 7 cm.Long 4 cm width and 2 deep muscles cut nerves cut.I.W.over left arm 6 cm long 4 cm width and 2 cm deep right humerus bone cut.Small I.W.over left arm2 cm long and 1 cm width muscle deep.Abrasions two of size 4 cm x 1 cm size over left glutial region."All the said injuries were ante-mortem.He also noted corresponding internal injury to the external injury to the Sr.No.1 which is mentioned in column No.19 of p.M. Notes.The injury was hematoma of the scalp present, fracture of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 16 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw occipital bone, subdural haemorrhage at the occipital region.In his opinion, the cause of death was heamorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.He also further stated that all he said injuries were possible due to sharp edged weapon like chopper, sword etc. Articles 1 and 2 were shown to him and he stated that injuries are possible with the said weapons.In cross-examination, he stated that it is quite possible heavy heamorrage must have been caused because of loss of blood from the injuries.Sometimes the victim may go in coma due to heavy heamorrage.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Thus, from the testimony of PW-7, there cannot be any dispute that the victim Prabhakar Sawant met with homicidal death(unnatural).PW-3 Police Head Constable Dinkar Rokade has stated that he was deputed on duty at beat No.3 in the area of Kurar Gaon Village along with PW-8 Police Naik Vasant Kale due to tense atmosphere on account of Hazrat Baug Darga and they reached Islampur at 9.45 a.m. At this juncture, somebody informed them that one injured person was lying in front of Laxmi Hotel in Kurar Village near the road leading to Bhim Nagar.Hence, both of them went to the spot and found that one young person was lying in injured condition in front of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 17 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw Laxmi Hotel.Hence, they called autorickshaw and since he was able to speak, they put questions to him and thereby he gave his name as Prabhakar Sahadeo Sawant and also stated the names of three assailants, viz. Hari Om, Angad and Dilip Suryavanshi - accused No. 1, the deceased accused and accused No.3 respectively, who assaulted him by chopper and caused him injuries.On enquiry, he further stated that the assailants had enmity with his brother Pappu Sawant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Accordingly, they reached him to Asha Hospital and thereafter removed him to Cooper Hospital as per advice in an ambulance.examination, he stated that on the relevant date i.e. 23.10.1993, he was not having any pocket diary with him and was not aware whether Constable Kale was having pocket diary on that day, although they were supposed to keep pocket diary with them.He further stated that he was about 15 to 17 ft.Away from Laxmi Hotel and PW-8 P.C. Kale was with him on the spot.However, he stated that he took about 15 minutes to reach the spot.He further stated that he did not notice any commotion in front of Laxmi Hotel while he was on patrolling at the spot.Pertinently, he had gone to check the injured and asked him about the cause of injury to him.There was o talk between the injured and doctor from Asha Hospital.He also stated that he had not informed to his superior about the assailants when he talked to them on telephone.He also did not see anybody ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 18 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw from his relations when Prabhakar was lying in an injured condition at the spot till he could be removed in the hospital.The spot panchnama was not drawn in his presence.Hence, a suggestion was given to him that he falsely stated that injured Prabhakar had stated names of 3 assailants to him, but same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::It was also suggested to him that Prabhakar was not in a condition to speak and tell but the same was denied by him.The entire tenor of the testimony of PW-3 excludes the possibility of giving oral dying declaration by the injured Prabhakar to him involving the accused Nos. 1 and 3 in that crime.PW-8 Vasant Kale has stated in his deposition that on 23.10.1993 at about 10.30 a.m. or 10.45 a.m. When he was duty along witth PW-3 Rokade, same members of public came to them and informed that one injured was lying in front of Laxmi Hotel.Hence, they rushed to the spot and found that a person was lying in a pool of blood in injured condition.He had sustained injuries on head, both hands and legs.Therefore, they put the injured in an autorickshaw and removed him to the hospital.He also stated that when the said injured was put into an autorickshaw, he was unconscious.He further stated that he was praying for to save saying "Vachawa Vachawa".His statement was recorded by PSI Jadhav verbatim.He had also not stated anything about the names of the assailants or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 19 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw caused the injuries to him.He further stated that he had not stated the names of the assailants.Hence, the said witness was declared hostile since he did not support the prosecution.The learned APP put questions to him in the form of cross-contamination, but nothing beneficial to the case of prosecution could be elicited therefrom.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Coming to the testimony of PW-6 Saraswatibai, mother of victim Prabhakar.She also stated that her daughter-in-law Hetal, wife of Atmaram, had come with her and she was with them in the autorickshaw by which Prabhakar was taken to Asha Hospital.Even she was there in the hospital, and accordingly, Saraswatibai introduced the said new theory and falsified the testimonies of PW-3 Rokade and PW-8 Vasant Kale.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Proprietor of Laxmi Hotel, who stated hat on 23.10.1993, he was in his hotel at 11.00 a.m,.and standing at Cash Counter and saw one autorickshaw was moving on the road and two persons committing assault on autorichaw driver.The assailants tried to commit an assault from right side.The auto rickshaw driver fell on the ground.The injured had received injuries on his hands and legs.Due to the aforesaid incident, the shutters and shops were closed down in panic.After 15 minutes, he opened the hotel and saw that injured was lying on the spot and nobody was around him.After the lapse of about 15 minutes, he noticed police personnel arrived on the spot.The injured was dead.Police removed him in an auto rickshaw.He was called to Dindoshi Police Station and his statement was recorded in which he gave description of the assailants, but he could not identify the accused in Court.In cross-examination, he stated that he had seen 4 to 5 persons around the spot and they were in uniform.He also saw two policemen taking injured in an autorickshaw.Accordingly, he stated that injured was dead which is contradictory to the statement of PW-3 Dinkar Rokade, PW-8 Vasant kale and PW-6 Saraswati.He however, could not identify the accused in the Court.Hence, his testimony ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 22 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw cannot be of aid and assistance to the case of prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Insofar as the testimony of PW-5 Babu Patel is concerned, he has stated that he has not seen the injuries caused to Prabhakar in the assault and even he has not seen the assailants and he even did not identify the accused in identification parade as well and, therefore, the said testimony deserves to be discarded.We have perused the ocular evidence, documentary evidence and medical evidence adduced/produced by the prosecution and heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties anxiously and also perused the judicial pronouncements cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants carefully and at the outset as noted hereinabove, considering the testimony of PW-7 Vasant Vanmore, there cannot be two opinions that victim Prabhakar Sawant met with homicidal death (unnatural).Admittedly, the eye-witnesses' account i.e. testimonies of PW-1 Chandrakant Govalkar and PW-2 Dhanaji Dhopate did not support the case of the prosecution, and therefore, they were declared hostile.Although the learned APP put questions to them in the form of cross-examination, nothing beneficial to the case of prosecution could be extracted therefrom, and hence, the learned trial Court rightly disbelieved the said evidence.Moreover, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 23 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw evidence of T.I.parade and the recovery of articles was also not believed by the learned trial Court.Insofar as the testimony of PW-4 FulgenSigh is concerned, since he could not identify the accused in the Court, his testimony is of no help to the prosecution.Hence, only evidence remains against the accused is the alleged oral dying declaration made by victim Prabhakar before PW-3 Dinkar Rokde and PW-8 Vasant Kale.However, pertinently, PW-8 Vasant Kale who is police personnel he did not support the case of prosecution, and hence, the prosecution declared him hostile and even he got cross-examined by learned APP, but nothing useful to the case of prosecution could be elicited therefrom.In fact, he has stated in his deposition that when the injured was put into auto rickshaw, he was unconscious which excludes the possibility of giving oral dying declaration by him.Although he stated in his cross-examination conducted by the accused that some blood was stuck to their clothes while they lifted the injured to put him in autorickshaw but since their clothes were not taken charge of, it rules out the possibility of presence of PW-3 Dinkar Rokde and PW-8 Vasant Kale.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Insofar as testimonies of PW-3 Dinkar Rokde , PW-6 Saraswati and and PW-8 Vasant Kale are concerned, it is material to note that PW-3 Dinkar Rokde has given the time of his presence at Islampur at 9.45 p.m., whereas PW-8 Vasant Kale has stated the said time as 10.30 or 10.45 a.m. Pertinently PW-3 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 24 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw Dinkar Rokde stated that his report i.e. FIR was recorded on the spot, whereas the Investigating Officer PW-10 Tanaji Jadhav stated that the said FIR was recorded in the hospital.Pertinently PW-3 Dinkar Rokde stated in his deposition that when he received information about the injured he was standing on Daftary Road.He was 15 to 17 feet away from Laxmi Hotel, but he further stated that it took about 15 minutes to reach him to the spot.Hence, it is curious to note that PW-3 required 15 minutes to cross the distance of 15 to 17 feet and there is no plausible explanation from the prosecution in respect of the said anomaly.PW-3 further stated in his deposition that PW-8 Vasant Kale was with him on the spot, but he further stated that he had gone alone with the injured.PW-6 Saraswati deposed that even her daughter-in-law Hetal and wife of Atmaram had come with her and she was with them in the auto rickshaw by which Prabhakar was taken to Asha Hospital and she was there in the hospital which is totally contradictory to the version of PW-3 Dinkar Rokde.Pertinently, neither the statement of Hetal was recorded nor she was examined by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::According to PW-3 Dinkar Rokde, he had alone gone with the injured and he had asked the injured when they were in auto rickshaw about the cause of injuries to him and thereupon he allegedly made oral dying declaration involving the accused in the alleged crime.However, he admitted that he had not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 25 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw informed his superior about the assault when he talked to them on telephone.In the natural course of events, had the injured made any oral dying declaration before PW-3, he would have immediately informed the same to his superior officers, but it did not happen.He further stated that he has not seen anybody from the relatives when Prabhakar was lying in an injured condition at the spot till he could be removed in the hospital and the said very version of PW-3 Dinkar falsifies the case of the prosecution and excludes the possibility of oral dying declaration allegedly given by victim.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Pertinently, PW-6 Saraswati has stated in one part of her deposition that she had seen the assault committed on her son Prabhakar who was assaulted by the present accused and identified the accused in the Court, but in the later part of her deposition, she stated that she came to know about the assault at 11.30 a.m. from the members of public who had come running to her house after the incident and so she immediately rushed to the spot where Prabhakar was lying.Accordingly, the later part of evidence of PW-6 Saraswati falsifies her earlier part of evidence in the same deposition.She further stated that she lifted Prabhakar from the spot with the help of two persons and removed him to Asha Hospital and the said version falsifies the deposition of PW-3 Dinkar since he stated that he removed injured Prabhakar to the hospital and he had gone alone ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: Mhi 26 Appeals-551-912-04.sxw with the injured to Asha Hospital.She further stated that she was present throughout the time when Prabhkar was lifted from the spot and removed to Cooper Hospital and till the time he died and the said very version contradicts the testimony of PW-3 and excludes the possibility of giving oral dying declaration by injured Prabhakar before PW-3 Dinkar.She further stated that it was in presence of police that her son had stated to her the names of accused persons as assailants which is contradictory to the deposition of PW-3 Dinkar and PW-8 Vasant Kale and the said version of PW-6 Saraswati falsifies the version of PW-3 Dinkar and PW-8 Kale.In substance, the solitary evidence of alleged oral dying declaration made by victim Prabhakar before PW-3 Dinkar is in doldrum, and hence, same cannot be accepted, and Consequently, the same cannot be believed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Having comprehensive view of the matter,we are of the considered opinion that there are discrepancies, deformities and infirmities in he prosecution case, and hence, we are inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused 1 and 3 i.e. the Appellants.Accordingly, after taking the survey of the tangible evidence,the convictions and sentences imposed upon accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall not sustain and therefore, the present Appeals deserve to be allowed, quashing and setting aside the same and acquitting the accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offences with which they were charged.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 :::Mhi 27 Appeals-551-912-04.sxwIn the result, the Appeals are allowed.The appellants are acquitted of the charge.The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:21 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,552,957 | 2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 28/05/2011 at about 20.30 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police at T-10 Thirumullaivoil Police Station, received a written complaint from one Srinivasan, resident of Annai Satya Nagar, Ambattur, registered FIR and took up the case for investigation.3.According to the complaint, the deceased Ramesh and the appellants Kumar and Shaji are friends.They are all professional Painters.The defacto complainant is the sister’s husband of the deceased.He is a Mason by profession.The defacto complainant, deceased and the accused all used to go for work together.Whenever there is no job, they used to go for fishing in the lake at Ambattur.On the fateful day, they had no work.So, they wenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 to the TASMAC shop and had liquor.At about 5.00 pm, they all decided to go for fishing.When they were proceeding towards the lake, near Padaiyappa Hotel, Shaji told the defacto complainant and his brother- in- law Ramesh (deceased) not to come with them.The defacto complainant stayed back, but Ramesh went along with Shaji and Kumar.The appellants told the deceased that, if he come with them, they have to give share in the catch of fish which they were not ready.So, asked Ramesh also not to come along with them.4.Since, Ramesh (deceased) refused to leave them, they both pushed him down.Ramesh fell down on the road and became unconscious.Seeing this, both the accused ran away.The defacto complainant checked Ramesh (deceased) and found he is dead.He went home and informed his wife (sister of the deceased).The trial Court, held them guilty for offence under section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced them to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.Against the said judgment, this Criminal Appeal is filed.After informing the relatives, they came to the spot where Ramesh was lying dead.Thereafter, went to the Police Station at about 8.30 pm and gave the complaint.5.The case was taken up for investigation by one Srinivasan, Inspector of Police (PW-12).He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar (Ex P-2) in the presence of witnesses, Bullet Selvam (PW-7) and Velmurugan (PW-8).Prepared a rough sketch – Ex.6.On 29/05/2011 between 6.30 and 8.30 hrs , both the accused were arrested near Rocky theatre, Ambattur and their confession statements were recorded.They both admitted their guilt and agreed to show the place of occurrence.7.The autopsy report obtained from the Doctor indicate that Ramesh (deceased) sustained a lacerated injury with irregular margin with bruises measuring 4 x 3 x scalp deep over occipital region of the scalp.On reflection of scalp contusion present over the underlying tissues of injury.Sub- arachnoid hemorrhage present over the brain.The Doctor has opined that the death was due to head injury.8.The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.PW-1 is the eyewitness to the occurrence.He has deposed about the facts as found in his complaint.Rest of the eye witnesses, PWs-2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case, hence, they were treated as hostile witnesses.PW-4 - the Police Photographer, who has taken the photo of the corpse lying.PW-5, the sister of the deceased and PW-6 the wife of the deceased are only hearsay witnesses.Ramdoss witness to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 confession statement examined as PW-9 had deposed about the incriminating information given by the accused Kumar and Shaji.9.The trial Court has held that the death has caused due to the head injury sustained by the deceased.The accused had pushed the deceased with force.Their intention was to prevent the deceased joining them in fishing which may cost them to share the catch.Though, the intention to cause death is absent, the forcible push to the ground has caused the head injury which likely to cause death.Hence the trial Court held them guilty for offence under section 304(ii) IPC instead of section 302 IPC.10.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, even if the evidence of PW-1 is taken as gospel truth, the act of the appellants neither fall under section 304(ii) IPC nor any other offence.The push by force has not caused the death.The head injury sustained by the fall has caused the death.The accused have not done the act with any criminal intention.The witnesses to the prosecution admits that the deceased is a drunkard and he might have fallen on ground, on his own.PW-1 who claims to have been present at the occurrence has not reported to the Police immediately but, had gone to his house.Whereas, PW-2 has deposed that on 28/05/2011 athttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 about 7.00 pm, he saw Police at the spot and saw two persons with fishing rods in their hand.PW-3 has deposed that he saw the dead body of Ramesh at about 5.30 pm on 28.05.2011 and there was a small crowd.11.The contradiction in the prosecution case, not been properly considered by the trial Court.Hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the trial Court judgment has to be set aside.The post mortem report-Ex.P-9 indicates that the deceased sustained injury on his head.The medical evidence clearly proves that the death was due to the head injury.The trial Court has held them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder since, they had no intention to cause death.If a person fall on a hard surface and broke his scalp, the likelihood of causing death is within the common knowledge of any prudent person.13.The testimony of PW-1, the eye witness to the occurrence and the testimony of PW-9, the witness to the confession statement and the arrest proves the case of the prosecution that the death of Ramesh was due to the force applied by the appellants on Ramesh due to which, he has fallen down and broke his skull.The deceased, accused and the defacto complainant all were together at the time of occurrence.After the death of Ramesh (the deceased), all have left the body at the scene.While PW-1 had gone to home and informed about the incident to the sister and wife of the deceased, the accused were apprehended at Rocky threatre the next day.15.The death caused due to the head injury sustained due to the push on ground.The injury is not due to the attack by the appellants directly.It was the fall on the ground which has caused the injury.The gravity of injuryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 on the head has caused the death.Unless the force is high, the gravity of injury will not be high.PW-1 has deposed that, when the appellants pushed the deceased they uttered, ‘only if you are alive, you will ask share’ , this utterance is an indication that the appellants had knowledge that, such injury likely to cause death.If it was an accident fall, then they need not have run away from the scene.16.As far as the sentence is concerned, the trial court has imposed sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment on the appellants, for each, for the offence under section 304(ii) IPC.The sentence has to be based on the circumstances under which the incident has occurred and the real intention.In this case, from PW-1 testimony, it is clear that, the accused pushed the deceased to prevent him from joining them, in fishing.In such circumstances, the appellants be sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment instead of 5 years rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 304(ii)17.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.10.04.2019 jbm Index: Yes Speaking order/non speaking order To1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Poonamallee.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.3.The Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Pre Delivery judgment made in Crl.A.No.645 of 2014 10.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['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. |
81,558,373 | The office of Chairman was said to be equal in rank to a Cabinet Minister.The first part of the allegations substantially is that the petitioner while holding the office of Chairman, misused his official position and awarded various Government contracts worth thousands of crores to companies owned and controlled by him and he also received kick-backs in the form of commission.The second part of the allegation is that the petitioner indulged in money laundering business by creating a web of shell companies.It is also stated that the first company in which the petitioner had shareholding was registered in the year 1984 which is known as M/S Ester India Chemicals Ltd. The other companies namely, M/S Pankaja Art and Credit Pvt Ltd and M/S Sarvottam Caps Ltd and EDCL Ltd were all incorporated in the year 1992, 1995 and 1995 respectively.By that order, the transferee companies were allowed to convene separate meetings of equity shareholders for the purposes of considering the proposed scheme of amalgamation and in consequence, the companies had issued notices and reports were submitted which amply manifested that the proposed scheme of amalgamation had been approved by the requisite majority of the equity share holders.It is also stated that the Central Govt through its Advocate had also indicated that it had no objection to the proposed scheme of amalgamation.After completion of the above process, the Kolkata High Court approved the proposed scheme of amalgamation and declared it to be binding with effect from 1.1.2004 and 31.1.2005 respectively.It is further mentioned that allotment of share to the share holders of the transferor company had been done strictly as approved by the Kolkata High Court.It is alleged that the major share holders of M/S Pankaja Arts and Credit Private Limited and M/S Sarvottam Caps Limited is the wife of the petitioner and close family associate namely Sri Amtabh Bachchan, a noted cine artist and former member of Parliament.It is further alleged that the aforesaid 41 Companies were shell companies with little or no business.It is further alleged that amalgamation process was a deception and by this process the companies in which the petitioner had controlling shares, were enriched by wealth of around 400 crores.By this reckoning, it is alleged that the petitioner came in possession of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is further alleged that it would thus be eloquent that the petitioner misused his position by indulging in money laundering business and for this purpose he conspired with other Directors, officials and statutory authorities.Sri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunwar Sidharth Singh, appearing for petitioner Amar Singh, argued the matter at prolix length.On the other hand, Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, appearing for Shiv Kant Tripathi, petitioner in Writ Petition No 4909 of 2010 advanced his submissions at elaborate length.We have also heard Additional Solicitor General, Government Advocate and other counsel assisting them.We have also been taken through the materials on record in the course of arguments.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner namely, Amar Singh, while assailing the allegations in the FIR, has set out summary of own facts which are that the petitioner was born and had received his education at Calcutta and he set up his business in Calcutta as well.It is also stated that the petitioner has his dwelling place at Calcutta at 35 Rowland Road and he is also registered there for income Tax purposes.It is also stated that barring EDCL Limited and Ester India Chemicals Ltd, all other companies mentioned in the FIR in which the petitioner had share-holdings are registered at Kolkata at the address (1) Azimganj House Block 1, Ist Floor 7 Camac Street Kolkata.It is also stated that out of 6 companies alleged to be under control of the petitioner, only Ester India Chemicals Ltd is filing its income Tax Returns at New Delhi while other five companies as mentioned below are filing their Annual returns at Kolkota.(1) M/S EDCL Ltd, (2) M/S Pankaja Art and Credit Pvt Ltd, (c) M/S Sarvottam Caps Ltd , (d) M/S EDCL Power Projects Ltd and M/S EDCL infrastructure.It is also stated that the above fact would be borne out from the perusal of the documents filed by the informant alongwith the FIR.In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner namely Sri Tripathi has cited certain instances which according to him, which generated doubts about shady dealings.The instances are:(i) that Amar Singh formed a never ending chain through the web of companies with complex cross holdings coupled with amalgamations which helped in erasing the trail and by this reckoning, it was not only an attempt at converting black money into legitimate money but involved appropriating outlandsih sums of money that could not have been legitimately earned by him through his known and admitted sources of income.In the next financial year 2006-07, the company has shown to have spent Rs 97.28 lakhs on salary and allowances.It is stated that it is unbelievable that the company would be able to sustain experienced staff on such meagre salary and allowances The aforesaid amount would not be sufficient to meet the salary and allowance of an experienced CEO not to speak of other experienced staff.(iii) That for the financial year 2006-07 the company is shown to have earned contractual income to the tune of Rs 52.40 crores.On the basis of that order the police registered a crime probably treating the complaint as the FIR. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
402,500 | JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On 23-8-1980 at about 8.15 P.M .Bhatia Gali, Police Station Seelampur, Delhi, and Shri Ghanshyam Dass Aggarwal was a tenant in the said house.He left the house early in the morning after putting a lock on his room.He (complainant)' had left the house at about 9.30 A.M. for going to his office at Chandni Chowk, leaving behind his.wife, Smt Rani Devi all alone.His son, Santosh Kumar aged 9 years and daughter Sushma aged 7 years had already left for their school at about 7 A M Shri Chhote Lal,is brother-in-law who was staving with him had also left the house in the morning for going to the house of his (complainants) real uncle in Gali No.6 "(2) When he returned home from the office at about 6.45 P.M. he found many persons present outside his house.On reaching near the house, he was informed that someone has committed murder of his wife and son Santosh Kumar.On peeping through the 'window and also through the door of residential room he found that blood was flowing in the room and his wife Rani Devi and son Santosh Kumar were lying dead on the floor smeared with blood.The household articles were also lying scattered on the cot lying in the room.At that time "his wife was eight months pregnant.He reported that on seeing this, he got upset and immediately came to the police station to make the report about the murder of his wife Rani Devi and his son Santosh Kumar.It appeared to him that the crime had been committed at about 616.30 P.M. He thus sought immediate action to be taken.Copies of the F.I.R. were sent through Constable Harpal Singh, Motor Cycle Rider for being delivered to additional C.P" D.C.P. (East) and at the residence of the Ilaqa Magistrate.After delivering the copies of the F.I.R. to the said officers, Public Witness .7 Constable Harpal Singh came back to the police Station at about 2.50 A.M.(4) In the meanwhile Constable Hari Kishan had delivered the copy of the F.I.R. to Sub-Inspector Sudarshan Kumar at about 8,25 P.M., while he was on .patrol duty near Canal Pushta in Seelampur.The S.I. went to the spot where lie met Brahm Sarup and his tenant Ghanshyam Dass.He noticed a number of persons collected outside as well as in the courtyard of the house.Before he actually started the snot inspection.the S.H.O. of the area.the crime team and police photographer reached there.Under his direction, the photographer took.the photographs of the place of occurrence from various angles.The crime team performed their part of duty.The Dog: Squad could lead to nowhere.After inspecting the spot and observing; the various articles lying scattered on the charpoy and in the room, the S.I. prepared the rough spite plan Ex. PW-20A. Thereafter, he prepared the Inquest report'- Ex PW-1/H and Ex. PW-1/J in respect of the dead bodies of the (decessed Santosh kumar and Rani Devi respectively The dead bodies were sent to Police Station Sabzi mandi Delhi for post-mortem examination through PW-8 Constable Hot? Lal.The post-mortem examination on the dead bodies was conducted on 24-8-80, and thereafter the dead bodies were Banded over to Shri Brahm Sarup for performing the last rites.(5) From the spot, the Sub-Inspector took into possession the blood-stained green bed-sheet having foot marks from the charpoy, , blood-stained clothes hanging on the bolt, the blood-stained shirt hanging on the peg, the blood-stained broken glass bangle pieces and the blood-stained bidi piece and the glass chimney having some finger prints.He also took into possession the palta with its handle in bent condition from the charpoy.All these items were converted into separate sealed parcels and taken into possession.The S I. also picked up the blood and blood-stained earth from near the dead bodies and converted them into sealed phials.(6) After completing the formalities at .the print, the SJ.contacted number of persons from the nearby area but could not find any clue.He came to the Police Station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana.(7) The Investigating Officer continued his interrogation throughout the next day but with no tangible result.Towards the evening hours, Brahm Sarup expressed his doubts on one Anil, who used to come and deliver the morning paper at his house, but had not done so far about a week.From investigation, it transpired that Anil Kumar had gone to his in-laws' house at Palam as his wife had deliverer a son.From the records of the Police Station, the 1.0. came to know that Anil was facing trial in Shahdara courts in a case under Sections 454/380 Indian Penal Code .Brahm Sarup Along with his companion Rameshwar Dayal came to the Police Station and they Along with the T.O. left for Shahdara courts.At about 11-15/11.30 A.M. Anil was found standing near the cold water trillium the compound of Shahdara courts.On the pointing of Brahm Sarup.he was apprehended and brought to the house of Brahm Sarup his interrogation started and it continued till 8 P.M., when Brahm Sarup identified the pajama which Anil Kumar was wearing as that of His brother-in-law (wife's brother) Public Witness Chhote Lal.(9) During interrogation, the accused Ashok Kumar disclosed that he had the blood-stained dao (a heavy broad cutting blade with a handle) and a shirt on the bank of the ganda nallah near kothi Seelampur and had also kept one saree concealed near the bushes.Vijay accused during interrogation disclosed that he had kept one saree hidden near pushta yamuna near the country liquor shop, Seelampur and that he could get the same recovered.(15) It is not disputed that at about 11.15 A.M. on 25-8-1980, accused Anil Kumar was apprehended on the pointing of Shri Brahm Sarup from the compound of Shahdara courts and was brought to the house of Brahm Sarup.Immediately thereafter his interrogation started.Till 8 P.M" the 1.0. was not able to make any headway.At about that time, when the accused not up for urinating, Brahm Sarup noticed that Anil was wearing the pajama belonging to his brother-in-law Chhote LaL He identified it as it was torn from the paunch (leg bottom) of the pajama.It is at this point of time that Anil accused disclosed the names of his companions.and the attesting witnesses qua the recoveries from the accused Anil and Ashok while disbelieved the same set of witnesses qua the recovery from Naresh accused.This piquant situation cannot be allowed to stand.Learned counsel for the State in spite of his best efforts has not been able to reconcile the two divergent findings.On this score alone, the alleged recoveries from the present appellants become doubtful.The foot-prints were clearly visible.(3) Public Witness .6 Head Constable Suraj Mal was the duty officer at Police Station, Seelampur who got registered the case F.I.R. No. 679180 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code .on the statement of Brabm Swarup.On that information he formally arrested.The accused (Anil Kumar) could not give a satisfactory explanation for wearing the said pajama.The prosecution case is that he broke down and made the disclosure statement and also led to the arrest of his co-accused Vijay and Ashok.Accused Naresh Kumar could not be arrested at that time.From Anil Kumar's personal search.Ex. PW-1/K, the carbon copy of the pawn receipt dated 24-8-1980 was recovered from the right front pocket of his bushirt.Similariy, Anil accused disclosed that the ornaments mentioned in the pawn receipt were lying with a sarsaf at Ghaziabad and that he could get the same recovered.He also disclosed that he had kept a blood-stained pant and a blood-stained knife in a pit near the Pushta, Yamuna, Nevv Seelampur, and that he could get the same recovered.All the three accused then got recovered the articles from the places mentioned in the disclosure statements one after the other in the presence of Brahm Sarup and Rameshwar Dayal.(10) On the receipt of a secret information that accused Naresh Kumar was present near Kalyan cinema in Brahm Puri, the Investigating Officer in the company of A.S.I. Bhagwat Singh and two constables reached there and arrested Naresh Kumar from a , outside the said cinema.During investigation, he disclosed that he had kept a blood-stained pant and two blood-stained shorts near the pulley (culvert) near Shastri Park and thereafter got recovered those articles in the presence of Brahm Sarup and Rameshwar Dayal Aggarwal.The S.I. then recorded the statements of the various witnesses, obtained the reports from the office of the C.F.S.L. and after completing the investigation filed the challan.On that basis, all the accused persons were charged for the commission of offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code .and u/s 392 Indian Penal Code .(11) All of them denied their involvement and pleaded not guilty to the charge.Accused Naresh Kumar led evidence of as many as six witnesses to prove his innocence.He succeeded in his defense and was acquitted.However, on the strength of 20 witnesses, the prosecution got proved the offence against accuser Anil Kumar and Ashok Kumar.Accused Anil Kumar and Ashok Kumar were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 Indian Penal Code ., RI.for 7 years under Sect n 397 I P.C. R.I. for 3 years under Section 492 Indian Penal Code .He has not preferred any.Anil Kumar and Ashok Kumar have challenged their convictions and sentence in two different criminal appeals bearing nos 110/85 and 127/85 which are being disposed of by this common judgment.(13) Admittedly, the case is largely based on the recoveries of the weapon of offence alleged to have been used in the murder of Smt. Rani Devi and Santosh Kumar, the blood-stained clothes which the accused were allegedly wearing at the time of the commission of offence and the recovery of the clothes belong to Smt. Rani Devi and Chhote Lal besides other incriminating circumstances.Anil Kumar is the first among the accused persons who was apprehended and led to the arrest of his co-accused and the ultimate recoveries of the articles disclosed in their statements.(14) Learned counsel for the accused persons have challenged the correctness, authenticity and legality of the recording of the disclosure statements of the accused persons inasmuch 'as the same were recorded by the same Investigating Officer at the same place i.e., at the house of Brahm Sarup and in the presence and hearing of each of the accused and the witnesses.The learned lower court has given valid reasons to disbelieve the disclosure and the ultimate recovery of the articles at the instance of Naresh accused.In this view of the matter, it is urged on behalf of the appellants, there is no reason to rely upon the recoveries of the various articles from the present accused on the same facts and circumstances disclosed by the prosecution.to join the respectable witnesses of the locality even though they were available.He was formally arrested and from his personal search vide memo.Public Witness 1/K. a carbon copy of the pawn receipt bearing S. N. 20 dated 24-8-1980 for leaving pawned some jewellery was received, and taken into possession.At this stage, we may, however, notice that the 1.0. did seal it or deposited the same in the Malkhana, for safe custody as one of the valuable piece of document.Thereafter, Anil led to the arrest of Vijay and Ashok from their respective houses.Naresh could not be found at his house.in the c;ompany of Brahm Sarup and Rameshwar Dayal brought all the three to the house of Brahm Sarup quite late in the night.started recording the disclosure statements of all the accused one by one, in the presence and hearing of each of the accused and the witnesses.as well as the attesting witnesses.This fact even otherwise stands established if one carefully peruses the disclosure statements of these accused, which are in the same language and sequence, except in the difference of the articles and the places of their concealment.On 28-8-1980, S.I. Sudarshan Kumar while on patrol duty received a secret information on Brahmpuri Road, that accused Naresh bad gone to Kalyan cinema.was able to arrest Naresh accused.From personal search, nothing was recovered.During interrogation he made the disclosure statement Ex. PW15/B, staling that he can get recovered the clothes which fell to his share.(This disclosure is on the same lines as of the other accused).They were converted into sealed parcels and taken into possession.As already observed earlier, from the place of occarrencs, the 1.0. had already seized a glass chimney Ex. P-7 fixed on the lamp, lying in the almirah which had fingerprints on it.During investigation, the 1.0. had obtained the specimen thumb impression of all the four accused.According to the opinion of Dr. P. S. Nayyar, handwriting and fingerprint expert of C.F.S.L., the chance fingerprints lifted from the chimney P-7 tallied wish the specimen fingerprints of right index finger of Naresh accused.The learned lower court on consideration of the material on record not only disbelieved the recoveries of the articles at the instance of Naresh accused but also doubted the seizure of the chimney.The trial court was of the opinion that there was every possibility that the 1.0. might have obtained the fingerprints of Naresh accused on the chimney subsequently at the Police Station.As regards the recovery of the pant "P-20) and the shirts (P-21) and (P-22), the learned lower court observed that these recoveries do not connect the accused with the crime.It now sounds that in fact these clothes did not belong to any other person living in the house of Brahm Sarup.For that reason Brahm Sarup was not able to identify any of the clothes to prove the ownership.The court was further of the opinion that there was no possibility of this accused being present at the house of Brahm Sarup on the date, place and time of the occurrence inasmuch as that point of time he has been proved to be attending the Fourth ceremony of his father as per the evidence of the defense witnesses.This finding has not been challenged by the State.(19) Ex, PW-1/M, N and O are the disclosure statements of Anil Kumar Misra, Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar.According to the Investigating Officer and the attesting witnesses, these diosmosis were recorded on the same day at the same time and .place, and in the presence of and within the hearing of the accused and the attesting witnesses.The bare perusal of these statements would show that even the narration of facts and the language used is exactly similar to one another.Their statements indicate that they entered the house of Brahm Sarup together in the evening hours of that fateful Saturday, and removed the ear-rings, nose-rings and panzer made of silver from the person of Rani Devi.Besides that a sum of Rs. 500 in cash was taken out from a box after removing its bolt with the help of a kada.They had also taken away with them two sarees, one of pink colour and the other of blue colour, three shirts, one pajama, one khaki pant and the other of blue colour from there.Anil Kumar Along with Vijay and Naresh Kumar had pawned the aforesaid ornaments for a sum of Rs. 250 on 24-8-1980 with a gold-smith at Ghaziabad.Thereafter one saree was kept by Vijay while the other was taken away by Ashok Kumar.After removing the blood-stained pant from his person, accused Anil Kumar put on a pajama at the place of occurrence itself.Naresh 'Kumar had taken away with him one pant of blue colour and two .shirts.Anil Kumar had kept concealed the knife and his Hood-stained pant in a pit outside the Yamuna pushta near village Usmanpur.Ashok Kumar in the similar tone admitted the .removal of the articles and their distribution as disclosed in the disclosure statements of Anil Kumar.Further on he stated that he had kept concealed the blood-stained iron dao, and one bushirt carrying floral designs which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence and one pant on the bank of canal ganda nallah near kothi Seelampur and that he could get the same recovered.Similarly, Vijay Kumar accused agreed to get recovered one saree of pink colour which had come to his share from near Theka Sharab, Seelampur.Thr recoveries were effected in the morning of that day, i.e., 26th August, 1980 and taken into possession vide memos.from the places disclosed in the disclosure statements of the accused.(21) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that neither such recoveries inspire confidence nor they in any way connect them with the offences charged with.There is some substance in their contention.In the case of Vijay accused Brahm Sarup admitted that Saree Ex. P-16 at the time of its recovery was not converted into a sealed parcel.He also admitted that his wife had never used this saree and it always retained lying in the trunk.There is no special mark of Identity on it.Almost similar in his statement with regard to the saree Ex. P-15 recovered at the pointing out of Ashok accused.He was not able to give any mark of identification on the saree.According to him, such like sarees are easily available in the market.Though at the time of its recovery, it was found wrapped in a newspaper, but it was neither converted into a sealed parcel nor the paper was kept in safe custody.It was not even deposited in the Malkhana.was able to produce the newspaper in which it was found wrapped.(22) It is the prosecution, case that Brahm Sarup is a very close friend of Rameshwar Dayal.Both of them are not only the neighbours but also working in the office of D .E. S.U., Chandni Chowk, Delhi.had not asked any person to join the investigation or to be an attesting witness to the recoveries, even though many persons were going about near the place of recoveries.Besides .that.there was a lot of traffic on the nearby road.neither himself made any attempt nor asked them to call any neighbour of the locality at the time of the recording of the disclosure statements or join any respectable persons of the area at the time of the recoveries, although many of them were available.They also admitted that the places from where the recoveries were affected are situated at a thoroughfare where anybody and everybody can have access.It is not a secluded or guarded place.(23) The net result of the admission of both these witnesses sc far as the recovery of the articles from the accused persons is concerned, is that such recoveries arc not genuine and an attempt " has been made to foist the articles on each of the accused.Even otherwise, the recoveries are not in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that before making the search, the officer shall be duty-bound to call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place is to be searched, to be available as witnesses of the search.As observed earlier, the 1.0. has not even made any attempt to join the witnesses of the area even when available nor has he taken the trouble of requiring the complainant and his companion to request any person living in the nearby houses to join and associate himself with all the important recoveries.(24) Now let us concentrate on the recovery of the knife and the dao at the instance of accused Anil and Ashok.The case was that the knife at the time of its recovery was having blood- stains on it besides some mud.After preparing the sketch, it was converted into a sealed parcel.Similarly, the blood-stained dao was got recovered by accused Ashok and taken into possession vide memo.Ex. PW-1/R. Both these weapons of offence were sent to the office of the C.F.S.L. for report.Blood- stains could not be detected on the dao while the blood on the knife was found too small for serological analysis.These recoveries though suffer from the vices of the non-joining of the independent witnesses, even if be assumed for the sake of arguments to be correct, these do not in any way connect the accused with the commission of the offence alleged against them.Similarly, the blood-stained pant could not be connected with the blood group of the deceased or any of the accused.The arms even if believed to have been taken possession of do not lead us anywhere.(25) Now we propose to deal with the recovery of the ornaments alleged to have been pawned by -accused Anil with a jeweller of Ghaziabad.This reveals an interesting story.(26) EX.P-9 is the alleged carbon copy of the pawned receipt which was recovered from the person of accused Anil Kumar Misra.The story of its possession and recovery prima facie is a doubtful version of the prosecution.He was immediately brought to the house of Brahm Sarup and interrogated.It was only at about 8.30 P.M. that Brahm Sarup identified the pajama which the accused was wearing in fact belongings to Chhote Lal When the accused failed to explain its possession, lie was arrested in the case, which led to the apprehension of other accused and the recording of his disclosure statement.It is not disputed that when Brahm Sarup expressed his doubts in the involvement of Anil accused to the Police Officer, they had made up their mind to find out and apprehend Anil.In that connection, they not only made enquiries from his house but also searched the record at the Police Station and discovered that on 25th August, 1980, he was supposed to be present in the court compound of Shahdara court? to attend the case pending against him.At the pointing of Brahm Sarup, the Investigating Officer apprehended the accused.It is not explained as to why he was not immediately searched at the spot.In the normal course, once the involvement of any accused is doubted or confirmed by the complainant, the first step is to arrest him and conduct his personal search in order to disarm him of any weapon, if at all, on his person or to get hold of any favorable clue which the accused might be carving with him at that time.We have not been satisfactorily explained as to why this precautionary step was not taken by the Investigating Officer.and Brahm Sarup that from 10.30 A.M. till 8 P.M., even though the accused remained associated with the interrogation in their presence, Brahm Sarup could not identify the pajama which the accused was wearing as belonging to his brother-in-law.Definitely, a doubt has been created in our mind about the correctness of the search and the recovery of the pawned receipt.We leave this aspect here and will deal with this part of the story at a later stage.(27) In the disclosure statement, Anil Kumar accused has not disclosed the name of the shop or the proprietor thereof where he is alleged to have pawned the ornaments alleged to have been removed from the person of Smt. Rani Devi.This part of the statement is also not correct inasmuch as the name of the shop is not mentioned on the said receipt.On that basis, we proceed further.PW-4, Rajinder Parkash Bansal is the silver ornaments dealer working in a shop in New Gate Area, Ghaziabad.According to him on 24th August, 1980, Anil Kumar accused had come to his shop and had pawned one pair of silver panzer, one nose-ring made of gold and one pair of ear-rings (balis) made of gold.He had pawned these articles against a sum of Rs. 250, For this transaction, Rajinder Kumar had prepared a receipt in triplicate from the book meant for that purpose.The carbon copy of the receipt was given to Anil Kumar while the second copy was kept with the ornaments and the third remained in the book.He identified his signature on the receipt.These articles were handed over by him to the Police in the presence of Brahm Sarup and Jagan Nath, PW-5 who happened to be present at the shop.These witnesses and the accused persons have signed the memo.(28) The prosecution version of the stay of the accused at Ghaziabad is sought to be proved from the statement of PW-2 Prem Singh was on duty when at about 9 P.M. on 23rd August, Ghaziabad, and PW-3 Shri Ajay Garg, son of the proprietor.This witness was not able to identify the accused, who was present in court, when became to the court for his statement.We may notice here that accused were not put up in identification parade during investigation.In the case of Anil, it was essential as he had given a false name as "Vijay Kumar" in the hotel and was not known to this witness.Similarly, Ajay Garg had not identified the accused and naturally so, as he was not present in the hotel either at the time of the accused checking in or leaving the hotel.Learned counsel for the accused has pointed cut that except the entry which is signed by the son of the proprietor, all other entries relating to other customers who left the hotel on 25th August,' 1980 bear the signatures of the Manager.It is not explained as to why Ajay Garg should sign the entry of this accused when it was not made in his presence.This entry also bears the signature of accused in Hindi.This would have conclusively established the presence of the accused at Ghaziabad during this period.Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to take advantage of this material which was readily available to prove a crucial circumstance alleged against the accused.Besides the recovery of arms, the 1.0. is required to connect the accused with the offence of murder also.In this behalf, they have failed miserably.(30) At this stage.It may be relevant to mention that Dr. I T. Ramani who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead dead bodies of Rani Devi and Santosh Kumar, admitted in cross- examination that when the dead body of Rani Devi was brought to the mortuary, she was wearing three bangles on her wrist, a silver chain around her neck and a silvery toe ring (bichua) on each of her second toe.Moreover, these very articles even though handed over to the police by the doctor were not deposited in the Malkhana.Why ? There is no explanation.This circumstance also throws doubt On the recovery of the jewellery and its sale by the Anil accused.Even if these jewellery recoveries are held to be genuine, the evidence, as it stands, there is nothing to connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased or even with any assault, the accused may have committed on the deceased oi having robbed her of her ornaments At the most as the ornaments have been alleged to be stolen property received by the appellant, knowing that they were stolen property, the accused can thus be convicted on the basis of presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code as a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to be stolen.Counsel appearing for the State submitted that as the accused had given no explanation, therefore, the inference should be drawn that he must have murdered the deceased.We are.however, unable to draw any inference.It is for the prosecution to prove its case affirmatively and it cannot gain any strength from the conduct of the accused in remaining silent.He discarded the said pant and wore the pajama hanging on the peg.At the time of his apprehension, on 25th August, 1980, he was wearing the same pajama.The prosecution wants this court to believe that for two days and two nights the accused continued wearing this very pajama.This is just not possible to believe this story.During this interval, it is urged that to begin with this accused must have concealed his weapon of offence and saree near the pushta.After hiding the incriminating articles, the accused then must have left for Ghaziabad.Thereafter he came to- the hotel and remained there till 7 A.M. of 25th August.A sum of Rs. 150 came to the share cf this accused.So it comes to that the accused was having a .sum of near about Rs. 400 when he obtained the amount of pawned jewellery. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,025,733 | a) The appellant at the age of 20 had fallen in love with anadolescent girl (hereinafter referred as 'Ms.X') in his native place.Theappellant was taking education in a college at Satara, in ScienceFaculty.In the summer vacation he had been to his native place.Thefamily of the appellant was acquainted with the family of Ms.X. Onefine day he had expressed his love for Ms. X. One day when Ms.X hadbeen to the house of Mr. Shedge for watching T.V. the accused-appellant asked her to meet him near the village well.She had alonegone to the well.She had reciprocated his love.She had quietly methim, thereafter, they continued to meet each other.They had vouchedtheir love for each other and wanted to get married.In a moment ofpassion they had sexual intercourse.Thereafter, he had returned toSatara for pursuing his education but continued to visit his villagePanas on each Saturday and Sunday, only to meet Ms. X. They hadsexual relations every time they met.She had conceived pregnancy.She had concealed her pregnancy from her mother for quite sometime.However, the parents had soon realised about the same.Herparents had gained her confidence and asked about the paternity ofVarsha/ pmw 2 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docthe foetus.She had disclosed the name of the appellant.Thereafter,they had decided to forgive her and had visited the family of theappellant in his absence.The parents of the appellant were not willingto accept the narration of Ms. X and her family members.They had gotit verified from their son.The appellant candidly admitted that he wasin love with Ms. X. and wanted to get married with her.Initially, theyassured the parents of Ms. X that they will consider the proposal ofmarriage.A village meeting was held since they were simply evadingto fix the date of marriage.Ms. X had reached an advance stage ofpregnancy.The efforts of the parents of Ms. X had failed.Thepersuasion of the elderly villagers also did not bear any fruits.Finally,when Ms. X was 32 weeks pregnant, the parents of the appellantrefused the proposal.X, PW.2, Subhadra mother of Ms.X, PW.3 - Smt. KusumRanjane who was residing at Panchgani.PW.4 - Arun Gujar, a Panch toVarsha/ pmw 3 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docthe seizure of a chit written by the accused to the victim, PW.7 Mr.Suresh Babar - the Gram Sevak of Panas and PW.8 Dr. BalasahebJadhav, Medical Officer who had examined Ms.4. PW.1-victim had deposed before the Court in consonancewith the First Information Report, which is at 'Exhibit-12'.She hadstated that the accused had expressed his love for her and asked her tomeet him near the well, and also warned her of dire consequences inthe eventuality she disclosed about it to her parents.She further statedthat he had also expressed his desire to marry her.She had voluntarilybeen to the well to meet him.On the same day in the night at about9.00 p.m. he had reiterated his love for her and his desire to marry her.That they had got into an intimate relationship.When he visited her onevery Saturday and Sunday, they had sexual contacts more than two tofour times.She conceived pregnancy.She disclosed the said fact to theappellant.He had advised her and requested her " not to abort thefoetus".He had claimed the paternity of the child and had promised tomarry her as soon as possible.According to her, her parents had notrealised about the pregnancy till 8 months but thereafter, they realizedit because of the enlarged abdomen.Thereafter, her mother had takenher to her aunt's house at Panchgani.She had narrated the facts to heraunt (PW-3).She stayed with her aunt.She had also admitted that theappellant was frantically searching for her.Her aunt had informed himthat Ms.X has been staying at Panchgani with her.The accused visitedher at Panchgani.Before her aunt (PW-3) he had vouched his love forMs.X and had also claimed the paternity of the child to be born.HeVarsha/ pmw 4 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.dochad also admitted before PW-3 that he desires to marry Ms.X and thathe would persuade his parents to get them married.According to PW-1the efforts of her parents to get her married to the appellant with theconsent of his parents had failed.On 2nd January 1998, she gave birth to a girl child.On 15 thJanuary 1998 she lodged the report.According to Ms.She has also admitted that she had not disclosedthe fact to anybody that the accused had asked her to meet him nearthe well.Half an hour is required to reach the well from village.Shewas confronted with her previous statement and she had denied tohave stated that her mother had questioned her when she had missedher second menses, and at that juncture, she had narrated the entireincident to her.The said contradiction is marked as portion mark - 'A'.It is also elicited in the cross-examination that she hadattended school till October and thereafter, had discontinued hereducation.It is admitted thather parents were trying to get her married with the accused-appellantbut there was a strong resistance from his parents.X had proved the chit at 'Exhibit-13' as the chit whichhe had written to her when she was at Panchgani.She has identifiedhis hand-writing and his signature.She had repeatedly stated that theaccused-appellant had told her not to abort the foetus.At this juncture, it would be pertinent to appreciate thecontents of Exhibit-13 dated 14th December 1997, written by theappellant to Ms. X. The contents of the letter show his immense andunflinching love for her.He had convinced her that the child, to beborn, is the testimony to their love.He was feeling sad that their lovewas misconstrued by the villagers and there were rumors about theirlove affair.That he did not like to visit the village in her absence andthat he visited all the places where they used to meet.That, hisparents were opposing their marriage but he could not even think ofliving without her.He had expressed in the letter that irrespective ofall hurdles he would marry her.The school leaving certificate of Ms.It is clear that the certificate wasissued only two days before the victim had stepped into the witnessbox.On 2nd November i.e. on the same day, an additional chargeu/s.417 of IPC was framed against the appellant.Shehad given the approximate date of birth as she was not carrying thebirth extract alongwith her.PW.2 has categorically admitted that in the3rd month of pregnancy she had asked her daughter about her lastmenses, and at that time, she had realised that her daughter hasconceived pregnancy two months ago.That, she was engaged inagricultural work and, therefore, could not pay proper attention to herdaughter.She had been to the house of the parents of the appellantand had informed them about the intimate relations between theappellant and their daughter.They had enquired with their son and hehad admitted about their relationship and about her pregnancy.That,Varsha/ pmw 7 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docthey had decided to settle the matter mutually and they would get Ms.X married to the appellant.According to PW-2, till the 7th month of pregnancy theparents continued to assure them that they are considering theproposal of getting their son married to Ms.X. However, in the 7 thmonth, they had started evading to fix the date of the marriage.Thereafter, they had flatly refused to get them married.The meeting ofthe villagers was held.PW.2 and father of the appellant were present.On 2nd January 1998, Ms.X had delivered the child.It is elicited in the cross-examination that in the firstmeeting in the village, the father of the appellant had stated that theycould settle the matter before the next meeting.Reputed persons of thevillage were present.That Ms. X has disclosed to her that the appellanthad promised to marry her and had established sexual relationshipwith her.When PW-3 had been to village Panas, the appellant met herand asked her regarding whereabouts of Ms.X. He sought herpermission to meet Ms.X at her place.She agreed.In the cross-examination PW-7 has admitted that naming ceremonyof a new born is not made soon after the birth.Initially, the entry ofbirth is recorded and thereafter, the information regarding name ismentioned in the register.He had agreed with the proposition made by Dr. Modiin medical jurisprudence that "owing to the variations in climation,dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of thedifferent states of India, it cannot be reasonably expected to formulatea uniform standard for the determination of the age of the union ofepiphysis for the whole of India." He had accordingly sent his opinion,about the age of prosecutrix to the investigating officer.The saidcommunication dated 16th January 1998 is a part of the records andproceedings.It is elicited in the cross examination that he had conductedthe ossification test for determination of age and therefore, afterconsidering all her physical features along with other factors he hadstated that her age was between 18 years to 22 years.The certificate ofossification is at 'Exhibit-35'.signed by Pallavi M.Pallavi M. WargaonkarWargaonkar Date:Hence, her mother was constrained to take Ms.Xto Panchgani for the purpose of delivery.On 15th January 1998, the parents of Ms. X, along with her,had approached Medha Police Station and lodged a report against theaccused-appellant, on the basis of which Crime No. 2 of 1998 wasregistered against the appellant for the offence punishable undersection 376 of Indian Penal Code.Theprosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guiltof the accused-appellant.The case mainly rests upon the evidence ofPW.1 victim Ms.It iselicited in the cross-examination that Ms.X had got acquainted with theappellant in February-1997 and in April 1997, he had expressed hisdesire to marry her.Her pregnancy had become a talk of the town andtherefore, her mother had taken her to Panchgani.She had alsoadmitted that the appellant met her at Panchgani and had assured herthat he would keep up his promise to marry her.She had personallymet the mother of the accused in the 8 th month of pregnancy.HisVarsha/ pmw 5 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docmother had raised suspicion and therefore, she presumed that theaccused would not marry her.She had not disclosed to her mother thatshe had been to meet the mother of the appellant.He had reassured her of his intentionto marry her.It is clear that in the courseof investigation the birth extract of Grampanchayat was not on record.Varsha/ pmw 6 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docThe Headmaster of the school was not examined to prove the schoolleaving certificate.Almost four meetings were held, but soon thefather stopped attending the meeting and therefore, they were restassured that they would not get their son married to Ms. X and it wasat that stage they had decided to lodge a police report.PW-3 Smt. Kusum Ranjane has stated she was working as atailor at Panchgani.She had seen theappellant talking to Ms.X at Panchgani in her house.He had alsoVarsha/ pmw 8 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docassured PW-3 that he would marry Ms.X after his education iscompleted and the impediment is that his elder brother is unemployedand unmarried.PW-4 is Arun Gujar who has proved the contents of thepanchnama at Exhibit-13 in which, the chit was presented by Ms. Xbefore the police.The birth certificate of new born baby is at Exhibit-30 which shows that on 2nd January 1988 the child (Kalyani) was bornat Panchgani and the appellant is shown as the father of the new-bornchild.PW-7 is Suresh Babar-Gram Sevak of village Panas.He has provedthe entry of the birth of Ms.X on 22 nd August 1982 which is at Exhibit-According to him, the age of PW-1 was between 18years to 22 years.She had delivered the child just two weeks beforeher medical examination.According to him, the age of PW.1 isdetermined on the basis of X-ray examination.There was no fusion ofiliac-crest.Hence, he gave an opinion that the age of PW-1 is below 22Varsha/ pmw 9 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docyears.He has also stated that there was fusion of epiphyseal end ofelbow and knee bones which clearly indicated that the age of Ms. X isabove 18 years.The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitsas follows:-a) That PW.1 had been to meet the appellant voluntarily near the village well.Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.doce) She had conceived pregnancy and after she disclosed about the same to the appellant, he had insisted upon her, not to abort the foetus as he desired to marry her.f) The parents of PW.1 had wanted to get their daughter married to the appellant and therefore had approached the parents of the appellant.That the appellant had admitted candidly before his parents about his intimate love for PW- 1 and his intention to marry her.g) Meetings were held in the village panchayat to settle the issue mutually.The parents of the appellant postponed their decision to get the appellant married to PW-1 for nearly more than 4 months even after PW.1 had met them personally.h) The appellant had continued to visit PW-1 regularly and on each occasion expressed his intense desire to marry her.i) He had also met her at Panchgani.F.I.R. was lodged after PW-1 had given birth to their child.That appellant never refused to marry her.j) that there is variance in extract of birth certificate.That there is interpolation in theVarsha/ pmw 11 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docbirth and death register.PW-7 had brought the original records beforethe Court.That, there was an attempt to enter the name of PW-1 in themonth of September, 1982 but since Ms. X was to state, her date ofbirth as 22nd June 1982, the register was accordingly tampered with.According to the learned counsel, the charge was initiallyframed only for offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code on 18 thSeptember 2000 and on 2nd November 2000 an additional chargeunder section 417 of Indian Penal Code was framed.As against this, the learned APP has vehemently submittedthat section 375 of Indian Penal Code, sixthly needs to be considered,which read as follows:-"375. Rape.--A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:--Sixthly -- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age."Varsha/ pmw 12 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docThe learned APP submits that the prosecution has substan-tially proved the offence as charged against the appellant.That, theconviction deserves no interference.That, the prosecution has provedits case beyond reasonable doubt.Exh.32 shows that the entry of birth of Ms.However, the entry inthe month of September was scored off.The entry of birth date appears to be doubtfulfor the simple reason that the entry of 22 nd September is shown at Sr.No.1 and thereafter, there are two entries of 5 th September and 18thSeptember.He had not takencharge from Pharande, who was then the Gram Sevak and hence, hewas not an authority to identify the signature of Mr. Pharande.Uponconsidering the rival submissions, it would be necessary to appreciatethe evidence adduced by the prosecution.Varsha/ pmw 13 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docPW-2 has no plausible explanation for thevariance.If the extract of gram panchayat register was in existence atthe time of admitting PW-1 in school and had it been produced beforethe school authorities, there would have been no inconsistency.He had noknowledge that Ms.X is a minor and had therefore proposed marriage.The letter at Ex.13 would clearly establish that the accused had nointention to cheat Ms.X. This has to be read in consonance with theassertion of Ms.X that the accused had insisted upon her not toundergo abortion.As against this, learned APP submits that the requirementof law is clear on the issue that the consent of the minor cannot betaken into consideration as a minor is held to be incapable of givingconsent and therefore, the conviction deserves to be confirmed.Varsha/ pmw 15 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docAdmittedly, the appellant and Ms.X were in love with eachother irrespective of their age.The appellant was also hardly 20 yearsold when he fell in love with prosecutrix.They both knew what theywere doing and were not only aware of the consequences but wereprepared to accept the responsibilities.The appellant wanted to takethe responsibility as a father.There is evidence on record indicating theloud and clear intention of the appellant to marry Ms.That the certificate was not put for admission or denial undersection 294 of Cr.P.C. The statement of one Mr. Gurav as the Principalof New English School, Kharshi was recorded however, he was notexamined.There was variancein the medical report and the school leaving certificate.The prosecutrix was admitted in the school by A, her brother.A was not examined.The alleged school leaving certificate on the basis of which the age was entered in the school was not produced.Varsha/ pmw 19 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.doc The prosecution has also failed to produce any admission form of the school which would have been primary evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix.The school leaving certificate produced by the prosecution was also procured six days after the incident and three days after the arrest of the appellant.As per that certificate also, she joined the school in the middle of the session and left the school in the middle of the session.The attendance of the school in 100 days is also not reliable."While it is correct that the age determined on the basis of a radiological examination may not be an accurate determination and sufficient margin either way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts stated above read with the report of the radiological examination leaves room for ample doubt with regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix.The benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally, must go in favour of the accused."The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has heldthat Golden thread which runs through the web of administration ofjustice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on theevidence adduced by the prosecution, one pointing to the guilt of theaccused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable tothe accused should be adopted.In the present case, it would be difficult to conclude thatthe relationship was not consensual, neither it can be deduced that theappellant had any intention of cheating the prosecutrix right sinceinception of their relationship and therefore, we have arrived at theVarsha/ pmw 20 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docconclusion that charge under section 417 of Indian Penal Code whichwas framed subsequently, necessarily needs to fail.It is neither the caseof the prosecutrix that the appellant had forced himself upon her orthat there was coercion or intercourse by playing fraud upon her andtherefore all that is alleged by the prosecution is that this would be acase of statutory rape as it is the case of the prosecution that she wasbelow 16 years of age at the time of incident and, therefore, a questionfalls for determination before this Court, is whether the prosecutionhas proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was minor at thetime of incident especially when there is sufficient evidence to showthat by application of scientific and clinical method, the prosecutrixwas shown to be more than 18 years and less than 22 years.Black's law dictionary defines "reasonable doubt as thedoubt that prevents one from being formally convinced of adefendant's guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that adefendant is not guilty".When the material adduced by the prosecution falls outsidethe realm of reasonableness and logical inference the accused wouldbe entitled to benefit of doubt.A logical inference, would be aprinciple of deducing a fact or a conclusion by reasoning.In the totalityof the circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has provedbeyond reasonable doubt that the victim was minor at the time ofincident.Varsha/ pmw 21 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docA person cannot be acquitted or convicted on the basis ofhypothesis, surmises or conjectures.Similarly, there cannot be moralconviction.The prosecution has to firmly stand on its own legs andcannot plead probabilities.In fact, there is always a presumption ofinnocence of accused unless the prosecution has proved it's casebeyond reasonable doubt.Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF 2001The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by theinadequacy of the sentence imposed upon the original accused inSessions Case No. 99/1998 by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara videjudgment and order dated 14th November 2000 for the offencespunishable under section 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code is seekingenhancement of sentence of the respondent.Hence, this Appeal.The learned APP submits that the appellant had takenundue advantage of the tender age of the victim and had establishedsexual relations with her.According to learned APP the victim had given birth to achild when she was merely a girl of 15 years old.The claim of therespondent that it is a case of consensual sex cannot be taken intoVarsha/ pmw 22 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docconsideration as the victim was a minor and hence legally incapable ofgiving consent.As contemplated under section 375 of IPC her consent,if any, cannot be taken into consideration.The inconsistency in the radio-logical examination and the birth and death extract goes to the root ofthe matter as it is the basis of determination of exact age of theprosecutrix.This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that at the timeof incident the appellant was a student prosecuting his education.Theappellant was 19 to 20 years old.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that theprosecutrix had tried her level best to get married to the appellant.Shehad approached his mother in her personal capacity.The appellant hadnot refused to marry the prosecutrix but his parents had reservations.PW-2, the mother of prosecutrix had forgiven the appellant and hadaccepted their relationship.Varsha/ pmw 23 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.docAccording to the learned counsel for the respondent, theprosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victimwas minor at the time of incident.That on 16 th January 1998, herradiological age is shown as 18 - 22 years and moreover, the date ofbirth as per the documents is shrouded with mystery.It is submittedthat the victim had attained the age of understanding and moreover,even according to the prosecutrix, the respondent had not forcedhimself upon her and had neither coerced her to have sexualintercourse.Hence, the respondent is entitled the benefit of doubt.The appellant is enlarged on bail during the pendency ofthe appeal.The appellant has deposited the amount of fine ofRs.1,00,000/-, imposed upon him, by the learned Sessions Judge,while recording conviction.The learned counsel for the appellant,upon instructions, submits that the said amount of fine be allowed tobe withdrawn by the daughter of the appellant and the prosecutrix i.e.In any case, the prosecutrix Ms.X is Respondent No.2 inthe appeal.For the reasons assigned in extending benefit of doubt tothe appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2000, the present appealdeserves to be dismissed.Hence, the Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2001is disposed of accordingly.In view of the above observations, the following commonorder is passed :-Varsha/ pmw 24 of 25 Cr. appeal no. 840 of 2000 of Manoj Bhintade 2.doc ORDERi) Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2001 is dismissed;ii) The Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2000 is allowed;iii) The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused Manoj Hanmant Bhintade under sections 376 and 417 of Code of Criminal Procedure passed by Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.99 of 1998 vide judgment and order dated 14th November 2000, stands quashed and set aside;iv) The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and surety stands discharged;v) The amount of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited in the Sessions Court by the appellant be disbursed in favour of the daughter of the appellant and the Respondent No.2;vi) The Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2001 are accordingly disposed of on above terms.This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretaryof this Court.All concerned will act on a digitally signed copy of thisorder. | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,275 | JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed for the above reasons. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,295,250 | JUDGMENT: [PER: Anil S. Kilor, J.] Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::By these two applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are seeking to quash and set aside the First Information Report No.42 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 279, 307, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on a complaint of the non-applicant No.2 against the applicants in APL No.579/2020 and the First Information Report No.43 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on a complaint of the non-applicant No.2 against the applicants in APL No.576/2020Heard Shri Vishnu Gawali, the learned counsel for the applicants in APL no.579/2020 and non-applicant No.2 in Apl No.576/2020, Shri A. S. Dhore, the learned counsel for the applicants in APL no.576/2020 and non-applicant No.2 in Apl No.579/2020 and Shri V.A. Thakre, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State in both these applications.The applicants in both these applications are the close relatives of each other and counter First Information Reports were registered against the respective applicants in both these applications.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::In both these matters, notices were issued to the non- applicants on 05.10.2020 by this Court.Hence, it can be said that the First Information Report No.43/2020 is a counter blast.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::The allegations made in both these First Information Reports and the delay caused in lodging the First Information Reports, which has not been properly explained, create doubt about the veracity of the contents of both these First Information Reports.Be that as it may, now the applicants in both the applications have arrived at amicable settlement being close relatives of each other and with an intention to bring peace and to re-establish the harmony in their family.The learned counsel for the applicants in both these applications have drawn attention by this Court to the settlement arrived at between the parties, which is recorded on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- on 16.10.2020 and signed by all the applicants.In First Information Report No.42/2020, one of the offences, under which the said crime was registered, was Section::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 ::: 22-apl-579-2020.odt 8/12 307 of the Indian Penal Code.In view of that matter, we called documents relating to the injuries, wherefrom after perusal, it is revealed that none of the injuries is serious in nature.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 :::ii) The First Information Report No.42 of 2018 against the applicants in APL No.579/2020 and First Information Report No.43/2020 against the applicants in APL No.576/2020, registered with Police Station, Mehkar, are hereby quashed.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 08:48:47 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,029,561 | Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail but could not dispute the fact .Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,366,581 | Petitioner is residing in the flat in question and claiming himself to be the owner of the same without any purchase document.It is further submitted that merely on the basis of Aadhar Card and Voter ID Card, petitioner cannot claim himself to be the owner of the flat in question.BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.2937/2019 Page 2 of 4I have considered the rival submissions.As per record, complainant Sh.Since he was residing in Amritsar, Punjab, he had executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of his relative Sh.Tajinder Singh to take physical possession of the flat in question from DDA.Tajinder Singh had taken the possession of the flat and informed the complainant that he has given the flat in question to his brother-in-law Sh.Amarjeet Singh for residing therein.However, 10.08.2019, when complainant visited his flat, he found petitioner Raja Singh residing there along with his family.Petitioner informed the complainant that he has purchased the said flat from one Mr. Amarjeet Singh.However, petitioner and his father Kuldeep Singh could not produce any documents of ownership or proof of purchase of the flat in question.They, BAIL APPLN.2937/2019 Page 4 of 4BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail application filed u/s. 438 CrPC by the petitioner Raja Singh in FIR No. 439/2019, u/s. 448/380/34 IPC, P.S. Paschim Vihar, Delhi.BAIL APPLN.2937/2019 Page 1 of 4BAIL APPLN.2937/2019 Page 1 of 4Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated.Petitioner's father has already paid the consideration amount for the flat in question to the complainant through his relative Amarjeet Singh and Mr. Tajender Singh, whom the complainant had authorized to take possession from the DDA.The complainant was aware of the fact that the money has been transferred in the account of his relative.APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.2937/2019 Page 2 of 4 He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.2937/2019 Page 3 of 4 however, submitted that they are residing in this flat since 2004 and provided proof of residence i.e. Voter Card, Aadhar Card etc.BAIL APPLN.2937/2019 Page 3 of 4In view of the allegations against the petitioner that he has illegally occupied the flat in question and has no document to show his right/title or interest in the said flat and has not joined the investigation and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the stolen articles, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out.The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed.BRIJESH SETHI, J DECEMBER 13, 2019 (AK) BAIL APPLN.2937/2019 Page 4 of 4BAIL APPLN. | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,485,989 | Present petition questions the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision Application No.294/2000 (old No.67/1998) as also Criminal Revision No.296/2000 (old 71/1998) whereby both the revision applications were dismissed and record and proceedings of the lower Court was transmitted back.According to the petitioner/original accused no.5 in pending Criminal Case No. 259/1986 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, the complainant had prosecuted the accused upon various accusations punishable under sections 166, 192, 199, 200, 466, 470 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.It is submitted that evidence before charge was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and charge was also framed.The accusations were in respect of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:15 ::: 3 WP550.03.odt alleged collusion between the petitioner and local Revenue Officials for effecting false pencil entry in revenue record which remained operative for years.Earlier learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner by order dated 7.11.1987 was pleased to dismiss the complaint, but dismissal of the complaint was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.372/1989 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar who thought prosecution necessary was pleased to allow the revision petition by order dated 14.2.1993 and consequently, the process came to be issued against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 166, 192, 199, 466 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code.It is under these circumstances, the complaint proceedings made progress and evidence before charge was also recorded in which trial Magistrate heard evidence of two witnesses on behalf of the complainant.On the basis of evidence led; charge was framed on 20.4.1998 which according to learned advocate for the petitioner is incorrect as it was not based on sound basis against the petitioner.Although, multiple number of accused were prosecuted, it is only the petitioner who ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 ::: 4 WP550.03.odt preferred the present petition, other co-accused have not filed petition to challenge charge framed in the case.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 :::3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended criticizing that impugned order is contrary to law on the ground that no charges could have been framed on the basis of evidence led.It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the dispute is between the members of the joint Hindu Family in respect of property belonging to joint Hindu Family.Name of the petitioner was mutated in possessor column on the basis of crop inspection by Talathi by taking pencil entry which during later period was confirmed by the Tahsildar.Thus, according to the petitioner, no offence has been committed by the petitioner as alleged in the complaint and that there was in fact civil dispute between the members of the Joint Hindu Family.It is under these circumstances, petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order.Co-accused have been indicted as respondents who wanted to support the case of the petitioner ; while learned APP opposed the petition on merits.It is also the contention of learned ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 ::: 5 WP550.03.odt Advocate for the petitioner that remedy of appeal for the complainant was open under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to challenge the pencil entries made against the complainant which according to him was false.Instead of resorting to remedy of revenue appeal against the accused, the petitioner has sought quashing of criminal process issued on the basis of evidence led before the charge, so as to submit that the impugned order requiring the petitioner to seek discharge from the case was unsustainable, as charge is already framed; true it is that the accused may be convicted or acquitted at the end of trial.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 :::I have considered the averments made in the complaint copy of which is annexed along with the petition.It is alleging that false entry was made in the revenue record without any inquiry or actual inspection of the crop in the agricultural land pursuant to criminal conspiracy.The complainant alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused and cheating of complainant by them on the basis of act of effecting false entry in the revenue record.Background facts of the case cannot be ignored that although earlier the Magistrate had on the basis of report from the police under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code had dismissed the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 ::: 6 WP550.03.odt complaint.Said order was judicially interfered with in the revision by Sessions Judge and then complaint proceedings made progress afresh, evidence was recorded before the charge of two witnesses and then charge was framed.Thus trial is in progress.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 :::Complainant has alleged continuing offence in respect of alleged entries made from the year 1980-1981 in each year in respect of the agricultural land namely S.No.192/1+2,3 and 4 and also alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused to cause legal injury and loss to the complainant.The petitioner may also claim compensation if according to the petitioner prosecution is malicious without any reasonable or probable cause.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 :::At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner prayed for grant of stay to the operation of this order.Since the petition itself was pending for more than 10 years for disposal, no further latitude can be granted in favour of the petitioner as it would create further roadblock to the logical and early end to the trial.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:50:16 ::: | ['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
485,538 | (a) A-1 Karuppiah and A-2 Malaikannan are the residents of Keela Puruvai village.In the same village P.W.1 Nalli Chettiar is residing along with his wife and daughters.Kamatchi, the deceased is the daughter of P.W.1 through his second wife.She was an unmarried girl.(b) In course of time, A-1 Karuppaih developed illicit intimacy with the deceased.For the last six months prior to the occurrence, deceased was insisting A-1 to marry her.A-1 was not inclined to marry her.So he consulted with A-2 to solve the problem created by the deceased. A-2 being a close associate of A1 told him that she could be enticed to some other place and there she could be done away with.(c) Accordingly, on 7-2-1995 night, the deceased was taken by the accused in the A.M.S. bus and they got down at Inam Kulathur village.From there, the deceased was taken to the river bund near Kilikkoodu village.Both the accused committed rape on her and murdered the deceased and they removed the jewels and fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1, the father of the deceased was searching for her from the date of her missing.But she was not traceable.(d) P.W.2, who was working as conductor in a bus, was residing in the house situated near the house of the deceased.When P.W.1 enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased on 10.02.1995, P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that A-1 and A-2 were travelling along with the deceased in A.M.S. Bus on 7.2.1995 and got down at Inam Kulathur village.(e) P.W.1 informed the same to the village elders, P.W.3 to P.W.6 who came to the village to attend a marriage, and requested them to set the deceased free from the hands of the accused.When the accused were summoned by P.W.s 3 to 6 and enquired, both the accused confessed that they took the deceased to Kilikkoodu village, committed rape on her and murdered her near the river bund and took away her jewels.They also told them that they pledged the jewels and obtained Rs. 3,000/- and shared the same between them.(f) Since the case involved rape and murder, the village elders advised P.W.1 to go to Police Station and to give a complaint.P2 is the F.I.R. P.W.15 Inspector of Police on receipt of message proceeded to Poruvai village.From there, he along with P.W.1 and other villagers went to the scene of occurrence Kilikkoodu village in Trichy District.In the scene of occurrence, he found a body partially buried in the sand.Then, a requisition was sent by P.W.15 to conduct inquest on the body.(h) P.W.10 Tahsildar came to the scene of occurrence and at about 2.30pm he prepared Ex.P3 observation mahazar and Ex.P30 rough sketch.He exhumed the body, conducted inquest from 4.00pm to 5.30pm.P28 is the inquest report.Then he sent the body to the Government Hospital, Srirangam to conduct post-mortem with requisition Ex.(i) On 12.2.1995 P.W.9 doctor conducted post-mortem and found eight injuries and found the body highly decomposed.P24 is the post-mortem certificate.P.W.9 opined that the deceased would have died due to the injuries inflicted on the body.(j) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.1 yellow colour saree, M.O.2 yellow colour skirt, M.O.3 yellow colour, M.O.4 plastic slipper one pair, M.O.19 blood stained earth, and M.O.20 sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.W.15 went to the hospital and recovered M.O.10 jacket bit from the body of the deceased under Ex.P5 after post mortem is over.(k) On 16.2.1995, P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested both the accused at about 8.30am.On the Confession Statement made by A-1, M.O.6 Silver Kolusu, M.O.5 Gold Chain and M.O.21 Currency notes were recovered under Ex.P6 and on the confession statement made by A-2, M.O.22 Currency notes, M.O.25 blue colour pant, M.O.24 Jatti, M.O.23 Lungi and M.O.26 shirt were recovered under Ex.At about 9.30 am, he recovered M.O.27 rose colour shirt, M.O.28 brown colour jatti and M.O.29 lungi from A1 under Ex.At about 10.30am, P.W.15 recovered M.O.7 Nose screw embedded with stones, from A-2 through Pawn Broker at Viralimalai M.O.8 gold ear stud one pair and M.O.9 gold ring under Ex.At about 12.20 pm A-2 took the police party to the bush near the scene of occurrence and pointed out M.O.30 knife concealed there and P.W.15 recovered the same under Ex.He also recovered M.O.11 to M.O.17 clothes of the deceased contained in M.O.18 white colour cloth bag under Ex.P11 from A-2 through one Ponnammal.Then, he arranged to test the potency of the accused and to ascertain the age of the accused.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. A-1 was convicted for the offences under Section 364, 404, 201 read with 302 and 302 read with 114 I.P.C. and A-2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 404 and 201 read with 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the above conviction, both the accused have preferred this appeal.Accordingly on 11.2.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police.P1 is the complaint.(g) P.W.15 Inspector of Police registered a case for the offences under Sections 363, 376, 302, 379 and 201 I.P.C., against both the accused.Thereafter, he arranged to send the material objects for chemical examination through court.(l) P.W.16 Shanmugam, Inspector of Police, who is the successor of P.W.15 took up further investigation.After observing all the formalities and completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec. 364, 376, 404, 114 and 201 read with 302 I.P.C.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, filed 40 exhibits and produced 32 Material Objects.When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C, their plea of defence is one of total denial.On the side of defence, D.W.1 Judicial Magistrate was examined and Ex.D1 was marked.The trial court on conclusion of the trial, on the basis of the materials available on record, though acquitted both the accused for the offence under 376 IPC., convicted them for the other offences including that of 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the above judgement, the present appeal has been filed by both the accused.He would further submit that the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to P.Ws.3 to 6 cannot be said to be voluntary and as such, the evidence of those witnesses has to be discarded.He also argued that, at any rate, the age of the first accused was below 16 years on the date of offence and as such, the entire trial as against the first appellant/first accused is vitiated.There are three sets of evidence in this case:With regard to the extra-judicial confession, it is vehemently contended that extra judicial confession is a week piece of evidence and as such, no importance could be given as there is no sufficient corroboration.But, this contention cannot be accepted in the present case, because the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 would clearly show that when the accused were enquired by these witnesses, who are elders of the village, confessed having enticed the deceased to Kilikkoodu village and after committing rape, murdered her.The evidence of P.W.1 would corroborate the fact of the accused having been summoned by these witnesses and to whom the accused confessed.These witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 on coming to know that this is a case of rape and murder advised P.W.1 to go to Police Station and give a complaint and accordingly, P.W.1 on 11.02.1995, went to the Police Station and gave a complaint to the police.Only after registration of the complaint, P.W.15 took P.W.1 and other village elders to the place of occurrence where a portion of the body of the deceased was found buried.P.W.1 identified the body.As a matter of fact, P.W.6 who is respectable elder of the village was a Panchayat President.He also stated that he was doing B.L., during the relevant time.In the cross examination, it was elicited from him that initially, he did not incline to inform to the police about the involvement of the accused as A-1 happened to his relative.The very fact that P.W.6 who is the close relative of A-1 and is the Panchayat President, came to the Court and gave evidence about the extra-Judicial confession made by the accused before them would reveal that the evidence of PW6 relating to the extra judicial confession as corroborated by P.W.3, and P.W.5 is reliable and trustworthy.Secondly, we have got the evidence of P.W.2, a bus Conductor, who speaks about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused.Admittedly, P.W.2 is an independent witness.He is residing in the same village and in fact he is a neighbour.There is no necessity for P.W.2 to speak against the accused falsely.It is the specific case of P.W.2 that when he was going to Trichy for joining his duty, he saw all the three travelling together in the bus.He further stated that he found that all the three together got down at Inam Kulathur Bus stop.That was on 7.2.1995 at about 8.30pm.According to Doctor P.W.9 who conducted post mortem the death would have taken place about 4 or 5 days earlier.So this shows that P.W.2 was the person, who saw the deceased last in the company of the accused.Only after that, the accused were summoned and enquired and these witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 in their evidence would state that P.W.1 gave oral complaint against the accused stating that such information was given by P.W.2 Conductor to him.Hence this circumstance also connect the accused with the crime.The third piece of circumstance is the recovery of weapon and the recovery of jewels of the deceased, on the confession of accused.On 10.2.1995 the accused came to the village elders and confessed to them.On the confession of A-2, through P.W.13 Pawn Broker, M.O.7 nose screw and M.O.8 gold ear stud and M.O.9 gold ring were recovered under Ex.Thereafter at about 12.20 noon, the accused took the police to the scene of occurrence and pointed out M.O.30 knife found in the bush and in pursuance of the same, P.W.15 recovered the same under Ex.Besides that, as pointed out by A-2 , the other clothes of the deceased which were handed over by him to one Ponnammal were recovered as M.O.11 to M.O.18 under Ex.The Doctor P.W.9 would state in his evidence that M.O.30 knife would have been used for causing the injuries found on the body of the deceased.The clothes of the deceased which were recovered from Ponnammal as pointed out by A-2 and the jewels recovered at the instance of both A-1 and A-2 were identified by P.W.1 father of the deceased.These things would clearly indicate that the accused only took the deceased to the scene of occurrence and after committing murder took away her jewels , buried the body in the sand and pledged the jewels with the Pawn Broker.Though it is vehemently contended that on the date of the offence, A-1 was aged below 16 years, it is noticed that the very same question has been raised before the trial Court at the stage of questioning under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by filing a separate application in Crl.M.P. No. 863/98 and in the said application separate enquiry was conducted.The witnesses concerned were examined and cross examined and several documents also were marked.Even the Head Master of the school in which A-1 studied was examined . | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,639,784 | During lockdown period keeping in view the ( COVID-19) pandemic, this case has been listed today in my chamber under the order dated 22.05.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.Written objection dated 18.4.2020 on behalf of State received online is already on record.Perused the materials on record.By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 716 of 2019, under Sections 452, 354-Ka, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Jagdishpura, district Agra, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.As per the prosecution case, on 11.11.2019 at about 1.00 p.m. applicant along with co-accused Rakesh entered into the house of the victim in a drunken stage and molested her by catching her hands using filthy language, however, the victim somehow managed to save herself.The applicant in his bail application has mentioned that first information report has been lodged on 16.11.2019 after five days of the alleged incident.The victim was medically examined on 17.11.2019, but she refused for her internal examination and also refused to go for Ossification Test.The victim is daughter of maternal uncle of co-accused, Rakesh.He does not have any criminal history to his credit.(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 of the Indian Penal Code.(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.(v) The applicant shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at it independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.Order Date :- 27.5.2020 Sumaira | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,764,391 | Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.3045/2019 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.T he revision has been preferred by the applicant against judgment d ated 04.02.2019 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod District-Satna in Criminal Appeal No.110/2017 whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirm the judgment and conviction order dated 06.03.2017, passed in Criminal Case No.71/2010 passed by Presiding Judge, JMFC Satna District-Satna.Applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 15 days, under Section 338 (for Victim Mahesh) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month and under Section 338 (for Victim Bhairavnath) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month.He also submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.Apart from that there is possibility to get benefit under the provisions of Offenders Act. There are no criminal antecedents against the present Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 19/03/2019 18:37:35 2 CRR-884-2019 applicant.He further submits that there are fair chance to succeed in the case.The final hearing of this revision will take time.If the applicant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.Learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the said application.The custodial sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision.Applicant Balwan Singh be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall appear and mark his presence before the trial Court on 14.10.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the revision for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 19/03/2019 18:37:35 | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,840,253 | The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 568/2020 registered at P.S. City Kotwali Satna, District - Satna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506-B, 34 and 307 of IPC.As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that she alongwith other co-accused caused grievous injuries to complainant/victim.Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.In the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed by this Court, the complainant/victim/State will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted today.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified SAN navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2020.11.10 10:44:06 IST 3 MCRC-43150-2020 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2020.11.10 10:44:06 IST | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
489,077 | According to the prosecution case on 16-11-1994 at about 8.00 a.m. the applicant while driving his bus rashly and negligently dashed the same against a jeep which was coming from the opposite direction.At that time the bus was going on the main road from Seoni Malwa towards Shivpur and the accident took place at the intersection of three roads, of which the third road goes towards Village Miaugaon.At the point of intersection, the main Seoni Malwa-Shivpur road has a curve.The dashed jeep was being driven by Rakesh (P.W. 2) and it was going towards Miaugaon from Shivpur.Laxmi Bai (P.W. 10), Varsha and Prem Narayan were also travelling in that jeep.The left side of the bus had dashed against the middle portion of the left side of the jeep.That portion of the jeep was badly damaged.Due to the impact of the bus the jeep was thrown into a pit.Prem Narayan succumbed to the injuries received in the accident.Laxmi Bai (P.W. 10) and Varsha survived the accident but had sustained some injuries.ORDER Ajit Singh, J.This revision is directed against the judgment dated 14-8-1998 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 46/1997 by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, whereby he has confirmed the conviction and sentences of the applicant as passed by the Trial Court.The applicant stands convicted and sentenced by the Appellate Court as under:-Head Constable Ramdas (P.W. 2) was travelling in the bus of applicant.He gave the information about the accident at Police Station, Shivpur.Station Officer Upmanyu Saxena (P.W. 12) inspected the place of accident and registered a criminal case against the applicant.Mechanic Devi Singh (P.W. 4) examined the bus.On examination he found that the body of bus on the conductor's side was damaged and its fan belt was also broken.The map, Ex. P-11, of the place of accident was prepared by Ramesh (P.W. 7).The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, without disputing the accident between the bus of applicant and jeep of Rakesh (P.W. 3), has argued that there is no evidence on record to hold that the applicant was driving the bus rashly and negligently.He has, therefore, prayed for the acquittal of the applicant.The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has vehemently defended the conviction and sentences of the applicant as passed by the Courts below.After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence and materials on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt and as such this revision deserves to be allowed.Head Constable Ramdas (P.W. 2) was travelling in the bus at the time of accident.He has admitted in his cross- examination that he was sitting on the third or fourth seat behind the applicant and did not complain about his driving.He has also not ruled out the possibility of the driver of the jeep being negligent at the time of accident.Rakesh (P.W. 3) has testified that he had crossed the intersection of three roads while going towards Miaugaon when the applicant dashed the bus on the middle portion of the left side of his jeep.That middle portion of the jeep was badly damaged.Report, Ex. P-3, of Mechanic Devi Singh (P.W. 4) reveals that the body of the bus on the conductor's side was damaged.It, therefore, appears that the left side of the bus collided with the middle left portion of the jeep.This was possible because the accident took place at the intersection of the three roads for which the drivers of both the vehicles were apparently negligent and misjudged each other.Had Rakesh (P.W. 3) actually crossed the intersection, the bus coming on the road from Seoni Malwa could not have possibly dashed his jeep.Rakesh (P.W. 3), only to justify his part of the negligence, has testified that he had crossed the intersection of the three roads when the bus dashed his jeep.The police have also not seized the driving licence of Rakesh (P.W. 3).It is, therefore, not very clear that Rakesh (P.W. 3) knew proper driving.Moreover, the place of accident, as shown in the spot map, is just contrary to the evidence of Rakesh (P.W. 3).In the spot map the place of accident shows is much before the intersection of the three roads.This contradiction regarding the place of accident also creates a doubt on the prosecution story.Laxmi Bai (P.W. 10) was sitting inside the jeep.She could not have possibly seen as to how the accident actually took place.In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it safe to hold that the accident happened because the applicant was driving the bus rashly and negligently within the meaning of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code which requires a much higher degree of negligence than ordinary negligence.The conviction and sentences of the applicant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges.He is on bail.The revision is allowed. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
48,993,956 | No.1/State.By this petition, the petitioners seek invocation of the provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered as Crime No.321/15 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506-B, 342, 34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)In support of the application, respondent No.2 Sonu Jatav has executed an affidavit.The said application was sent to the Principal Registrar for verification.The Principal Registrar vide note dated 21.09.2015 submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.and another) 2 Pappu and others Vs.Radhika and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 and Gian Singh Vs.State of Punjab and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, allowing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. FIR registered as Crime No.321/15 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506-B, 342, 34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act., if any is quashed.With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
49,030,087 | This Criminal Revision has been preferred from an order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, dated 13.06.2018 rejecting an application for release of a Bolero MUV under Section 451(1) of the Act, seized in connection with Case Crime no.50 of 2018, under Sections 60, 63, 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, and Sections 272, 273, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Doharighat, District Mau.The aforesaid vehicle is hereinafter referred to as the vehicle.The issue regarding the authority to release a vehicle relating to which confiscation proceedings are pending before the Collector under the Excise Act, pending investigation or trial by the Magistrate for an offence under the said Act, based on the same facts that have led to initiation of confiscation proceedings, would be shortly addressed.In the said decision of their Lordships the issue of release of vehicles seized in connection with crimes and parked at police stations has been dealt with and answered thus:If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court.The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court.In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."A further application for release to the Special Judge was rejected on ground that once an application was pending before the Collector, it would be appropriate for the Collector to pass orders, rather than the Special Judge.On a combined challenge to said orders before this Court through an application under Section 482 Cr. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
406,471 | 2 The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be summarised as under :-It is the case of prosecution that PW1 Vanita, who is the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 3 prosecutrix, minor at the relevant time i.e. in June, 2006, was residing at Kordewadi, Taluka Kaij along with her family members, and on 10.6.2006, her parents as well as her brother and his wife had gone to village Vida for weekly bazar and PW1 Vanita and her younger sister Anita were at home.They had gone to the well of Sheshrao Patil for washing the clothes and returned back to home at about 2.30 p.m. and sister Anita went out of the house to dry the clothes; whereas victim Vanita was watching T.V. in the house.It is alleged that at this juncture the appellant/original accused Ganesh Korde entered into her house and started pressing her neck and also threatened her as well as he removed his clothes i.e. pant and nicker and removed Vanita's nicker and accused Ganesh inserted his penis into Vanita's vagina, and accordingly committed rape upon her, resulting into bleeding from her private part and blood stains fell on her nicker.Thereafter accused Ganesh went away.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::3 It is also the case of prosecution that victim Vanita's parents, brother and sister-in-law returned back to home in the evening on 10.6.2006 and thereupon she informed them about the occurrence of the afore said incident of committal of rape upon her by accused.Hence, all of them, along with PW3 Ashok Bansi Yadav ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 4 proceeded to the police station, Kaij to lodge the complaint, but on the way near bridge, accused Ganesh, Anil Korde and other five persons stopped them and threatened them and assaulted them and accordingly obstructed them from proceeding to police station, Kaij to lodge the complaint, and therefore, they returned back.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::4 It is further the case of prosecution that PW4 Additional S.P. - Pralhad Balaji Sonwane was working as Dy.S.P. at Kaij in June, 2006 and in the night of 13.6.2006 C.R. No. 134 of 2006 came to be registered by the complainant Vanita in respect of rape and rioting and accused were Savarna; whereas complainant was of Mahar caste.Hence, PW4 Pralhad went to Kordewadi along with staff and searched for the accused, but could not trace them out.On 14.6.2006, statements of PW2 Sushilabai Waghmare i.e. mother of victim and others were recorded.The caste certificate of the complainant was obtained, which is produced at Exh.37, as well as caste certificates of the accused persons were obtained by the investigating officer on 3.11.2006 and same are produced at Exhs.39 to 44 respectively.On 14.12.2006 PW4 Dy.Accordingly, Chemical Analyser's reports thereof were received from the office of the Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad, which are produced at Exhs.46 to 48 respectively.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::Thus, after completion of investigation, PW4 Pralhad filed the charge sheet against the accused persons in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij.In the said context, coming to the testimony of PW1 Vanita i.e. prosecutrix, she has stated that she was residing along with her parents, brother and his wife and sister together at Yeota, Taluka Kaij, District Beed and she belongs to Mahar caste.She also stated that on 10.6.2006 her parents and her brother and his wife had gone to weekly bazar and her younger sister Anita was at home.Hence, she and Anita had gone to the well of Sheshrao Patil for washing clothes and returned back at about 2.30 p.m. on the same day.10 At this juncture, accused Ganesh Korde entered into her house and tried to force her and he started pressing her neck and also threatened her, as well as removed his clothes including pant and nicker and removed the nicker of Vanita and accused Ganesh inserted his penis into her Vagina causing bleeding from her Vagina and thereby blood stains fell on her nicker.Thereafter accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 9 Ganesh went away.She also stated that caste of Ganesh is Dhangar.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 28.6.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : 09.7.2010 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 2 J U D G M E N T :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::1 The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant/original accused no.1 by way of judgment and order dated 21.1.2010, rendered by learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, in Special Case No. 2 of 2007, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months and also convicting him under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer R.I.for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, and also convicting him under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and directing him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, and all the afore said substantive sentences were to run concurrently.On the same day clothes of appellant herein i.e. Ganesh and accused no.2 Anil were seized under seizure panchanamas Exhs. 30 and 31 respectively.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Beed on 22.5.2007 for trial.Accordingly, charge came to be framed against the accused persons at Exh. 6 on 15.10.2007 and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.6 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined in as much as four witnesses, as mentioned below.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::suggested during the cross-examination conducted by accused that PW3 Ashok Bansi Yadav had illicit relations with the victim Vanita, and therefore, the accused has been implicated in this case falsely, with the aid and assistance of PW3 Ashok Yadav, and accordingly, the accused claimed to be innocent.8 After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused no.1 herein as afore stated; whereas learned Trial Judge acquitted accused nos. 2 to 6 from the charges levelled against them.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order inflicting conviction and sentence upon the appellant, the appellant has preferred the present appeal praying for quashment thereof.9 In order to deal with the submissions advanced by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 8 learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, it is necessary to advert to the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, to bring home the guilt against the accused.Thereafter Anita went out of the house to dry the said clothes; whereas victim Vanita was alone in the house, who was watching Television.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::According to PW1 Vanita, her parents returned back to home and she narrated the afore said occurrence of incident to them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::Hence, they proceeded to police station to file the complaint along with PW3 Ashok Yadav.However, when they reached near bridge of the village, accused Ganesh Korde and Anil Korde and other six persons threatened them and asked them not to proceed to police station.Hence, they returned back.She further stated that after lapse of about two days, they went to police station and lodged the complaint (Exh. 26).She further stated that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years and she was sent for medical examination, as well as her clothes were seized by the police personnel.11 During cross-examination, she stated that she was not knowing the accused Ganesh Korde prior to the occurrence of the incident and he never came to their house and she saw the accused when he was entering into their house through door.She stated that she did not ask the accused why he had come.She further stated that when accused Ganesh came near to her, she asked him why he had come and he started to catch her and thereafter she tried to run away.She further stated that accused caught her and fell on the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 10 ground, but no scuffle took place between them.She also stated that after falling her on the ground, the accused Ganesh started removing her clothes, but at that time her both hands and both legs were free.In the said context, she stated that when accused was removing her clothes, she was lying closing her eyes.Hence, suggestion was given that she did not oppose the accused to remove her clothes, but same was denied by her.She also admitted that after going aside the accused Ganesh removed his pant and shirt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::She also volunteered that she opposed the accused Ganesh.However, she admitted that two hours time was lapsed from entering into her house and leaving her house.Suggestion was given in the cross-examination that PW3 Ashok Yadav used to visit their house frequently, but same was denied by her.She also stated that Ashok Yadav had no acquaintance with her brother.It was also suggested to her that said Ashok Yadav had illicit relations with her, but same was denied by her.Suggestion was also given to her that present false complaint has been filed against the accused at the instance of said Ashok Yadav, but same was denied by her.She also denied that she deposed falsely that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::12 Having the comprehensive view of the testimony of PW1 Vanita, although PW1 Vanita stated in her deposition that the accused Ganesh inserted his penis into her Vagina after removing clothes of both of them, there was bleeding from her vagina and blood stains fell on her nicker, but pertinently the said proposition has not been corroborated by the Chemical Analyser's report and the Chemical Analyser's report Exh. 45/C reflects that no blood was detected on nicker i.e. Exh.7, as well as no semen was detected thereon.It is also significant to note that PW1 Vanita stated in her cross-examination that she was not knowing Ganesh Korde prior to the occurrence of the incident, then the question arises how name of the appellant/accused has been reflected in the complaint lodged by PW1 Vanita.Pertinently, thereafter she stated that she saw the accused Ganesh entering into her house, apparently a stranger, since PW1 Vanita stated that she was not knowing him, and therefore, in the natural course of events, she would have asked him why he had come, but PW1 Vanita stated that she did not ask accused Ganesh why he had come.Thereafter she stated in the cross-examination that when accused Ganesh came near to her, then she asked why he came and she tried to run away, but stated that no scuffle took place between them.She further stated that after ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 12 falling her on the ground, accused Ganesh started removing his clothes and although her hands and legs were free, she simply was lying closing her eyes.Hence, in the natural course of events, victim could have resisted and a scuffle would have taken place between her and accused, as well as when accused was removing her clothes, although her hands and legs were free, she simply lied down closing her eyes, which appears to be unnatural conduct.Besides that, it is also material to note that she stated that accused was in her house for the period of two hours and she has nowhere given explanation about the presence of the accused for such substantial period of two hours.In view of the afore said infirmities, the testimony of PW1 Vanita i.e. the prosecutrix comes under the cloud of suspicion.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::13 That takes me to the testimony of PW2 Sushilabai i.e. the mother of victim, who stated that she has got two daughters, namely Vanita and Anita, and on the day of incident, she had gone to weekly bazar at Village Vida along with her children and her husband had gone for grazing she-goats; whereas Anita and Vanita were present in the house.They had gone for washing clothes She also stated that they returned back (from bazar) in the evening.She also stated that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 13 Vanita told her that incident took place at about 2.00 p.m. when they returned after washing the clothes and when Anita was out side the house for drying the clothes and when victim Vanita alone was present in the house.She further stated that Vanita told her that accused Ganesh came there and thereafter Vanita started crying, but Ganesh committed rape upon her.She further stated that thereafter they proceeded by jeep to police station, but when they reached near the river, accused Ganesh and his friends pelted stones on jeep, and accordingly, accused Ganesh obstructed them from going to the police station and threatened them, and hence, they returned back.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::She further stated that thereafter they went to the police station and lodged the complaint.During cross-examination, she stated that age difference between Vanita and Anita was of two years.Suggestion was given to her that she deposed falsely that Vanita told her that accused Ganesh came and committed rape upon her, but same was denied by her.It was also suggested to her that they filed false complaint against the accused at the instance of PW3 Ashok Yadav, but same was also denied by her.14 Considering the testimony of PW2 Sushilabai, it is apparent that her version is dependent upon the incident narrated to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 14 her by victim Vanita.Moreover, no specific date and time of alleged committal of rape on her by accused Ganesh has been mentioned therein, and therefore, it is not clear whether victim Vanita narrated the incident to PW2 Sushilabai immediately after occurrence thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::Further She stated that age difference between Vanita and Anita was of two years.15 That takes me to the testimony of PW4 Dy.Thereafter on 14.6.2006 he recorded statements of eight witnesses and also recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix and arrested three accused on 15.6.2006 and arrested appellant herein on 17.6.2006 and seized his clothes.Further on 20.6.2006 he arrested remaining two accused.He also stated that he received the medical examination certificate of victim on 26.6.2006, and therefor ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 15 he made some query with the Medical Officer and answer given by the said Medical Officer is produced at Exh.38, as well as caste certificates of the accused persons are produced at Exhs.39 to 44 respectively.He further sent the seized articles to the office of Chemical Analyser on 14.12.2006 along with forwarding letter Exh.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::45, and the Chemical Analyser's reports thereof are produced at Exhs.46 to 48 respectively.Moreover, he also sent blood sample of the accused/appellant for examination purpose on 2.8.2006 and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.examination, he stated that blood sample of the accused was taken in the hospital at Kaij and same was sent to the office of Chemical Analyser for examination purpose.He also stated that he did the age determination test of the prosecutrix, but does not remember the name of the hospital where it was done.Suggestion was given to him that at the time of incident age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years, but same was denied by him.16 Accordingly, considering the testimony of PW4 Dy.Pralhad Sonawane, he carried out the investigation under C.R.No.134 of 2006, including recording of the statements of witnesses and drew panchanamas as afore said and arrested the accused persons ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 16 and sent the seized articles to the office of the Chemical Analyser for examination purpose.Moreover, he also sent the victim for medical examination purpose and made inquiry with the Medical Officer and answer given by the Medical Officer is produced at Exh.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::In that context, he stated in the cross-examination that he did the age determination test of the prosecutrix, but does not remember the name of the hospital thereof, and therefore, suggestion was given to him that prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence of the incident, but same was denied by him, and it is the endeavour of the appellant to establish that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years old at the time of occurrence of the incident.In the said context, the learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 17 counsel for the appellant canvassed that PW2 Sushilabai has stated in her cross-examination that there was two years difference in the ages of Vanita i.e. victim and Anita and school leaving certificate of Anita is produced on record along with Exh. 54, which discloses her date of birth as 20.7.1989, and since PW2 Sushilabai stated in her deposition that there was difference of two years between the ages of Vanita i.e. victim and Anita, the birth of victim Vanita must have taken place in the year 1987 i.e. two years prior to the date of birth of Anita and since the date of incident is 10.6.2006, the age of Vanita i.e. victim on the date of incident must be of about 19 years i.e. above 18 years, and accordingly, prosecutrix was not minor on the date of incident, as canvassed by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::18 Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the victim Vanita never stated in her deposition that the accused closed the door after entering into her house and in the natural course of events, had the accused entered into the house of prosecutrix, he would have certainly closed the door from inside before committing the act of rape upon the victim.It is also submitted that the alleged incident occurred in the broad day light i.e. at 2.30 p.m. on 10.6.2006, but it is curious to note that nobody from the nearby ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 18 vicinity has been examined by the prosecution as independent witness for corroboration and the said inaction on the part of the prosecutrix diminishes the credibility of the prosecution case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::19 It is further canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the incident occurred on 10.6.2006, the first information report came to be lodged after three days of the incident i.e. on 13.6.2006 and the said three days delay in lodging the first information report has not been explained by the prosecution satisfactorily, and even assuming for the sake of assumption without admission that the accused obstructed the complainant and her parents from lodging the first information report on 10.6.2006, nothing prevented the complainant to lodge the complaint on the next day i.e. on 11.6.2006, but so did not happen and the complaint came to be lodged on 13.6.2006 and no plausible explanation therefor has been given by the prosecution in that respect.20 Besides that, the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any medical evidence on record, including the medical examination certificate of the victim, although the victim was medically examined, to connect ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 19 the appellant with the alleged crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::Her uncorroborated testimony cannot be relied upon for basing the conviction.The cases cited by the learned A.P.P. are distinguishable on facts.The possibility of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 20 false accusation cannot be ruled out.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is riddled with contradictions and omissions and top of all, she though claimed that she has resisted the forcible rape by the respondents, no remarkable injuries were found on her person.All this makes us to hold that the view taken by the learned appellate Judge cannot be said to be perverse. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::" 5. ........... ...................We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::23 The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil vs state of Haryana, reported at 2010 Cri.The short question in the facts and circumstances of this case remains to be determined is whether the prosecutrix was a minor? Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1 who examined the prosecutrix referred her for verification to the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist.The failure of getting the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon or the Radiologist despite the fact that she was referred to them by Dr. Sadhana Verma, PW1 is a serious flaw in the prosecution version.We are not laying down as a rule that all these tests must be performed in all cases, but in the instant case, in absence of primary evidence, reports of the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist would have helped us in arriving at the conclusion regarding the age of the prosecutrix."24 The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bibhishan vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2008 Cri.L.J. 721 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 22 (SC) (Bombay), which are as follows :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::We have gone through the judgment of both the Courts below and also perused the necessary record.As per the evidence of the doctor, there was no injury on the body of the prosecutrix Anita.There was no sign of semen on the private part of the body.Neither her clothes were torn nor there was any presence of hair of the accused on the private part of the prosecutrix.The doctor after examining the prosecutrix, deposed that the girl was habituated to sexual intercourse.In view of this evidence, we are of the opinion that the High Court as well as trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant.The accused who has been charged under Section 376 read with Section 511, IPC is entitled to benefit of doubt.In the facts and circumstances of the case, we give the benefit of doubt to the appellant-accused as the charges framed against him are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. "25 The learned counsel for the appellant also further relied upon the observations made in the case of Masmul Chaudhary vs State of Jharkhand, reported at 2010 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 148 (Jhar), ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 23 wherein it is observed :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::" Appellant allegedly committed rape on complainant when she was alone in the house, but the testimony of prosecutrix was, however, not reliable, since nobody saw appellant entering into the house.Moreover, all the prosecution witnesses were hear say witnesses, who came to know about occurrence of the incident from the father of victim girl.Besides, complainant is related to appellant as his cousin sister.From the evidence of prosecutrix and that of father showed that they wanted marriage of complainant to be performed with accused.Besides, first information report was lodged after 6-7 days.Moreover, it is also held that prosecution has failed to bring anything on record with regard to the medical examination by doctor.Hence appellant is entitled to be acquitted. "26 The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas and Ors.Vs State of Maharashtra, reported at AIR 2007 SC 155 (Bombay) :-" In the instant case rape was committed on a girl belonging to Scheduled Caste.The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that the prosecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste community.The conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::27 Shri S.D.Kaldate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the evidence of prosecutrix PW1 Vanita is reliable and trustworthy and there are no omissions/contradictions brought on record in her testimony, and hence, her deposition is truthful, and therefore, it does not require any corroboration and same needs to be believed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction and urged that present appeal be dismissed.29 To substantiate the said contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaran vs State Rep. By S.D.M., reported at 2003 Cri.L.J. 2548 (SC) (Madras, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 26 which are as follows :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::30 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent also relied upon the following observations made in the case of State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh and others, reported at AIR 1996 SC 1393 :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::In the said context, it is to be noted that the certificate, produced by the prosecution at Exh. 38 discloses that the Rural Hospital, Kaij has stated therein that the age of Vanita is in between 15 to 16 years and she was capable of doing intercourse, as well as there were no injuries on her private part, but the opinion ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 29 regarding forcible rape upon her could be given after receipt of the Chemical Analyser's report only.However, the said certificate does not disclose that any ossification test of the victim girl was done before certifying her age in between 15 to 16 years, and in the absence of such ossification test of the victim girl, the opinion given by the Medical Officer in respect of age of victim girl in between 15 to 16 years on the date of occurrence of the incident cannot be accepted as gospel truth.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::33 Keeping in mind the said aspect and coming to the testimony of PW1 Vanita, she has stated that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years and also stated in the cross-examination that difference between her age and age of her sister Anita is of one year; whereas PW2 Sushilabai, mother of victim stated in her deposition that the age difference between Vanita and Anita is of two years.Admittedly, as mentioned herein above, the school leaving certificate of Anita is produced along with list Exh.54, which discloses date of birth of Anita as 20.7.1989, and therefore, since PW2 Sushilabai mother of victim stated that there is difference of two years between the ages of Vanita and Anita, it can be very well construed that victim Vanita must have been born in the year 1987 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 30 and since admittedly the date of occurrence of incident is 10.6.2006, it is amply clear that the age of victim Vanita on the date of incident must be above 18 years, after computation of her age from 1987 upto 10.6.2006, and hence, there is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::34 Apart from that, PW1 Vanita stated in her testimony that she was not knowing the accused Ganesh prior to the incident and she had not seen him prior to the date of incident and he never came to her house, then the question arises how the name of the accused reflected in the complaint.Moreover, she stated in the cross-examination that the distance between door of her house and the place where she was sitting was about 20 feet and she saw accused Ganesh when he entered into the house through door, but she did not ask the accused Ganesh why he had come, and subsequently, when accused Ganesh came near to her, she asked him why he has come.In the natural course of events, when a unknown person i.e. accused no.1 Ganesh came into the house of victim and when the distance between the door and the place where the victim Vanita was sitting was 20 feet, she would have immediately asked the accused about his identity and the purpose of his arrival in her house ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 31 and would not have waited till he comes near her.The said inaction on the part of victim Vanita speaks volumes for itself.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::35 Moreover, it is curious and surprising to note that no scuffle took place between the accused Ganesh and the victim Vanita when her hands and both the legs were free as stated by PW1 Vanita.It is also significant to note the version of PW1 Vanita that when accused was removing her clothes, she was simply lying closing her eyes.Pertinently, she further stated that the accused was in her house for about two hours.In the natural course of events, the victim would have shouted and obstructed the accused and scuffle would have taken place between them, but so did not happen, although her hands and legs were free, hence, when accused was removing her clothes, she would have resisted fiercely, but she was simply lying closing her eyes, and further the presence of accused in her house was for about two hours, and hence, inaction on the part of the victim as well as presence of the accused in her house for two hours speaks volumes for themselves.36 Besides that, it has nowhere come in the testimony of PW1 Vanita that accused closed the door after entering into the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 32 house, and in the natural course of events, accused would have closed the doors of her house from inside, if he wanted to commit rape upon the victim, but so did not happen.Moreover, the incident took place at 2.30 p.m. in broad day light and it is curious to note that the victim did not shout or call for assistance of her sister, since PW1 Vanita stated that Anita had gone for drying the clothes outside house and Anita did not go to the house of others, which means Anita was just outside the house, and therefore, victim Vanita could have called her for help, but so did not happen, and all the said inactions on the part of victim raise finger against her and give rise to the possibility of consensual intercourse between victim and accused, and tried to implicate the accused subsequently in the crime of rape with ulterior motive.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::37 Moreover, the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.46 discloses that no blood was detected on Exhs. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 i.e. kurta, salwar, chaddi, full manila and nicker, as well as the said Chemical Analyser's report discloses that no semen was detected on Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 i.e. kurta, salwar, jangya, chaddi, full pant, full Manila and nicker, as well as said Chemical Analyser's report discloses that Exh.3 i.e. Jangya detected human blood, but ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 33 the said Chemical Analyser's report does not reflect blood group thereof.Moreover, the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.47 discloses that no semen was detected on Exhs. 1 and 2 i.e. pubic hair of Vanita and vaginal swab of Vanita respectively.So also the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.48 discloses that no semen was detected on Exh. 1 i.e. pubic hair of accused Ganesh, and blood group of Exhs. 2 and 3 i.e. blood sample of accused Ganesh and semen of accused Ganesh could not be determined.Hence, it is amply clear that the said Chemical Analyser's reports Exhs.46 to 48 cannot be of any aid and assistance to the prosecution and do not connect the appellant with the alleged crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::38 Apart from that, prosecution has failed to adduce and produce on record medical evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW1 Vanita, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said evidence has not been brought on record, which also hampers the case of prosecution.Moreover, mere production of caste certificate of victim and accused will not bring the case of the prosecution under the purview of Section 3(2)(v) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and prosecution has failed to establish how and why the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 34 present case is covered by the said very provision.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::39 In the circumstances, considering the ocular and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, as well as the evidence of Chemical Analyser's reports produced by prosecution on record, it is amply clear that the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt at home against the accused and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt, and hence, the conviction and the sentence inflicted upon the appellant by the learned Trial Judge by way of judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 shall not sustain and same deserves to be quashed and aside and appellant herein needs to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.40 In the result, present Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2010 is allowed and conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 in Special Case No. 2 of 2007 by learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: 35 Act, 1989 stands quashed and set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted from the offences with which he was charged and convicted.The appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be refunded to him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:51 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,647,371 | This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 22/02/2014 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in ST No. 400 of 2009, State vs Ajai Pal and Another, praying that the said order be set aside.The facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2, Man Singh, the first informant had lodged an F.I.R. at PS Nayagaon, District Etah on 05/08/2009 at about 9.45 PM that his daughter (name is not being mentioned by this Court) aged about 9 years had gone in the evening at about 7 PM to ease herself out in the field of corn belonging to Sarvesh resident of Nagaria Sikandarpur and when she did not return till late, he along with Ramesh, bearing torching in their hands, went in search of her and saw that Ajay Pal and Bhovraj Singh of his village had murdered his daughter strangulating her.1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Dalvir Singh and Sri Raj Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party.They had seen these persons fleeing from the place where dead body of his daughter was lying, at about 8.15 p.m., the panty of his daughter was lying on the spot.On the said report case crime No. 52/2009 under section 302 IPC was registered against the above accused persons.The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against both the above accused under sections 302 and 376 IPC.The trial Court had commenced the trial and had recorded as many as 6 witnesses of the prosecution side.Thereafter, the mother of the accused Bhovraj Singh moved an application 27 B dated 18.08.2010, supported with an affidavit, stating therein that her son was in prison for last one year.She had six children.Her eldest son Umesh was aged about 22 years, daughter Devki was aged about 20 years, Bhovraj was aged about 18 years, Pankaj was aged about 14 years, Nanhe was aged about 8 years and Neelam was aged about 5 years.Since her son Bhovraj was illiterate, she had no certificate pertaining to his age.At the time of occurrence he was a minor, therefore it was necessary to get him medically examined through CMO, Etah to ascertain his correct age.Similarly, the father of the other accused, Ajay (revisionist No. 1 ) also moved an application No. 28 B dated 12.08.2010, supported with an affidavit, stating therein that his son was detained in district jail, Etah for last one year.He had six children.Eldest son was Indrapal, aged 26 years, Amarpal (dead), aged 24 years, Pramila aged 22 years, Jaipal aged 20 years, Rajni aged 19 years and Ajay Pal aged 17 ½ years.It was further stated that the accused Ajay Pal was only 16 ½ years old at the time of occurrence and that there being no certificate available regarding his age, it was essential that he should be medically examined through CMO to ascertain his correct age.The trial Court recorded the statements of APW 1 Tularam, father of the accused Ajay Pal and Shyama, mother of the accused Bhovraj (revisionist No. 2).The trial Court considered it necessary to examine the statements before calling for medical report regarding age of the accused persons.Therefore trial Court held, vide order dated 09/08/2011, their age to be approximately 16 years, as on date of occurrence i.e. on 05/08/2009, because no contrary evidence was provided from the side of prosecution nor from the side of the counsel privately engaged from the side of the complainant, except that a suggestion was made that the age of the accused was more than 18 years on the date of occurrence.It was directed by the trial Court that the file be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for further necessary action.The said order dated 09/08/2011 was assailed before High Court in criminal revision No. 3380 of 2011, Man Singh vs State of U.P. and others by the first informant - O P No. 2, in which the said order was set aside on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the first informant - revisionist, with the direction that the fresh order shall be passed on the applications of the opposite parties - accused, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the first informant - revisionist within a period of 3 weeks.Pursuant to the above direction, CW 1, Man Singh, Asstt.teacher, Pathamik Vidyalaya, Ubhai, Asad Nagar, CW 2, Ram Bbharose Lal, retired teacher of the said school and CW 3, Hrihar Verma, the then Asstt.teacher, Pathamik Vidyalaya, Ubhai, Asad Nagar were examined.As regards revisionist No. 2 - Bhovraj Singh, the trial Court has noted down in the impugned order that his mother stated the age of Bhovraj at the time of occurrence to be 17 years and that he was illiterate, as he had not received education in any school.In this regard the learned counsel for the accused/revisionist had argued that though he had not received any formal education in any primary school, even then if the entry of date of birth in Exhibit Kha - 2 i.e. 10/10/1991 be believed, even that would prove that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 05/08/2009, the age of accused - revisionist Bhovraj was 2 months less than 18 years, therefore he would be treated to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence.In this regard the learned counsel for the first informant - opposite party No. 2, relied upon Brij Mohan Singh Vs.Therefore the possibility may not be ruled out that the age of the accused - revisionist, Bhovraj might have been entered in the school on the basis of conjecture and hence there could be a difference of two months.In other states Epiphyseal union happens little later in time.Thus, in the case at hand it has been recorded by the trial Court that since both the revisionist - accused had 32 teeth and bones of their wrist, elbow and knee were found fused, in the light of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, even Ajay Pal was more than 18 years old on the date of occurrence and hence an adult.APW 1, Tularam could not tell the date of birth of Ajaypal correctly nor could he file any copy of the family register and thus both the applications 27 B and 28 B had been dismissed and the file had been fixed for remaining evidence.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vinod Singh holding brief of Shri Rahul Pandey as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, Raja Narain Gupta and the learned AGA and perused the record.The learned counsel for the revisionist has mainly argued that both the revisionist - accused were illiterate, had never been to school, therefore in accordance with the interpretation of the section 7 - A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act of 2000') and the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short to be referred as ''the Rules of 2007') made by the Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Saxena vs State of MP, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 553 , the revisionists-accused should be treated to be juvenile on the basis of medical report, hence the revision deserves to be allowed and should be allowed.Only in Cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court, the JJ Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination."In the light of above position of law the trial Court was required to assess the juvenility of the revisionists."15.Summarising the legal position as to the claim of juvenility and observing that such plea can be raised at any stage and after referring to various decisions, a three Judge Bench of this Court in Abuzar Hossain vs State of W.B. held as under: (SCC pp.509 - 10, Para 39) "39 .The matter should be considered primafacie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
406,498 | The prosecution version, as held proved by the evidence of PW-2 Sudipa, was as under:(a) The family of Subhash Chandra Pal (deceased) consisted of his parents, wife and the only daughter Sudipa.They were economically well-off.Subhash Chandra Pal wanted to give good education to his daughter Sudipa and, therefore, used to engage private tutors also since Sudipa was in Class VI.In 1988, when Sudipa was in Class IX, her father engaged the appellant as a private tutor to teach her certain subjects as he was residing hereby.Initially Sudipa used to go to his house, but after sometime the appellant, with the consent of Sudipa's parents, started teaching her by going to her house every evening.(b) Sudipa was often ill-treated by her mother as she believed that Sudipa was responsible for all her physical sufferings which had started after her birth.She was not allowing her to mix with boys and girls with the result that she did not have any friend.She was also at times physically assaulted by her mother.Sudipa used to make complaints about the ill-treatment by her mother to the appellant.The appellant used to listen to her complaints and console her and thereby he had won the confidence of Sudipa.Sudipa also started believing that the appellant was her real well wisher,(c) As the relationship of Sudipa and appellant became more and more close the appellant started touching her body.He used to tell her stories which could influence her mind and also arouse romantic feeling in her.By the middle of 1990 they started moving out alone after remaining absent from their respective schools.(d) On 24-9-1990 the appellant had a headache when he was in the house of Sudipa, he had lied down on a sofa and Sudipa had rubbed Amritanjan balm on his head.This was seen by her mother.After the appellant had left Sudipa's mother had beaten her for that reason.On two subsequent occasions also her mother had noticed the appellant placing his hands on the back of Sudipa and because of that she was beaten by her mother.All these incidents used to be narrated by Sudipa to the appellant.After hearing the last incident In September, 1990 the appellant had told Sudipa that her mother really deserved to be taken to a hill and thrown down from the hill top.(e) In November, 1990 her other teacher Ashutosh Chakraborty was discontinued,.Believing that her father had done so at the instance of her mother, Sudipa became very agitated and complained about it to the appellant.The appellant took this opportunity to poison her mind by telling her that her mother was not eager to see Improvement in her studies and to make her life a success and, therefore, if she wanted to come up in life she should remove her from this world.(f) During the latter half of 1990 the appellant had also started telling her about his financial difficulties and with her help he obtained a loan of Rs. 6.000/- from her father.When it was not possible for her to get money from her father she used to give him her ornaments like chain, ring etc. without the knowledge of her parents.On one occasion she removed cash from the house and gave it to the appellant.On another occasion she gave Indira Vikas Patra worth Rs. 5.000A- Thus towards the end of 1990 Sudipa was under complete influence of the appellant and she had started believing that appellant was the only true friend interested in her welfare.(g) Again when her mother told Sudipa not to appear in the 1991 examination and when Sudipa informed the appellant about it, the appellant had told her that if she really wanted to remain happy in life she should remove her from the world.When she had enquired as to how that can be done the appellant had told her to mix 50 tablets of compose with the medicine which her mother was taking every day.Initially, she agreed to that suggestion but could not muster enough courage to do so.In the beginning of January, 1991 the appellant tried to persuade Sudipa to give some poison to her mother to get rid of her.On 18-1-1991 the appellant's wife who had by then become aware of the illicit relationship of the appellant and Sudipa had gone near Sudipa's house and had shouted loudly at the family members of Sudipa and openly stated that Sudipa was a bad girl and was having illicit relations with her husband.Sudipa's mother, therefore, had severely beaten her and wanted the appellant to be removed as a teacher but her father intervened and the appellant continued as Sudipa's teacher.This incident helped the appellant in convincing Sudipa that she should not wait any longer and must take immediate steps to remove her mother from this world.This incident also led Sudipa to agree with the suggestion of the appellant to give some poison to her mother.Thereafter there, were attempts by appellant and Sudipa to pro cure poison and get their effects tested.Initially some cyanide and mercury chloride were obtained from Krishanendu and experiments were conducted with the help of Krishanendu.The appellant had also given one bottle of water in which lizards were boiled to Sudipa and had instructed her to mix it in the drinking water of her mother as such water was also considered highly poisonous.On 16-3-1991 it was decided mix poison with 'kalojams' and give them to her mother.For this purpose 'kalojams' were also purchased but Sudipa could not make up her mind and that attempt of the appellant failed.On 18-3-1991 the appellant told Sudipa to make her mind strong if she really wanted to prosper in life.He again went to her house in the evening and told her that after administering poison to her mother an electric wire should be wrapped around her body so that people would believe that she had committed suicide.When Sudipa refused to do such a thing the appellant became angry and told her that there was no other way to get rid of her mother.So, Sudipa kept all the articles brought by the appellant in the house and concealed them.On 20-3-1991 Sudipa and appellant moved together from 10 a.m. till about 4.15 p.m. Sudipa then went home and the appellant followed her at about 6.3O p.m. The appellant told Sudipa that she should make her mind strong and do whatever was required to be done otherwise she would suffer for the rest of her life.He even threatened her that if she did not do what was suggested to her then he would remain away from her.The appellant then gave her a packet of sweets containing 'kalogams' and 'sitabhog' and told her to mix poison with two 'kalojams.' Sudipa mixed some quantity of sodium cyanide with two 'kalojams' and returned them to the appellant.The appellant then waited for the mother of Sudipa to come upstairs.By that time the appellant had f assured that the grand mother and grand father of Sudipa were on the ground floor and the father of Sudipa had gone out.At about 8.20 p.m. Sudipa's mother went on the first floor and entered the bed room where the appellant and Sudipa were sitting.The appellant told her that as promised earlier he had brought sweets for her and so saying placed one Kalojm in the hand of Sudipa's mother.Sudipa could not bear this sight and went out of the room.At that time Sudipa's father was seen coming upstairs.She immediately went back to the bed room and told the appellant about it.The appellant then picked up one 'kalojam' and one 'sita-bhog' and told her to give those sweets to her father.Sudipa then went to her father's room and placed them on the table.She then went down stairs to find out what her grand mother and grand father were doing.After finding them there she again went upstairs and when she peeped into her father's room she saw that her father had eaten those sweets and was gasping for breath.Seeing the precarious condition of her father she rushed to the appellant and told him about it.She again went to her father's room and seeing that her father was almost collapsing asked the appellant as to why he had killed her father.The appellant told her that as her father had seen him giving 'Kalojam' to her mother and would have named him as the person who had given poisoned sweet, he was also required to be finished.He then asked her to follow his instructions and warned her that if she did not do so her death was also inevitable.JUDGMENT G. T. Nanavati, J.The appellant and one Krishnanendu Jana were tried for committing murders of Subhash Chandra Pal, his wife Sulekha Pal, father Davendra Mohan Pal and mother Latika Pal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Barasat.The learned trial Judge held that the appellant committed the murders and Krishnanendu aided and abetted the appellant in committing the offence.He accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with 120-B and 201,1.P.C. He convicted Krishnanendu under Sections 302 read with 109, I.P.C. He imposed death sentence on both of them.Challenging their conviction and sentence the appellant and Krishnanendu filed separate appeals in the Calcutta High Court.The learned trial Judge also made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence.The appeals and the reference were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment.The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant but gave benefit of doubt to Krishnanendu and acquitted him.As his conviction and sentence have been confirmed the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the same.Sudipa had become highly perplexed and did what the appellant had told her to do.Seeing the grand parents coming up the appellant asked Sudipa to leave the house immediately.When the grand mother reached the first floor the appellant gave her one 'Kalojam' and when she asked for water the appellant gave her water mixed with mercury chloride.Sudipa returned at about 9.30 p.m. When she enquired as to where her grand father was the appellant told her that the grand father had also suffered the same fate as others.The appellant then told her to follow his instructions and threatened her that if she did not do so all the people would blame her for the murders of those persons.Thereafter an attempt was made by both of them to conceal or destroy the articles used for killing the four persons and wash off finger prints of the appellant.The appellant then told her that he would leave the place after tying her up and after some time she should raise an alarm and tell others that some unknown persons had come to her house to meet her father and that she was tied up in that manner by those persons.The appellant left Sudipa's house at about 11 p.m. As instructed by the appellant Sudipa remained tied up for sometime and raised cries thereafter.Hearing her cries the neighbours had come there and untied her hands.The police was called.Initially, Sudipa gave the same version which she was instructed to say to others by the appellant.On the next day the appellant remained with Sudipa and gave her instructions not to divulge the truth about the incident.Sudipa then stayed with different relatives for few days.During that period the appellant used to meet and instruct her not to disclose the truth.The police continued the investigation and on 9-10-1991 arrested Sudipa.On that day she came to know that the appellant was also arrested.On 11 10 1991 she expressed her desire to confess and, therefore, she was taken to S.D.J.M. Barrackpore.On 13-1-1992 an application was made to S.D.J.M. Barrackpore for granting pardon to Sudipa.As she was not thereafter examined as a witness as required by Section 306(4), Cr.The case was then committed to the Sessions Court and the trial proceeded against the appellant and Krishnendu.In order to prove its case the prosecution had relied, upon the evidence of Sudipa (PW-2) and other corroborating material consisting of oral testimony of other prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence, seized articles and circumstantial evidence.The learned Sessions Judge rejected the contention that the trial was vitiated as the mandatory requirement of Section 306(4), Cr.P.C. was not complied with.The learned Judge held that the evidence of PW-2 stood corroborated on material particulars by the other independent evidence on record.Her evidence regarding ill-treatment by her mother was corroborated by the evidence of Jagadish Dutta (PW-24) and Samiran Chakraborty (PW-26).Her evidence that she was not allowed to mix with other boys and girls and, therefore, she did not have friends was corroborated by the evidence of Purnima Pal (PW-25) and Anima Pal (PW-32).Her evidence that the appellant used to come to her house everyday in the evening was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.The learned Judge believed the evidence of these witnesses as it had remained almost unchallenged.The evidence of Durga Rani Pal (PW-5).Sumit Pal (PW-22).Jagadish Dutta (PW-24) and Purnima Pal (PW-25) was also found acceptable and the learned Judge held that it corroborated the evidence of Sudipa that she and the appellant were moving together alone and people used to talk about their relationship.Her version that she used to go out with the appellant even during the school time and.therefore, used to remain absent from the school was corroborated by the evidence of Subrato Bhawal (PW-7), Gautam Chaki (PW-8), Rita Sen (PW-19) and the attendance register (Ext. 62).The absence of the appellant from the school was also proved by the evidence of Madan Mohan Nath (PW-18) and the attendance register (Ext. 61).Her evidence that for getting rid of her mother the appellant had purchased cyanide, mercury chloride and chloroform was held corroborated by the find of those articles from the house and the evidence of Rush Chandra Roy (PW-41), seizure memo (Ext. 103) and the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. 140).Her evidence that for the purpose of finding out effectiveness of the poison which they had purchased some experiments were performed was partly corroborated by the evidence of Durga Rani Pal (PW-5) and Gautam Chaki (PW-8).Her version that cyanide was mixed with Kalogam for giving them to her mother was also corroborated by the find of a packet of sweets (M Exth.4) from her house.Her evidence that her mother and father ate poisoned Kalojam and that her grand-mother and grand-father were also administered poison received corroboration from the medical evidence.On the point of attempts made to conceal or destroy the articles used for causing murders her evidence stood corroborated by the find of soap water (M.Ext. 51/1), half burnt note book and the seizure memo.After appreciating her evidence the learned Sessions Judge held that, it was safe to rely upon it as it not only stood corroborated on material particulars by independent evidence but was also found true and reliable.He, therefore, convicted both the accused as stated above.The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court.Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel that Sudipa should have been examined as witness in open Court and not in the chamber and that while she was examined the Magistrate should have kept the accused present and afforded to them an opportunity to cross examine Sudipa cannot be accepted.The record of the Magistrate which was perused by both the Courts below and which we have also scrutinised carefully discloses that on 24-2-1992 Sudipa and both the accused were produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 306, Cr.P.C. On that day, the learned Magistrate, in presence of the accused, passed an order for producing Sudipa on 4-11 -1992 for examining her as a witness.On 4-11-1992 both the accused were present in the chamber of the learned Magistrate and in their presence statement of Sudipa was recorded under Section 306(4) till 5.00 p.m. 2000S. C./58 IVG-13 and the police was directed to keep all of them present on 9-11 -1992 for recording her further statement.On 9-11-1992 her further statement was recorded.Copies of the evidence of Sudipa were supplied to both the accused and that fact was ascertained by the learned Magistrate on 25-11-1992 when all of them were produced before him.The learned Magistrate had thereafter fixed 6-1 -1993 as a date for cross-examination of Sudipa.On that day, an application was given on behalf of the appellant, for local inspection of the place of offence before cross-examining Sudipa.That application was granted and the accused were directed to be produced on 3-2-1993 for further cross-examination.On that day the advocate of the appellant did not remain present.The appellant declined to cross-examine her.The lawyer representing Krishnendu also declined to cross-examine her.Therefore, there is no justification in the grievance made by the learned Counsel that Sudipa was examined by the Magistrate in absence of the appellant and the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine her.It appears to be an omission caused by oversight.The fact that her grand parents were also murdered at about the same time was not in dispute.The circumstance that Sudipa and appellant alone were present in the house at the relevant time also stands established by the evidence on record.Having gone through her statement, we find that she has in clear terms stated that she had applied poison to two 'Kalojams' and one of those 'Kalojams' was handed .over by the appellant to her mother in her presence.She has also stated that she had taken the plate containing one 'Kalojam' and one 'Sitabhog' given to her by the appellant to her father's bed-room and had kept it on a table there.Thus, Sudipa had not made any attempt to hide or conceal the part played by her. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,651,234 | Therefore, their relations were estranged.This petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by 11th ASJ, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.498/2016, whereby charges have been framed for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner/Sarfaraj.Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are, that Subhadra Sharma is the mother of deceased Vishal Sharma.Pramod Vishwakarma is the brother of Subhadra Sharma.Priti Singhal is the daughter of Sudhandra Sharma and sister of deceased Vishal Sharma.Kush Singhal is the husband of Priti Singhal.Vishal Sharma was married to Swati Sharma without the consent of his mother, therefore, the relation between the mother and son was not cordial.On 14.05.2015, Vishal Sharma consumed poison and committed suicide at Jagdamba Colony, Dhingra Complex, Ahinsa Chowk, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur.His wife Swati Sharma lodged a report.Crime was registered by Police Station, Vijay Nagar and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.The present applicant has been falsely implicated.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposed the contentions and submitted that the charges framed by the trial court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference.Counsel for the respondent referred the suicide note and statement of Suresh Vishwakarma, wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown as the electrician and was the person harassing the deceased at the instance of his mother by Gundagardi.The petitioner's name has been reflected in the suicide note stating that the petitioner along with 14-15 boys in the neighbourhood were harassing the deceased at the instance of the family members of the deceased.No doubt the statement of Suresh Vishwakarma does reflect the name of the petitioner.But, how the petitioner was harassing the deceased and in what matter, has not been said."Gundagardi" is a general term.The allegation levelled against the petitioner if taken entirely to be true then also the the mens rea and abetment as required for offence under Section 306 of IPC seems to be missing.The cause of commission of suicide is the family quarrel between mother and son.The son married with Swati Sharma without the consent of his mother.Her mother/Subhandra Sharma was planning to shift to Mathura after selling the house situated at Jabalpur in which the deceased and his wife were residing. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 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.