id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
4,065,363 | Heard on admission.Also heard on I.A.No.16548/2018 which is an application filed by the appellant Ravi Gulwase under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence dated 7.9.2018 passed by I ASJ Multai, District Betul, in Sessions Trial No.324/2017 convicting the appellant under sections 450, 506-II and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and R.I. for 2 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and is in custody since 7.9.2018, disposal of appeal will take time.There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal.It is contended that the circumstances in which the incident had taken place establishes that the possibility of consent cannot be ruled out.In the circumstances, if the sentence of the appellant is not suspended, his right to appeal will be futile.On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.On the other hand, learned G.A. for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the common evidence on record, this application is allowed.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of appellant Ravi Gulwase shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 on 23.4.2019 & thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.List the appeal for final hearing in due course. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,654,025 | Since, all the aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Vinod @ Ramakant, Shrikant, Rinku @ Pushpendra Pathak and Manoj Pathak in Crime No.34/2018 registered by Police Station Dharampur, District Panna under Sections 327, 329, 294, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc.Criminal Case No.22871/2018 Vinod @ Ramakant Vs.State of M.P.Criminal Case No.22881/2018 Shrikant Vs.State of M.P.Criminal Case No.24734/2018 Rinku @ Pushpendra Pathak and another Vs.State of M.P.At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner Shrikant.Consequently, the prayer for bail made on behalf of petitioner Shrikant is dismissed as withdrawn.The prayers for bail made on behalf of petitioners Vinod @ Ramakant, Rinku @ Pushpendra Pathak and Manoj Pathak shall be considered on merits.As per the prosecution case, at about 2:30 p.m. on 6.3.2018, victim Krishan Kumar Mali accompanied by his cousin Keshav and Manoj were accosted by the petitioners who were armed with lathis.They filthily abused the victims and asked for Rs.500/- to consume liquor and chicken.When the victims declined to part with the money, all of them assaulted the victims with lathis.As a result, they sustained injuries to head and hands etc. They also suffered fractures in elbow, palm and ulna bone.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.No fracture was found in the head.The story with the regard to demand for money has been concocted in order to convert this offence under Section 325 of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc.Criminal Case No.22871/2018 Vinod @ Ramakant Vs.State of M.P.Criminal Case No.22881/2018 Shrikant Vs.State of M.P.Criminal Case No.24734/2018 Rinku @ Pushpendra Pathak and another Vs.State of M.P.the I.P.C. into on under Section 329 of the I.P.C.; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.07.12 05:16:45 -07'00' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,654,916 | 11) In the Status Report dated 30.04.2013, it is stated that theallegations in the FIR against the appellant is that the Government ofAndhra Pradesh awarded VANPIC (Vodarevu and Nizampatnam Port IndustrialCorridor) Project to the present appellant (A-3) and allotted more than15,000 acres of land in Prakasam and Guntur Districts to the companiespromoted by the appellant in violation of all the laws, rules and norms andgranted several concessions.As a quid pro quo, the appellant invested inthe following companies, viz., M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., M/sBharathi Cements, M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd., M/s Silicon Builders,M/s Sandur Power Company etc. belonging to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, s/o thethen Chief Minister, late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy.12) It is also brought to our notice that the investigation into theabove said allegations revealed that during the period between 2006 and2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, led by the then Chief Minister lateDr.Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy extended many undue favours to the appellant byabusing his official position and thereby, an extent of 18878 acres wasallotted in his favour, in return, A-3 paid illegal gratificationsamounting to Rs. 854.50 crores to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) and hisgroup of companies for exercising personal influence over his father, thethen Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.It is the claim of the CBI thatillegal gratifications were paid in the guise of investments/shareapplication money to give them corporate colour in order to escape thecriminal liability.13) It is also the claim of the prosecution that the appellant acted as aconduit to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) to channelize the bribe amountspaid by other individuals/companies as a quid pro quo for the unduebenefits received by him from the Government of Andhra Pradesh led by lateDr.Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy.Thereafter, according to the CBI, based on various materials,further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is still continuingin respect of other aspects of the case.and Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Ltd. Mr. Ashok Bhan, by drawingour attention to the said order submitted that those directions are alsoapplicable to Nimmagadda Prasad (A-3) - appellant herein, who was also aDirector in M/s Indus Projects Ltd. which is under active investigation.18) From the status report, it is also brought to our notice that duringthe year 2008-09, the Government of Andhra Pradesh alienated 8,844 acres ofland in Ananthapur District in favour of M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub PrivateLimited, a newly incorporated company, with more exemptions/subsidies at acost ranging between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,75,000 per acre.It is alsohighlighted that files were processed despite serious objections by theFinance Department about (i) the financial implications of the proposedconcessions proposed on the State exchequer, (ii) company’s financialstanding; lack of credibility in terms of their past experience of thefledging company incorporated in July, 2008; and (iii) absence of safetyclauses in the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to resume land incase of violation/failure to implement the project.19) In the status report, it is also mentioned that M/s Indus ProjectsLimited suddenly came into picture claiming to be the holding company ofM/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Limited and availed loans amounting toRs. 790 crores from different banks/NBFCs by mortgaging about 4,397 acresof land.21) In addition to the same, it is also highlighted that M/s IndusProjects Ltd., who did not fulfil the technical and financial criteria,submitted an application stating that they would develop the projectthrough a consortium consisting of IDFC (Financial Member) and M/s EmbassyGroup (Technical Member) and would form a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).In this regard, it is pointed out that M/s Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd.,projected as SPV, is fully owned by M/s Indus Projects Ltd. Whileallotting 250 acres of prime land at Shamshabad, near new InternationalAirport of Hyderabad, several exemptions such as stamp-duty andregistration expenses, subsidized power, all external infrastructures up tothe boundary of SEZ, tax exemptions/holiday were provided under ICT Policyand SEZ Act, 2005 justifying that the project would create 45,000 new jobs.In addition, land worth about Rs. 1 crore per acre was given at a price ofRs. 20 lakh per acre.It is further pointed out that the said project hasto be completed within five years of allotment of land which ended in theyear 2011-2012, however, except developing a skeleton structure of about7.50 lakh SFT against 45 lakh SFT, M/s Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd. has failedto develop the project and has not created any new employment so far.22) It is also pointed out that M/s Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd., availed Rs.175 crores of loans by mortgaging about 75 acres of land which is shown tohave been spent for the development of project.P.Sathasivam, J.08.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh atHyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 6732 of 2012 in R.C. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by theappellant herein for grant of bail.3) The only question posed for consideration is whether the appellant-herein has made out a case for bail.Brief facts:4) On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ PetitionNos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011, the Central Bureau ofInvestigation (in short “the CBI”), Hyderabad, registered a case being R.C.No.19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated 17.08.2011 under Section 120B read withSections 420, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short‘IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the PC Act”) against Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others.5) The appellant-Nimmagadda Prasad was named as an accused at Sl.No. 12in the FIR dated 17.08.2011 (after the chargesheet was framed, he wasarrayed as A-3 and hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-3).It isfurther seen that during the course of investigation, the appellant wasarrested on 15.05.2012 for his involvement and complicity in the case andpresently, he is in judicial custody.6) After filing two successive bail applications before the trial Courtwhich ended in dismissal, the appellant moved the High Court for enlarginghim on bail on 06.09.2012 by filing Criminal Petition No. 6732 of 2012.The High Court, taking note of serious nature of the offence and havingregard to personal and financial clout of the appellant (A-3) and findingthat it cannot be ruled out that witnesses cannot be influenced by A-3 incase he is released on bail at this stage and also taking note of thesubmission of the Special Public Prosecutor that the investigation of thecase is still continuing even after filing of the charge sheet(s), byimpugned order dated 08.10.2012, dismissed his bail application.8) After taking us through the entire materials commencing from thefiling of FIR dated 17.08.2011, contents of charge sheet dated 13.08.2012,orders of the trial Court rejecting the bail applications twice, the standtaken by the CBI before the trial Court and the High Court, Mr. Salve,learned senior counsel, vehemently contended that the appellant is entitledto an order of bail from this Court.He also submitted that in view of theinconsistent stand taken by the CBI at every stage and taking note of thefact that the appellant is in jail since 15.05.2012, by imposingappropriate conditions, the appellant may be released on bail.9) Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, by placingreliance on all the materials filed by the prosecution pointed out that theappellant, along with others, is involved in a serious economic offence.He also submitted that the appellant (A-3) himself is a beneficiary of landworth several crores of rupees and properties in association with JaganMohan Reddy (A-1), who enriched himself for more than 40,000 crores by theinfluence of his father who was the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.He also submitted that even after filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012,in view of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”), the CBI is looking into allthe aspects of investment of the appellant in M/s Indus Projects and itsgroup of companies, has collected a number of files from differentdepartments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Banks/NBFCs and otherprivate companies/individuals.He finally concluded that in view of theStatus Report dated 30.04.2013 filed by the DIG of Police, CBI, Hyderabad,stating that a further period of 4-6 months is required for completing theinvestigation under Section 173(8) of the Code, it would not be proper torelease him on bail at this juncture.10) We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused allthe relevant materials relied on by both the sides.15) It is highlighted by the CBI that during further investigation in CCNo.14 of 2012, the role of A.J. Jagannathan and Dr. Khater Massaad, whorepresented on behalf of the Government of Ras Al Khaima (RAK) – UAE has tobe ascertained in view of various dubious transactions revealed.It is thestand of the CBI that A.J. Jagannathan, alleged Advisor to the Governmentof RAK-UAE had been a Director on the Board of Directors of M/s IndusProjects Ltd., along with the present appellant.According to the CBI, thefurther investigation has revealed that Rs. 140 crores, out of Rs. 525crores, the money of the appellant flown from Mauritius based companiesinto India under Automatic Route have been diverted and invested in M/sJagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bharathi Cements Corporation Pvt.Ltd., hence, the source of this money ought to be ascertained andinvestigated which is likely to take some time.17) The CBI has also projected the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by thisCourt in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5902 of 2012 filed by Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), directing A-1 to apply for bail only aftercompletion of the investigation in seven issues including Indus ProjectsLtd.It is the assertion of the prosecution that all the funds weremisappropriated by M/s Indus Projects Ltd. for their real estate activitiesand other business needs.According to the CBI, so far, the investigationhas revealed that at least Rs. 88 crores out of the above funds have comeback to M/s Indus Projects Ltd. through hawala channels/fake workorders/forged RA bills.It is the grievance of the CBI that theinvestigation so far has revealed that after more than four and a halfyears, the project has failed to take off and no job has been generated sofar.It is also the allegation of the CBI that the Banks/NBFCs adopted anaverage market value of Rs. 20 lakh per acre while disbursing loans to M/sIndus Projects Ltd. which were given to the company at a price rangingbetween Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,75,000 lakh per acre.According to the CBI,the value of 8,844 acres of land dishonestly alienated to a private companywould be around Rs. 1,768 crores approx.Though they secured loan documentsfrom various banks, yet they are awaiting similar documents from PunjabNational Bank, Bank of India, UCO Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and State Bankof India.20) In the status report, it is also claimed that the CBI has to examinevarious persons from different Government Departments, Banks/NBFCs, privatecompanies/individuals involved in diversion/misappropriation of funds,employees of M/s Indus Projects Ltd., M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd.,and their group companies to ascertain the facts related to the case.Though we were takenthrough all those details, it is not proper for this Court to make acomment about the acceptability or otherwise at this juncture and thosematerials ought to be considered only at the trial.25) As pointed out by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI,after filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012, in view of furthermaterials, the CBI started investigation which is permissible under Section173(8) of the Code to look into the aspects of the involvement of theappellant in M/s Indus Projects Ltd. and its group companies, viz., M/sLepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Ltd. as well as M/s Indus Techzone PrivateLimtied.In view of the same, undoubtedly, the investigating agency mayrequire further time to collect all the materials, particularly, the nexusof the appellant with those concerns and the appellant being thebeneficiary of the quantum of the amount secured.Further, in order to establishall those events, it is the claim of the CBI that documents have to beobtained from different banks, other private companies/individuals, whofacilitated the said diversion of funds.In addition to the same, publicservants involved in processing of government files have to be examinedapart from private persons/companies.A higher officer of the investigatingagency, namely, DIG of Police, CBI assured this Court that furtherinvestigation is being carried out at a faster pace and is expected to becompleted within six months.26) Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing analarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of thecountry’s economic structure. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
40,655,770 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.533 of 2018, on the file of the second respondent police.Against the wish of deceased, her parents arranged the marriage with another person.Therefore, the petitioner and the deceased consumed poison.3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he also consumed poison, unfortunately, he did not die in the attempt.Without considering the entire facts of the case, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 533 of 2018 for the offence under Section 174 (3) of IPC.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the official respondents would submit that the respondent police, subsequently, altered Sections 306 and 309 of IPC and the respondent police yet to be filed the final report.http://www.judis.nic.in2/7 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4186 of 2019Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in5/7 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4186 of 2019Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the second respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodi Sub Division, Theni District.2.The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in6/7 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4186 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.das CRL.O.P.(MD).No.4186 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.2521 and 10133 of 2019 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
406,647 | It is not in dispute that accused Ghanshyam was Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices at Sagar.Asharam (P.W. 1) was Extra Departmental Messenger.He was transferred and posted as a Peon in City Post Office at Sagar.He was earlier getting remuneration of Rs. 247/- per month and after his posting as Peon he started getting an amount of Rs. 550/- per month.It is further admitted that on 31-1-1986 at about 5.00 P.M. Asharam (P.W. 1) gave an amount of Rs. 80/- to the accused near Natraj Hotel.This amount consisted of four currency notes of Rs. 20/- each.The hands of accused Ghanshyam were washed in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate and the colour of the liquid became pink.The prosecution case is that the accused was demanding an amount of Rs. 50/- per month from Asharam (P.W. 1) as illegal gratification and he was threatening him that on failure to pay this amount per month he would again revert him to the post of Extra Departmental Messenger.Asharam (P.W. 1) paid an amount of Rs. 20/- to the accused.He promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 80/-.Asharam (P.W. 1) submitted his complaint Ex. P-1 in the Office of Lokayukta, Sagar to the D.S.P, He directed M.P. Dubey (P.W. 4), an Inspector to arrange the trap.B.K. Shrivastava, working as a Principal in Basic Training Institute, Sagar was called as a witness.He was shown complaint Ex. P-l.Asharam (P.W. 1) produced four currency notes of Rs. 20/- each.These were smeared with phenolphthalein powder by Baburam, a Clerk.Preliminary Panchnama (Ex. P-2) was prepared.These notes were kept in the pocket of the coat of Asharam (P.W. 1).He was given usual instructions.Asharam (P.W. 1) went to the house of the accused but he was not.available there.He searched him and found him in Civil Lines.Asharam (P.W. 1) gave the tainted currency notes to the accused and gave a signal to the trap party.On seeing the trap party the accused threw currency notes on the road.These currency notes were picked-up by B.K. Shrivastava and these were seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P-14).The Inspector recorded the report (Ex. P-16).The accused pleaded not guilty.His defence is that on 1-1-1986 Asharam (P.W. 1) had borrowed an amount of Rs. 100/- from him in the presence of Harprasad (D.W. 1).He made complaint (Ex. P-l) to the D.S.P. (Lokayukta) and then the trap was laid.He produced the four currency notes of Rs. 20/- each which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and their numbers were noted in the preliminary Panchnama (Ex. P-2).These currency notes were kept in the pocket of his coat and he tendered these notes to the accused which were accepted by him.He has denied the suggestion that he had taken any loan from the accused and the amount of Rs. 80/- was paid to the accused as repayment of that loan.The story of advancement of Rs. 100/- by the accused to Asharam (P.W. 1) as a loan on the face of it is highly improbable.Asharam (P.W. 1) has denied, as already stated, that he had taken the loan of Rs. 100/- from the accused.Harprasad (D.W. 1) has been examined as defence witness to support the case of the accused.In view of the two decisions referred to above and the evidence on record it must be held that the accused accepted the amount of Rs. 80/-from Asharam (P.W. 1) as illegal gratification.The defence version that this was repayment of the loan by Asharam (P.W. 1) is not proved even by "preponderance of probability" nor it can be said to be reasonable and plausible.The defence story is highly improbable.The conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is unassailable. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
949,304 | A few days prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the deceased and Hari Bai who is related as SAMDHAN with the appellant.The prosecution case is that after the quarrel between the deceased and Hari Bai a Panchayat was convened in the village and controversy was amicably settled.On 8-9-1986, at about 16-30 hours, Gambheer Singh, his younger brother Chhutteraja the deceased, Nanhoo Raja, Bhola and Saukhi were ploughing 'Rariya' field.In the nearby field belonging to Sironj, Hakkiyan (PW 3) was grazing bullocks.Kallu (PW 2) was cutting JARVA closeby.The appellant came with his 12 bore double barrel gun along with Hari Bai from the side of the village.They stood in the embankment of 'Rariya' field.The appellant called Gambheer Singh.When Gambheer Singh came to the appellant, the latter told him that he was going to leave the village for good.At this time, deceased Chhutteraja and Nanhoo Raja had also come at the spot.Gambheer Singh tried to pacify the appellant saying that he should not think of leaving the village as quarrels do take place frequently and that was not a reason for one to leave the village.At that time, Hari Bai exhorted the appellant to shoot the Thakuran (Thakurs) and the appellant raised his gun and fired at Chhutteraja.He was hit at the neck region as a result of which he fell down.When Gambheer Singh expressed his shock over what had happened, the appellant tried to aim his gun towards him.Gambheer Singh, however, caught hold of the barrel of the gun.He was helped by Nanhooraja.The appellant on being relieved of the gun ran away towards Tikariya whereas Hari Bai fled towards Hinauta.Out of those who had come there, viz., Bhola, Saukhi, Kalua and Hakkiyan, the last two were examined as prosecution witnesses.Chhutteraja was found dead by them.Gambheer Singh then went to the police station at a distance of 12.00 kms.Dr. M. L. Kasera (PW 4) held autopsy and vide report Ex. P.7 found :"An oval shaped lacerated penetrating wound on left side neck 1" below the mendisla.Dimension of the wound- length 2", breadth IVz" and depth 3l/2".Margin of the wound an inverted and ecchymozed the surrounding skin and soft tissues are blackened.The direction of the wound is oblique traversing medically downwards and posteriorly ended at cervical vertical column."It was a gun shot wound in which seven pellets were found embedded 4th, 5th and 6th vertebra were fractured.These bones were fractured in many pieces.Trachea was excessively damaged.Chhutte Raja, as per doctor's opinion, had died of excessive haemorrhage resulting from the said injury causing shock and syncope.Chhutte Raja's death having been caused by this gun shot not being disputed, the Ballistic Expert's Report does not appear to be of any great importance.Ex. P-6 is the map of spot prepared by Investigating Officer, Shri B. M. Swami (PW 7).Another sketch map of the spot Ex. P-8 was prepared by Lallu Prasad Patwari (PW 9).The defence is that after the quarrel between deceased Chhutte Raja and Hari Bai, the latter had gone to the Police Station to make a report but was dissuaded from doing so.She had pledged her silver ornaments with a goldsmith, named, Jhalla, in this connection.On the date of incident, the appellant had gone to Gunaur to redeem the said ornaments.He had his licensed 12 bore double barrel gun with him.From Gunaur he returned by bus upto Hinauti and therefrom he was going to his village Khalpura on foot.After crossing the Nala he was called by Gambhir Singh.The appellant went to him and was then surrounded by Gambhir Singh, Chhutte Raja, Nanhoo Raja, Saukhi and Bhola all of whom were armed with lathis.On being questioned by Gambhir Singh the appellant told that he had gone to Gunaur where he had some work with Jhalla Sunar.On this Gambhir Singh said that he had gone there to initiate a case relating to the quarrel with Hari Bai.Thereupon, the deceased said the appellant should be caught hold of and taken to the field to be thrashed.Chhutte Raja and Nanhoo Raja caught the appellant and Gambhir Singh kicked him from behind.He was thus dragged to the 'Rariya' field.While he was being so dragged his cloth-bag which he was carrying as he had gone to bring back Haribai's pledged ornaments, slippers and belt of cartridges fell down in the field.Gambhir Singh, Nanhoo Raja and Chhutte Raja grappled with the appellant while two of their associates were standing with lathis in their hands.Gambhir Singh and his companions tried to snatch the gun from the hands of the appellant who was trying to resist in course whereof it got discharged accidentally and then fell down from appellant's grip.Somehow, the appellant got released and ran for his life.He was chased by Gambhir Singh and Nanhoo Singh.After covering a distance of 150 yards the appellant found that his Paijamas obstructed his pace.He, therefore, took off and dropped the Paijamas there and kept running.On reaching Gunaur Police Station he narrated the incident to the 'Daroga' who told him that the report will be taken down next day.The appellant then proceeded to Panna but the Superintendent of Police was not there.JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chouhan, J.On 8-9-1986, an incident took place in the field known 'Rariya' belonging to Gambheer Singh (PW 1) within the jurisdiction of Gunaur Police Station, District Panna, in which the gun in the hands of the appellant was fired and deceased Chhutteraja was hit in the neck as a result of which he died, is not in dispute.It is also not disputed that the relations of the deceased and Gambheer Singh were inimical with the appellant as Gambheer Singh and deceased had actively supported Ayodhya Prasad in the election who defeated his rival the appellant.along with his elder brother Arjun Singh and lodged the first information report (Ex. P-l) at 20.30 hours the same day.Crime was registered.The Investigating Officer reached on the spot, held inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem examination.In the course of investigation, appellant's 12 bore gun, a belt containing live cartridges, cloth bag, a pair of slipper and a pair of Paijama were seized from the scene of the occurrence.The gun so seized was sent for expert examination and was found to be in order with trace of recent discharge in one of the barrels.The appellant, therefore, spent his night in front of the office of the Superintendent of Police where the 'Daroga' came and took him saying that his report was to be taken down.Appellant's learned counsel argued that the sketch map of the spot (Ex. P-6) proved by Shri B. M. Swami (PW 7) shows that the pair of chappals belonging to the appellant were found lying at a distance of 12 yards, at point No. 6 towards south-west of the scene of the incident.Very close to point No. 6 is point No. 9 where the belt of cartridges belonging to the appellant was found lying but appellant's pair of Paijama were found lying at point No. 8 towards north of the scene of occurrence on the bank of Nala.Since the evidence is that the appellant ran towards north after the gun fire, all the belongings of the appellant would have been found lying in one direction from the scene of occurrence.The fact that some of the articles were found lying south-west of the place of occurrence fully supports the defence version that the appellant while returning from Gunaur was caught hold of by Gambhir Singh and his associates and was dragged in the Rariya field where during the course of the scuffle for appellant's gun an accidental fire claimed the life of the deceased.This story is further corroborated by the fact that after the accidental fire the appellant ran for his life and since it had rained that day and the field through which he was passing was muddy he found it difficult to run efficiently and, therefore, had to discard his obstructing pair of Paijama which were found towards the north of the scene of occurrence the direction towards which the appellant had run.Had the defence story not been true there was hardly any reason for the appellant to have discarded his pair of Paijama at that point unmindful of the fact that he was thus rendered seminaked.The argument proceeds that this conclusion is further fortified by the testimony of defence-witness, Pannalal (DW 1) who claimed that he travelled in the bus along with the appellant from Gunaur upto a point ten kilometres from Hinoti where both of them got down from the bus and the appellant went towards his village Khalpura and this witness proceeded towards Hinoti.This witness is also clear that on that day the appellant was carrying his gun and a cloth- bag besides the belt containing live cartridges.As per this witness he was informed by Narayandas of village Hinoti that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and Chhutte Raja at Khalpura and Chhutte Raja had died.The emphasis is that the learned trial Judge could not assign any convincing reason to discard the testimony of this independent defence witness.The learned counsel further contends that considering the impact of the fact of pair of chappals and Jhola being found towards south-west of the place of incident, Gambhir Singh a signatory of sketch map Ex. P 6 during cross-examination denied the correctness of the map and asserted that the pair of chappals and Jhola were found lying towards north of Rariya field where the incident took place (Para 11).This witness has admitted the fact that on the pertinent day there was mud in the field (Para-13) due to rains.Had the prosecution case been true when the appellant is said to have called Gambhir Singh there was no reason for the latter to have unyoked his plough before coming to hear the appellant.Gambhir Singh in first information report has stated in portion marked 'B' that he came to the appellant after unyoking his plough which he denied during cross-examination, in para 17 of his statement.Kalloo (PW 2) has stated in para 15 of his statement that he had seen the appellant discarding his pair of chappals, Jhola, the belt containing cartridges and Paijama while running after the incident but the circumstances belie him as all these articles were not found lying towards north of the scene of occurrence.This witness denied seizures of the foresaid pair of chappals, Jhola and belt containing live cartridges from the embankment of Sarina field which is at south-west from the scene of occurrence.For the reasons aforesaid Hakkiyan alias Johariya (PW 3) has also denied portion marked A' of his case diary statement (Ex. D.2) wherein he had stated that Chhutte Raja and Nanhoo Singh went towards the appellant ailer unyoking their ploughs.Dharampal (PW 6) though admitted the seizure of articles from Sarina field, has asserted that the said field is not in south-west of the scene of occurrence but towards north-west.Ex. P.6 was prepared by I.O., G. M. Swami (PW 7) on information given by Gambhir Singh.Lastly it was argued that since all the eye-witnesses have consistently deposed that the acquitted accused Heerabai had come along with the appellant on the scene of occurrence and the appellant had fired the gun on the exhortation of this lady, therefore, in view of acquittal of Heerabai the said evidence could not have been accepted to convict the present appellant.The best and dependable touchstone for rendering decision in criminal trial was, is and will remain broad human probabilities emerging from a particular case.It may be recalled that all the prosecution witnesses have stated that when the appellant came on the embankment of Rariya field he called Gambhir Singh and when Gambhir Singh went towards him and the two were talking to each other the deceased Nanhoo Raja also left ploughing the field and went towards him.That is why the pellets entered in the neck region downwards obliquely hitting cervical vertebras.The defence version that this injury was caused by accidental fire when the deceased and his associates were trying to snatch the gun from the appellant inside the Rariya field renders this sort of injury impossible.This we hold because if three men overpower one person and try to snatch his weapon in a field their relative positions can never be such when accidental fire would cause an injury of this nature.Dr. Madanlal Kasera (PW 4) in his cross examination admitted the possibility of this injury being caused when the victim was standing below whereas the fire was shot from a comparative height.In such circumstances, after their departure of Gambhir Singh from the scene of occurrence the possibility remains that someone disturbed the placement of these articles and, therefore, on this ground alone, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is not liable to be discarded.Since the defence evidence is found to be completely incompatible with the medical evidence, it is not necessary to find reasons to discard the testimony of the solitary defence witness before upholding the conviction.Then it may be mentioned that the evidence of DW 1 Pannalal is not wholly incompatible with the prosecution case as it is probable that the appellant after returning from Gunaur reached his village and then came on the scene of occurrence.We allowed time to appellant's learned counsel to dispel our view on the incompatibility of the defence version and the medical evidence and all that could be said was that the appellant must have been on the embankment of the field and the victim at a lower level inside the field when the gun went off.But this far from being the defence version is the case of the prosecution.As per the defence the appellant was dragged inside the field when the gun went off.In result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
949,340 | (a) The accused was aged about 38 years who was searching a bride for his marriage and was contacting the parents of Varalakshmi since deceased and after completion of all the formalities of seeing the bride by the accused at the Omandur village, the accused took Varalakshmi for outing.They did not return to Omandur village and on 06.10.2006 Varalakshmi informed her parents about the marriage with the accused at Thirupathi Alamelu Mangapuram temple and when they returned to Omandur the parents of Varalakshmi also approved their marriage and both of them were living in the house belonging to one Vasanthapuram Selvaraj as tenants the accused developed consuming liquor and began to beat Varalakshmi demanding to pay for his expenditure and ill treated her by demanding dowry.In such a way he beat Varalakshmi on 06.12.2007 and he poured kerosene on her and lit fire on her and in the result she died on the spot.(b) The neighbours gave complaint to the police and a case was registered in Cr.No.361/2007 by the respondent police and after completing the investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Vanur and the case was taken on file in P.R.C. No.8/2009 and after completing the procedural formalities the case was committed to Sessions court and the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Villupuram had taken the case on file in S.C.No.109/2009 and made over the case to Fast Track Court No.I for disposal in accordance with law.The lower court had framed necessary charges and had commenced the trial.The accused is the husband of the deceased victim Varalakshmi.Alliance was found out by the brother of the deceased Varalakshmi through internet and after completing the formalities the accused had taken Varalakshmi with him on 11.09.2006 for an outing.When they went for outing in a subsequent occasion they did not return and the victim Varalakshmi had informed her parents on 06.10.2006 that she and the accused had married themselves at Thirupathi Alamelu Mangapuram temple.They also returned to Omandur and the parents of Varalakshmi approved the marriage and gave the accused 3 sovereign of gold bangles and a sum of Rs.2000/- to the newly married couple.They reside in 7th street, Vasanthapuram, Kurinji nagar at Omandur on rental basis and the accused had started consuming liquor and began to beat Varalakshmi demanding for money and ill-treated her.On 06.12.2007 he demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from deceased Varalakshmi and on that dispute he quarrelled with Varalakshmi and poured kerosene on her person and set fire.P.W.1 who was the neighbour living opposite to the house of Varalakshmi had heard the alarming sound raised by the deceased Varalakshmi at about 04.00 p.m on that day and went to the house and saw Varalakshmi was burnt and the accused was standing outside the house and was talking to somebody in his mobile phone.P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 9 were also the neighbour of the deceased Varalkshmi and accused, knew the quarrel had in between the accused and the deceased Varalakshmi.The complaint was given by P.W.1, the neighbour to P.W.22 the Sub Inspector of Police, Auroville Police Station and it was registered in Cr.No.361/2007 u/s. 174 Cr.P.C. For suspicious death.(b) In pursuance of the registration of the case the Revenue Divisional Officer P.W.21 had conducted inquest regarding the death of Varalakshmi since the deceased died in a suspicious circumstance caused by burn injuries within one and half years of their marriage.The investigator P.W.23 had commenced the investigation by examining the witness inspected the place of occurrence and recovered material objects in the presence of witnesses.According to the evidence of P.W.2 the father of the deceased Varalakshmi there he had received phone calls from the deceased daughter while she was living with the accused about the harassment inflicted by the accused against her.The deceased Varalakshmi used to inform him that the accused was drinking alcohol and her life was not settled properly.Nothing was suggested to her regarding the alleged attitude of the deceased Varalakshmi during new moon and full moon days.In these circumstances, the inquest conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer P.W.21 in his report in Ex.P.13 and speak that the accused had harassed the deceased Varalakshmi to bring money for his expenditure and the accused was also having the habit of drinking alcohol and quarrelling with the deceased Varalakshmi.It is also spoken by P.W.21 that whiled the deceased Varalakshmi was burning inside the house the accused was keeping quiet without taking steps to quench the fire or save her.The prosecution examine 24 witnesses and 15 documents and two material objects in order to substantiate its case.The case of the prosecution spoken through the witnesses of the prosecution would be as follows:The investigator also collected blood samples at the place of occurrence and had altered the F.I.R for the offences u/s. 498 (A) and 302 I.P.C. as per the opinion of Revenue Divisional Officer P.W.21 in his report.The body of the deceased was sent by the investigator for conducting autopsy.P.W.10, Doctor, after conducting autopsy issued Post Mortem Certificate- Ex.He had opined that the death was caused due to burn injuries sustained by the victim Varalakshmi.Subsequently the material objects collected were submitted by the investigator for chemical examinations.The second investigating officer P.W.24 had continued the investigation after the transfer of P.W.23 had collected all the reports and filed the charge sheet against the accused.When the incriminating circumstances in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution against the accused were put and was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, he had denied the evidence as false.However no evidence was adduced on his side.Learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath would submit in his argument that the lower court had recorded conviction on both the charges framed by the lower court u/s. 498 (A) I.P.C and 302 I.P.C without sufficient evidence to convict the accused.He would further submit that there was no other evidence as per prosecution case and nothing was spoken by the witnesses of the prosecution to show that the accused was guilty of committing the murder of his wife.He would further submit that the alleged burn for dowry was not spoken by any of the witnesses and even the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer would prove that the accused did not demand any dowry either from the deceased woman nor from the parents of the deceased Varalakshmi and yet the accused was convicted under Section 498 A I.P.C. Apart from that he would further argue that the witnesses did not also speak about the demand of dowry and it was not proved before the court that the accused was demanding dowry and thereby committed the offence u/s. 498 (A) I.P.C. He would further submit in his argument that no reliance can be placed over Ex.P.1 complaint, since it was prepared by police after due deliberation.Actually police went to the spot and received the written complaint at the spot.P.W.1 would speak to the effect that she had put only her thumb impression.She did not speak about the giving of the complaint.He would also submit in his argument that the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that the deceased Varalakshmi and the accused married on their own decision and they were living happily and there was no misunderstanding or quarrel in between them.Therefore the charge u/s. 498 (A) alleging dowry harassment and cruelty inflicted over the deceased woman has not legs to stand.He would also submit that the alleged harassment was not true and and there was no previous complaint against the accused made by the deceased and therefore the prosecution case that dowry harassment and cruelty on the deceased Varalakshmi resulted in the death of deceased Varalakshmi cannot be believed.He would further submit in his argument that the report of Revenue Divisional Officer filed in Ex.P.13 would show that the accused did not demand dowry from his wife and therefore the lower court ought to have found that there was no cruelty meted out by the deceased at the hands of the accused.He would further submit in his argument the alleged arrest and recording of the confession leading to recovery cannot be sustained because it was a stage managed one.The non examination of the ocular witness would leave vacuum and it cannot be filled by the circumstantial evidence as adduced in this case.He would also submit that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was not completed and therefore the accused ought to have been acquitted and the appeal be allowed, thus.On giving anxious thoughts to the arguments advancedon either side it could be seen that the deceased Varalakshmi and the accused were married after they acquainted each other through internet and the marriage had taken place in Thirupathi Alamelu Mangapuram temple and their marriage was also recognised by the parents of the deceased Varalakshmi.The accused was living with the deceased at Door No.4/1132 at 7th street, Kurunji nagar, Vasanthapuram, Omandur.P.Ws.1,5,6,7 and 9 who are the neighbours living in the said vicinity where the accused and the deceased were living have spoken to the effect that on 06.121.2007 at about 04.00 p.m they heard the screaming noise and also noticed the smoke coming from the house of the accused who was standing outside the house and was talking in his mobile phone casually.When they went inside the hall the deceased Varalakshmi was seen burnt all over her body and was lying to the floor on her anterior side of the body.Therefore a complaint was preferred by P.W.1 immediately to the police and the investigation was commenced.Admittedly there was no ocular evidence produced by the prosecution.The said complaint was received by the police from P.W.1 on the spot, as the accused did not give any complaint.According to the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1,5,6,7 and 9 the accused was present at the place of occurrence.However it was denied by the accused in his reply during 313 questioning.He would give an explanation that the deceased Varalakshmi was having some troubles during new moon days and full moon days and she also used to harass the accused in such circumstances only she had also committed self immolation and for that he was not the cause of the incident.In the Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.4 was produced by P.W.10 on a careful perusal of the said document we could see the burn injuries sustained by the deceased Varalakshmi was 100%.Therefore, there could not be any dispute that the death of Varalakshmi was caused due to the burn injuries sustained by her.The cause of the injury was stated to be pouring kerosene on her person and liting on fire.The chemical reports produced in Ex.P.5, P.7 and Ex.P.8 would prove that kerosene was used on the body of the deceased Varalakshmi for promoting fire and therefore Kerosene was poured on her body and the fire was ignited for getting burn injuries all over the body of the deceased.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1,5,6,7 and 9, the neighbours that the accused was standing quietly speaking in his mobile phone they also saw the smoke coming out from the house of the accused and they found the body of the deceased Varalakshmi inside the house, with full of burn injuries.The evidence would show that if really the deceased Varalakshmi had poured kerosene and set fire herself the accused would have attempted to save her from the burn injuries and it would not have gone up to 100% of burn injuries.The deceased Varalakshmi was working in Bombay for several years before her marriage and she returned to her native place for getting marriage.Thereafter, the accused was found through internet and marriage was solemnised in between them and she was leading quite a happy life during her earlier days of marriage and thereafter she had been harassed by the accused after consuming liquor.All the evidence placed before the trial court are pointing towards the accused who was present along with the deceased Varalakshmi at the house during the time of occurrence.The accused who is under the obligation of explaining the cause of death of deceased Varalakshmi had not given any proper explanation.There is no doubt that he was last seen at the house along with Varalakshmi.None of the witnesses namely P.Ws.1,5,6,7 and 9 had spoken about the alleged disability of the deceased Varalakshmi.If it is a self immolation for committing suicide or due to the alleged disability of the deceased, the accused who was present at the house with the deceased would have attempted to quench the fire or to raise alarm for help from the neighbours.Buthe was seen by the witnesses P.W.1m5,6,7 and 9, talking in a cell phone.The 100% burn injuries sustained by the deceased would also disprove the case of the accused.Therefore, the explanation of the accused cannot be accepted at any stretch of imagination.In the aforesaid circumstances, it is the accused who failed to explain the death of deceased Varalakshmi would be the cause for the death of deceased Varalakshmi.The 100% burn injuries found on the body of the deceased would go a long way to show it is the accused who had poured kerosene on the body of the deceased Varalakshmi and lit fire.That is why the accused did not attempt to save her or to quench the fire or to take the deceased who sustained burn injuries to the hospital or to give complaint to the police.In the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the lower court that the accused was the cause for the murder of the deceased wife Varalakshmi is unassailable.However the lower court had come to the conclusion of finding the accused guilty u/s. 498(A).The evidence of the father P.W.2 and sister P.W.3 would go to show that the harassment meted out by the deceased Varalakshmi was to the effect of demanding money from her and there was no demand of dowry from the parents of the deceased Varalakshmi in consideration of his marriage with deceased Varalakshmi.The evidence of P.W.21 Revenue Divisional Officer would also disclose that there was no dowry harassment.Therefore the finding of the lower court that the accused was guilty of offence u/s. 498(A) I.P.C is not sustainable.For the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence passed against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C. is confirmed and accordingly stands unaltered.Thus the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused u/s. 498(A) I.P.C. The conviction and sentence passed u/s. 302 I.P.C. stands confirmed and the appeal in this regard is dismissed.The fine amount if any paid for the offence u/s. 498 (A) I.P.C shall be returned to the appellant.(M.C.,J.) (V.P.K.,J.) 02.12.2009Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NokprToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Tindivanam.2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch VillupuramThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.andV.PERIYA KARUPPIAH,J.Kpr Crl. | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
949,424 | Ramrao Anaji Wankhede lodged report at Kuntur Police Station, Dist.On 20-8-1990, he reported that his sister Ansabai got married with Madhavrao Shankar Kadam about five years prior to that date.Dowry Rs. 14,000/- and 5 gms.gold was agreed to be given.At the time to marriage, cash Rs. 10,000/- one tape-recorder and one electric fan were given to Madhavrao.The balance of dowry Rs. 4,000/- and 5 gms.gold was to be given at the time of next harvesting season.However, he could not give the amount and gold.So his sister was being illtreated by her husband and mother-in-law.His sister was telling him about the same.So on next harvesting season, he gave Rs. 2,000/- but cash Rs. 2,000/- and 5 gms.gold could not be given immediately.At that time, she was again telling him that unless the cash and gold were given, her marital life will not go on.On 9-8-1990, Shankar, her father-in-law, had come to the house of Ramrao to take back Ansabai to her matrimonial house.He demanded cash Rs. 2,000/- and 5 gms.gold and picked quarrel.Then Ranguji Patil and Gopal Patil -the two villagers, and he himself requested Shankar that the cash and gold will be given on the next harvesting season and Ansabai be taken back for cohabitation.Then Ansabai went to her husband's house with her father-in-law.On 19-8-1990, two persons came from village Janerao Hipparga, the native of Madhavrao, at about 5 p.m. on motorcycle and gave the message that Ansabai had fallen in well and had died.Then the Crime No. 71/90/ was registered for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. The Police took up the investigation.Prior to that, Dasharath Kadam, the Police Patil of village Hipparga, had lodged report at Police Station, Kuntur, on 19-8-1990, that Ansabai @ Ashabai had fallen in the well and had died.So the accidental Death No. 21/90 was registered and Police had started enquiry about the same.The inquest panchanama of the dead body and the panchanama of the spot were prepared by the Police.The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to Rural Hospital, Biloli.ORDER V.K. Barde, J.The three appellants faced charge for offences punishable under section 498-A r/w 34, 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 9/1993 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, and were convicted and sentenced for the said offences.Hence, the present appeal.The doctor reported that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning.After the further investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Madhavrao-husband of deceased Ansabai, his father Shankarrao and mother Sunderabai.The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Nanded.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, framed charge against the accused-appellants for the said offences.The accused pleaded not guilty and they have contended that the case is false.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses and statement of accused, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the offences punishable under section 304-B r/w 34 of I.PC.and under section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. against all the accused and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. and R.I. for 7 years each for offence punishable under section 304-B r/w of I.P.C. He directed substantive sentences to run concurrently.The appeal is filed on the grounds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the situation of the well from which the dead body of Ansabai was recovered.There was no protective wall around the well and the possibility that Ansabai falling in the well and dying due to accident cannot be ruled out.The appellants, therefore, have prayed that the conviction and sentence be set aside and they be acquitted.Heard Shri A.H. Kapadia, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri V.B. Ghadge, learned A.P.P. for respondent.It is not in dispute that Ansabai wife of accused-appellant Madhavrao died due to drowning in the well.The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that merely because death has taken place due to drowning, the Court cannot jump to the conclusion that the death had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances.The prosecution has to prove other ingredients of section 304-B of I.PC.and the prosecution has failed to make out the case.While the learned A.P.P. has argued that there is the evidence of near relatives and other witnesses showing that Ansabai was being illtreated because part of agreed dowry cash Rs. 2,000/- and 5 gms.gold were not given.She was, therefore, being treated with cruelty.The death has taken place within 7 years from the date of marriage and so this is a clear case for offence punishable under section 304-B of I.P.C.To make out the case under section 304-B of I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the death had taken place within 7 years of the marriage.In the F.I.R. Exhibit 27, he has mentioned that the marriage had taken place approximately 5 years ago.Anaji -P.W. 2- father of Ansabai has stated in his deposition at Exhibit 28 that the marriage of Ansabai took place about 5 years prior to her death.Raghunath P.W. 3 who is from village Sawarkheda has also stated that marriage of Ansabai took place about five years prior to her death.The learned A.P.P. has pointed out that no prosecution witness is challenged in the cross-examination regarding these statements.So it can be held that the prosecution has proved that the marriage took place in the year 1985 while Ansabai died in the year 1990 i.e. within 7 years from the date of marriage.So even if the statements of prosecution witnesses are not challenged in their respective cross-examinations, the accused has taken the stand that the marriage took place more than 7 years prior to the death of Ansabai and the prosecution has failed to prove this fact specifically.He also pointed out that no documentary evidence is produced on record regarding date of marriage.Only vague statements are made by the witnesses.The date of marriage is not mentioned by any of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has not clearly established that the marriage took place about 5 years back prior to death of Ansabai.It is one of the most important ingredients of section 304-B of I.P.C. that the prosecution must prove that the death took place within 7 years from the date of marriage.Merely because the accused has not specifically challenged the statement in the cross-examination, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved that the death took place within 7 years from the date of marriage.The date of the marriage ought to have been proved by the prosecution.But the prosecution has not proved the date of marriage and the prosecution is relying on the vague statements of the witnesses that the marriage took place about 5 years prior to the death of Ansabai.This important ingredient that the death took place within 7 years from the marriage is not proved by the prosecution.The further important ingredient which the prosecution must prove is that it must be shown that soon before the death, the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry.It means that the prosecution must prove that there was an agreement for dowry in connection with the marriage that there was demand for the dowry and that on account of non-fulfilment of that demand, there was treatment with cruelty or harassment of the wife.The prosecution has examined the abovenamed 5 witnesses to prove that there was an agreement for dowry.The learned A.P.P. has stated that all these 5 witnesses are the close relatives.Ramrao Anaji, Bhujangrao and Govindrao have stated that the dowry Rs. 14,000/- and 5 gms.gold was agreed to be given while settling the marriage of Ansabai with Madhavrao.The learned A.P.P. has argued that all these 4 witnesses are near relatives of Ansabai and in ordinary course, they should know about the settlement of marriage and the details regarding the same.So their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are near relatives.The learned A.P.P. has also pointed out that in the F.I.R. Exhibit 27 itself, it is mentioned that dowry Rs. 14,000/- and 5 gms.gold were agreed upon.So the prosecution has established that there was agreement for dowry.The learned Counsel for appellants has argued that all these witnesses are very interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon.But in the given circumstances, it has to be taken into consideration that only the interested witnesses, that means the near relatives of the wife, would state about the agreement of dowry and even about payment of dowry.So the evidence of these witnesses can not be discarded only because they are near relatives of deceased Ansabai.However, amount of Rs. 4,000/- and 5 gms.gold could not be given.These witnesses have further stated that one year or two years after the marriage, amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to the accused.Even then amount of Rs. 2,000/- and 5 gms.gold remained to be given.It is the case of the prosecution that Ansabai was being illtreated by her husband and in-laws for not paying the entire amount of dowry.However, it has to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that any serious incident had taken place during the period of 5 years indicating that Ansabai was being treated with cruelty for not paying the dowry.On the contrary, it appears from the evidence of brother and father of Ansabai that Ansabai was visiting her parents' house practically on all festivals and was going back to her matrimonial house for cohabitation.No doubt the witnesses are stating that Ansabai was stating that she was being treated with cruelty, but these are very vague statements.The witnesses have not stated exactly what type of treatment was being given to Ansabai to come to the conclusion that she was being treated with cruelty.Ramrao, the brother of Ansabai, in his deposition at Exhibit 26 and Anaji, father of Ansabai, in his deposition at Exhibit 28, have stated that they felt that because of illtreatment being given to Ansabai, she be not sent for cohabitation.The learned A.P.P. has argued that this statement indicates that there was serious type of illtreatment to Ansabai.However, here again, these are very vague statements.It is not mentioned what type of illtreatment was being given.It is not mentioned when they felt about the seriousness of illtreatment, whether immediately after the marriage or some years after the marriage.The evidence of all these witnesses if at all is taken into consideration, it would mean that the accused were not insisting on immediate payment of dowry, but they were making repeated demands.Here one more circumstance has to be noted that Ansabai was pregnant for the first time after the marriage, but she suffered abortion in 5th or 6th month of pregnancy.Even thereafter she continued to cohabit with the accused No.1-Madhavrao.There is nothing on record indicating that this incident aggrevated any way the cruel treatment being given to Ansabai.On the contrary, the normal life continued.It is specifically contended by the prosecution witnesses that about 8 to 10 days prior to death of Ansabai, Ansabai was staying at her father's house.She had been there for Nag-panchami festival.Her father-in-law-accused No. 2 had been to the house of Anaji to take back Ansabai and at that time he picked up quarrel on the ground that cash Rs. 2,000/- and 5 gms.gold were not given.Father and brother of Ansabai requested him to take back Ansabai for cohabitation.Raghunath and Gopal then were called and in their presence, Anaji told the accused No. 2-Shankar that the cash and gold would be given at the time of next harvesting season and then only Shankar agreed to take back Ansabai to his house.However, it is rather difficult to believe that Raghunath and Gopal were present when the accused No. 2 picked up the quarrel.Raghunath has stated that he and Gopal were passing by the road and they were called in the house by Anaji.Anaji has stated to that effect.Why suddenly two villagers passing by the road should be called.They were not close relatives of either Anaji or Shankar.It appears that to make out the case that only 8 to 10 days prior to death of Ansabai, there was demand for the cash and gold, the witnesses are stating so.Merely because Raghunath has corroborated the evidence of Ramrao and Anaji on this point, the evidence cannot be accepted at its face value.There are two important circumstances which create doubt about the contention of the prosecution case that Ansabai was being treated with cruelty.One of the important circumstance is that at the time of death of Ansabai, she was pregnant of 4 months.Ramrao and Anaji were knowing that she was pregnant.That means her husband and parents-in-law also must be knowing that she was pregnant.This circumstance indicates that otherwise the married life was normal.Not only that she was pregnant, but she had been to the house of her parents for Nag-panchami festival and she had returned to her husband's house in the company of her father-in-law alter the festival.It is neither in the F.I.R. nor in the deposition of Ramrao and Anaji that when she had come last time for Nag-panchamifestival, she told that she was being treated with cruelty for not giving the remaining dowry.So it cannot be said that soon before death of Ansabai, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment.If that had been the situation, the witnesses would have stated that Ansabai told them that she was being treated with cruelty and they also would have stated what type of treatment she was given.Two persons from Hipparga went on motorcycle to give the message to Anaji and his family members.But neither Ramrao nor Anaji immediately went to village Hipparga.They have stated that it was raining heavily and, therefore, they could not go to village Hipparga, but when two persons could go to their village Sawarkheda from Hipparga to give the message of death of Ansabai, how can it be said that the lather and brother of Ansabai could not go to Hipparga on the very day.From the evidence of Ramrao and Anaji, it appears that on the next day i.e. on 20-8-1990, Ramrao went to Police Station, Kuntur, to lodge report against the accused without even caring to see the dead body of his sister and Anaji went to village Hipp-arga.This is rather strange behaviour of the father and brother.It appears that there was some dispute regarding the dowry.Probably the entire agreed dowry was not given to the accused and that prompted Anaji and Ramrao to lodge report against the accused when they learnt about the death of Ansabai.While considering the case under section 304-B of I.P.C., it must be found out whether the prosecution has proved that the wife was being treated with cruelty or with harassment.The words "cruelty" and "harassment" are explained in the Explanation given to section 498-A of the I.P.C. The Court has to find out whether the prosecution has proved the case by stating exactly what type of treatment was being given to the deceased wife, by her husband and in-laws, to brand that treatment as cruelty or harassment.No doubt the cruelty and harassment can be caused by infinite means, but in a particular case, the prosecution has to state exactly what was being done to hold that it was cruelty or harassment.It is not sufficient to use only these words while giving the evidence through the mouth of witnesses.In the present case, the witnesses are merely stating that Ansabai was being illtreated by the accused.This much evidence is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has made out the case under section 304-B of I.P.C. or under section 498-A of I.P.C.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that there was cruelty to Ansabai, but he has come to that conclusion only on the basis of the evidence that there was some dispute regarding non-payment of dowry and that Ansabai died due to drowning.He has lost sight of the circumstances that the period of 5 to 7 years of marriage, whatever it may be, was otherwise normal.Ansabai was visiting her parents' house every now and then and was returning to her husband's house for cohabitation.She was once pregnant, but suffered abortion and again at the time of death, she was pregnant.Only 8 to 10 days prior to her death, she had been to the house of her parents, but there was no serious complaint from her stating her parents and brother that she was being subjected to particular type of harassment or cruelty by her husband and in-laws.So if Ansabai had gone to well to draw water, the possibility that she fell accidentally in the well cannot be ruled out.There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any immediate reason for her on that morning to commit suicide.There is also nothing on record to indicate that some foul play was played and, therefore, she fell into the well.The defence of the accused is that it was death due to accident and that is a probable explanation given by the accused which cannot be brushed aside.Thus, it will be seen that there is no clear, sufficient and reliable evidence to hold that the deceased Ansabai was being treated with cruelty or was being harassed soon before her death on account of non-payment of dowry, and, therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 304-B r/w 34 of I.P.C. has to be set aside.As the same evidence has to be considered for application of section 498-A of I.P.C., the same conclusion will have to be drawn that the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. has to be set aside.The accused appellants are being acquitted for the said offences.Hence, the appeal is allowed.The order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 9/93 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, for offences punishable under section 304-B r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. set aside.The appellants-accused are acquitted for the said offences.Fine if paid be refunded.Appeal allowed. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,950,774 | Registered Medical Practitioner is defined in Section 2(d) of the MTP As under :-"Registered Medical Practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses any recognised medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, whose name has been entered in a State Medical Register and who has such experience or training in gynecology and obstetrics as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.There is no dispute that the petitioners Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe and Dr. Madhuri Kothari, each, are having qualification M.B.B.S., D.G.O. Their names have been registered in the State Medical Register.Bhagyashri Dunakhe and Dr.Madhuri Kothari as the registered Medical Practitioners employed in the MTP Centre, who were having the requisite qualifications and experience in Gynecology and Obstetrics.In Clause No. (10), again the names of both of these petitioners were mentioned as the full-time trained Doctors working at the Centre.The inspection report of the Civil Surgeon shows that Dr.JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 28th AUGUST, 2018 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2018COMMON JUDGMENT :Rule, made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P., heard finally.Both of the above numbered Criminal Writ Petitions have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 15th January, 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.9 of 2015 and 21 of 2015, confirming the common order dated 17th January, 2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.2), Gangapur below applications (Exh.3-A, 3-B and 6) in Regular Criminal Case (RCC) No.395 of 2013, by which the applications filed by the petitioners for their discharge of the offences punishable under Sections 5 (2) (3) and (4) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ("MTP Act", for short), under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949 ("MNHR Act", for short) and under Sections 109, 111 and 113 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 3 criwp330-496-2018short) were rejected.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::It is alleged that accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain started Pooja Nursing Home at Ranjangaon (Shenpunji), Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad and did not renew the registration thereof.He further started the Centre for Medical Termination of Pregnancy ("MTP", for short) in the names of the present petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe (accused No.6) and accused No.5 namely Dr. Sandhya Pantoji and carried out MTPs with the help of the petitioner Dr. Madhuri Kothari (accused No.7).According to the prosecution, the petitioners abetted accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain in running MTP Centre unauthorizedly.After conducting further investigation, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against Dr. Sandhya Pantoji and the present petitioners on 2nd October, 2014 for the same offences.The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that both the petitioners are qualified registered ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 4 criwp330-496-2018Medical Practitioners, as defined under Section 2 (d) of the MTP Act. The MTP Centre was duly registered by Dr. Sandhya Pantoji, who was M.D. (Gynecology) and as such a Registered Medical Practitioner.They submit that though the petitioners, in fact, did not conduct MTPs in the MTP Centre of Dr. Sandhya Pantoji, but even if it is accepted for a while that they conducted MTPs, they being the qualified Registered Medical Practitioners and the MTPs being conducted at the MTP Centre duly approved by the Government, they cannot be connected with the offences punishable under Sections 5 (2) and (3) of the MTP Act.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::They further submit that Pooja Nursing Home seems to have been registered in the name of accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain.The petitioners had no concern whatsoever with Pooja Nursing Home.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that there is no provision in the MTP Act for renewal of the registration certificate for MTP ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 5 criwp330-496-2018Centre.As per Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 ("MTP Rules", for short), the place approved under Rule 5 has to be inspected by the Chief Medical Officer of the District as often as may be necessary with a view to verify whether termination of pregnancies is being done therein under safe and hygienic conditions.As per Rule 7, if, after inspection of any place approved under Rule 5, the Chief Medical Officer of the District is satisfied that the facilities specified in Rule 5 are not being properly maintained therein and the termination of pregnancy at such place cannot be made under safe and hygienic conditions, he shall make a report of the fact to the committee giving the detail of the deficiencies or defects found at the place and the committee might, if it is satisfied, suspend or cancel the approval provided that the committee should give an opportunity of making representation to the owner of the place before the certificate issued under Rule 5 is cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::It ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 6 criwp330-496-2018was inspected by the Chief Medical Officer of the district from time to time.It is only on 13 th June, 2012 that the informant namely Dr. Dilip Dange, Medical Superintendent, Sub-District Hospital, Gangapur found the deficiencies in the MTP Centre.Instead of Dr. Sandhya Pantoji and the petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe, the petitioner Dr. Madhuri Kothari was found to have conducted the MTPs in the said Centre.According to them, if any unauthorised Medical Practitioner conducts MTP, he/she would be liable to be punished under the provisions of the MTP Act. Since Dr. Madhuri Kothari was a Registered Medical Practitioner, it cannot be said that she committed any offence under the said Act.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::According to the learned counsel, the petitioners cannot be said to have abetted Dr. Mahendra Jain (accused No.1) in running MTP Centre unauthorizedly and conducting MTPs therein.These petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 7 criwp330-496-2018consider the facts of the case properly and wrongly rejected the applications of the petitioners for their discharge of the above mentioned offences.The learned counsel, therefore, pray that the petitioners may be discharged of the said offences.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::The learned A.P.P. strongly resisted the petitions.She submits that Pooja Nursing Home is registered in the name of accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain as its owner, while in the MTP Centre approval certificate, accused No.5 Dr. Sandhya Pantoji is shown as the owner of Pooja Nursing Home.In the certificate of approval of MTP Centre, the name of the petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe is shown as the Surgeon.The name of the petitioner Dr. Madhuri Kothari is not mentioned in the certificate.However, from the papers of investigation and the statements of the witnesses, it would be clear that instead of Dr. Sandhya Pantoji (accused No.5) and the petitioner Dr.Bhagyashri Dunakhe, the petitioner Dr. Madhuri Kothari was conducting MTPs in the said Centre.Since the name of Dr. Madhuri Kothari was not mentioned in the certificate, she was not authorized to conduct MTPs in that Centre.The learned A.P.P. submits that Dr. ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 8 criwp330-496-2018Bhagyashri Dunakhe got the certificate registered by showing her to be the Surgeon, who was going to conduct MTPS, but did not actually conduct MTPs.She facilitated accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain and Dr. Madhuri Kothari to conduct MTPs unauthorizedly.Therefore, Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe has been rightly connected with the offence of abetting accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain and Dr. Madhuri Kothari in committing the offence under Section 5 (2), (3) and (4) of the MTP Act. There is strong prima facie case made out against the petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe for the said offence.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::The learned A.P.P. further submits that since the name of Dr. Madhuri Kothari was not mentioned in the certificate of approval, she cannot be said to be an authorized Medical Practitioner to conduct MTPs in the MTP Centre standing in the name of Dr. Sandhya Pantoji.As such, a strong prima facie case is made out against Dr. Madhuri Kothari under Section 5 (2) of the MTP Act.The learned A.P.P. submits that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences.The learned ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 9 criwp330-496-2018Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners for their discharge of the above mentioned offences.She supports the impugned orders and prays that the Writ Petitions may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::As per Section 3 (1) of the MTP Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, a Registered Medical Practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.As per Section 4 of the MTP Act, no termination of pregnancy shall be made in accordance with the Act at any place other than -(a) a hospital established or maintained by Government, or(b) a place for the time being approved for the purpose of this Act by Government........Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the MTP Act prescribes punishment for termination of pregnancy by a person who is not a Registered Medical Practitioner, while sub-section (3) provides that whoever terminates ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 10 criwp330-496-2018any pregnancy in a place other than that mentioned in section 4 shall be punishable.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::There is no dispute that they have requisite experience as well as training in gynecology and obstetrics as prescribed under Rule 4 of the MTP Rules.As such, ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 11 criwp330-496-2018they are Registered Medical Practitioners as defined in Section 2(d) of the MTP Act.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::The MTP Centre has been registered in the name of Dr. Sandhya Pantoji, who is M.D. (Gynecology), as the owner thereof as seen from the certificate of approval dated 9th March, 2006 issued by the Joint Secretary, Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra.The papers of investigation show that Dr. Sandhya Pantoji had filed an application in the prescribed form for seeking approval to the proposed MTP Centre.In Clause No. (8) of that application, she had given the names of the petitioners Dr.Bhagyashri Dunakhe was named against Clause No. (4) as the Registered Medical Practitioner having experience in Gynecology and Obstetrics, while in Clause No.(6), the petitioner Dr. Madhuri Kothari was ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 12 criwp330-496-2018shown as the Assistant having the requisite qualification and experience.In Clause No.(8) also, there is reference of the petitioner Dr. Madhuri Kothari as the person assisting the MTP with minimum three years experience.It is, thus, clear that Dr. Sandhya Pantoji had mentioned the names of both of these petitioners in her application as the persons who were going to conduct MTPs in the proposed MTP Centre.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::As per Rule 5 (2) of the MTP Rules, every application for the approval of a place shall be in Form "A" and shall be addressed to the Chief Medical Officer of the District.They were authorized to conduct MTP in any approved MTP Centre.Even if it is accepted that Dr. Madhuri Kothari conducted MTPs in the MTP Centre standing in the name of Dr. Sandhya Pantoji, the said Centre being approved one, she cannot be said to have committed any offence either under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MTP Act.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::13 criwp330-496-2018It is alleged that the petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe and Dr. Sandhya Pantoji got the MTP Centre approved, but they did not actually conduct MTPs.They abetted accused No.1 Dr. Mahendra Jain to conduct MTPs unauthorizedly.I do not find any substance in these allegations.As per Rule 6 of the MTP Rules, a place approved under rule 5 may be inspected by the Chief Medical Officer of the District, as often as may be necessary with a view to verify whether termination of pregnancies is being done therein under safe and hygienic conditions.As per Rule 7, if, after inspection of any place approved under rule 5, the Chief Medical Officer of the District is satisfied that the facilities specified in rule 5 are not being properly maintained therein and the termination of pregnancy at such place cannot be made under safe and hygienic conditions, he shall make a report of the fact to the committee giving the detail of the deficiencies or defects found at the place and the committee may, if it is satisfied, suspend or cancel the approval provided that the committee shall give an opportunity of making representation to the owner of the place before the ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 14 criwp330-496-2018certificate issued under rule 5 is cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::As per Rule 6 of the MTP Rules, it must have been inspected by the Chief Medical Officer of the district periodically.He must have inspected the registers maintained in the said Centre.However, it is strange to note that the Chief Medical Officer of the district never found any deficiencies or defects in the said Centre.It is only on 13th June, 2012 that the said Centre was inspected by Dr. Dilip Dange, the Medical Superintendent and it was alleged that the petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe did not conduct MTPs herself but abetted Dr. Mahendra Jain (accused No.1) in conducting MTPs unauthorizedly though the said Centre was approved on her giving undertaking that she would conduct MTPs therein.It seems that Dr. Sandhya Pantoji had given the name of the petitioner Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe in her application for approval of the Centre and her name accordingly was mentioned in the approval certificate.There is nothing on record to show that Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe was gaining anything wrongfully from Dr. Mahendra Jain for facilitating him to conduct MTPs in the said Centre.No patient has ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 15 criwp330-496-2018made any allegation against Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe.Prima facie, Dr. Bhagyashri Dunakhe cannot be said to have abetted Dr. Mahendra Jain to do so.On the contrary, the concerned Medical Officer, who was supposed to periodically inspect the said Centre, seems to be responsible in allowing Dr. Mahendra Jain to conduct MTPs therein because even after inspecting the said Centre, no deficiency or defect was brought by him to the notice of the Committee as required under Rule 7 (1) of the MTP Rules.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::So far as the offence under Section 6 of the MNHR Act is concerned, it will be against Dr. Mahendra Jain only since he is shown to be the owner of Pooja Nursing Home.They have been wrongly connected with the above mentioned offences.The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge did ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: 16 criwp330-496-2018not consider the facts of the case in their proper perspective and wrongly held that there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences.In the circumstance, asking the petitioners to face the ordeal of trial would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct.They are liable to be quashed and set aside.In the result, I pass the following order:-::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.(ii) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.(iii) The petitioners are discharged of the offences alleged against them.(iv) The bail bonds of the petitioners are cancelled.They are set at liberty.(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.(vi) The Writ Petitions are disposed of.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGEnpj/criwp330-496-2018 ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2018 01:51:45 ::: | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,958,251 | 2. Facts in brief are that on 31.07.2015 prosecutrix, aged 16 years, had gone to the school but didn't return home from the school.Her mother informed her grandfather at the farm land.They searched for her in village and also at the places of relatives.During the search, they came to know that the Cr.A. No.3295/2018 (Rahul vs. State of M.P.) 2 accused was also not at home.(Delivered on 23rd day of July, 2018) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 22/03/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.346/2015 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, district-Shajapur, whereby the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years and 5 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- each respectively; in default of payment of fine further to undergo 6 months RI each, the appellant has preferred this appeal.Suspecting that he has taken away the prosecutrix, grandfather informed police Kalapipal.The Police registered Crime No.301/15 u/S 363 & 366 of IPC.The police recovered the prosecutrix.On next day i.e. 01/08/2015 from railway station, Indore and produced her before the Judicial Magistrate who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The police also seized documents i.e. scholar register, school leaving certificate and mark-sheet from her school to establish her date of birth.After arresting the accused, the police filed the charge-sheet.Accused was charged, tried and convicted as stated in para-1 above.The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts of the case.Learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the document relating to the age of the prosecutrix particularly the document produced by the defence.Whereas in the court statement she took a somersault and levelled allegations against the appellant.I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.Statement of prosecutrix recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/13) reads thus:-"1& eSa xzke csgjkoy esa jgrh gwa vkSj d{kk 11 oha esa i<+rh gwaA eS esjs xkao ds gh jgus okys jkgqy cykbZ dks 6&7 o"kZ iwoZ ls tkurh gwaA eS vkSj jkgqy ,d&nwljs dks ilUn djrs gS vkSj 'kknh djuk pkgrs gSA eSa vkSj jkgqy Cr.A. No.3295/2018 (Rahul vs. State of M.P.) 4 vkil esa ckr djrs gS ;g ckr esjs eEeh lkSje ckbZ o firk y[kuyky dks irk py x;h rks mUgksusa eq>s le>k;k FkkA eEeh ikik us esjh 2&3 eghus igys [kjnksu xkao esa ftrsUnz uke ds yM+ds ls dj nh gS ysfdu lxkbZ ds ckn Hkh eSa jkgqy ls ckr djrh FkhA jkgqy us eq>s dgk Fkk fd rqe dkykihiy vk tkuk vkSj ge nksuksa 'kknh dj ysaxs] eSus Hkh gka dj nh blfy, eSa jkgqy ds lkFk fnukad 31-7-15 dks 'kke ds le; fdlh dks fcuk crk;s dkykihiy ls viuh ethZ ls Vsu esa cSBdj mTtSu pyh xbZ Fkh jkgqy Hkh mlh jkr esa dkykihiy ls Vsu esa cSBdj mTtSu vk x;kA ml jkr dks ge nksuksa mTtSu Lvs'ku ij igqaps vkSj LVs'ku ij gh jkr :ds FksA ge nksuksa cSaxyksj tkuk pkg jgs Fks ysfdu Vsu ugh gksus ls ogha jsYos LVs'ku ij cSBs Fks brus esa esjs ikik ogka vk x;s] ikik dks ns[kdj jkgqy eq>s ogha IysVQkeZ ij NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA ikik us eq>s idM+ fy;k vkSj fQj iqfyl dks Qksu yxk;k mlds ckn iqfyl vk;h rks oks eq>s vkSj ikik dks ysdj dkykihiy vk x;hA jkgqy eq>s 'kknh ds fy, Hkxkdj ysdj tk jgk Fkk ysfdu jkgqy us esjs lkFk dksbZ xyr gjdr o [kksVk dke ugh fd;kA eSa viuh bPNk ls vius eEeh ikik ds lkFk tkuk pkgrh gwaA"Cr.A. No.3295/2018 (Rahul vs. State of M.P.)Before recording this statement, learned Judicial Magistrate has complied with the conditions stipulated for recording such statement.He explained her rights and its repercussions to the prosecutrix and after ensuring that she is giving her statement voluntarily, recorded her statement.In both these pretrial statements the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the appellant.I have considered statement of witnesses produced by rival parties and also the record proved by them.First of all, it would be apt to mention that the defence has produced record of the Govt. Girls Primary School while the record produced by the prosecution is record of a private school.Certainly, Public Document has to be given more weightage in comparison to Private Document more particularly when we also have reasons to do so.A presumption; though rebuttable, is also attached to the Public Document.Until and unless something contrary is proved, the Public Documents shall be treated as true.Now we consider the merits.So far as entries in the scholar register Ex.P/9 is concerned, The Principal of Satayam Shiksha Niketan Purushottam PW/8 has admitted that in this document (Ex.P/9), the date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned on the basis of the record of the primary section of the school and undisputedly, in the matriculation mark-sheet, the date of birth is mentioned on the basis of this scholar register.The Prosecutrix, her parents so also the Principal of Cr.A. No.3295/2018 (Rahul vs. State of M.P.) 7 Satyam Shiksha Niketan High School, Bherhawal, a private school have claimed that since beginning i.e. Class-I, the prosecutrix has studied in this Satyam Shiksha Niketan but when been asked, they failed to produce record of admission of the prosecutrix in Class-I to Class-V, which is the basic document for making entries in the later documents like scholar register of Class-IX or the matriculation mark-sheet.Principal, Purushottam (P.W.8), who has produced those document has admitted in his cross-examination that no document regarding admission of the prosecutrix in Class-I up to Class-V are available in his school.To escape from responsibility, he come forward with explanation that in the preceding year of his statement i.e. in the year 2015, the said record got vanished as room in which the record was kept, submerged in the rainwater due to heavy rains.No evidence regarding heavy rains or accumulation of rainwater is produced and at one place they are saying that the record of Class-I to V is got destroyed due to rainwater, but at the same time, they are claiming that record from VIth standard onward was available with them.I have reasons to doubt the opinion expressed by the learned trial Court.Considering the facts and the evidence in totality, in my considered view, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution doubtful, guilt of the appellant cannot be upheld on such evidence.The evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of reliability and is unsafe to record conviction. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,496,783 | This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashment of criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners vide Crime No.81/2014 for commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 506/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of aforesaid offences, a criminal case vide R.T. No.5692/2014 was registered against the petitioners before the Judcial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal.It is fact that a compromise has been entered between the complainant/respondent No.2-Neha Shakya before the Lower Court and the petitioners.They appeared before the Registrar (J- I) and their statements were recorded by the Registrar (J-I).The Registrar has made following report on 19.10.2016 after recording statements of the parties in regard to compromise:"Vide order dated 19.10.2016 Hon'ble the Court has directed to verify and record the compromise between Respondent No.2/complainant and accused/applicants. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
949,683 | The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-(a) P.W.1 Jeevanandam is the elder brother and P.W.2Panchavarnam is the mother of the deceased Manickam.A.1 Jayabal is the elderbrother of Selvam, the absconding accused.A.2 Saravanan and A.3 Siva @Sivakumar are friends of A1 Jayabal and Selvam.They were all residing in thesame village by name Odaipatti at Virudhunagar.P.W.2 used to go to hospital daily in themorning and evening for giving food to her husband Sethurama Thevar.(c) On 26.04.1996 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.2 after serving foodto her husband at hospital, was coming back to her home at Odaipatti Village.On the way, the absconding accused Selvam, A.3 Sivakumar and one Ramnath weresitting near P.W.3 Ramadoss Chettiar's shop.On noticing that P.W.2 wasproceeding towards the road, they eve-teased her by singing a cinema song"Kuchu Kuchu Rakkamma".Objecting to their obscene gestures, P.W.2 scoldedthem and came home.(d) On the same day at about 8.00 p.m., P.W.2 was proceedingto the hospital to give food to her husband followed by her sons P.W.1 anddeceased Manickam.When P.W.2 was nearing Ramadoss Chettiar's shop, theaccused persons viz., A.1 Jayabal, absconding accused Selvam, A.2 Saravananand A.3 Sivakumar restrained and questioned her as to how she could abuse themin the morning.P.W.1 and the deceased Manickam advised their mother P.W.2 toproceed to the hospital without talking to the accused persons, who eve-teasedher in the morning.(e) On getting enraged by this, A.1 took a knife from hiswaist and stabbed the deceased on his chest.On being shocked, P.W.1questioned the accused as to why the deceased was being stabbed.Selvam, theabsconding accused stating that they would attack the deceased in that wayonly, inflicted injuries on the face and right thigh of the deceased.Onseeing this, P.W.1 came near to the deceased.Thereafter, all the accused ran away from thescene.(f) P.W.4 Maheswari, a relative of the deceased, happened tocome to the scene of occurrence and saw the victims P.W.1 and the deceased.Then, P.Ws.2 and 4 arranged a cycle rickshaw to take the deceased and P.w.1 toVirudhunagar Government Hospital.(g) P.W.11 Dr. Mohanarajan, attached to the GovernmentHospital, Virudhunagar, admitted the deceased and declared him dead.P.13is the accident register relating to the deceased.He sent Ex.P.10 intimationrelating to the injuries caused on the deceased to the police.He also sentanother intimation Ex.P.W.11 aftergiving treatment to P.W.1, referred him to Government Rajaji Hospital,Madurai, as his condition was serious.(h) Accordingly, P.W.1 was taken to the Government RajajiHospital, where he was admitted by P.W.12 Dr.Pondiaraj at about 10.50 p.m.(i) In the meantime, on receipt of Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, P.W.9Head Constable attached to Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, went toVirudhunagar Government Hospital and came to know that the deceased Manickamdied and P.W.1 was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.Hence, P.W.9went to the Government Rajaji Hospital and obtained a complaint Ex.Then, he returned to the Police Station and registered a case underSections 302 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P.12 is the first information report.(j) On 27.04.1996 at about 6.30 a.m., P.W.13 the Inspector ofPolice received information and went to the scene of occurrence.He preparedobservation mahazar Ex.P.2 and drew rough sketch Ex.Then, he went tothe Virudhunagar Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the body ofthe deceased.P.16 is the inquest report.Then, he sent the body for postmortem.(k) On 27.04.1996, P.W.8 Dr. Jeyamani conducted post mortemon the body of the deceased and found as many as five injuries.P.9 is thepost mortem certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear tohave died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to the heart and lung.(l) On 28.04.1996 at about 1.00 a.m., P.W.13 arrested accusedSelvam and on his confession, he recovered M.O.1 Aruval and produced himbefore the Court.Then, he took steps to arrest the other accused persons.In the meantime, he made arrangement to send the material objects for chemicalexamination.Then, he handed over the case to P. W.14, another Inspector ofPolice for further investigation, since he was transferred.In the meantime,other accused surrendered before the Court.Furthermore, P.W.2 abused them questioningtheir act.P.W.2informed the deceased and P.W.1, her sons about the eve-teasing incident.At that time, accused 1 to 3 along with Selvam, the absconding accused, weresitting near P.W.3 Ramadoss Chettiar's shop.On noticing that P.W.2 wasproceeding along the road, the accused persons stopped and questioned her asto how she could abuse them in the morning.When P.W.2 was answering to the accused, P.W.1 and thedeceased came near her and reprimanded her as to why she was talking withthose people, who had eve teased her in the morning.With reference to the aboveincidents PW1 and PW2 would speak to the details.It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that on 26.04.1996at about 9.00 a.m., she went to the hospital and came back and at that time,eve teasing incident took place.The fact that her husband was admitted inthe hospital and had been taking treatment since 16.04.1996, has been spokento by P.W.10 Doctor, attached to Virudhunagar Hospital.According to P.W.10,the husband of P.W.2 was hospitalised from 1 6.04.1996 to 05.05.1996.Therefore, it is clear that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 26.04.1996, inorder to serve food to her husband at the hospital, P.w.2 went to the hospitaland was coming back home after serving food.It was elicited from both P.Ws.1 and 2 in thecrossexamination that P.W.2 informed about the eve teasing incident, and herscolding to both P.W.1 and the deceased.Therefore, the motiveis clearly established.As narrated above, whenP.W.1 and the deceased advised P.W.2 to go to hospital without talking to theaccused persons, the accused got enraged and started to attack the deceased.A1 Jayabal with knife inflicted injury on the chest of the deceased.At thattime, P.W.1 came near the deceased and intervened and questioned the accusedas to why he should attack the deceased.Selvam, the absconding accusedshouting that he would attack the deceased like that only, inflicted injurieswith aruval on the face and thigh of the deceased.When P.W.1 shouted, A2Saravanan and A3 Sivakumar with knife and Aruval respectively, attacked P.W.1and caused injuries on his rib and forehead.Thus, both of them sustainedsevere injuries and as their cries, the public gathered.Then accused ranaway from the scene of occurrence.19. P.W.4 Maheswari, who happened to come to the scene atthat time, took both the victims along with P.w.2 in a cycle rickshaw andadmitted them in the Virudhunagar Government Hospital.P.W.11 Dr.Mohanarajan while admitting both of them, found the deceased dead.Therefore,he sent intimation Ex.P.10 about the death of the deceased to the Police.Index:YessbiToThe Principal Sessions Judge,Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Madurai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras.The Inspector of Police,Virudhunagar Town Police Station,Virudhunagar.The Collector of Tamil Nadu.The Director General of Police, Chennai.( Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM.J, ) Jayapal (A1) was convicted for the offences under Sections 302and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fiveyears R.I. respectively.2. Saravanan (A2) and Siva @ Sivakumar (A3) were convictedfor the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 307 I.P.C. and each sentencedto undergo life imprisonment and five years R.I. respectively.Challengingthe same, this appeal has been filed.Originally, four accused were tried for these offences.At the commencement of trial, A.2 Selvam absconded.P.W.14 continued theinvestigation and ultimately, filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 r/w 34 and 307 I.P.C.After the charges were framed, accused Selvam, who wasoriginally arrayed as A.2, was absconding.During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution,P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined.P.1 to P.16 were filed and M.Os.1 to 4 weremarked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 ofCr.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime in question.On theside of the accused, Dr.Jebamani, who gave treatment to P.W.1, was examined asD.W.1 and Ex.D.1 was marked through him.The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence available onrecord, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonabledoubt and convicted the accused thereunder.Hence, this appeal.Mr. M.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for theappellants/accused, after taking us through the entire evidence, would contendthe following:-" The materials available on record would not be sufficient to holdthe accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged.When thecomplaint Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.9 Head Constable from P.W.1 on 27.04.1996at about 4.00 a.m., P.W.1 had undergone an operation and as such, thecomplaint Ex.P.1 could not have been obtained from P.W.1 by P.W.9 as isevident from the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.The motive attributed by theprosecution is so flimsy and as such, there was no strong motive for murder.There are several contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the eyewitnesses and various infirmities in the evidence adduced by other witnesses.Even assuming that the entire case of the prosecution is true, A.2 and A.3could not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34, as they didnot participate in the attack made on the deceased, there was no commonintention and as such, they are liable to be convicted only for theirindividual acts, by which they caused injuries on P.W.1 and therefore, theconviction imposed upon A.2 and A.3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34is liable to be set aside."In order to substantiate the above plea, he would cite the decisions renderedin Ramasamy Ayyangar v. State of T.N. (1976 SCC (Cri) 518), Jaspal Singh v.We have carefully considered the rival contentions urgedby the learned counsel on either side and also analysed the materialsavailable on record.Hegave treatment to PW.1 for the injuries found on his body.He sent intimationEx.Thereafter, P.W.1 was referred toGovernment Rajaji Hospital at Madurai for further treatment.Then, P.W.1 wastaken to the said Hospital.In the meantime, P.W.9 Head Constable on receipt ofintimations Exs.P.10 and P.11, went to Virudhunagar Government Hospital andthereafter, on coming to know that P.W.1 had been taken to Government RajajiHospital, Madurai, went to the Hospital and obtained complaint Ex.P.1 fromP.W.1 at about 4.00 a.m. These factors have been clearly revealed through theevidence of P.Ws.1 , 2, 4, 9, 11 and 12, through whom Exs.P.1, 13, 10 and 11have been marked.On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we are notable to find any ground to hold that their testimony would suffer from anyinfirmity.On the other hand, their evidence is cogent and creditworthy andtheir oral testimony has been amply corroborated in Medical evidence adducedby P.W.11 Doctor, who attended to P.W.1 and, the evidence by P.W.8, theDoctor, who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased.In both the certificates Exs.It was contended on the strength of the evidence of D.W.1Doctor and Ex.D.1 that P.W.1 would not have been conscious to give thecomplaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.9 as he sustained very serious injuries on his chest.This contention, in our view, is not tenable for thereason that P.W.11, the Doctor himself would state that P.W.1 told him that hewas attacked by known persons with weapons near Ramadoss Chettiar's shop.Areading of the evidence of P.W.11 would make it clear that P.W.1 was consciousthroughout.The Doctor D.W.1, who stated that he conducted operation at 1.30a.m., did not state that he was unconscious thereafter.As a matter of fact,there was no cross examination with reference to the evidence of D.W.1, whostated in his chief examination that he admitted P.W.1 in the GovernmentRajaji Hospital.Similarly, no challenge was made in the cross examination ofP.W.9 Head Constable with reference to the complaint received by him at 4.00a.There is noexplanation by the investigating officers as to why they did not take steps toobtain police custody of the other accused, who had surrendered themselvesbefore the Court.Of course, this is a flaw on the part of the investigatingofficers.Further, the details of the injuries on P.W.1 as spokento by P.W.11, the Doctor, have been corroborated by D.W.1, another Doctor, whoconducted operation on him.While P.W.1 intervened and questioned, Selvam,the absconding accused also attacked the deceased.Then, P.W.1 againintervened, other accused namely, A.2 and A.3 attacked P.W.1 with knife andAruval and caused injuries on his chest and forehead.In the light of the above principles and facts of thecase, there is no difficulty in holding that all the accused were present withdangerous weapons and when the deceased was attacked by A.1 Jayabal, P.W.1intervened and at that time, to facilitate the other accused to make furtherattack on the deceased, A.2 Saravanan and A.3 Sivakumar attacked P.W.1 on hischest, rib and forehead.Thus, the facts narrated above would clearlyindicate that there was a common intention and in furtherance of the commonintention, all the accused attacked both the deceased and P.W.1 inflictinginjuries on the vital parts of the body.Therefore, we are constrained to conclude that all thethree accused along with Selvam, the absconding accused, in furtherance of thecommon intention, attacked both the deceased and P.W.1 and hence, A.1 isliable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307r/w 34 I.P.C. and A2 and A.3 are liable to be convicted for the offencespunishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 307 I.P.C.Thus, this appeal has no merits and is liable to bedismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
174,108 | In Crl.The same petitioner in Crl.The petitioner is the Editor and Publisher of Tamil PoliticalBi-weekly Nakkheeran Magazine and he started the magazine as a Weekly in theyear 1988 and they give News impartially to the Public and the Magazine is alargest circulated political magazine in Tamil Nadu.For many years, oneVeerappan, known as Sandalwood smuggler Veerappan has been committing variousforest offences like smuggling of sandalwood, poaching and killing ofelephants for tusks in the dense forest area of Erode and Coimbatore Districtsand the adjoining forest area of Karnataka State and the State Governments ofTamil Nadu and Karnataka were trying to apprehend Veerappan and they are notable to nab him.During the year 1993, the petitioner sent his Salem AreaReporter Sivasubramaniam to the Forest Area and he was able to meet Veerappanand the same was published in Nakkheeran Magazine.In the year 1995 , whenthe Nakkheeran Reporters were inside the jungle, the petitioner gotinformation that police were given orders to shoot them and hence complaintswere sent to Press Council of India on 15.11.1995 and 21.11.1995 and theChairman of Press Council of India Mr.Justice P.B.Savant wrote a letter to thethen Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to intervene personally in the matter in theinterest of free press and provide security to the staff of the Newspaper.The petitioner went into the forest and met Veerappan in May 1 996 andtook an interview with him.Around 13.7.1997, Veerappan kidnapped nineKarnataka forest officials and both the State Governments of Tamil Nadu andKarnataka requested the petitioner to play the role of Emissary and secure therelease of abducted persons and they issued authorisation letters to thepetitioner and his reporters to that effect.The petitioner accepted theassignment and persuaded Veerappan to release the forest officials and afterrepeated efforts, the forest officials were released and both the StateGovernments have given appreciation letters to the petitioner.In 1999, due to the harassment caused to the reporters ofNakkheeran by the Special Task Force of both the States, a complaint was givento the Press Council of India and after enquiry, it advised the police not totorture Nakkheeran reporters.Investigative Journalism practised byNakkheeran Magazine was not appreciated and the annoyed persons caused theState machinery to file about 100 cases throughout the State of Tamil Naduagainst the petitioner and the petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos.925 of 1993and 926 of 1993 before this Court and the former petition is pending.Onlythree of those cases were charge sheeted and two of them ended in acquittaland the other case was not pursued by the Government.Mr.Rajkumar, the popular film actor of Karnataka and threeothers were abducted by Veerappan on 30.7.2000 and on 31.7.2000, both theChief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka met and decided to send thepetitioner as State Emissary and the petitioner was forced to accept the same.Both the State Governments issued authorisation letters to the petitioner andhis reporters and five trips were made by them into the jungle and all thehostages were released after 108 days.Some of the police officials andpolitical leaders were very critical about the role of emissary played by thepetitioner.After the change of government, the petitioner and his team arein trouble.Sivasubramaniam, the Salem Area Reporter of NakkheeranMagazine, was implicated in series of cases and was arrested.In the guise offurther investigation, petitions under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C were filed inevery Veerappan related cases which were pending for years together only withthe motive of roping in the petitioner and his reporters as accused.However, this Courtpassed an order stating that the petitioner be released on bail in the eventof being made an accused, as the apprehension of arrest was reasonable.Thepetitioner was included as an accused in that case after six months and he wassummoned for interrogation before the Thalavady Police.Apprehending dangerto the life, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.4828 of 2002 in the aboveoriginal petition for modification of the condition and this Court modifiedthe same and directed the petitioner to appear before the CBCID Special Wingat Gobichettipalayam for interrogation for 10 days and this Court furtherdirected the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, to monitor thewhole interrogation in order to ensure that no untoward incident takes place.The petitioner was interrogated from 20.6.2002 to 29.6.2002 for 10 days.Thepetitioner filed Writ PetitionNo.21864 of 2002 and W.P.No.21984 of 2002 beforethis Court in this regard and they are pending.During the interrogation inRajkumar Abduction case, probing questions were put to him in respect ofVeerappan related cases, particularly, Kandhavel and Bakthavatsalam murdercases, which are the subject matter of these petitions and the interrogationwas videographed on all the days.The petitioner filed Crl.Crl.O.P.4254/2003State,represented byInspector of Police,Crime No.1500/1998 ofB-1 Police Station,Coimbatore.Since the petitioner in both the petitions is one and thesame and the averments in both the petitions are similar, they were heardtogether and a common order is passed.The averments in both the petitions are summarised below.The prosecution case in Crime No.676 of 1998 is that on 23.11.1998 oneSaravanan, son of Kandhavelu, gave a report stating that his father wasmissing and a case was registered as 'man missing' and later, based on thestatement of one Muthukrishnan on 23.4.1999, the case was altered to Sections147, 148, 302 and 201, I.P.C. read with Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act andafter investigation, final report was filed on 0 1.6.2000 against Veerappanand nine others.The case was split up as against the absconding accused andthe case was committed to Sessions Court as against the accused who werearrested and released on bail and it was taken on file in S.C.No.160 of 2000and is pending trial before Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track CourtNo.II), Gobichettipalayam.The Investigating Officer filed an applicationunder Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. on 20.11.2001 for further investigation and itwas allowed on the same date.The petitioner apprehends that therespondent is taking all effort to implicate and arrest the petitioner in thiscase.M.P.No.1594 of 2002 seekinganticipatory bail in the case in Crime No.1500 of 1998 before the PrincipalSessions Judge, Coimbatore and the learned Judge dismissed the same on 26.7.2002 on the ground that writ petitions seeking similar reliefs were alreadypending on the file of this Court.From 27.12.2002 onwards, CBCID policemenhave been surveilling the office and residence of the petitioner and theycause mental torture to the petitioner's staff and family members.Thepetitioner filed W.P.(Crl.) No.2 of 2003 before the Supreme Court praying fora writ of prohibition restraining the respondent police officials frommisusing their statutory powers in the investigation of both the casespertaining to these petitions.The Apex Court dismissed the petition statingthat the order of dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from seekingappropriate relief from the High Court.The police officials are biased, inimical and avenging towardsthe petitioner and the petitioner has categorised the facts to show thesinister plan of the police and the petitioner is also submitting the relevantdocuments.The petitioner is apprehending arrest by the respondent in boththe cases and fears ill-treatment and hence seeks for anticipatory bail inboth the cases.The CBCID Inspectors of Anthiyur Circle, Erode Districtand Coimbatore District have filed their respective counter statements in boththe petitions and the contents are similar and they are as follows.In thecase in Crime No.676 of 1998, final report was filed on 4.6.2000 beforeJudicial Magistrate, Bhavani against Veerappan and 9 others for the offencesunder Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C besides Section 25 (1) (a) ofArms Act and the case was committed in PRC.No.30 of 2000 on 21.9.2001 inrespect of Accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 alone and the case was split up withreference to absconding accused.In S.C.No.160 of 2001, Accused Nos.5, 6 and8 are facing trial before the Additional Sessions (Fast Track Court No.During further investigation in both the cases, it was foundthat cadres of certain Tamil extremist groups, such as the TNLA and TNRT,which are banned organisations, had clandestinely entered into Sathiamangalamforest and joined the forest brigand Veerappan and his associates.The petitioner and his associateSivasubramaniam appear to have taken a vital role in facilitating the membersof the two extremist groups in joining hands with Veerappan.In the case in Crime No.676 of 1998, one Kandhavelu a residentof a small hamlet near Andhiyur in Erode District was abducted and taken intoThalavady Forest by Veerappan and his associates and in the case in CrimeNo.1500 of 1998, one Bakthavatchalam of Coimbatore was abducted on 29.10.1998and was taken to Thalavady Forest by Veerappan and his Associates and thereports appeared in the Tamil Magazine Nakkheeran in its issues, dates24.11.1998, 27.11.1998 and 4.12.1998 under the caption "Trial in VeerappanCourt and death sentence to police informants" contain a thumb nail sketch ofthe gruesome manner in which the aforesaid Kandhavelu and Bakthavatchalam, whowere police informants, were murdered and the dead bodies were subsequentlyscreened from discovery.There were also photographs showing the variousstages and the dead bodies.The cover article published indicate that thekidnapping and murder were orchestered and pre-planned with meticulousprecision.When the abovesaid Nakkheeran magazine issues came to bepublished and made available to the public, it was believed that the articleswere a product of investigative journalism as claimed by the petitioner.However, it has since come to light that the petitioner and Sivasubramaniamhad an active role in the kidnapping and murder of Kandhavelu andBakthavatchalam in the Thalavady Forest and the publication of the articlewith photographs is with the oblique motive to deter others from givinginformation to the police, in that they would meet with a similar fate.Further investigation discloses that the petitioner had been to the ThalavadyForest some time before the incident and he appears to have been a privy tothe abduction and murder of both the persons.Materials gathered prima faciedisclose that Veerappan had entertained a doubt as to whether both the personswere police informants and the petitioner herein clarified the matter throughhis reporter Sivasubramaniam that both of them were police informants and theyshould be eliminated and only after that Veerappan lured both the persons intoforest and brutally murdered them.The petitioner has filed reply affidavits in both thepetitions containing similar averments and they are summarised.Therespondents in their counters have claimed that fresh materials have surfacedwithout disclosing at what point of time they had surfaced.The claim made bythe respondents that further investigation discloses that Tamil ExtremistGroups had clandestinely entered into Sathyamangalam Forest and joinedVeerappan is not correct.The petitioner has clearly established hisconcern and anxiety about the need for taking a serious view of this matterand it is the petitioner who first disclosed this news to the world.Therefore, the claimthat on further investigation the above information was found out is false andincorrect.The petitioner has published the article and the photographsrelating to the murder of both the deceased, as a result of investigativejournalism.The allegation that the petitioner and Sivasubramaniamhad active role in those murders is an afterthought and concocted story.Thefurther allegation that the petitioner had been to Thalavady Forest some timeprior to murders and the petitioner appear to have been a privy to theabduction and murder are all false.From the above it is clear that thepetitioner is alleged to be an accused in both the cases and the investigationis now done by CBCID Police.K.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioner, contended that the material on record discloses that right fromthe year 1996 there was friction between Tamil Nadu Police and petitionermagazine and the respondents are fabricating false evidence against thepetitioner by torturing persons and the further investigation is motivated andnot bonafide and the accusation stems from ulterior motive, object being toinjure and humiliate the petitioner by having him arrested and hence thepetitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in both the cases.The petitioner has further statedthat popular film actor of Karnataka Mr.Rajkumar, along with three others, wasabducted by Veerappan on 30.7.2000 and the petitioner was again requested togo as Emissary and both the State Governments issued authorisation letters andletters of immunity to the petitioner and his reporters and they made fivetrips into the jungle and ultimately the hostages were released after 108days.According to the petitioner, the investigative journalismpractised by his Magazine was inconvenient to public servants during the year1991 to 1996 and the State machinery filed about 100 cases throughout theState for a publication in one issue of Magazine and out of those cases, onlythree were charge sheeted and two of them were ended in acquittal and theother case was not pursued by the Government and the petitioner was forced tofile writ petitions in this regard.The petitioner has averred that the police in the guiseof further investigation started filing petitions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.in Veerappan related cases which were pending for years together only with themotive of roping the petitioner and his reporters as accused and thepetitioner has also filed writ petition seeking prohibition of the same andthe same is pending on the file of this Court.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted thatJudicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, declined to grant custody of reporterSivasubramaniam to the Investigation Officer in P.R.C.No.10 of 2001 and aRevision was filed by the State in Crl.R.P.No.902 of 2002 before this Courtand this Court in order, dated 13.5.2002, directed the Investigating Officerto examine the accused in the room allotted inside the campus ofSathyamangalam Court for two days.The next contention of the respondents is that furtherinvestigation discloses that Veerappan entertained a doubt as to Kandhaveluand Bakthavatchalam were police informants and when this was conveyed to thepetitioner, he clarified the matter through his Reporters Sivasubramanian andKrishnakumar that both of them were police informants and they should beeliminated and the petitioner had been to Thalavady Forest prior to theoccurrences in both the murder cases and he has an active role in thekidnapping and murder of both the persons and the publication of the articlewith photographs in the magazine is with an oblique motive to deter othersfrom giving information to the police.The petitioner in his reply statementhas stated that in the year 1997 he went inside the forest as GovernmentEmissary to rescue the kidnapped forest officials and after one year theoccurrence in the murder cases took place and the allegation that he informedVeerappan that both the deceased persons were police informants is false andthe article and the photographs were published with an object to educate thepublic about the atrocities of Veerappan besides exposing the failure ofSpecial Task Force and the publications have advanced the cause of publicinterest.Kalimuthu, the then Chief ofTamil Nadu Special Task Force, was interviewed by placing the materials beforehim and subsequently all the materials were handed over to him and thepetitioner was interrogated with reference to this during the 10 daysinterrogation in Rajkumar abduction case by CBCID Special Wing atGobichettipalayam and that was also videographed.A xerox copy of the'Nakkheeran' issue, dated 24.11.1998, publishing the interview ofMr. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,741,311 | The trial was with the help of a jury.The partnership firm was to be known as "Moghalsarai Cloth Trading Company".Moti Lal was to contribute Rs. 24,000/- towards the capital and each of the three appellants was to contribute Rs. 8,000/-.The three appellants were to manage the business of the firm.The account-books were to be kept by them or any of them.Nem Chand demanded the account books from Ram Saran Bam, one of the appellants who used to write up the accounts, and got the pakka-rokar, pakkakhata and some invoices after a few demands.He did not get kachha-rokar and nam-jakars which are alleged to have been maintained in this firm, though their maintenance is denied by the accused appellants.He suspected the correctness of various entries in the books of account and informed Moti Lal about it.JUDGMENT Raghubar Dayal, J.Hari Prasad, Ram Saran and Harianand appeal against their conviction under Sections 406, 477 and 477A, Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge Banaras.It further provided that such accounts when signed would be binding on each of the appellants.Moti Lai was not to take active part in the management of the firm.It was in October, 1948, that he suspected that there was something wrong with the management.He asked Nem Chand, his brother-in-law and who happened to be the person to whom any disputes in connection with the partnership were to be referred for decision under para.17 of the agreement, to check up the accounts.A few days later he learnt about the accused's removing the stock of the firm; he went to the firm and found a truck laden with goods standing in front of the shop.To him, this confirmed the information; he complained to a police constable and later to the Sub-Inspector of police about the accused's removing the property of the firm but, when required by the Sub-Inspector to lodge a report in writing, did not make any report in writing.The complainant just mentioned that he suspected that the accused persons were misappropriating, that they had knowingly made or caused to be made wrong entries in the bahikhata with a view to derive undue benefit, and that on inquiry it was found that the accused persons had already taken away the entire stock of the shop from before and had misappropriated it.The complaint did not specify any particular entries with respect to cash which were considered to be wrong and with respect to amounts misappropriated, or the quantity and nature of stock which had been misappropriated.No effort was made later on to specify precisely these two items.All the accused denied the prosecution allegations.Harianand explained the alleged removal of goods from the shop in a truck; according to him the goods belonged to traders of Chakia, that those traders were on the truck and that these facts had been conveyed to the police when it made inquiries on the complaint of Nem Chand.It is alleged that the police was satisfied of what was represented to it. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
85,419,036 | 12 26.7.2013 jb.Re: Application u/s 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for further investigation inasmuch as she had registered the First Information Report under graver Sections namely 307/379/452 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Magistrate had declined the prayer for reinvestigation by the impugned order.I have perused the materials on record.Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
854,197 | Appellant-Yogesh Narain Saxena is a permanent resident of Jabalpur.He was employed as Junior Electrician in Hydel Department at Dak Pathhar, P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.The appellant for the last about 5-6 years prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 24.7.1979, was living in Quarter No. 5(B), Gol Market, Dak Pathhar.Sunder Lal (P.W.3) along with his three brothers, namely, Rajesh Kumar (P.W.4), Gopal Krishna and Pradeep Kumar, were also living in the nearby quarter at Gol Market.They were running small shops in front of their quarters.Sandeep alias Bunti, son of Sunder Lal (P.W.3), aged about 10= years, was a student of Class VI.He was taking tuition from Surender Singh Patia (P.W.1).He came back to his home after about one hour but again he went back to the house of P.W. 1 to collect his inkpot which he by mistake left there.Sandeep did not return to his home till about 9.00 p.m. P.W.3, P.W.4 and other family members in the company of neighbourers proceeded in search of Sandeep but he could not be traced anywhere.P.W. 4 at 9.45 p.m. lodged a missing report of Sandeep at Police Out-post.Sub-Inspector Jeet Singh (P.W.8) along with three Constables immediately reached Gol Market.They cordoned the area and initiated search of Sandeep throughout the night in the market and nearby places.According to the prosecution, the accused had cordial and friendly relations with P.W. 3 being a neighbourer, but he did not show any interest for searching the missing boy.Gopal Krishna asked the accused whether he had seen Sandeep anywhere in the vicinity, but the accused did not utter any word and on the contrary, he got upset and quietly went inside his quarter.After sometime, Rajendra Kumar (P.W.2) noticed the accused locking the door of his quarter and going out.It was alleged that on 25.07.1979 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W. 3 - father of Sandeep, received a call on his telephone from Dehradun.The caller demanded a ransom of Rs.20,000/- for returning his son, Sandeep.Finally, the deal was settled for Rs.12,000/-.P.W. 3 was asked by the caller to keep money near Bindal Bridge, Dehradun, on the same night at 9.00 p.m. It was alleged that the voice of the caller appeared somewhat like that of the appellant.P.W.8 the Sub Inspector Jeet Singh advised P.W. 3 to keep the amount as demanded by the caller at the appointed time and place under watch and control of the police so that the police could apprehend the culprit.According to the settled plan, P.W. 3 left the money at the place as directed, but it appeared that the culprit some how got information of the presence of the police so he did not turn up till midnight to collect the ransom amount.Finally, P.W. 3 and the police party decided to go back to Dak Pathhar as there was no useful purpose of waiting at that place.It was in the forenoon of 26.07.1979 at about 3.45 p.m. when P.W. 4, Jagdish Prasad (P.W. 9), a shop keeper in the neighbourhood of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 along with police constables and other residents of the area were on the look out of Sandeep near a place known as Khadar, they noticed the accused coming from the opposite side of Gol Market.On seeing the police party and other persons, the accused tried to run away, but he was over-powered by the members of the search party.On interrogation by P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer, the accused disclosed that he had dumped the dead body of Sandeep in his quarter and the same could be recovered by him.Pursuant to the information supplied by the appellant, the Investigating Officer recorded the said information in writing marked as Exhibit Ka-28 in the case diary.The accused was arrested at Gol Market on the spot and was taken to his quarter.The Investigating Officer asked the accused to handover the keys of the lock of the outer door of the quarter but he replied that he had lost the keys.The Investigating Officer was left with no other option except to get the locks of the outer door and also the lock of the other door of the inner room of the quarter broken up in the presence of witnesses.On entering the inner room of the quarter, the accused opened a tin box in which dead body of Sandeep was found lying.The dead body was removed from the box and on visual examination marks of strangulation were noticed on the neck of the deceased.The Investigating Officer recorded the First Information Report under Sections 302/201 IPC on 26.7.1979 at 5.15 p.m. against the accused and held necessary mazhar on the spot.The neck and knee of the deceased were found tied with a piece of cloth when the dead body was removed from the tin box.Came back at 10.30 in the night.On 26.7.79 we had gone to Kanak Talkies to see a movie.At Dehradun, I went to my brother-in-law at 3.30 p.m. who lives at 52-A, Connought Place, Dehradun.In this box, the dead body of Sandeep was kept.Foul smell was emanating.He closed the box then and there.In fact, he used to make purchase from the shop of P.W. 3 Sunder Lal close-by.The deceased who was a young lad of ten years used to call the accused an uncle.In view of the proximity and close affiliation, the accused had the faith and confidence of the deceased besides having unrestricted approach and access to him.Apart from it, the accused owed considerable money to the club which was to be repaid and which has not so far been repaid.The appellant was on visiting terms with P.W. 3 and the deceased used to call him as uncle.It is the evidence of P.W. 3 that the appellant was a regular customer of his shop and even on 24.07.1979, the appellant came to the shop and purchased some essential commodities from him.He stated that on 24.07.1979 at about 6.30 p.m. Sandeep had gone to the house of P.W. 1 (tutor) for taking tuition and after finishing his work, Sandeep came back to home.On reaching home, Sandeep left his bag of books at his house and immediately went out of the house saying that he would come back soon, but his son did not return till 9.00 p.m. He went out in search of his missing son towards Dhalipur Dhakrani side, but he could not get any clue of Sandeep.He asked his younger brother P.W. 4 to lodge the missing report of Sandeep.On the following day at about 8.00 a.m., he came back from Dhalipur Dhakrani.On 25.07.1979, he received a telephone call at his house from Dehradun and the person who made the said call asked P.W. 3 that if he wanted safe and sound return of his son, he had to pay a ransom of Rs. 20,000/-.He showed his inability to pay such a huge amount.The caller of the telephone then made a demand of Rs. 15,000/- and on showing his inability to pay the said amount the caller reduced the demand to Rs. 12,000/-.Thereafter, the caller of the phone instructed him to pack the money in a bag and place the bag at 9.00 p.m. on the last step of the staircase of the north-eastern side of the Bridge of Bindal River at Dehradun.The caller of the telephone threatened him not to report the matter to the police or anybody else, lest his son would be finished.It is his say that the caller of the telephone also extended threat that if he failed to reach at the settled place with ransom money, the child would be finished and even the dead body would not be made available to him.He categorically stated that the voice of the telephone caller was somewhat similar to the voice of the accused.He consulted his younger brother-Gopal Krishna in regard to the further course of action.The entire matter was narrated and discussed with the Investigating Officer who advised him to arrange Rs. 12,000/- and place the bag of the money at the suggested place.He was assured by the Investigating Officer that police would ensure for his personal safety.As per plan he went to Dehradun at 8.45 in the night and concealed himself near some shop located there.He remained hiding there for about 2= hours but nobody turned up to lift the packet of money.The Investigating Officer came to him and told that as nobody had come and sufficient time had passed he should go to the place and collect the packet of money.He then lifted the packet of money and returned home with police party.A suggestion of the defence that since the accused had married a Sikh girl, therefore, the members of the Sikh and Punjabi communities, living at Dak Patthar became annoyed with him, is denied by the witness.His evidence shows that he along with P.W. 3 and two more brothers namely, Gopal Krishna and Pradeep and their father are jointly residing in one house at Gol Market, Dak Patthar.He corroborated the testimony of P.W. 3 in its entirety.He got recorded the missing report of Sandeep in the police station.It is his evidence that on 26.07.1979 in the evening at about 3.45 or 4.00 p.m., he accompanied by Shadiram, Chetandas, Subhash Bhatia and some more persons of the town had again gone in search of Sandeep and when they reached at a place known Khadar they saw the accused coming from the school side and going towards Gol Market, Dak Pathhar.On seeing them, the accused stopped for a while and then tried to run backward.The police personnel who were accompanying them apprehended the accused and later on he was interrogated.The accused initially kept silent, but after some time he narrated the entire incident to the police and disclosed that he could get the dead body of Sandeep recovered from the inner room of his quarter.The accused led the police party to his quarter and having reached there, the accused said that he had lost the keys of the locks of the doors.Then the lock of the outer door of the quarter was broken by the police.On opening of the quarter, the accused went through one room on the back side of the courtyard.The police broke open the lock of the door of inner room.He along with the accused and police personnel went inside the room where a tin box was placed.The accused opened the box in which dead body of Sandeep was found concealed.The police closed the box and removed it out of the room.The Investigating Officer prepared the majhar of the dead body [Ex. Ka-20] which was duly signed by him and other witnesses.It is his evidence that on the dead body of Sandeep one cloth piece of salwar was wrapped and the neck and knee of Sandeep were found jointly tied with a chunni (a piece of scarf).He stated that quilt Ex. 4 and plastic table cover Ex. 5 which were underneath the dead body, and a piece of salwar Ex. P-2 and chunni Ex. P-3 were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer on the spot.Box, Ex. 1, in which the dead body was concealed and two broken locks Ex. 6 and Ex. 7 were also taken into possession in his presence.Bushirt, undershirt and half pant which were found on the dead-body of Sandeep marked Ex. 8, Ex. 9 and Ex. 10 were identified by him in the Court.The presence of the appellant at Gol Market on 24.7.1979 has been established on record in the deposition of P.W. 2, an independent witness.P.W.6-Brij Mohan Gupta is also a resident of Gol Market area.He deposed that the wife of the appellant was not staying in the house of the appellant for the past fortnight from the day of the incident.He was also a member of the search party with the police officials in the evening of 26.07.1979 when the appellant was apprehended.He witnessed the recovery of a pair of Chappals, Ex.11 and Ex.12, of the deceased at the instance of the appellant in the evening of 27.07.1979 from a water drain at the backside of the house of the appellant.The defence of the appellant that the police apprehended him at Dehradun is falsified by the witness.There is not an iota of evidence on record to infer that this witness is in any way interested for any reason whatsoever to implicate the appellant in a false case.He was also a member of the search party when the appellant was apprehended in the afternoon of 26.07.1979 near Gol Market.He testified that immediately after the arrest of the appellant, the police interrogated him whereupon the appellant revealed the entire story disclosing that the dead body of Sandeep was laid in his quarter.He witnessed the breaking of the locks of the rooms of the quarter of the appellant and recovery of the dead body of the deceased concealed inside a small tin box.He is the attested witness of the recovery Memos Ex.Nothing is brought on record by the appellant to infer that this witness is an interested witness to the prosecution or he has deposed falsely against the appellant.P.W.7- Satyavrat, at the relevant time, was posted as Clerk in the Telegraphic Office, Dehradun.On 25.07.1979, he was on trunk calls booking duty.He produced on record receipt No.52 in Book No.4758 dated 25.07.1979 issued and signed by him.The evidence of P.W.7 would establish an additional link in the circumstances that in all probability it was the appellant who booked a trunk call from Dehradun to telephone number of P.W. 3, father of the deceased, for making demand of ransom money for the release of his son Sandeep.P.W.8-Jeet Singh, Sub-Inspector, conducted the investigation.He has testified the arrest of the appellant on 26.07.1979, and recovery of the dead body of the deceased concealed inside a small tin recovered from the inner room of the appellant after breaking open the locks of the doors as also the recovery of a pair of Chappals of the deceased from a water drain located at the backside of the house of the appellant.He denied the suggestion of the appellant that the appellant was in fact arrested on 26.07.1979 at 3.30 p.m. in the house of his brother-in-law at Dehradun.There is no reason to disbelieve them.J U D G M E N TLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as follows:-The dead body of the deceased was despatched for autopsy which was performed by Dr. P.D. Jakhmola (P.W. 5) on the following day.The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the material witnesses on the spot.When the accused was further interrogated on 27.07.1979, he took the Investigating Officer and other witnesses to the rear portion of his quarter and got a pair of chappal of the deceased recovered from a water drain.After completion of the investigation and after receipt of post-mortem report and other reports, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to support its version.In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [ for short "the Cr.P.C."], the accused has denied his involvement in the crime.Every one was satisfied with my work.I was married on 10.10.78 in a Punjabi family due to which some Punjabi families became annoyed with me and threatened me to destroy.On 31.3.79, my father-in-law was transferred to Uttar Kashi.My wife was in a family way.My wife said that she would not be able to go in future, so for some days, 'I want to go to Uttar Kashi'.On 23.7.79, myself and my wife came to Dehradun from Uttar Kashi.We reached Dehradun in the evening of 23.7.79 at 4.30 p.m. My wife said that tomorrow we shall go to Dak Pathhar for the cleaning of the house.On this, I agreed and on 24.7.79, myself and my wife went to Dak Pathhar in the morning.There cleaning etc. was done and we took breakfast at 2 p.m., purchased biscuits from the shop of Sunder Lal.In the evening at 5.00 p.m. we came back to Dehradun.On 25.7.79 we went to Dehradun market.On 24.7.79 at about 8.30p.m.we went to take dinner at the house of one friend.There some police constables were standing.I went inside the house.Two Sub-Inspectors were sitting with my brother-in-law.Thereafter Darogaji brought me to Dak Pathhar on the pretext for making enquiries.They brought me in car.Rajesh Kumar, witness also sat with us from Dehradun.After taking me to Dak Pathhar Out-post they said to me that they will take search of my house.I said you may take but what the matter was.Darogaji said that you would know it later, first you proceed to your house.When I went to my house on 26.7.79 at about 5.00 p.m. then I found that my quarter was unlocked.I told Darogaji that there were no locks.Darogaji asked me to shut up.Thereafter Darogaji collected witnesses from the neighbourhood and then entered into my quarter with me.Inside, I saw that my doors were open.I told that some one has entered into it but Darogaji silenced me.Meanwhile, a crowd had collected outside the quarter.Hearing hue and cry, I was sent to Police Out-post, Dak Pathhar.On 27.7.79, in the morning at 7.30 I was sent to Dehradun jail."The accused in his defence examined his wife Smt. Asha Saxena (D.W.1), Vijay Singh (D.W.2) and Mahendra Pratap Saxena (D.W.3).The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, recorded conviction and awarded sentence as aforesaid.The accused-appellant preferred an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. The High Court, as noted above, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court.The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.The circumstances on which the trial court placed reliance for recording conviction are as follows:-The wife of the accused was out of station having left on 10.7.1979 to visit her parents in Uttarkashi.The accused was thus all by himself on 24.7.1979 to plan a scheme for collecting money without any hindrance from any quarter in the calm and quiet of his inner room of the quarter.Strangulation of a lad aged ten years needed confidence and faith of the object to avoid cries and shouts.It was possible for the accused only with the deceased.It is noteworthy that the deceased had no other injury on his person, that the dead body was neatly and carefully packed in tin box (Ex.1) and that the right hand was raised over the body clearly indicating that it was dumped immediately after strangulation.There was no motive at all for any of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused.There is no reason either to support that anybody, much less a Punjabi, was aggrieved or agitated because of inter caste marriage of the accused with a Punjabi girl.Even if it be assumed for a second that some of them had any ground to be displeased with the accused, they had no reason at all to achieve that object by killing the young son of one of their own company.None else had any access or opportunity to plan dead body of the deceased inside the quarter of the accused.In any case, it was impossible for anybody else to plant a fresh dead body inside the box of the accused.The accused was in Gol Market in his quarter on 24.7.79 and left the quarter at about 5.30 a.m. the next morning.What is noteworthy is that the accused admitted his presence in his quarter along with his wife upto the afternoon of 24.7.79 and not thereafter.This was totally false.Moreover, the accused was found to be in his quarter even in the early morning of 25.7.79 and when approached by his neighbour for enquiry about the whereabouts of the deceased he got upset and soon thereafter left locking the quarter.The statement was followed with actual recovery of the dead body at his instance from inside the inner room of his quarter dumped in his own tin box (Ex. 1) over his quilt and plastic cover.Earlier assertion of the accused was that his quarter and the inner room were locked with different locks but now it is contended that they were lying open.This false assertion was necessary to prop up the story of plantation of the dead body inside the quarter by strangers.Last but not the least defence is full of omissions and lies.Shri Sushil Kumar and Shri J.C. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the judgment of the High Court inter alia contending:-(v) that the statement of Surendra Singh (P.W. 1) that the appellant was seen by him in the evening of 24.7.79 in front of his house is just an improvement and an after thought;(vi) that no witness has deposed of the presence of the appellant in his quarter on the fateful night;(vii) that for the first time during trial, it was introduced by the prosecution through the mouth of Brij Mohan Gupta (P.W. 6) that the wife of the appellant had left the quarter of the accused about 15-20 days before 24.7.79 and thereafter the appellant was living alone in the quarter.The trial court as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate and re-appreciate the evidence of the defence witnesses who have established on record that on the day of the occurrence the appellant and his wife D.W. 1 both were at Dehradun; and(viii) that the recovery of dead body of the deceased allegedly at the instance of the appellant cannot be a conclusive proof of murder by the appellant.It was urged that the crime had been committed by some other person who concealed the body of the child in the house of the appellant to frame him in a false case.On 27.7.1979 at about 8.30 a.m. at the instance of the accused, the police in his presence and other witnesses recovered a pair of chappal (slippers) Ex.11 and Ex. 12 of the deceased from a water drain located on the back side of the quarter of the accused.He admitted in the cross-examination of the defence that the police inflicted one or two danda blows on the person of the accused when he was trying to run away on seeing the police party at Khadar.A suggestion of the defence that on 26.07.1979 at about 3.30 p.m., the police arrested the accused from the house of his brother-in-law at Dehradun is denied by the witness.He was the Tutor of the deceased.It is his evidence that in the evening of 24.07.1979 he was teaching Sandeep in the verandah of his quarter, when he saw the accused passing through his quarter and going towards his own quarter.It has come in his cross-examination that after return from the Club on the day of incident, he came to know about the missing of Sandeep.He joined the searching party but they could not trace Sandeep.P.W. 2 - Rajendra Kumar Sharma is residing in Quarter No.4, Gol Market, Dak Patthar.He is the neighbour of both P.W.3 and the accused.He deposed that on the fateful night he took part in search of missing Sandeep.It is his evidence that on the morning of 25.07.1979 at about 5.00 a.m. he along with Gopal Krishna again made inquiries from every family members residing in the quarters at Gol Market about the whereabouts of Sandeep.He stated that on their asking the accused got perplexed and went inside his quarter saying that he did not know anything about the boy.They came back from the quarter of the accused and after about 10-15 minutes he saw the accused locking the outer door of his quarter and going out from there.He is an independent witness and his testimony has remained unshattered and unshaken in the cross-examination.His testimony corroborates the version of the other witnesses that in the afternoon of 26.07.1979 the appellant was arrested at Dak Patthar by the police.He noticed blisters on the body.Eye balls were bulging out and the tongue was protruding.Froth mixed with blood was coming out from both the nostrils.He found ligature mark all around the neck of the deceased, which was somewhat depressed and horizontal.The width of the ligature mark was 4 cms.and its colour was brownish.According to the Doctor, there was excavation of blood under the ligature mark as well as in the muscles of the neck, which could be caused by tying a piece of cloth like Ex.In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to strangulation and the death was possible in the night of 24.07.1979 at about 8.00 p.m. The defence has chosen not to put any question to the Doctor in the cross-examination.The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9 is natural, convincing and trustworthy.There is no material on record from which an inference can be drawn that these witnesses have implicated the appellant in a false case.On independent analysis and scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, they fully establish the case of the prosecution against the appellant.When the news of disappearance of the deceased was spread over in the town, all the neighbourers and the relatives of P.W. 3 took part in the search of the deceased except the appellant though he was on visiting terms and having good relations with the father and other members of the family of the deceased.D.W.1 - Smt. Asha Saxena, wife of the appellant, in her deposition stated that she accompanied her husband to Uttarkashi on 10.7.1979 where her father was posted.On 23.7.1979, they both went to Dehradun and on 24.7.1979 from Dehradun they had gone to Dak Pathhar to get their house cleaned.It is her evidence that in the evening of 24.7.1979, she and her husband went back to Dehradun.D.W.2, Vijay Singh, is the friend of the appellant.He deposed that on 23.07.1979 when he was going to Mussorie, he had seen the appellant present at the Mussorie Bus Stand.He invited the appellant for dinner on 24.07.1979 and the appellant and his wife D.W.1 both joined him for dinner.The evidence of the defence witnesses has been rightly discarded and disbelieved by the courts below as the defence witnesses are highly interested witnesses.Suffice it to say that in case there was any iota in the truth of their testimony, they would not have kept silent for more than a year from the day when the appellant was arrested at Dehradun as per their version till their statements were recorded by the trial court.The presence of P.W.4 - Rajesh Kumar, P.W. 6 Brij Mohan Gupta and P.W. 9 Jagdish Prasad along with the police party in the evening of 26.07.1979 at the house of the appellant has not been doubted by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant has also admitted the recovery of the dead body of Sandeep concealed in a tin box in the inner room of his quarter.The appellant also admitted that he accompanied by his wife had gone to Uttarkashi on 10.07.1979 where his father-in-law was working.In the evening at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day, he and his wife again returned to Dehradun.The trial court as well as the High Court have rightly disbelieved the defence story of the appellant in the light of the cogent and more satisfactory evidence led by the prosecution in this case.The pair of Chappals of the deceased which he was wearing on the fateful evening was recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W.4, P.W.6 and other persons at the instance of the appellant from the water drain located at the backside of the quarter of the appellant which were found smeared with mud.The unrealistic and false plea put forth by the appellant stating that it was possible for some unknown person to have committed the murder of Sandeep and then having concealed the dead body in the inner room of his quarter is, itself, an additional circumstance leading support to the other impelling circumstances unfailing pointing out the guilt of the accused.It is clear from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence witnesses that the appellant and his wife, both had gone to Uttarkashi to meet his father-in-law who was working there.In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. | ['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. |
85,431,271 | Heard on admission.Record of the court below has been received.Also heard on I.A. No.3301/2018, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 07/12/2017 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T No.125/2017 convicting the appellant- accused under Sections 363, 366, 354, 354A, 354B, 376(2)(i)(f)(j)(k) of IPC and under section 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I for 7 years, R.I for 10 years, R.I for 3 years, R.I for 3 years, R.I for 10 years and R.I for 7 years respectively with fine amount with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he is in custody since 07/12/2017 and there is material contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix and there is fair chance to succeed in the case.If applicant is not released on bail, his right to appeal would get frustrated.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of applicant be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned G.A has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of trial court, in view of this Court the applicant is entitled to get suspension of sentence.Hence 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 appellant Santu shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/02/2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this regard during the pendency of the appeal.List this case for final hearing as per listing policy.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
854,482 | As per prosecution story, on 30-8-2000 at about 12 o'clock in the noon prosecutrix alongwith her sisters-in-law Vidya and Asha had gone to forest for taking fire-wood.In the forest one young person came there.He was wearing brown pant and light brown lining shirt.Prosecutrix was not knowing his name, he caught hold her hand.Both sisters-in-law objected then he assaulted them by lathi and he forcibly took her to some distance place and thereafter put her on earth and unfolded her undergarments and committed rape and after committing rape ran away from the spot.He also shoved lathi in her mouth.Thereafter her sisters-in-law went to the village and informed Jassu and Sanehi and thereafter the prosecutrix went to lodge the report.On the report of the prosecutrix crime was registered, matter was investigated.The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.Two slides were prepared by the doctor and her undergarments were also seized and they were referred for chemical examination.Thereafter test identification parade was arranged on 19-10-2000 and the appellant was identified by the prosecutrix as well as by her two sisters-in-law.In the chemical examination report on the slides human spermatozoa and semen smear was found on the clothes.After investigation charge-sheet was filed.The Trial Court placing reliance on the identification parade as well as medical evidence coupled with chemical examination report found the appellant guilty of the commission of crime and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.Against which the appellant has filed this appeal.I have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the evidence on record.The prosecutrix and her two sisters-in-law, all the three have admitted that before the identification parade the appellant was shown to them in the police custody in police station and thereafter he was identified, therefore, the test identification parade is illegal and is of no value; the other evidence is not of any importance and the conviction of the appellant is totally bad in law.Admittedly the appellant was not known to the prosecutrix or to her sisters-in-law.In the FIR, it has been mentioned that he was a young man and was wearing brown pant and light brown lining shirt.No other marks of identification were disclosed in the FIR.The prosecutrix (P.W. 5) in the cross-examination has admitted that the accused was not known to her.She has further admitted that later on villagers of Village Gajigarh as well as police personnels gave the name of the accused to them.When accused was in custody at police station, she was called there and accused was shown to her.She had identified the accused at the police station.Thereafter, the test identification parade was arranged in the jail where she had identified the accused.Similar is the statement of her sisters-in-law Asha (P.W. 6) and Vidya (P.W. 7).In Para 4 of the cross-examination Ashabai (P.W. 6) has admitted that before the test identification parade in Shivpuri Jail she had seen the accused at the police station and police personnel had also informed that he is the person, who has committed rape with the prosecutrix and after a month identification parade was arranged in Shivpuri Jail where she has identified the accused.In Para 4 she has clearly stated that first she had identified the accused at the police station and thereafter in the jail.Vidyabai (P.W. 7) in Para 3 of her cross-examination has also admitted that initially police had shown them the accused at the police station and thereafter the identification parade was arranged in Shivpuri Jail.In the cross-examination she improved her version and has stated that she was knowing the name of the accused before lodging the report and had informed the police about the name of the accused but why his name is not mentioned in the FIR she can not give any reason.Test identification parade was conducted by Ramshankar Shrivastava, Naib Tehsildar (P.W. 4).In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not written the names, descriptions and age of the persons, those who were mixed for the purpose of identification.He has admitted that the persons of similar face and similar stature of the accused were not available in the jail, therefore, they were not mixed.He has admitted that all the four witnesses before whom the test identification parade was conducted were brought by police.He has further admitted that on the identification memo (Ex. P-10) some police officer has also signed.He has further admitted that all other 10 persons those who were mixed with the accused were wearing the jail dress.He has further admitted that in the wrist of appellant his name is tattooed as Mangalsingh.From the evidence of P.W. 5 to P.W. 7, it is clear that before arranging the test identification parade in the jail police had shown the appellant to the prosecutrix as well as her sisters-in-law at police station and thereafter test identification parade was arranged in the jail, that too after a month and in the jail similar persons of the same face and same stature as that of the accused were not mixed, as no such persons were available in the jail and all the witnesses of identification were brought by the police personnel and the test identification parade was not conducted in presence of the independent witnesses.In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the sole question in this case is what is the value of the aforesaid evidence and whether the test identification parade is legal and admissible and the conviction can be based thereon.In the case of Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SC 839), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "as Shetty did not know the appellant, no test identification parade was held to test his power of identification and he was also shown by the police before he identified the appellant in the Court, his evidence becomes absolutely valueless on the question of identification.Though in Para 30 of the judgment the Trial Court has considered the aforesaid evidence but has erred in discarding the same and placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 5 to P.W. 7 for the purpose of identification. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
854,522 | However, only present appellants were convicted as stated above.The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Sampat Baba Kolape was resident of Village: Sangam Mahuli, Taluka and District Satara.His wife, sons, daughter and their children also lived together with him.The accused nos.1 and 2 are brothers interse and they also reside near the house of Sampat Kolape.They were also having agricultural land adjoining to land of Sampat.P.W.7-Muktabai is a married daughter of Sampat.According to her, she was living with her parents.According to her, she was sleeping in her house and her father was firing a hearth for heating water.She deposed that Sopan came from the field with milk of she-goats.She heard sound of abuses and, therefore came out of the house.She also fully corroborated the testimony of her brother Sopan about the incident which had occurred.Both these witnesses deposed that female accused persons including one Mangal had pelted stones causing injuries to Sopan and others.She deposed that accused no.2-Baba had given stick blow over her upper lip.JUDGMENT J.H. Bhatia, J.The appellants, who are original accused nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.22 of 2000, were convicted by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.The appellant no.1, Shivaji Keru Kolape was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.The appellants have challenged the conviction and sentence.To state in brief in all 6 accused persons including the present appellants were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Out of them, accused nos.3 to 6 were acquitted as no case was made out about unlawful assembly with any common object.Admittedly, there was a long standing dispute and enmity between the two parties.In 1986 a civil suit was filed by deceased Sampat Kolape and his brother against accused nos.1 and 2 and others for removal of encroachment and possession of part of that land.Against that Judgment, the defendants/accused nos.1 and 2 had preferred an appeal which is pending.According to the prosecution on 26-5-1999, accused nos.1-Shivaji and no.2-Baba uprooted recently planted mango trees from the land of Sampat.They also cut down one Babool and one Bhokar tree from the land of Sampat without his consent.About that incident Sampat Kolape lodged a report with the police.Due to this, accused nos.1 and 2 were annoyed.The incident of this case occurred on 28-05-1999 between 5.30 to 5.45 a.m. near the houses of these two parties.According to the prosecution on that day at about 5.30 a.m., Sampat Kolape was present near a hearth for heating water at the shed of his house.At that time, his elder son Sopan alias Tatyaba, P.W.6 came from land at Patkhal carrying milk.Sopan alias Tatyaba went near his father who was in the shed.He saw both accused persons and some ladies from their family standing in front of their house.Therefore, Sopan asked them as to why they had uprooted mango trees and cut other trees from his land.He also told them that he would also uproot and cut trees from their land.On this, accused no.2-Baba Kolape uttered that his father had already made a complaint with the police, so he could do whatever he liked.The accused no.1 was armed with an axe in his hand and Baba Kolape-accused no.2 was armed with stick in his hand.Accused no.2-Baba Kolape started abusing and beating Sopan/Tatyaba.Sampat Kolape intervened to pacify the accused persons but accused no.1-Shivaji Kolape firstly gave a blow with the blunt side of an axe on the back of Sampat and immediately, thereafter he gave the second blow on his head with sharp side of an axe.Due to this Sampat suffered bleeding injury on the head and collapsed on the ground.It was alleged that other female accused persons namely, Sangita, Anita, Laxmibai and Mangal also pelted stones and injured Sopan @ Tatyaba, who was sitting down due to beating to him.Sopan also suffered bleeding injury.Rajendra, son of Sampat, called one autorickshaw and Sampat and Sopan both were taken to Civil Hospital, Satara for treatment.Both were examined.Sampat was admitted in the hospital.His statement was also recorded by the police.Initially Crime No.240/1999 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.On 29-5-1999 Sampat died because of the head injury and Section 302 came to be added.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and then the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.It may be noted that the accused have not denied the incident.According to them, Sopan, his father Sampat and other members of his family were actual aggressors and they had started the attack and in that incident, some of the family members of the accused had suffered injuries.While taking plea of the defence to some extent, it was pleaded that the axe was infact in the hands of P.W.6-Sopan alias Tatyaba and when he was trying to assault one of the accused with the axe, the blade of the axe hit the head of his father Sampat, resulting in the bleeding injury.Thus, according to them, they are not responsible for the fatal wound suffered by Sampat.On behalf of the prosecution, in all 10 witnesses were examined.On behalf of the defence also 3 witnesses were examined.The learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the right of private defence pressed on behalf of the accused persons.The learned Trial Court also rejected the contention of the accused persons that the blade of the axe in the hands of Sopan came in contact with the head of the Sampat causing fatal wound.The learned Trial Court also did not accept the contention of the accused persons that Sampat and Sopan and their family members were aggressors.However, the learned Trial Court found that as far as accused No. 2-Baba is concerned, he did not have any intention or knowledge that the death of Sampat would be caused.Therefore, he alongwith accused no.1-Shivaji was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The circumstances in which the incident occurred, the learned Trial Court held that there was no intention to cause death and in any case, the incident had occurred abruptly and in the heat of passion.Therefore, accused no.1-Shivaji, who had caused the fatal wound to Sampat, was convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.There is no dispute that both the parties held agricultural lands adjoining to each other and on account of allegations of encroachment on the land of Sampat, there was long standing enmity between the parties.In 1986 Sampat had filed a civil suit for removal of encroachment and possession of his land against accused nos.1 and 2 and others.The defendants therein had preferred an appeal which was pending when this incident occurred.It is also admitted that the houses of both the parties were also quite close to each other.Only a small plot of land admeasuring about 29 X 38 ft.belonging to one Narayan Kolape and 2 others was between the houses of these two parties.That plot was lying open and as per the spot panchanama proved by the Investigating Officer and P.W.2-Rajendra Rokade.The incident of this case had taken place on that open plot.Evidence of P.W.6- Sopan reveals that he was in his field at Patkhal where he used to look after she-goats.He also came to know about uprooting and cutting of certain trees from the field.He returned home on 28-5-1999 at about 5.30 a.m. with a can of milk.His father Sampat was present in the shed of his house for the purpose of heating water, may be for taking bath.Sopan first went to his father in the shed.Thereafter, he went near some of the accused persons and asked accused no.2-Baba as to why they had uprooted and cut their trees.Not only this, he also uttered that he would also likewise uproot and cut trees from the field of the accused.On this, accused no.2-Baba uttered that his father, Sampat had already lodged a report with the police so he could do whatever he liked.Saying so, Baba-accused no.2 went inside the house and came alongwith accused no.1-Shivaji.At that time, Shivaji was armed with an axe and accused no.2-Baba was holding a stick.According to Sopan, accused no.2-Baba began to abuse and beat him with stick and his father Sampat came to intervene and pacify the accused persons but accused no.1-Shivaji gave a blow with the blunt side of the axe on the back of Sampat and then he gave second blow with sharp side of the axe on the head of Sampat which caused bleeding injury on the head which proved to be fatal.Many people, including police patil, came there and intervened.Evidence on record shows that the after the incident, Rajendra son of Sampat brought one autorickshaw and by that autorickshaw injured Sampat and Sopan were taken to the Civil Hospital, Satara where Sampat was admitted as indoor patient.Evidence of P.W.8-PSI Madane reveals that after getting information of this case, he went to the hospital and recorded statement of Sampat B. Kolape.Satish Barge, who was medical officer on duty, had examined Sampat and certified that he was conscious and was fit to make a statement.After he made this endorsement on the request letter from PSI Madane, the statement of Sampat came to be recorded .There is no dispute that on the next day Sampat died.That dying declaration fully corroborates version of P.W.6-Sopan and P.W.7-Muktabai about the actual incident.Exhibit 46 is the medical certificate of Sampat, which reveals that for the injuries suffered by him during the assault at about 5.30 a.m. on 28-5-1999, he was brought to the General Hospital, Satara and was examined at about 6.15 a.m. Medical officer Dr.Jadhav noted that Sampat had suffered following 3 injuries:Vertical incised wound over vertex 10 cm X 3 cm X Bone Deep.Depressed fracture of frontal Bone with Bleeding present.2. Contusion over interscapular Region of Back, Tenderness present 10 cm X 6 cm.3. Contusion over (L) Arm & forearm 5 cm X 6 cm.Tenderness present.Injury No.1 was grievous and could be caused by sharp and cutting weapon.X-Ray report reveals the fracture of frontal bone.Injury Nos.2 and 3 were simple and could be caused by hard and blunt object.This medical certificate was admitted on behalf of the accused.P.M. Report Exhibit 43 reveals that there were sutured vertical linear wound on the frontal region of skull and sutured operational wound over the skull.Third injury was horizontal linear wound on the left scapular region and fourth was contusion over the back in the scapular region.The fracture of the frontal bone corresponding to injury no.1 was confirmed.P.M.Report shows that the cause of death was head injury.P.M.Report was also admitted on behalf of the accused.As such, cause of death of Sampat is not disputed.Exhibit 47 is the medical certificate of P.W.6-Tatyaba alias Sopan Sampat Kolape.It reveals that he had suffered contused lacerated wound over parieto occipital region, size 6 cm X 3 cm, bone deep.Bleeding was present.Exhibit 49 is the medical certificate of Muktabai which shows that she had suffered contusion over the right eyebrow and tenderness over back.She had not suffered any other injury.On behalf of the accused persons, in all 3 defence witnesses were examined.Satish Barge, who was also examined as P.W.9, deposed that he had examined accused no.2-Baba on 28-5-1999 and he had found following two injuries:Swelling over left cheek of size 5 cm X 4 cm tenderness present.2. Abrasion over left forearm lateral aspect of size 5 cm X 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm tenderness present and swelling present.In the cross-examination he deposed that both the injuries were simple and could be caused even by fall while walking.Jayant Deshpande deposed that on 1-6-1999 accused no.1-Shivaji was brought to him at Civil Hospital, Satara by police and on examination, he found following 3 injuries:Healed abrasion, 1 cm X 1 cm over right front parietal region.2. Healed abrasion over right scapular region.All these injuries were already healed indicating that they might be 5-6 days old.14. D.W.3-Dr.Dattatraya Darawade was working as a dentist in Sasoon Hospital, Pune.He deposed that on 28-4-1999, Mangal Sopan Jarag, who was one of the accused, was referred to Sasoon Hospital, Pune from Satara Hospital.She was examined by Dr.Chandan Yemun junior of Dr.Dattatraya Darawade.Evidence of Dr.Dattatraya Darawade clearly shows that he himself had not examined Mangal but he deposed on the basis certificate prepared and signed by Dr.Chandan Yemun.As per that certificate, Mangal had suffered injury on the upper lip, which was 3 cm in length.She had lost 3 teeth, one from upper jaw and 2 from lower jaw and there was also fracture in the front segment of upper jaw.If the defence story is true and evidence of Dr.Dattatraya Darawade based on a certificate is believed, it appears that Mangal must have suffered injury on her mouth which resulted in uprooting of 3 teeth and fracture of jaw.Incidentally, the Doctor, who had examined her and prepared certificate, was not examined as witness before the Court.Mangal herself is also not examined as defence witness.Therefore, it is not clear how she had suffered that injury.For the sake of arguments, even if it is believed that she suffered such injury, the possibility can not be ruled out that she might have suffered such injuries due to pelting of stones at the same time when accused nos.1 and 2 had also suffered small injuries as noted above.None of these injuries suffered by these 3 persons was caused by any sharp or cutting weapon or with any deadly weapon.There is no evidence on record that P.W.6-Sopan or his father, Sampat or any of their family members was armed with any weapon.Prosecution evidence is consistent to show that accused no.2-Baba was holding a stick while accused no.1-Shivaji was armed with an axe and they had assaulted Sopan and Sampat as stated earlier.The learned Trial Court noted that even though on behalf of the accused, an argument was advanced that they had acted in exercise of their private defence but during the cross-examination plea of the private defence was not taken up seriously.In the cross-examination of P.W.6-Sopan, it was suggested to him that he himself had beaten Baba with the handle of the axe and that when he had raised the axe to beat Baba with its handle and Baba had obstructed it, blade of the axe hit his own father resulting in the injury on head.It indicates that the blade of the axe had come out from the axe and it hit the head of the Sampat resulting in the injury.Taking into consideration nature of the injury and the fracture of the frontal bone, it is impossible to believe that such injury could be caused, merely because blade of the axe came into contact with the head in such manner.For causing such an injury, it requires a strong force of a humanbeing holding that weapon.In view of this, the defence story can not be believed.Dhamal, the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant contended that on the report lodged by accused no.2-Baba, a counter criminal case was registered against Sopan and Sampat and others.Normally it is expected that when there are counter cases arising out of the same incident, they should be tried and disposed off together, though evidence has to be recorded separately.It is not clear why that counter case was not taken up for trial alongwith the present case.However, merely because counter case was not tried alongwith this case, the accused persons can not be given benefit of doubt.The circumstances clearly show that it was early in the morning when Sopan had come from his field and had brought milk.He immediately went to the accused persons and enquired about uprooting and cutting of the trees from his field and this resulted in the aforesaid incident.There is no reason to believe that when he went to talk with the accused persons, he was armed with any weapon and his intention was to cause injuries to them, therefore, theory of private defence can not be accepted.There is a possibility that exchange of hot words and abuses must have taken place at that stage.Immediately, accused nos.1 and 2 brought the axe and stick from their house.Accused no.2 assaulted Sopan with the stick and caused minor injuries.As far as accused no.2-Baba is concerned, he could be attributed to common intention to cause hurt and, therefore, he alongwith accused no.1-Shivaji was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It appears that after the quarrel had commenced, people from the locality including police patil came there and intervened.From the evidence on record, it appears that the whole incident was over within 2-4 minutes.Possibility can not be ruled out that the people from the locality might have come at the end of the incident and, therefore, they could not provide details of the incident.Their evidence could be used as circumstantial evidence only.In view of the fact that incident is not disputed even by the accused persons, non examination of the independent witnesses from the locality does not make much difference.Presence of Sampat, Sopan and Muktabai is not disputed nor presence of accused nos.1-Shivaji and 2-Baba is disputed.There is no law that evidence of the victims of the offence can not be relied upon to sustain a conviction.It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of the witnesses which should be considered.If the evidence of victim of the offence or his relatives is found to be trustworthy, there is no need for corroboration from independent witnesses nor their evidence can be discarded merely because independent witnesses are not examined.In the present case, evidence of prosecution witnesses appears to be truthful and there is no reason to disbelieve that.I am unable to accept this contention.It is to be noted that injuries suffered by accused nos.1 and 2 were very minor, which might not have been even noticed by the prosecution witnesses, particularly because father of these witnesses had suffered a serious bleeding injury on the head due to which he had collapsed and due to which he finally died.In such circumstances, they were not expected to watch minutely the minor injuries suffered by the accused persons.As far as the sentence for the offence under Section 324 is concerned, I do not find any fault.However, in view of the circumstances in which the incident had occurred and accused no.1 had acted without any premeditation and preparation and in the heat of passion and anger in the abrupt quarrel which had taken place, sentence of R.I. for 7 years appears to be harsh and severe.In my opinion R.I. for 4 years would be just and reasonable.Therefore to that extent appeal may be allowed.Substantive sentences on both the counts shall run concurrently.3. Accused No.2-Baba Keru Kolape shall surrender before the learned Trial Court within two weeks to undergo the sentence.For the reasons stated in the judgment, the appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
85,453,645 | Brief facts leading for filing the Writ Petition, disclosed in the memoof the petition are as under:Prior tothe marriage, Petitioner started working after completing two years architecturaldraftsman course recognized by the Government (I.T.I.).The Petitioner wasworking with an Architect Ravi Gone, Vashi.Petitioner was working there sincethe year 1992, and in the year 1993 she had opened her bank account withAbhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. Thereafter, from August 1994 to August1995, the Petitioner did her apprenticeship from Mumbai Municipal Corporationand completed three years diploma course.On or about 14 th May 1995, thePetitioner along with others started a company under the name and style of"Designer's Home".The Petitioner was doing work with 36 societies work withCIDCO, and out of her earnings and savings the Petitioner then purchaseddifferent land properties.It is the case of the Petitioner that, on or about 15 th November 1996,the Petitioner got introduced to Respondent No.2 in a one marriage ceremonyand thereafter friendship developed and resulted into marital bond.It is pertinent tonote that, prior to the marriage, the elder brother of Respondent No.2 by name ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 3/37 Judgment Cri.At that time, he also advised the Petitioner not to marry hisyounger brother.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the month of March 1995,Respondent No.2 had a quarrel with his family, after which he left his housealong with his books and clothes.At that time, he was studying.RespondentNo.2 had then taken Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) from thePetitioner for taking a rental accommodation.Thereafter, Respondent No.2'sparents had visited the Petitioner and informed that, they came to know that thePetitioner had decided to marry their son Santosh and further informed that, theywould not be attending the marriage as their son (Santosh) was not earninganything and has not been able to complete his degree.On the request ofRespondent No.2, the Petitioner agreed for marriage and made jewellery out ofher savings for self and for Respondent No.2 as well as incurred entire marriageexpenses.It is the case of the Petitioner that, from July 1998 to February 1999,the Petitioner stayed in a joint family however, her husband, Respondent No.2was unemployed, and it was the Petitioner who used to contribute for the ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 4/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18household expenses along with payment of maintenance, electricity and othercharges.There used to be constant taunting from the in-laws, and they asked thePetitioner to stay separately with her husband.Thereafter, Petitioner took a flat atSanpada on rent.On 3rd July 1998 elder daughter Shriya was born whenRespondent No.2 was unemployed, and all household expenses including utensilsand other articles were purchased by the Petitioner out of her savings.Petitionerwhile working since 1993 to 2001 had saved money out of which she hadpurchased gold jewellery, one Hero Honda Bike for her husband and also bornthe fees and household expenses of the children and the family.It is the case of the Petitioner that, Respondent No.2 also hadphysical relationship with a lady (name known but time being with held) and wasincurring educational expenses of her daughter, and whenever the Petitionerwould ask, Respondent No.2 would fight and quarrel with the Petitioner on theground that he was spending his own money, and the Petitioner cannot questionhim.Petitioner's mental and physical condition was deteriorating due to over-exertion caused due to three abortions/miscarriage and two deliveries withcesarean.Every time, the Respondent No.2 would insist for a male child and inthe process would force the Petitioner to undergo abortion, because of which thePetitioner suffered lot mentally as well as physically.It is stated that, from theyear 2004 to 2007, Respondent No.2 was employed in a company viz. IBM at ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 5/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18Pune and at that time, he was having extra marital affairs with an anotherwoman, and whenever Petitioner asked about the extra marital affairs, he wouldsay that since he had not enjoyed his collage life and bachelorhood, nobody couldever blame him in doing the same.It is stated that, from the year 2007 to 2013,Respondent No.2 was employed in U.S.A. and Petitioner and her daughter wouldvisit there regularly.Petitioner was also carrying out various businesses.It isstated that, on 5th May 2013, Respondent No.2 had visited India on the occasionof 2nd birthday of younger daughter Urvi for 3 weeks.At that time, Petitioner wastold by Respondent No.2 that, he wanted to live a bachelor life and that duringthe college days he could not enjoy the same and till he gets green-card, he wouldnot come back for four years to India.Therefore, to secure the future of thechildren, he suggested to give power of attorney with respect to the flats atSanpada and Navade.Accordingly, on 27th May 2013 the Respondent No.2visited office of an Advocate at Nerul, finalized the draft of two power of attorneyin the presence of his elder daughter, corrected the draft and had also visited theoffice of the Sub-Registrar for registration.The said power of attorneys wereprepared by an Advocate viz. Shri.Sandeep Ramkar at Nerul which wereregistered with the office of the Sub-Registrar of Stamps at Koparkhairane, NaviMumbai.It is stated that, above mentioned both the flats i.e. flat at Sanpada andflat at Navade were purchased by the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 in jointname whereas, the Respondent No.2 gave power of attorney with respect of his ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 6/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.1850% share in both the flats and after transfer of both the flats in the name ofPetitioner, the balance EMI with respect of the loan standing in Sanpada flat werepaid to the Petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, due to recession in U.S.A., theRespondent No.2 was removed from job on 30 th October 2013 and he returned toIndia on 1st January 2014 permanently.After his return, Respondent No.2 wouldwithdraw money from joint account (ATM) with ICICI Bank, Vashi Branch andNRI account and saving account regularly.Being disturbed with the said conductof Respondent No.2, the Petitioner confronted him as to, why he waswithdrawing the money through her ATM cards from her banks Respondent No.2started quarreling and fighting with the Petitioner, and in reply started physical,mental harassment and torture.He started visiting only in 7 to 8 days at theSanpada residence.Because of the above conduct, meeting was arranged withRespondent No.2's parents and the Petitioner's family.In the said meeting, it wasdiscussed about the Respondent No.2 staying with his girlfriend, upon whichRespondent No.2 declared that, he wanted to marry said girlfriend, whose nameis disclosed in the Writ Petition, since he had given property by executing thepower of attorney and therefore, the Petitioner cannot stop Respondent No.2'srelationship with said girl.Moreover, in the above background, where he hadalready secured the future of the children, Respondent No.2 left the house andcame after 8 days.On 11th April 2014, Respondent No.2 assaulted his elder ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 7/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18daughter.At that time, Shriya was badly injured.However, an excuse was givenin hospital that she had fallen in the bathroom.It is further stated that, on 19 thJuly 2014 there was a meeting arranged between families from both the sides inwhich Respondent No.2 declared that, he wanted to marry said girl and he hadalready given power of attorneys to the Petitioner for the future of the childrenand he would leave the house after he gets a job.In view of the above discussionin the family gathering, Petitioner advised Respondent No.2 to get transferred flatat Sanpada and Navade in her name as Gift Deeds.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, since Respondent No.2 was notdoing any work nor was employed, he would visit house and take awayelectrical / electronic items, documents and would also physically and mentallyharass and assault Petitioner and both her daughters.Fed up by his conduct,Petitioner filed a Police complaint on 13 th October 2014 with Turbe PoliceStation, which was registered by the Police as N.C. complaint.Despite ofaforesaid efforts stated hereinabove.They got married on 24th July 1998 before theMarriage Registrar, Mumbai.The Petitioner was introduced to Respondent No. 2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 20/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18in one relative's weeding.In the year 1996, the Respondent No. 2 wasprosecuting engineering from VJTI College, Mumbai.On 3rd July 1999, a daughter named Shriya, was born out of thewedlock.From 2004 to 2007,Petitioner was employed with IBM, Pune.The Respondent No. 2 was getting avery handsome salary on which the household expenses and other expenses weretaken care of.In the year 2007, the Respondent No. 2 got a job in USA.The Respondent No. 2 was getting a goodsalary from which he was taking care of the expenses of the family and also savedfor the studies and future of his daughters.The Respondent No. 2 also purchasedproperties out of the income earned by him.It is further submitted that, whilst the Respondent No. 2 was in USA,the Petitioner misused the NRE and other ATM cards of the Respondent No. 2and on the false pretext of taking care of household expense, withdrew moneyfrom the NRE and other bank accounts of Respondent No. 2 and spent money ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 21/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18accumulating wealth in her own name.The Petitioner over a period of timeaccumulated a huge some of money and transferred the same to her own bankaccount.ThePetitioner had also purchased one two-wheeler vehicle, Honda Neo and a four-wheeler vehicle Maruti A-star.She had also purchased many gold ornaments.ThePetitioner had paid the money for the purchase of all the above said propertiesand other things from the income of Respondent No. 2 without his knowledge.The Petitioner has not spent even a single penny from her own pocket topurchase the above properties.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::The petitioner during the visit of Respondent No. 2 to India used totalk very affectionately in order to convince Respondent No. 2 to give his powerof Attorney with respect to his property and bank accounts to Petitioner.In themonth of May, 2013, Respondent No. 2 had come to India for meeting his family.During the period of his stay, the Petitioner insisted that the Power of Attorneywith respect of the property in the joint name of Petitioner and Respondent No. 2be given to Petitioner.WP.No.3640.18Respondent No. 2 was not aware of the ill motives of the Petitioner, he agrred togive Power of Attorney to Petitioner to take necessary measures for smoothfunctioning in his absence with respect to two flats.On the insistence ofPetitioner, the Respondent No. 2 executed a Power of Attorney in respect of hisshare in property at B-601, Aradhana CHS, Plot No. 2, Sector 06, Sanpada, NaviMumbai.Respondent No. 2 similarly executed another Power of Attorney inrespect of his share in property at Flat No. 307, A-Wing, Plot No. 31, NeelkamalVrindavan, Sector 31, Nawde, Panvel.It was clearly mentioned in the openingParagraph of both the Power of Attorney that Respondent No. 2 is going out ofIndia for job and due to his job, he would not be able to look after the affairs ofsaid property and therefore, the said Power of Attorney is executed in favour ofthe Petitioner.The Petitioner had instructed her Advocate to draft the above saidPower of Attorney's.The Power of Attorney's were executed in the office of theAdvocate and the Respondent No. 2 was made to sign upon the same withoutgiving him the chance to properly go through the same.The Power of Attorneywas executed by deposing utmost faith upon the Petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Respondent No. 2 stayed in USA for more than 6 years and therefore,in order to stay with family and spend time with family and to look after highereducation of his daughters, he left his job in USA and decided to return back toIndia.On 01.01.2014, the Respondent No. 2 returned to India and started staying ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 23/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18at the residence at Sanpada with the Petitioner and his daughters.After returningto India, the Respondent No. 2 discovered that the Petitioner was no really happywith his return.Respondent No. 2 casually asked about the above said Power ofAttorney's to the Petitioner.Initially, Petitioner informed that the said Power ofAttorney's are kept in the Respondent No. 2's parents house at Thane.TheRespondent No. 2 didn't had a reasons for suspecting the Petitioner initially andtherefore, he believed her words.But to his shock and surprise when RespondentNo. 2 subsequently enquired about both the Power of Attorney from his parents,it was informed that they never had any such Power of Attorney's in theirpossession.At taht time, Petitioner informed that she is unable to find the Powerof Attorney's.Respondent No. 2 therefore started searching the Power of Attorneyin the house, at that time he noticed that the Petitioner used to leave the houseonly after locking the cupboard of the house where all the valuables anddocuments are kept.The Petitioner was not allowing the Respondent No. 2 toaccess the cupboards since he returned to India.Respondent No. 2 therefore feltsuspicious about the conduct of the Petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Respondent No. 2 upon returning to India also observed that,Petitioner's behaviour towards the Respondent No. 2 had changed and she usedto fight with Respondent No. 2 on trivial issued.It was also discovered that thePetitioner had also poisoned the ears of their daughter Shriya against Respondent ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 24/37 Judgment Cri.There were frequent fights in the house on trivial issue and on manyoccasions the Petitioner questioned the Respondent No. 2 the reason for returningfrom USA and he was earning well and now how she would maintain herexpenses.From the overall conduct of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 gotsuspicious and checked the records and accounts and the money withdrawn andspent by the Petitioner.To the shock and surprise of the Respondent No. 2, thePetitioner had not kept anything in his account and the Petitioner has verysmartly withdrawn all the salary and money from the account of Respondent No.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Respondent No. 2 asked thePetitioner to account for money spent by her in all these years as the entire salaryof every month which was in lakhs were withdrawn by the Petitioner.Respondent No. 2 tried to find outabout both the Power of Attorney and the money which was withdrawn butPetitioner made sure that the same should not come to the knowledge ofRespondent No. 2 and kept on mentally harassing the Respondent No. 2 day inand day out.It is further submitted that, as the Petitioner got furious that the ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 25/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18Respondent No. 2 would come to know about the deeds of Petitioner, she startedmaking false allegations and complaints against the Respondent No. 2 in policestation.On 13.10.2014, Respondent No. 2 filed a false complaint before theSanpada Police Station.Respondent No. 2 therefore, attended the police stationand at that time, the brother of Petitioner i.e. Alankar Kadam assaulted theRespondent No. 2 before the police officials.Respondent No. 2 had to sit in thepolice station for the whole day because of the same.Respondent No. 2 suspected that Petitioner may misuse the Power ofAttorney executed in her favour by the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2therefore, sent two notices to the Petitioner both dated 01.12.2014 therebyrevoking the Power of Attorney given in respect of Flat No. 307, A wing, Plot No.31, Neel Kamal Vrindavan, Sector 31, Nawade, Panvel and also revoked Power ofAttorney given in respect of Flat No. B-601, Aaradhana CHS, Plot No. 3, Sector 6,Sanpada, Navi Mumbai.By way of both the notices, the Respondent No. 2 calledupon the Petitioner to return back the Power of Attorney and other originaldocuments in respect of above said flat premises.Petitioner in reply to above notices, sent a joint reply dated05.12.2014 through her Advocate to both the notices.In the said notices, in ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 26/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18Paragraph No. 7, it is mentioned that, my client in reply to your two notices statesthat as far as the subject matter of your notices that is Revocation of Power ofAttorney in respect of the Flat bearing No. 601, Aradhana CHS Ltd. Plot No. 3,Sector 6, Sanpada and in respect of Flat bearing No. 307, A Wing, Plot No. 31,Neel Kamal, Vrindavan, Sector 31, Nawade, Panvel Dist.Raigad is concern myclients states that, she does not have Original documents in respect of any of theflats and she does not have any blank signed papers, or any other documentswhich your client is demanding in respect of the said two flats as well as my clientdoes not have Original Power of Attorneys in respect of subject flats mentioned inyour notices since your client has already been forcibly taken back all the OriginalPower of Attorneys in respect of the said subject flats from my client at the timewhen your client himself requested my client to use it for the purpose mentionedtherein and the same are lying with your client only, and now your client only tograb all the properties is harassing my client to transfer the said flats in his nameand falsely demanding all the papers which are lying with himself only.The said gift deeds are executed by thePetitioner on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as his Power of Attorney.Petitionerused the Power of Attorney and transferred the above said flats to her ownself asgift.It is pertinent to note here that, when the above said Gift Deeds wereexecuted the Respondent No. 2 was present in India.It is also pertinent to note that,the Petitioner by way of her reply dated 05.12.2014 in the above mentionedparagraph no. 7 had stated that, she is not in possession of the Original power ofAttorney and nowhere in the said reply it is mentioned that she has gifted the twoflats in her own name.Respondent No. 2 after discovering the same confronted thePetitioner however, the Petitioner threatened the Respondent No. 2 of direconsequences.Respondent No.2 also discovered that in order to cheat theRespondent No. 2 and cause wrongful loss to him and wrongful gain to herself,the petitioner has further sold one of the flats and created third party rights in thesaid property by executing sale agreement and sale deed.It is further submitted that, when Respondent no. 2 was in USA, thePetitioner had a love affair with Accused No. 2 in the Complaint, i.e. JayantJayram Naik, the said fact was informed to Respondent No. 2 by the wife of mr.Jayant Jayram Naik.The accused No. 2 and the sister of the Petitionerhas political contacts.It is further submitted that, Petitioner has stolen many articles anddocuments of the Respondent No. 2 and the same are kept with her differentrelatives residing at different places.This included the professional degreecertificate and mark sheets of Respondent No. 2, caste certificate, birth certificate,national Saving Certificates, Work Experience Certificates and also iPhone 4,external hard disk, laptop, Apple and Bose company cord and bluetooth headset,books and many other articles.On the basis of above stated facts, the Respondent No. 2 filednumerous complaints with the concerned Police Station but the police failed totake cognizance of the offences.Respondent No. 2 had also filed complaint withthe Commissioner of Police but no action was taken on the same.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of parties heardfinally.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 2/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Hence, to avoid any untoward incident to herself and minordaughters, Petitioner then filed an FIR on 3 rd January 2015, bearing FIR No.1 of2015 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, whereRespondent No.2 was arrested and was subsequently released on bail.After hisrelease, Respondent No.2 never came back to stay with Petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 8/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the aforesaid FIR, it wascategorically alleged by Petitioner that, Respondent No.2 had taken away thedocuments pertaining to the joint bank account and pass book and other things inthe house of his girlfriend, whose name is disclosed in the Writ Petition, and hadalso taken away household items to the house of said girl and had started stayingwith said girl, which facts were disclosed by Petitioner to the elder brother ofRespondent No.2, Mr. Santosh and his parents.Petitioner had also narrated howher husband used indecent and abusive words in front of minor children whileabusing the Petitioner when he was staying with the Petitioner, and thereafteralso whenever he visited the Petitioner.In her complaint, the Petitioner haddisclosed how her husband used to take money from her and detailed harassmentfaced by her.Infuriated with the lodging of the above complaint, RespondentNo.2 went and filed a private complaint being Original Miscellaneous ApplicationNo.1331 of 2015 on 12.08.2015 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Vashi afterthought and to give counterblast to the FIR filed by thePetitioner against him.Hence, he had filed a private complaint under ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 9/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, Policerecorded the statement of Petitioner and other witnesses and also seizeddocuments pertaining to the properties alleged in the complaint.During the course of the investigation,it was disclosed by Respondent No.2's daughter i.e. Shriya Kadam that he i.e.,respondent No.2, had read the power of attorney properly in the office ofAdvocate Sandeep Ramkar and had also corrected it.At that time, the said Shriyawas with him and thereafter Respondent No. 2 had visited the office of theRegistrar of Stamps at Koparkhairane, Vashi.In the statement of Mrs. UmaJayant Naik, she categorically stated that, she had never mentioned about themarital affairs of her husband and the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2, which wasfalsely alleged by Respondent No.2 in his police complaint.It is the case of the Petitioner that, after the investigation andperusing all the material record, the Respondent No.1 filed a report dated ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 10/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.1819.04.2016 in FIR No. I - 121 of 2015 inter alia disclosing that, Respondent No.2was not co-operating with investigation and after going through the statements ofwitnesses' and documents collected, it was disclosed that while signing power ofattorney, there was no haste as alleged by the complainant in FIR and he hadread and understood the contents of the same which were disclosed in theinvestigation.Further, it was found by the Police that, Flat No. 59 A/10, Sector 9,Vashi, Navi Mumbai was purchased by the Petitioner out of her earnings andsavings and the other properties were also purchased by the Petitioner's singlename or joint name.It was further stated that, there was FIR lodged by thePetitioner on 03.01.2015 where after collecting evidence, charge-sheet was filedby the concerned police Station on 20.01.2015 against the Respondent No.2, andthe allegation of the complainant that the above mentioned case was false wasfound to be incorrect in investigation.Dispute raised by the complainant is purelyof civil nature and hence 'C' summary report was submitted by the concernedpolice officer to the concerned Court.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Trial Court issued a notice tothe complainant on the "C summary report" whereas the complainant filed aprotest petition on 20.07.2017 and thereafter the learned Trial Court vide orderdated 26.09.2017 rejected the said "C summary report" and passed order ofissuance of summons vide Exh.1 on the very same day.It was shocking to note ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 11/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18that, though "C summary Report" was rejected on 26.09.2017 and summons wasissued on the very same day vide separate order vide order dated 26.07.2017 i.e.about 2 months before thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class appearsto have allowed the protest petition and passed an order to examine thecomplainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Itis pertinent to note that, on 29.06.2018 the Petitioner appeared and informedthat no summons was issued.The NBW issued to petitioner was cancelled by theCourt.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner came to know that,the Original Miscellaneous Application numbered as OMA No. 1331 of 2015which was filed on 12.08.2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,9th Court at Vashi is being shown on the board of learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, 9th Court at Vashi.However, in very same matter order under Section 156(3) was passed and on 20.11.2015 the same stood transferred to the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, 10th Court at Vashi.Further, ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 13/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18the Roznama in Original Miscellaneous Application No.1331 of 2015 and originalcase papers are not available in record with learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, 9th Court at Vashi nor with learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 10 thCourt at Vashi.Further it also important to note that, one more case has beenshown i.e. Original Miscellaneous Application No. 1269 of 2015, details of whichare not available with learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3 rd Court at Vashinor in the record room.The Petitioner made efforts to trace the same by filingapplication for certified copy however, the copy is not made available nor it isavailable in record room.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::TheSecond complaint came to be filed under Sections 403, 406, 407, 467 and 471read with Section 34 of the IPC wherein he made the Petitioner one of theaccused and five others including the Advocate Mr. Quershi.The secondcomplaint is pending consideration where the learned Magistrate has passed anorder directing to enquire the mater under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 14/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is the case of the Petitioner that, Respondent No.2 also suppressedthe fact that on 11.05.2015, he had filed a petition before the Civil Court atThane, being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 599 of 2015 for a decree of divorceagainst the Petitioner taking the ground that, the Petitioner was not allowing tohave physical relationship along with other grievances.The Petitioner states that,the said divorce petition came to be filed after the Petitioner filed complaintunder FIR No. 1 of 2015 dated 03.01.2015 with Turbe Police Station.The saiddivorce petition and above mentioned complaint was in counter to the complaintfiled by the Petitioner.The above divorce petition is pending before the learnedCivil Court at Thane.It is the case of the Petitioner that, from the material referred hereinabove, it has become crystal clear that, Respondent No.2 who was in extra maritalaffairs with more than two to three women after his marriage with the Petitioner,when caught red handed, in a family meeting, made a statement of giving awayflats at Sanpada and Navade standing in the joint names to the Petitioner forsecurity of both the daughters in future, which was drafted as per his approvaland instructions by an Advocate at Nerul.As perthe authority given under the said power of attorneys, both the flats were ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 15/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18transferred in the name of the Petitioner as the Respondent No.2 wanted to stayseparately with third women.However, when Respondent No.2 continued withhis misadventure beyond tolerable limit and started harassing and physicallyassaulting the daughters when FIR came to be lodged on 03.01.2015 underSections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 of IPC and upon his arrest in the said FIR, as acounterblast and afterthought, Respondent No.2 went and filed the aforesaidprivate complaint being RCC No. 1331 of 2015 and obtained order underSections 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The said Respondent No.2 further filed a divorcepetition which is also pending consideration where he has not sought any reliefwith respect to both the flats and / or any declaration in respect thereof.It ispertinent to note that, after filing the above proceedings, the very samecomplainant i.e. Respondent No.2 again filed another proceeding being RCC No.1155 of 2017 on similar cause of action i.e. power of attorney by suppressing theearlier proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is contended that, when Respondent No. 2 was caught red-handedwhile having extra marital affairs, in a family meeting, he assured that for thefuture of the minor daughters, he executred power of attorneys in respect of thetwo falts which was executed by him in the office of lawyer which witnessed byhis own elder daughter and the same was registered by him in the office of theSub-Registrar of Stamps.Respondent No. 2 has not challenged the veracity and ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 16/37 Judgment Cri.In the absence of any declaratory order he is trying to misuse thecriminal court proceedings which tantamount to abuse of process of law.It is anundisputed fact that the signature on the power of attorney was of RespondentNo. 2, he had visited the lawyer's office and also the office of the Sub-Registrar ofstamps for registration.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is submitted that, after a detailed investigationand going throughthe records and documents, Police filed a final report by bringing on recordmisdeeds of Respondent No. 2 whereas the learned Trial Court rejected the saidreport vide order dated 26.09.2017 and issued summons on the very same day,against the petitioner under sections 420, 406, 211 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. However, the order to recordstatement under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. appears to have been passed on20.07.2017 i.e. before 2 months, and even the statement on 20.07.2017 whichgives rise to a suspicion that either order dated 20.07.2017 was passed backdated and/or order dated 26.09.2017 rejecting "C summary report" was backdated as unless the "C Summary report" is rejected, there cannot be recording ofstatement under section 200 Cr.P.C. Thus, from the material available on recordthe manner in which the matter has progressed and non-bailable warrant came to ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 17/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18be issued without issuing summons or serving summons upon the petitioner,there appears to be blatant impropriety, illegality and misuse of process of lawwhich is apparent on the face of it.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is further contended that when the petitioner caught RespondentNo. 2 in his illegal extra marital affairs then he started filing various proceedingsand recently has filed one more proceedings based on the same cause of action bysuppressing criminal proceedings initiated by him as stated hereinabove.It issubmitted that, Respondent No. 2 has filed the above proceedings as a matter ofafterthought and in counter to the FIR filed by the petitioner being FIR No. 1 of2015 dated 03.01.2015 with the sole intention to harass petitioner.In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner relied upon the following judgments:-Tula Ram & Ors.Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459Thermax Ltd. Vs.K.M. Jhony & Ors.S.W. Palanitkar & Ors.State of Bihar & Anr.Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs.V.Y. Jose & Anr.Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verms & Ors.State of Bihar & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Bhagyawnat 18/37 Judgment Cri.Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 relying on theaffidavit in reply and annexures thereto made following submissions which are asfollows:It is submitted that, present Petition is not maintainable and is liableto dismissed with cost.Firstly, the petitioner has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction ofthis Hon'ble Court without exhausting the alternative remedy available in law.It is trite law that thelitigant should exhaust all the remedies available to her and then approach thehighest Court of the State.In the present case, the Petitioner without approachingthe Sessions Court has filed present Petition directly before this Hon'ble Court.Secondly, the present Writ Petition is hit by the principles of delayand laches.The Petitioner and heradvocate were also present on 26.09.2017, the day on which the learnedMagistrate Court had issued process against the Petitioner.On the next datei.e.13.11.2017, both the Petitioner and her advocate were present.It was ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 19/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18thereafter they chose to remain absent.Thus, the Petitioner had knowledge ofissuance of process on 26.09.2017 itself and she chose to remain silent.ThePetitioner also failed to immediately file any Application challenging the order ofissuance of process.In the present Petition a false and mala fide ground has beentaken that the Petitioner was never served and had no knowledge about the orderof process.The Petitioner had knowledge about the Order of issuance of Processon 26.09.2017 itself.The present Petition is filed on 16.08.2018, almost after 11months of the order.The Petitioner had not explained the said delay and on theother hand had made false statement on oath.As apparent from the records, thedate on which the present Petition was filed, the limitation Period of filingRevision Application was over.Therefore, to overcome that defect, the Petitionerchose to file present Petition without preferring the Revision Application which ishit by limitation.This clearly proves the mala fide on the part of the Petitioner.Itis submitted that on both the counts present Petition deserves to be dismissedwith Cost.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::On the persistent pressure from the side of Petitioner,the Respondent No. 2 agreed for marriage and the marriage was solemnizedwhile the Petitioner was pursuing his studies.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::By the time, relationbetween Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was going sour.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is clarfrom the tenor of the reply that the Petitioner alleged that she is not in possessionof Original Power of Attorney and the Respondent No. 2 is trying to grab all theproperties.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Respondent No. 2 thereafter enquired about the money spent by thePetitioner.He came to know that the Petitioner without the knowledge of ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 27/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18Respondent No. 2 had purchased land in Konkan belt from the money sent byRespondent No. 2 from USA.The properties were purchased in the Konkan belt atKanakwadi, Madangad, Dapoli, Chiplun, Khopoli, etc. Respondent No. 2 alsoenquired about the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Petitioner andsubsequently cancelled, and to the utter shock and surprise of the Respondent No.2, it was discovered that the Petitioner had already used both the Power ofAttorneys in respect of the flats are mentioned above.Petitioner has executed twoGift Deeds dated 14.08.2014 and 19.08.2014 in respect of the Flat bearing No.601, Aradhana CHS Ltd., Plot No. 3, Sector 6, Sanpada and in respect of Flatbearing No. 307, A wing, Plot No. 31, Neel Kamal, Vrindavan, Sector 31, Nawade,Panvel, Dist-Raigad wherein the 50% share of the Respondent No. 2 in both theflats have been gifted to Petitioner.The mala fide intention of the Petitioner is clear from her ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 28/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18own conduct.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::The accused using their political contacts filed the aforesaidFIR.The said FIR was registered with a view to pressurize the Respondent No. 2from taking any action against the fraud and criminal breach of trust played bythe Petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 29/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Respondent No. 2 therefore, filed a Complaint vide OMA No. 1331 of2015 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Vashi, NaviMumbai seeking direction to Police to register FIR.The learned JMFC, Vashi waspleased to allow the said Application and the directions were issued to theSanpada Police Station to register the FIR and investigate into the matter.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 30/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Pursuant to the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. the Policeregistered FIR against the Petitioner and accused no. 2 under Section 420, 211r/w. 34 of the IPC.The Police took no effective steps to investigate into theoffence and apart from recording the statement of the Petitioner and few others.The investigation was conducted by the Sanpada Police Station in a biased andpartial manner in order to protect the Accused in the FIR.The FIR and 'C' Summary reportis annexed with the copy of the Petition.Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the Summary Report submittedby the Police filed Protest Petition before the Trial Court.The learned JMFC, Vashi, Navi Mumbai by its orderdated 20.07.2017 was pleased to consider the said Protest Petition and proceededto examine the Respondent No. 2 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned JMFC,Vashi after applying its mind to the facts of the case and material on record by itsorder dated 26.09.2017 was pleased to issue process upon the Accused underSection 420, 406, 211 r/w. 34 of the IPC.It is pertinent to note here that, on boththe occasions i.e. 20.07.2017 and 26.09.2017, the Petitioner along with theAdvocate was present in the Court and participated in the proceedings andtherefore, their names are reflected in the Roznama.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 31/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::It is therefore submitted that, taking the overall facts of the case asmentioned above as it is, the offence is clearly made out and the order passed bythe learned JMFC, Vashi is legally sustainable in law.The learned JMFC, Vashihas not committed any illegality in passing the order.Hence, the present WritPetition sans merits and deserves to be dismissed with cost.Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner hadtaken loan from ICICI bank for purchase of no. B-601, 6th Floor, AradhanaApartment, Plot No. 3, Sector 6, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai.Respondent No. 2 aftercanceling the above said Power of Attorneys by notice dated 01.12.2014 hadwritten as email to ICICI bank to not release the papers of the property to anyoneelse except him.Respondent No. 2 had from his own hard-earnest money hadpurchased the said flats.Subsequently, when Respondent No. 2 inquired with thebank about the loan, it was informed that the last installment of the loan isalready paid by the Petitioner and she has taken all the loan documents from thebank.Respondent No. 2 when confronted with the bank about the same, it wasinformed that the Petitioner produced many documents including a Power ofAttorney dated 04.11.2016 purportedly executed by the Respondent No. 2 in ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 32/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18favour of Petitioner.It is submitted that, there are criminal complaints filed by theparties against each other and also Divorce proceeding is pending.There is nooccasion for the Respondent No. 2 to give another Power of Attorney in favour ofthe Petitioner.The said power of attorney is clearly forged and fabricated.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Respondent No. 2 therefore filed a subsequent complaint vide OMANo.The said Complaint is pending against the Petitioner before thelearned JMFC, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.The allegations in the present Petition thaton the same cause of action two complaint are filed are clearly false andincorrect.The cause of action in both the complaint are different.The conduct of the Petitioner clearly proves the mala fide on herpart.Even the present Petition makes false and incorrect statements on recordand the same is misleading.The Petitioner has suppressed many importantdocuments and have made incorrect and false averments about the same withoutproducing the same.The Petitioner has not produced the 'C' Summary report,documents produced by the Respondent No. 1 before the Trial Court, statement ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 33/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18of Respondent No. 2 before the Trial Court, etc. Hence, learned counsel appearingfor the Respondent No. 2 prays that petition may be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to theorders passed by the Magistrate and Roznama and tried to submit that, there istotal mismatch of the date of filing protest petition, date of examination of ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 34/37 Judgment Cri.WP.No.3640.18Respondent No. 2, date of order on the protest petition and date of issuance ofsummons.It appears that, after passing of order by Magistrate, petitionerbelatedly after about 10 months filed writ petition.The Trial Court was constrained to issue Non BailableWarrant to the petitioner for not appearing before the said Court.It is true that,the order of issuance of Non Bailable Warrant has been recalled by the said Court,but fact remains that the petitioner was trying to avoid appearance before thesaid Court.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: Bhagyawnat 35/37 Judgment Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2019 20:02:15 ::: | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,861,150 | The casebefore us is one of its kind.While, in the vast majority ofsuch cases, the harassment and killing of the bride istraceable to the abominable and pernicious practice ofdemanding and extracting dowry and the failure on the partof the bride's parents to adequately satisfy the greedydemands of the husband's people, the reason for the tortureand murder of the innocent wife in the present case was thatshe was considered an "inauspicious" girl.That was for thereason that she did not bear children for four or five yearsafter the marriage and even though thereafter, she conceivedtwice and successively gave birth to two male babies, boththose babies did not survive beyond a few weeks or days.Having branded the young wife as inauspicious, the selfishanimal nature in the husband and his parents came out in theform of their determination that the husband should remarryafter doing away with the obstacle in the shape of hisexisting wife.That led the husband and his mother to committhe dastardly murder Of the young wife in a most gruesomefashion .Sileti Singh, his wife, Smt. Gyani Devi, and his son,Virbhan Singh, were arraigned before the Sessions Judge,Etawah, charged with the murder of Smt. Gyani, the wife ofVirbhan Singh, in furtherance of the common intention of allof them, by intentionally causing death by beating thedeceased and then hanging her with a rope.The deceased wasmarried to Virbhan Singh about 9 years prior to the time ofthe occurrence.She did not give birth to any child forabout five to six years after marriage.According to theprosecution case, the husband of the deceased and hisparents used to harass her and beat her on this account andthey used to say that they would get the second marriageperformed for Virbhan Singh.In or about the seventh yearafter the marriage, the deceased gave birth to a male childbut that child survived only for about 9 or 10 months.There- - after, the ill-treatment of the deceased at thehands of the husband and his parents is said to havecommenced again.A few months prior to the occurrence, thedeceased gave birth to another male child but that baby toodied within 6 or 7 days of its birth This precipitatedmatters and the deceased is said to have been branded as an"inauspicious" woman, who could no longer be retained in thefamily.According to the prosecution, she used to makecomplaints of severe harassment by the accused to hersister, Shrimati Ram Kumari (P.W.1), who too was married toa person in the same village-Nangla Incha.On 14th August1968 at about 5.00 p,m., Shrimati Ram Kumari had gone to thehouse of the deceased with an intent to meet her but she wastold by the husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother that thedeceased had gone with the father-in law to obtain somemedicine.The next morning, P.W 1 heard a general rumour inthe village that her sister had been killed.There upon, shecalled her husband's younger brother, Krishna Gopal (P.W.4)and again went to the house of the accused along with him.There was congestion around the big vessels of the neck.The lower ribs of the deceased from 8th to 10th on the leftside were found broken.The abdomen was distended anddiscoloration was present in the flanks.Peritoneum wasdeeply congested.The abdominal cavity was full of bloodweighing about 1-1/2 Ibs.There605was a big tear 6" long in the stomach.The abdominal wallswere congested.Both kidneys were congestedand decomposing.Both sides of her heart were empty.Larynxwas congested deeply.R.R Garg, V. J. Francis and Nikhil Chandra for theappellants.Dalveer Bhandari.H. M. Singh and Ranbir Singh Yadavfor the respondent.The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by: BALAKRISHNA ERADI J. It is an unfortunate anddisturbing phenomenon that has recently arisen in many partsof our country that instances of bride killing arealarmingly on the increase.If society should be ridden ofthis growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardlycrimes of this nature are detected and the offence broughthome to the accused, the courts must deal with the offendermost ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment.She found Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, inthe house and she asked them to show her the dead body ofthe deceased.At first they refused but on a hue and crybeing raised by her, they showed her the dead body lying ina roon in a swollen condition, emitting a foul smell.On15th August 1968, at about 9.30 a.m. Sileti Singh lodged areport at the Police Station Jaswantnagar to the effect thatthe deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself with arope.Sub-Inspector Netrapal Singh (P.W. 11) went to theplace of occurrence and held an inquest on the dead bodywith the assistance t of panchas.Most strangely, in spiteof the body being in a fairly advanced state ofdecomposition, thereby clearly indicating that the death hadtaken place a long time prior to the report given by Sileti604Singh, which should have normally aroused serious suspicionin the mind of any reasonable person about the version ofsuicide given by him, the Sub-Inspector and the panchas wereinclined to record the cause of death as suicide by hangingand close the case without any further investigation.However, Ram Kumari (P.W.1) and her brother-in-law, Krishn aGopal (P.W.4), strongly protested and demanded that the bodyshould be sent for post-mortem and due to their persistence,the request was acceded to.The post-mortem report disclosed that there were thefollowing ante mortem injuries on the person of thedeceased.Ligature mark 8" x 1/2" on the neck in the upper part between larynx and chin, in front and on sides just below the chin.On dissection the margins were found congested.It was directed upwards obliquely following the lower jaw and was almost behind.Its base was pale, hard and leathery.2. Abrasion 1-1/2" x1/2" on the neck lower part left side.Contusion covering whole of the upper eye lid of left eye.Conjunctive was congested.Contusion covering the whole of upper eye lid of right eye.Conjunctive was congested.Contusion 4" x 4" on the chest left side upper part below the clavicle.Under the ligature mark greater curve of hyoid bone was broken on the right side.There was a lacerated wound 3"x 1/2" on thefront of left lobe of the liver.Both lungs were deeply congested anddeeply decomposing.The large vessels were congested in theneck on both sides.In the opinion of the doctor, the deathwas due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury toliver and stomach as well as asphyxia due to hanging.Thedoctor, on being examined as a witness, stated categoricallythat in view of the injuries mentioned in post-mortemreport, there was little possibility of the deceased hangingherself.The sessions Judge found, on a careful and analyticalconsideration of the evidence, that the death of thedeceased was caused as a result of the injuries inflicted onher by the accused, followed by asphyxiation resulting fromthe deceased having been hung by her neck by the accused.Hefound all the accused guility of the offence of murder,convicted them u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced the three of Pthem to undergo imprisonment for life.In the appeal filedby the three accused, the High Court confirmed the findingthat the case was not one of suicide but one of calculatedmurder, the hanging by rope being part of the process of thedeceased being put to death by her assailants.The HighCourt, however, took the view that the presence of SiletiSingh at the time of the commission of offence was notestablished beyond doubt and hence it acquitted him givinghim the benefit of doubt.The conviction of Virbhan Singhand his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, uls 302 I.P.C. wasconfirmed by the High Court.This appeal has been preferredby the afore-mentioned two accused.We find no merit at all in the appeal.The case no doubtturns purely on circumstantial evidence.But thecircumstances are so telling that the only conclusionreasonably possible is the one arrived at by the courtsbelow that the deceased did not commit suicide by hangingherself but was done to death by being brutually assaultedand thereafter hung by the neck with606a rope.The medical evidence clearly goes to prove that itwould not have been possible for the deceased, who hadsustained severe injuries of the type and nature describedin the post-mortem report in the stomach and liver, to hangherself.The husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt.Gyani Devi, were throughout present in the house and nooutsider had come to the house at the relevant time.According to the opinion of the doctors the latest point oftime at which the death of the deceased could have takenplace was 5.30 a.m. on 14-8-1968 but even on the evening ofthat day when P.W. 1, Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of thedeceased went to their house and enquired for the deceased,she was told by Virbhan Singh and his mother that thedeceased had gone out with the father-in-law for gettingsome medicine.On the next day (15th August 1968) rumoursspread in the village that the deceased had been done todeath and it was only when P.W.l accompanied by her brother-in-law, P.W 4 went to the house of the accused and insistedon being shown the body that she was finally allowed to seethe dead body of her sister which, by then, was already in astate of decomposition.Significantly, it is only subsequentthereto that Sileti Singh went to the Police Station andlodged the report stating that the deceased had commit tedsuicide by hanging.The conduct of the appellants isconsistent only with their active involvement in thecommission of the crime.It has come out in the evidencethat on the evening of the 14th August 1968 at about 7.30 or8.00 p.m. Sileti Singh had made attempts to removeclandestinely the dead body from the locality for whichpurpose he had met Brahma Nand (P.W.3), a truck owner, andunsuccessfully tried to hire his truek to transport the deadbody On a scrutiny of the evidence, we age fully satisfiedthat the conclusion recorded by the learned Sessions Judgeand by the High Court, that the appellants are guilty of themurder of the deceased in a most brutal and heinous fashion,is perfectly correct and sound.We may observe that thereasons stated by the High Court in acquitting Sileti Singh,by giving him the benefit of doubt, have not appealed to usas sound and convincing but since the State has notpreferred an appeal, his acquittal will stand.In the result, the conviction and sentence areconfirmed in respect of Virbhan Singh and Smt. Gyani Deviand this appeal is dismissed.The appellants will forthwithsurrender to their bail bonds and will be taken into thecustody to serve out their sentence. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,116,325 | A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 1 of 19 in case of default of payment Simple Imprisonment for one week; for the offence under Section 364 of the IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of such fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month by judgment dated 13th April, 2011 passed by ASJ-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in S.C No.1205/2010 arising out of FIR No.375/2009 (P.S.Mukherjee Nagar).The sentences, however, has been ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 428 to which the appellants are entitled.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 1 of 19The appellants have been charged with kidnapping Atul, aged about 1 months, out of the lawful guardianship of her mother Smt.Anita (PW-2).The reason for kidnapping and abducting aforesaid Atul was that he may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered and in furtherance of common intention both the appellants, having custody of the aforesaid child, left the child at a place with the intention of abandoning him and thereby committing an offence under Section 363/34, 364/34 and 317/34 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.9.2009 an information was received at Mukherjee Nagar police station vide DD No.16A regarding a toddler having been taken away by someone from jhuggi No.571, Nand Lal Jhuggi Camp, Mukherjee Nagar.On such information, the police reached the place of occurrence and found that Anita (PW-2) was searching for her 1 months old male child namely Atul.Statement Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 2 of 19 of aforesaid Anita was recorded in which she alleged that on the same day at about 2 PM while she was at her house, a lady aged about 50 years came and introduced herself as an Anganwadi worker and inquired about the health of her child.Anita's eight year old daughter Seema (PW-7) was also present at that time in the house.Since the toddler Atul had bed wetted, Anita went to some distance for drying the clothes.When she came back in a couple of minutes she did not find her son and on inquiry from Seema, she was told that the lady who had introduced herself as an Anganwadi worker had taken away the child with her.The physical description of the lady referred to above was also given by aforesaid Anita.On the basis of such statement (Ex.PW-2/A) FIR No.375/2009 (P.S.Mukherjee Nagar) was instituted under Sections 363/364/317 and 34 of the IPC.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 2 of 19The prosecution has relied upon the deposition of Anita (PW-2) who is the mother of the boy, Atul, who allegedly was abducted; Bimla (PW-3) who is a neighbour of PW-2; Umesh (PW-4), a person who owns Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 3 of 19 a rickshaw garage; Seema (PW-7), the eight year old daughter of PW-2; Dr.Jiyaul, apart from the aforesaid grounds, it has been argued that neither PW-2 nor PW-4 had any occasion to see him at any point of time; there was positive reason for him to refuse his participation in the TIP and though he is said to have accompanied Ritu Kapoor and facilitated the kidnapping of the boy by providing services of his TSR, no effort has been made to seize the TSR (a form of a vehicle) nor any details of the same like registration number etc. have been collected during the course of investigation or materials adduced before the Trial Court.The appellants, in unison, have stated that only because the appellants were arrested in another case with Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 4 of 19 somewhat similar allegations, they were made accused in the present case also by the investigating agency, adopting a short cut approach in attempting to bust the present kidnapping case.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 4 of 19In order to appreciate the contention of the parties it would be necessary to first examine the deposition of Anita (PW-2) who is the mother of the kidnapped boy and on whose statement, the FIR was registered.Anita (PW-2) has deposed that her family comprises her husband and three children.In the month of November, 2009, one lady came to her and asked for a glass of water and she continued to sit outside her jhuggi.Anita had to go out of her house for drying wet clothes and in the meantime her son was taken away.Anita came back in about 3-4 minutes only to find that Seema, another daughter of PW-2, crying and uttering that the lady who was sitting outside had taken away the boy.Anita immediately called the PCR on which police officials came.Finding no clue of the boy, her statement was recorded (Ex.PW-2/A) bearing her thumb impression.She gave details of the physical attributes of the lady (Ritu Kapoor), on the basis of which a sketch was prepared (Ex.PW-2/C).She has further stated that after about 5-6 days appellant Ritu Kapoor was apprehended by police and she was brought to her house when she identified her as the same person who had, on the fateful day, come to her house and had asked for water and had thereafter taken away her child.Anita has further confirmed the fact that Ritu Kapoor was interrogated in her presence and she admitted that she had lifted the child for she had Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 5 of 19 taken a fancy for him and wanted to raise him up.Only because the child took ill that the appellant, according to PW-2, left the child on road near her house.Anita has also confirmed that Ritu Kapoor pointed out the place from where she had lifted the child as also the place where she had abandoned him after sometime.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 5 of 19It was stated by PW-2 that appellant Mohd.Jiyaul was an auto rickshaw driver and PW-2 was not sure of his relationship with appellant Ritu Kapoor as Ritu Kapoor sometimes claimed Jiyaul to be her brother and sometimes her husband.However, PW-2 categorically stated that she saw appellant Jiyaul for the first time in the Court when the appellants were remanded to judicial custody in another case.Ritu Kapoor and Mohd.Jiyaul are also said to have pointed at the hospital where her son was taken when he had fallen ill.Of her own, she tried to explain the difference in her statement by stating that when she first made her statement before the police, she was not in a fit state of mind because of her child having been taken away.No Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 6 of 19 suspicion at that time was raised on appellant Jiyaul as he was only assumed to be a person roaming around in the area.Many persons, according to PW-4 had assembled and appellant Ritu Kapoor was chased but she could escape by sitting in a TSR which sped away.PW-4 has hastened to add that appellant Jiyaul had put a cloth on his face but he was identified only through his eyes.Both the appellants disclosed before people at large that they had left the child of Anita on the road after 10 days as the boy had fallen ill.Some objection was raised by his compounder Deepak Kumar (PW-6) who suspected that appellant Ritu Kapoor was not the mother of the child which she had brought.This was met with an angry response by appellant Ritu Kapoor who told his compounder to mind his own business.The records of his clinic disclosed that appellant Ritu Kapoor had visited the hospital on 29.10.2009, 31.10.2009 and 06.11.2009 with a different child on all occasions and gave their name as Ishant on all the three occasions.The photocopies of the records of his clinic (Ex.PW-5/B) Colly was proved by him.He has stated that on 19.11.2009 appellant Ritu Kapoor had come to his clinic with a small child aged about 2-3 months who was suffering from Upper Respiratory Infection.He examined the boy and drew up a medical sheet (Ex.PW- 5/A).She has stated that a lady took away her brother.She remembered the name of the lady namely Ritu Kapoor.Even if after the abduction, the accused person placed the abducted person in danger of being murdered, that would also not establish the charge of abduction punishable under Section 364 of the IPC.The intention at the time of abduction is relevant.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 14 of 19He has stated that the appellants were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate from judicial custody in muffled faces.Only after seeking permission from the Metropolitan Magistrate, PW-13 interrogated the appellants and ultimately arrested them.The arrest memos namely Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.Lady Constable Sunita (PW-9) has deposed the fact that on 5.1.2010 while appellant Ritu Kapoor was on police remand, she was in her custody.She has testified to the fact that during the course of interrogation appellant Ritu Kapoor disclosed that on 13.11.2009 she had abducted a three month male child from one of the jhuggis of Nand Lal Camp.Constable Samay Singh (PW-10) and Head Constable Naresh Pal (PW-11) have confirmed the fact that DD No.16A regarding missing of a child from the Nand Lal Camp Jhuggi camp was received and pursuant to such information the aforesaid witnesses came to the Crl.The appellants have been convicted under Sections 363/364 and 34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 363 and Crl.After about sometime, the appellants were arrested in connection with FIR No.319/2009 (P.S.Hari Nagar) which was instituted under Sections 363 and 302 IPC.The Trial Court after examining 13 witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.Jagjeet Singh (PW-5) and Deepak, compounder of PW-5 and the official witnesses namely the police officers involved with investigation.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 3 of 19The appellants have taken the defence that there was no material before the Trial Court to have convicted them for offences under Sections 363 and 364 of the IPC; the deposition of the witnesses are full of inconsistencies which are so glaring that it demolishes the entire prosecution edifice; improbability attached with the statements of PW-2 and PW-4; chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for abducting/kidnapping of the son of PW-2 is not complete and the testimony of the doctor namely PW-5, who deposed that appellant Ritu Kapoor had come with a child for treatment, being most untrustworthy.It has also been argued that Seema (PW-7) is a non compos mentis and her statement could not have been relied upon for convicting the appellants.On behalf of appellant Mohd.The aforesaid witness, however, later, on being questioned by the APP, who had sought permission for putting leading questions, deposed that she had seen appellant Jiyaul for the first time when she had gone to dry the clothes of her child.She had seen Jiyaul standing next to an auto rickshaw talking to appellant Ritu Kapoor but she did not hear the conversation between them.On being cross examined, PW-2 admitted that she had not told the police that appellant Ritu Kapoor was accompanied by any male person.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 6 of 19Bimla (PW-3) stated before the Court that she works in a factory and on 13.11.2009 she had returned from her work at around 1 PM.Only later, did she come to know that the child of PW-2 was lifted.She was also cross examined by the APP after seeking permission from the Court.She has denied the suggestion that she saw the appellant running away with the child of Anita and going away in an auto.She has not supported the fact that she had seen another person standing near the auto or that person was the appellant Jiyaul.On the date of incident, many persons were crossing through that road because of Nirankari Mela.Umesh (PW-4) who owns rickshaw garage near the jhuggi of PW- 2 has testified that appellant Ritu Kapoor was found roaming in the area Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 7 of 19 on the day of occurrence since 8 AM.A doctor, residing in the same area raised some suspicion on appellant Ritu Kapoor but PW-4 did not take any notice of such suspicion.He has deposed that he saw appellant Ritu Kapoor arguing with another lady.Thereafter PW-4 is stated to have offered Ritu Kapoor water and she sat in front of Anita's house.PW-4 also spotted a TSR parked on the road near the jhuggi of Anita where one boy was sitting.In the Court, at the trial, the boy was identified as the appellant Jiyaul.Appellant Ritu Kapoor was spotted as having wrapped a shawl upon her body and perhaps she had hidden the child under the shawl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 7 of 19What is important in the statement of PW-4 is that he has deposed that on the next day of lodging of the first information report, he visited the police station and got the sketch of appellant Ritu Kapoor prepared which sketch is Ex.PW-4 has further contended that appellant Ritu Kapoor was brought to the jhuggi where everybody who had seen her on the date of the occurrence, identified her.Jiyaul also was identified.The place from where the boy was lifted Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 8 of 19 and the place where he was abandoned were pointed by appellant Ritu Kapoor.The place where the boy was left is a road with lot of traffic.PW-4 has volunteered to inform the Trial Court that if the boy would have been left near the house of PW-2, that being a busy road, anybody would have noticed the child.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 8 of 19Jagjit Singh (PW-5) identified appellant Ritu Kapoor in the Court and deposed that she had come with a boy claiming him to be her son, to him for his treatment.PW-5 has stated that she had come to her on earlier occasions also and every time she brought a different child for treatment and referred to such child as Ishant and disclosed that such child was her son.When subsequently questioned, PW-5 could not say whether the Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 9 of 19 appellant, on all occasions brought child of the same age group to his clinic.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 9 of 19Similar is the statement of Deepak (PW-6) who has been working with PW-5 for the last three years and stated that he would not remember whether child of the age group of 1, 2 or 3 months was brought by the appellant.He was also not in a position to state as to whether on every date as suggested by PW-5 same or different child was brought by appellant Ritu Kapoor.He, however, admits of not informing the IO of the present case regarding the visits of Ritu Kapoor at the clinic except on 19.11.2009 when he had signed the document namely Ex.PW-2/F (seizure memo of medical sheet and the copy).Seema (PW-7), daughter of PW-2 aged eight years at the time of her deposition before the Court (but to the Trial Court she appeared to be of around 4-5 years) was put to initial questions as voir dire to test her mental and cognitive faculties.When she was asked as to how did she come to know about the name of the appellant, she answered that the lady herself told her name.When she was asked whether she ever visited the Court before, PW-7 confirmed that she had earlier gone to another Court along with her mother.From the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, what transpires is that the appellants were arrested in another case namely FIR No.319/2009 (P.S.Hari Nagar) whereafter they were brought to the jhuggi of PW-2 for their identification.The case of the prosecution is that Crl.In such an event, the story of the prosecution that the appellants disclosed and pointed out the place from where the boy was lifted and where the boy was later dumped loses all its significance.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 10 of 19Such statements could not have been taken into account as there was no recovery pursuant to such statement.So far as identification of appellant Jiyaul is concerned, it has been argued that PW-2 in her statement before the police did not speak about any person waiting outside with an auto rickshaw.Only on being specially asked by the prosecutor, did PW-2 state that she saw appellant Jiyaul standing near an auto and talking to appellant Ritu Kapoor.In the earlier part of her statement, PW-2 has categorically stated that she saw appellant Jiyaul for the first time in the Court when he was being remanded in another case.Immediately thereafter, on being questioned, PW-2 changed her statement and said that it was the second time that she saw the appellant in Court.For the first time, she had seen appellant Jiyaul on the day of occurrence standing on the road near an auto rickshaw.Similarly, PW-4 only claims before the Trial Court that he had observed a TSR parked near the jhuggi of PW-2 and had spotted a boy sitting there.However, in Court he identified the boy as appellant Jiyaul Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 11 of 19 but frankly admitted that the boy whom he had spotted near the TSR did not have any moustache, meaning thereby that the person who was spotted by PW-4 was a person of very young age.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 11 of 19From the deposition of witnesses namely PWs.2, 4 and 7, it appears that they all were made to know that the appellants were accused of child lifting for which another case was lodged and they had the occasion to see the appellants when they were brought by police to their area for identification.With respect to the identification of appellant Jiyaul, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are very shaky and do not appear to be plausible or acceptable.It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant Jiyaul that if Jiyaul would have been spotted on the day of occurrence by PW-2, the police would have asked for the physical description of appellant Jiyaul as well.The records reveal that description of physical traits of only Ritu Kapoor was given by PW-2, on the basis of which a sketch was prepared.Had Jiyaul been present, his sketch also would have been prepared.PW-5 who claims himself to be a doctor and who runs a hospital, allegedly found appellant Ritu Kapoor coming to his Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 12 of 19 clinic on a number of occasions with a different child and on all such occasions appellant Ritu Kapoor disclosed that she was the mother of the child and surprisingly on all such occasions appellant Ritu Kapoor gave only one name to the child namely Ishant.This ought to have rung alarm bells in the mind of the doctor who should have informed the local police or should have taken care to find out as to who was Ritu Kapoor.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 12 of 19A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 15 of 19 place of occurrence.Head Constable Naresh Pal (PW-11) has clearly stated that the sketch of one suspect i.e. Ritu Kapoor was prepared and no sketch of any other person was prepared as the eye witnesses were not at all clear about the identity of other male person.Aforesaid PW-11 has also stated that the eye witnesses did not disclose the details of TSR driver or the number of TSR in which child was taken away by the kidnapper.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 15 of 19SI Pradeep Kumar (PW-13) confirms the fact that the appellants were taken on police remand and were brought to Nand Lal Jhuggi camp where PW-2 identified appellant Ritu Kapoor as the same lady who had lifted her child.The appellants had also taken the police party to the clinic of PW-5, Dr.Jagjeet Singh where the child was treated.He did not even give any kind of notice regarding the aforesaid proceedings.He admits that till 27.11.2009 there was no clue of involvement of appellant Jiyaul in the present case and he was only orally informed by the first IO that there was one person along with the TSR who had accompanied appellant Ritu Kapoor.He also has admitted that he has not seized any TSR in the present case as the number of TSR was not known.Even the license of appellant Jiyaul, during the whole investigation, was not seized.The investigating officer was not even aware whether appellant Jiyaul was the TSR driver.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 16 of 19Thus from the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses what comes to the fore is that appellant Ritu Kapoor visited the jhuggi of Anita (PW-2).She has been identified by Anita (PW-2), Bimla (PW-3: though she has not supported the major part of the prosecution version), Umesh (PW-4) and Seema (PW-7).All of them but PW-3 have spoken about appellant Ritu Kapoor having taken away the child with her.It appears rather curious that appellant Ritu Kapoor fled from the scene without her getting caught.However, the story of Ritu Kapoor having escaped on the TSR driven by appellant Jiyaul has not been established.The evidence regarding the appellant Jiyaul having assisted appellant Ritu Kapoor in taking away the child on his vehicle is weak and no categorical statement has been made nor any evidence has been adduced.PW-13, the IO of the case has also specifically stated that neither any effort was made to know whether appellant Jiyaul had the driving license or not nor the number of the TSR was ascertained and logically, therefore, the TSR was not seized.What cannot be doubted is that Ritu Kapoor visited the jhuggi and for some reason or the other took away the child from the jhuggi.Since Seema (PW-7) was herself a child, she could not offer any resistance.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 17 of 19The purpose, albeit, of such abduction remains unknown.The evidence of Dr.Jagjeet Singh (PW-5) further confirms the issue.Had the purpose been to murder the child, Ritu Kapoor would not have undertaken the risk of visiting a doctor for the treatment of the child when on earlier occasions also she had visited the clinic along with different child on different occasions.Perhaps Ritu Kapoor had taken a fancy for the boy and had taken him temporarily for her amusement.We do not know as to what was the reason for the abduction of the child.The fact remains that Atul, the son of PW-2 was removed from the guardianship of PW-2 and this brings Ritu Kapoor within the mischief of Section 363 of the IPC.The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 317 of the IPC for want of any evidence in that regard.Thus on the basis of the discussions made, the conviction of appellant Ritu Kapoor under Section 364 of the IPC does not appear to be sustainable, and is therefore set aside.The appellant Ritu Kapoor stands convicted only for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC.For paucity of any clear, cogent and unshakeable evidence against appellant Jiyaul, his conviction and sentence is absolutely unwarranted.As a result, appellant Jiyaul is acquitted of all offences and is directed to be released from jail if not wanted in any other case.The conviction of appellant Ritu Kapoor under Section 363 of the IPC is sustained, but, for the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to her is modified.She had been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence Crl.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 18 of 19 under Section 363 IPC.It has been stated at the bar that the appellant Ritu Kapoor has remained in custody for about six years by now.In the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be met if the appellant Ritu Kapoor is sentenced for the period which she has already undergone in custody.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 18 of 19Thus the Appeal No.855/2011 (Mohd.Two copies of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court for record and compliance.M.B No.171/2014 in Crl.In view of the appeal having been partly allowed, no order is required to be passed in the instant application.2. Dismissed as infructuous.A Nos.855/2011 & 1181/2011 Page 19 of 19 | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,121,440 | Suresh Raghuvanshi S/o Omkar, aged 48 years, R/o Rawsar Jagir, Tahsil Esagarh, Distict Ashok Nagar had consumed a poisonous substance and committed suicide.The police has recorded his dying declaration, wherein the deceased had stated "csVhpksn us cnuke dj fn;k ,oa vfHk;qDr dYyk us mlds nl gtkj :i, [kk fy, ,oa vfHk;qDr dYyk us dgk fd ]mldh vkSjr dks idM+ fy;k] vc thdj D;k d:axk] esjs cgw csVk gSaA" Due to the aforesaid, the deceased Suresh Raghuvanshi was in depression and took tablets of sulphas and died.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order impugned is perverse and contrary to law.The act done by the non-applicant comes under the periphery of Section 107 of IPC and the court below has erred in not framing the charge under Section 306 of IPC, against the The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Misc.Case No. 1310/2017 (Smt. Sangita Bai Vs.Hence, prayed for allowing this petition directing the trial Court to frame the charge against the non-applicant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.Per contra, Learned counsel for the non-applicants supported the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the applicant.Heard the counsel and perused the documents available on record.To resolve the controversy, it appears necessary first of all to have a look on the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC.Section 306 of IPC reads as under:-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."The 'abatement' has been defined in Section 107 f the IPC, which reads as under:-A person abets the doing of a thing, who -First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Misc.Case No. 1310/2017 (Smt. Sangita Bai Vs.In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me.They beat me and abused me.My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time.He has illicit The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Misc.Case No. 1310/2017 (Smt. Sangita Bai Vs.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."The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Misc. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,132,412 | This is Third bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C.Applicant Devendra Singh Chandel was arrested on 06.08.2019 in Crime No.49/2019 registered at Police Station Paraswada, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-D, 469, 509 & 506 of IPC and Section 67-A of I.T. Act.The proceeding convened through Video Conferencing.The first and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after recording the statement of the prosecutrix vide orders dated 04.11.2019 and 09.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.40202/2019 and M.Cr.As per prosecution case, on 10.05.2019 prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station Paraswada averring that she met the applicant Devendra Chandel in the year 2012 after which he followed her and gave a proposal for marriage which she declined.On 31.10.2015 he came to her house and pressurized her father to marry prosecutrix with him.When her father refused to do so, applicant abused her father.On that prosecutrix's father lodged a report against the applicant but applicant still followed her.Meanwhile her father fixed her marriage with Rameshwar Temre.When applicant came to know this fact, he sent the information to Rameshwar Temre that the prosecutrix had already married with him on which Rameshwar Temre refused to marry her.Thereafter, applicant lodged a suit against her at Family Court, Balaghat averring that the prosecutrix was his wife and her marriage has been solemnized with him.The Family Court Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/06/2020 13:57:58 2 MCRC-10844-2020 rejected the applicant's case, against which the applicant filed an appeal which was also rejected by the High Court.Even then applicant did not stop harassing her and continuously followed her and threatened to throw acid on her face if she refused to marry him.When she lodged a complaint against the applicant for this act, applicant gave a written apology in the Mahila Thana.Thereafter, her father fixed her marriage with Limendra Rana and marriage ceremony was going on 25.01.2019, applicant again sent a message to Limendra Rana that the prosecutrix had already married with him earlier and pressurized him not to marry her and also sent him obscene messages and photos of prosecutrix.Thus, applicant continuously harassed her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.It is further submitted that earlier bail applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after recording of statement of prosecutrix, thereafter the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court.There are many contradiction and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix regarding the incident.The applicant has been in custody since 06.08.2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.Earlier bail applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after recording of statement of prosecutrix, thereafter the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court so looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that applicant has no criminal past, he is in custody since 06.08.2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/06/2020 13:57:58 3 MCRC-10844-2020 furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/06/2020 13:57:58 | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,861,354 | JUDGMENT V.B. Raju, J.P. Code, but the leered Sessions Judge of Kutch at Bhul framed a charge under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
18,614,146 | The petitioner was driving the Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 2260 on 30.04.2008 at about 08.15 p.m.,http://www.judis.nic.inin Dindigul-Trichy Main Road.The bus and the two wheeler were 2 involved in the accident and the two wheeler rider died as a result.Investigation was undertaken and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Manaparai, Trichy.The petitioner denied the charges imposed on him and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.The learned trial Magistrate, by Judgment dated 08.11.2010 concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC and also Section 297 of IPC and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC.The petitioner was also levied with a total amount of Rs.2,500/- as fine.Questioning the same, Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2010 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy.By Judgment dated 29.07.2011, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court.Challenging the same, this criminal revision case has been filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 2.Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3The petitioner was driving the Public Transport Bust from west to east in Dindigul-Trichy Main Road.The two wheeler ridden by the deceased was coming from the opposite direction that is east to west.The accident had taken place on the southern side.It shows that the two wheeler was going on the correct side and it was the petitioner's bus which had hit him headlong on the wrong side of the road.From the occurrence spot as noted in the Rough Sketch, one can come to the conclusion that but for the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident would not have occurred.The preparation of the Rough Sketch has not been challenged seriously by the petitioner herein.The petitioner did not enter the witness box to present his version.The petitioner has not come with any explanation during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Both the Courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the offence in question.Therefore, I see no ground to interfere with the same, when the Judgments of the Courts below are well reasoned and well founded.Now comes the question of sentence.It is seen that the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.inis now aged about 67 years old.The occurrence had taken place 4 some more than 11 years ago.Therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served by reducing the sentence of six moths rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment.The sentence under Section 279 of IPC is also converted from one months rigorous imprisonment to one month simple imprisonment.Both the sentences will run concurrently.The learned trial Magistrate shall take steps to enforce this order.2.The Additional District Sessions Jduge, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy.G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,144,263 | This petition under sec.482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings of crime No. 314/13 alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 384 and 409 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.During pendency of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner-Hariom Yadav and complainant/respondent No.2-Dinesh Kumar Gupta have jointly filed application stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.By the rival parties, application has been filed on 11/12/2015 bearing I.A. No. 10790/15 informing about parties having entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.State of M.P. & another Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, and Narinder Singh & others Vs.State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme Court has laid down that even in non- compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this court, continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose.Under such a situation, section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the courts below.More so, the prosecution in question is at initial stage of completion of investigation where trial is still to commence.The offences in question are not against the society but merely affect the victim.Consequent upon the above said facts and that the accused-petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the issue and the offences being compoundable with the permission of the Court, this Court allows this MCRC with the following directions :-FIR dated 9/10/2013 bearing crime No. 314/13 registered at police station Hujrat Kotwali, District 3 Mcrc.13696/15 Hariom Yadav Vs.No order as to cost. | ['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,150,811 | Item no.209 Ct.No.29 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.9075 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.09.2019 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.239/2019 dated 18.06.2019 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:-Niranjan Ghosh & anr.....Petitioners Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Ms. Jayashree Patra, Mr. Apalak Basu, Mrs. Pramita Mukherjee ... for the petitioners Mr. Goutam Wilson ...for the State This application has been moved by the petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.239/2019 dated 18.06.2019 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The only allegation against the husband principal accused as also the present petitioners is that the victim was subjected to abortion against her will.We find from Case Diary that the said incident happened few years back.The victim subsequently conceived and she has got a child of eight years which is not disputed.As nothing directly implicated against the present petitioners to the commission of the alleged offence, we do not find any justification for custodial interrogation for them and we are, therefore, inclined to grant petitioners anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties, to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer and on further condition that the accused petitioners shall comply with the conditions in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that petitioners shall ensure their appearance before the trial Court and obtain regular bail within 15 days from date.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.C.R.M. No.9075 of 2019 stands disposed of.3 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) (Sahidullah Munshi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,899,647 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 3418 of 2018 (State vs. Mohit Agrawal @ Gunjan) arising out of Case Crime no. 735 of 2018, u/s 302/120B I.P.C., P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj, pending in the court of C.J.M., Kasganj.The certified copy of the chargesheet has been filed as annexure-9 to the affidavit. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,913,411 | 3. Left upper limb extending from upper part of left part arm to dorsal part left forearm all around.Anterior aspect of right forearm up to fingers all around.Posterior surface of chest wall.Anterior and posterior surface of abdominal wallBoth gluteal region.Right and left lower limb extending up to lower third of right and left leg all around.The ulcerated area were found congested and covered with pass and slough.Left side of cheek and chin.2. Anterior and posterior aspect of neckAll the injures showed signs of vital reactions.No other injury except those described could be detected even on artificial dissection and examination.Doctor Amitava Das (PW 18) has opined that death was due to the effects of Septic absorption from infected ulcers resulting from burn injuries ante- mortem in nature.The said doctor has proved the post mortem report (exhibit 8) into evidence.On consideration of the evidence of PW 18 and the post mortem report (exhibit 8), I hold that deceased died due to the effects of Septic absorption from infected ulcers from burn injuries which is ante-mortem in nature.PW 9 is Sukumar Das, who is the co-villager of the accused.He has stated that wife of Bapi died setting fire on herself.He does not know how and for what reason she set on fire.PW 10 is Rabin Ruidas.The evidence of Rabin Ruidas including his cross-examination reveals that on his asking wife of Bapi told that she set fire on herself when she was preparing bread.PW 12 is Samir Ruidas who has deposed that he carried the wife of Bapi by his van after she set herself on fire and received burn injury in her person.On asking he came to know that while she was preparing bread she set on fire.The evidence of these witnesses goes to show that they have nowhere stated in their evidence that they have witnessed the incident to the effect that Arati Majhi caught injury on her person while she was preparing bread.PW 9 did not make any whisper as to how she got herself on fire and PW 12 has not stated the source of knowledge for coming to know as to how the deceased caught fire.Defendant did not produce any witness to prove that the victim caught fire carelessly when she was preparing food.I have examined the dying declaration (exhibit 6), which was recorded by PW 13, Sub-Inspector of Police.According to him, he was endorsed the Haripal Police Station Case No. 03 dated 18.01.01 for investigation.During investigation, he visited the P.O., prepared rough sketch map of the P.O. with index, seized a stove with oil, plastic jerrican with oil, match stick, a printed burnt bedsheet and bed head-ticket from Calcutta Medical College and Hospital.He further deposed that he recorded dying declaration of the patient at Medical College Hospital in presence of Dr. Sivaji Daschowdhury.The doctor stated to him that the patient had her capacity to make her statement and he took LTI of the patient on the dying declaration.He examined the witnesses and collected injuries report of the patient from Haripal Primary Health Centre.PW 13 had proved the rough sketch map with index (exhibit 5) seizure list (exhibits 3, 3(a) and 3(b)) and dying declaration (exhibit 6) into evidence.This witness was cross-examined at length.He denied the suggestion that he submitted charge-sheet without any basis and he brought a false story against the accused through the investigation.On careful examination of the evidence of PW 13, I find that his evidence to be reliable and trustworthy.He has clearly and categorically deposed that he recorded the dying declaration of the patient at Medical College and Hospital in presence of Dr. Sivaji Das Chowdhury, and said doctor stated to him that the patient had her capacity to make her statement and he took LTI of the patient on the dying declaration.The said statement also discloses that deceased stated to PW 13 that her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and put her on fire.Another reason, why I find the dying declaration to be credible and trustworthy, is that, when the deceased was brought to the hospital on 16.01.01, she had herself made a statement to the PW 13 in presence of the doctor that her husband poured kerosene oil on her body and put her on fire.The evidence of PW 13, thus, lends support to the dying declaration.In this case, the doctor Sivaji Daschowdhury has not been examined.No suggestion was thrown to the PW 13 that he did not record the statement of the deceased in present of doctor Sivaji Daschowdhury and the endorsement as appears in the dying declaration made by doctor Sivaji Daschowdhury is not the endorsement of said doctor.Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on their usual undertaking. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,927,785 | Therefore, the present appeal requires a microscopic scrutiny of the statements of eye- witnesses, Vimla (PW-4) who, as is natural, happens to be injured herself and the family members of deceased Ajay.Similarly scrupulous scrutiny is required of the statements made by the two Investigating Officers.At this stage, it is pertinent to note that another co-accused Dharampal, father of three male appellants and father-in-law of Asha, had expired during the course of trial.Elucidation on the said admitted or disputed facts will be helpful when we examine the contentious issues raised that are required to be answered.The admitted or other contentious or disputed facts, which we feel can be clearly determined without detailed reference to evidence are as under:4.1 The deceased Ajay and injured Vimla, along with their family members, were residing at 195, Rajpura Gudmandi, Delhi.4.3 There is evidence and material to show that the two families were known to each other and there was no past history of animosity or ill-will.Meenu Rana (PW-1), Saurav (PW-2), Vimla Rana(PW-4) and Attar Singh (PW-7) have accepted and admitted that the deceased Ajay and Dharampal were property dealers and used to operate from the same shop/property.4.4 Meenu Rana (PW-1), wife of deceased Ajay Rana, has stated that they knew the family of Anar Singh, prior to the incident, as her late husband was a property dealer and used to carry on business with Dharampal, in the name of Khatri Properties.She has further stated that her mother-in-law was instrumental and had acted as a mediator in the matrimonial alliance between Ashok and his wife Asha who are appellants in these appeals.Gaurav (PW-2) had testified that, prior to the date of occurrence, no quarrel had taken place between the two families.He has also admitted that the deceased Ajay used to sit with accused Dharampal at Khatri Properties office.Injured Vimla (PW-4), who is also the sister-in-law of the deceased Ajay, has averred that their family had participated in the marriage of appellant Ashok as also the family of Attar Singh and the deceased Ajay.She was not aware regarding what was the business relationship between deceased Ajay and Dharampal, but admitted that both of them used to sit together in one office and deal in properties.Further, prior to the incident, the relations between the two families were cordial.Kunal Rana (PW-5), a child then aged about 8 years, has stated that he knew the appellant Ashok, as his daughter used to study in the same school where his sister was studying and the appellant Ashok used to drop his daughter to the school.He has also accepted that his father, Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 5 of 46 deceased Ajay, was a property dealer and the accused were also property dealers and no quarrel had taken place between the two families prior to the occurrence.Attar Singh (PW-7), father of the deceased Ajay, has accepted that relations between Raj Kumar and his family were cordial.They had in seriatim stated that they reached the spot of occurrence at about 10.00/10.30 PM but by then the injured Ajay had been taken for treatment to Hospital, along with Vimla, the other injured.This is proved from the photographs, Ex. PW-9/A-1 to A-5, which were taken by the Crime Team and proved by Ct.Sushil Kumar (PW- 9) who had taken the photographs at 2.00/2.15 A.M on Crl.Evidence/material available/noticed at the spot were lifted by the mobile crime team and nakshanajiri marked Ex. PW24/C was prepared.The site plans, Ex. PW24/C, PW25/A and PW8/A, show and prove that blood in considerable quantity was not only found in front of house No. 195, Rajpura Gur Mandi but some blood was traced and found inside the house, next to the entrance door.PW1/A), under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which became the FIR, reads as under:-"I reside at the aforesaid address along with my family and I am a housewife.(Today) in the evening (I) was present at the house along with my husband Ajay, Jethani (elder sister-in-law) Bimla, her son Sourav @ Golu.At about 9:30 P.M. our neighbour Ashok S/o Sh.Ratan Singh, Anand @ Dhammal, Shailender @ Balley and Dharmpal came and after calling my husband outside, Ashok said to (him) that as to why he was asking them to remove the debris from the gali.Thereupon, my husband and myself persuaded them while saying to them that as they were doing construction to their house in front Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 17 of 46 of our house and debris of the same was lying on the road which is causing a trouble for us while visiting here and there and because of the same we had asked you to remove the debris from there.At this, Ashok asked his associated to do away with Ajay.After that, Ashok took the sword from his father Dharmapal and gave a blow of the same on the head of my husband.When my husband tried to run away from there Dhammal and Dharampal caught hold of him and Rajkumar and Anil caused sword blows to Ajay.When I tried to save they pushed me away.Shailendra @ Balley also gave blow of sword to my husband as a result of which he fell down there itself.On hearing the commotion, my Jethani (elder sister-in-law) Bimla and her son Saurav came out.When we tried to save Ajay, Anaar Singh and Shailendra gave a blow of sword on the head of Bimla as a result of which she also fell down there itself and they all fled from the spot.Thereafter, Saurav and myself took my husband and Jethani (elder sister-in-law) to Mann Hospital, Shakti Nagar and from there they both were taken to Trauma Centre, where they admitted my Jethani (elder sister-in-law).But my husband was taken to Sanjivani Hospital as his condition was critical where my husband has expired.24) reads as under:-"To, The Duty Officer, P.S. Model Town, Delhi.It is officially submitted that I, the Inspector along with Constable Sushil Kumar No. 1302/NW reached at the spot i.e. 195, Rajpura, Delhi at the receipt of D.D.No.44B, 45B, where Mr. A.A. Khan, Constable Shahji Jaan No. 1297/NW were present at the spot.No occular witness was found at the spot.It was learnt there that the family members of the injured had carried him to Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar.Leaving Constable Ramesh No. 1427/NW at Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 18 of 46 the spot I, the Inspector, along with the other staff reached at Roop Nagar Hospital where M.L.C. No. 105/05 of injured Ajay Rana S/o Madu....(sic) Rana was obtained.The doctor had written on it "nature of injury dangerous, head injury, patient is unfit for statement".It was learnt about the injured that he had been admitted in the Trauma Centre.I, the Inspector along with the staff reached at the Trauma Centre where it was learnt that the injured was carried to Sanjivni Hospital, Darya Ganj as his condition was very critical.And injured Bimla Rana w/o Jawahar Rana r/o the aforesaid address was found to be admitted at M.L.C. No. 67385/05 on which the doctor had written "nature of injury U/o Sharp edged weapon on head, blunt injury on other body.At the same place, eye witness Smt. Meenu, the wife of the deceased met us and got her foregoing statement recorded.The perusal of the M.L.C., observation of the circumstances and contents of the statement, reveal the commission of an offence punishable u/ss 147/148/149/307/302/34 I.P.C. Hence, this writing is being sent to the police station through Constable Shahji Jaan No. 1297/NW for the purpose of the registration of the case.After registration of the case, its number may be intimated.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 20 of 46 Trauma Center behind IP College where Bimla was admitted by the concerned doctor but my husband was taken to Sanjeevan Mann Hospital, Darya Ganj as there was no Ventilator in the Trauma Center where my husband was declared dead.After some time police came and recorded my statement which is Ex. PW1/A which bears my signature at point A. Thereafter, I returned to my house.PW-1/A) is her reflection and version of what had transpired and was seen by her.She, it is apparent, was not required to give details of all persons, who had visually seen the occurrence.She was not asked to state and specify whether Kunal had also seen the occurrence from the roof top.She may not be aware of the said fact, as she might not have had the occasion and chance to talk to Kunal after the occurrence, during movement from one hospital to another.Even the written complaint Ex. PW7/A is silent on the oral utterances.Not that oral exchange did not occur or transpire, it must have, but we doubt and do not attribute the quotes mentioned in the court testimonies to the appellants.He denied the suggestion that the abrasions and tenderness were result of friendly jostling, fall or feigned or as a result while tending to cattle, handling fodder etc., observing that abrasions were deep in nature and keeping in view the location mentioned, this was not possible.He accepted that the depth of the wound was not stated by him.The sentences will run concurrently and Section 428 Cr.P.C. will apply.The appeals are accordingly disposed of.(SANJIV KHANNA)(S. P. GARG ) JUDGE December 19, 2012 kkb/NA/VKR Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 46 of 46Crimes, as distinguished from civil wrongs, are wrongs against the society and demand seraphic justice by way of punishment of Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 2 of 46 imprisonment and/or fine.Power to investigate crimes and, thereafter, prosecute the offender, is given to the police, a neutral third party as a norm, and not to the victim though in certain cases a private complaint may be maintainable.Compelling reasons for this is that police investigation is expected to ensure independent, unprejudiced and objective verification, scientific and professional conduct in collection of evidence/material and filing of charge-sheet without bias in favour or against the perpetrator or the victim.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 2 of 46The present appeals by Ashok Khatri, Raj Kumar, Anil, Shailender, Anar Singh, Anand and Asha, impugning their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Ajay, under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for attempt to murder of Vimla and allegations under Sections 147/148 IPC, are rendered somewhat arduous and laborious as both, the appellants and the family members of the deceased Ajay and injured Vimla, have hurled allegations against the police officers and have cast doubts and aspersions on them.The six appellants, all related and belonging to one family, have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each in respect of offence under Section 302, read with Section 149 IPC, with Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 3 of 46 the stipulation that in case of default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years.For the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, they have been sentenced to 7 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, again with stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellants would suffer simple imprisonment for one year.No separate sentence under Sections 147 and 148 IPC has been awarded in view of provisions of Section 71 IPC.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 3 of 46Before going into contentious issues; the alleged involvement of the appellants and, in case the involvement of the appellants is proved, the sections under which they should be convicted, we think it appropriate to first record admitted facts and our findings on some disputed facts which can be decided on the basis of contemporaneous documents, executed by doctors who had examined the deceased Ajay or injured Vimla or by examination of exhibits read with the statement of witnesses.4.2 The appellants were residents of 178/2 Rajpura Gur Mandi, Delhi.Thus, the appellants, deceased Ajay and injured Vimla and their family members were neighbours.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 4 of 46A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 5 of 464.5 There is ample evidence in form of MLCs (Ex. PW-23/A and PW23/B) of Sanjeevan Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar and Sanjeevaani Hospital, Darya Ganj, respectively, relating to injuries suffered by Ajay which caused his death.Dr. Anil Shandil (PW-18) had conducted the post-mortem on the body of Ajay and, on examination, had found that he had following external injuries:-"(1) Abrasion reddish in colour over lower chest 16.5 cm x 0.5 cm.5 cm from right nipple and 10 cm below left nipple crossing mid line.(2) Incised wound with clean cut well defined regular margins with dried up blood clots over vertex of head 15 cm.From right ear 14 cm.from left ear and 10.5 cm from protuberance of size 12.5 cm x 1.5 cm x cranial cavity deep with corresponding incised wound cut over the scalp with fracture extending towards frontal region and towards right parietal occipital region as depicted in flg.B and C in the post mortem report with fracture part driven in.(3) Incised wound over left index finger 1.8 cm x 0.5 cm.with clean cut well defined regular margins subcutaneous to muscle deep."The following internal injuries were also noticed:-"(1) Subscalp extravasations of blood and clots over right parietal occipital region 8 cm x 6 cm and over frontal region 10 cm x 8 cm correspondingly.There was corresponding cut mark over brain matter about 10 cm in Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 6 of 46 length, depressed with underlying brain matter confused with subdural, subarachnoid haemorrhage with intracerebral haematoma and blood clots over base of brain."A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 6 of 46In PW-18s opinion, the death was caused by shock resulting from craniocerebral damage consequent upon head injury from heavy sharp edged weapon.Injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.All injuries were ante mortem by nature.Ajay also had two other injuries in form of abrasions redish in colour over lower chest and index Finger 1.8 cm x 0.5 cm with clear cut, defined regular margins, which were subcutaneous to muscle deep.PW-18 has stated that the fracture against injury No. 2 was fissured facture, usually caused by blunt forced impact.He was not shown weapon of offence (Ex. PW5), but after examining the sword in the cross examination, had stated that it was not correct to state that the same was neither sharp nor heavy nor pointed.4.7 In the cross-examination, PW-18 has stated that injury No. 2 was caused by a single weapon and injury No. 3 was as a result of single infliction and not repeated blows by sharp weapon.Injury No. 1 was stated as simple injury possible by any pointed object and PW- 18 could not say definitely whether 3 or 4 assailants simultaneously hit sword blows with force and that injury No. 1 would not be a result Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 7 of 46 thereof.He opined that injury No. 1 was a scratch linear abrasion possible by any pointed object or weapon.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 7 of 464.8 Counsel for the appellants has submitted and raised dispute on the movement or admission of Ajay in Sanjeevani Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar, situated at about half a kilometer from the site of occurrence, then to Trauma Centre, near Civil Lines behind I.P. College and lastly to Sanjeevani Mann Hospital at Darya Ganj.It was submitted that the ostensible reason or justification for shifting i.e. non-availability of ventilator is belied in view of the MLC Ex. PW23/A of Sanjeev Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar, stating that the patient was already ventilated.It was also submitted that there was connivance and manipulation of the MLCs of Ajay.A false case has been set up.There is no merit in the said contentions.We are inclined to accept the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 to the extent that Vimla (PW-4) and deceased Ajay Rana were first taken to Sanjeevan Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar.The MLC of Ajay Rana, Ex.PW-23/A was prepared by Dr. Ashish Gupta.The said MLC was proved by Dr. Ashish Srivastava (PW23) to the effect that it was prepared at Sanjeevan Maan Hospital, Roop Nagar.The MLC was prepared at 10 P.M. and records that the time of arrival of patient was 9.50 P.M. We do not agree with the contention of the appellants that Ajay Rana was taken to some other hospital and was bandaged on head and incubated on ventilator in the said hospital.The words "scalp bandaged" and "profusely bleeding", mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW23/A show that after admission of Ajay at 9.50 P.M., he was bandaged and put on ventilator.MLC (Ex. PW23/A) uses the words patient was already on ventilator but said MLC records and advised Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 8 of 46 that the patient should be shifted to a higher centre.Ventilator can be manual through ambu bag or by a machine, both requiring incubation.The name of ASI A.A. Khan is mentioned in the said MLC, but that does not in any way negate or make the MLC or the contents thereof doubtful.Recording of the said name may be due to the fact that the police officer had visited the said hospital and had collected the MLC.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 8 of 464.9 We are also inclined to accept the statement of Meenu Rana (PW-1) and Attar Singh (PW-7) that from Sanjeevan Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar, Ajay and Bimla were taken to Trauma Centre.Subsequently, he died at 12.45 A.M. on 4th September, 2005, in the said hospital.As per the statements of PW-1 and 7, Ajay was shifted from Trauma Centre because ventilator was not available there.This fact is recorded in MLC (PW-23/B) written in the Sanjeevan Mann Hospital, Darya Ganj.We do not accept the contention of the appellants that transfer from one hospital to another was made to fabricate or create evidence.At that time, the entire attention, object and purpose was to save Ajay and ensure that best medical treatment was made available and provided.Similarly, contention that the deceased Ajay was not taken in the wheel barrow from the place of occurrence to Sanjeevani Mann Hospital, Roop Nagar is devoid of any force.The statement of PW-1 Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 9 of 46 and PW-2 are clear and categorical on the said aspect.There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony to the effect that they had taken Ajay in the injured condition to the said hospital.Attar Singh (PW-7) joined them over there, and thereafter, the deceased Ajay was taken to Trauma Centre and then to Sanjeevani Mann Hospital, Darya Ganj.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 9 of 46The contention of the appellants with regard to place of occurrence i.e. where the incident or violence had taken place, in front of House No. 195 or 178, Rajpura Gudmandi, is not debatable.The actual occurrence or violence had taken place in front of house of Ajay at 195, Rajpura Gudmandi, Delhi.The fact that the DD entry No. 44B records the place of occurrence at 177-178 Rajpura Gur Mandi, cannot be determinative.The said DD entry was recorded at 22:19 Hrs. Immediately, thereafter another DD entry 45B was recorded, inter alia, stating that brother of A.S. Rana r/o 195 Rajpura Gudmandi had given a sword blow.The statements of police officers who went to the spot immediately after the aforesaid DD entries were recorded namely, ACP Hira Lal (PW-24), ASI A.A. Khan (PW-10), Const.Shahji John (PW-3), SI Anuj Nautiyal (PW19), Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW11) and Ct.Sushil Kumar (PW16) are consistent.They were first to reach the spot, where the violence had taken place, and the place was identified by them as 195, Rajpura Gudmandi.The contention of the appellants that the place of occurrence, as mentioned and recorded in DD No.44B( Ex. PW10/DA) was 177- 178, Gurmandi, Rajpura, is inconsequential as another DD No.45B was recorded within two minutes thereafter and in the said DD, it was mentioned that brother of A.S. Rana Rana had been given sword blow.DD No.45 has not been given an exhibit number but ACP Hira Lal (PW-24) and other police witnesses were extensively cross- examined on the said DD entry, which was obviously shown to them.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 10 of 464.12 Similarly, the contention of the appellants that there is discrepancy as to the place where the police officers namely PW-3, PW-10, PW-16, PW-19 and PW-24 had, for the first time, seen the injured Ajay, is immaterial.The credibility of the witnesses and the statements has to be examined on the basis of their overall statements and whether the version/deposition inspires Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 11 of 46 confidence and credence.Some portion of the statement/testimony, if required and necessary, can be discarded.The presence of the police officers at the hospitals after the occurrence and thereafter at the scene of crime can hardly be disputed or denied.Testimonies of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 also negate presence/appearance of the police officers at the hospital at Roop Nagar, when Ajay and PW-4 were taken there.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 11 of 464.13 Soon after death of Ajay at 12.45 A.M. on 4th September, 2005, as recorded in MLC Ex.PW-23/B, ASI Ashiq Ali Khan (PW-10) recorded statement of Meenu Rana (PW-1) and thereafter rukka was sent for registration of FIR.FIR No.497/2005, under Sections 147/148/149/302/307 IPC was recorded on 4th September, 2005 at 2.20 A.M. in the police station Model Town and two DD entries i.e. 5A and 6A were made.This has been proved in the statement of Constable Shahji John (PW-3), who had taken the rukka to the police station and got the FIR recorded.4.14 Head Constable Deepak (PW-22) has stated that he was given a copy of the said FIR for handing over the same to the senior officers and the Metropolitan Magistrate.He, in the cross-examination, has stated that he had delivered the special report to the Magistrate after 12 midnight.The Magistrate had made an endorsement on the copy Crl.In the present case, in order to reach the truth, we have relied upon contemporaneous records maintained and reflected in the MLCs, which were prepared when the deceased- Ajay and injured Vimla (PW-4) were taken to the hospital.We have also referred to other reasons and grounds for our findings.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 16 of 46Dharampal, Anaar Singh S/o Sh.All the aforesaid persons with a common intention attacked my husband and Jethani (elder sister-in-law) with the swords and cause them injury in order to kill them as a result of which my husband has died and Jethani (elder sister-in-law) is injured.Legal action may kindly be initiated against aforesaid persons.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 17 of 46I have heard the statement and the same is correct."The dead body was sent under the supervision of Constable Sushil Kumar No. 1302/NW.I, the Inspector left for the spot.Dog squad and Crime Team may be sent at the spot.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 18 of 46Time and date of occurrence - 03.09.2005 at about 9:30Place of occurrence - House No. 195, Raj Pura, Gur Mandi, Delhi.Date and time of the dispatch of writing - 04.09.2005 at 1:45 A.M.Sd/- illegible (In English) Additional SHO, P.S. Model Town 04.09.2005"10. PW-1, in her statement in chief in the Court, has stated as under;-"I know all the accused persons present in the court today as they are living in my village Rajpura Gurmandi.On 3.9.05 at about 9.30 pm, I was present in my house along Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 19 of 46 with my husband, my Jethani Bimla and her son Saurabh @ Golu and my son Kunal who was playing on the roof of my house.At that time accused Ashok (correctly identified) called my husband on the door of my house.On hearing the call of accused Ashok, I and my husband came out on the door of our house.Accused Dharampal, accused Susi @ Anil, Babley @ Shailender, Anar Singh, Dhammal @ Anand, Asha, Raj Kumar @ Billu were also present on the gate of my house.I saw a sword in the hand of accused Dharampal, Susi @ Anil was also having a sword in his hand, accused Babley @ Shailender was also having a sword in his hand, accused Anar Singh was having an iron pipe in his hand, and accused Dhammal @ Anand was having a Farsa in his hand.They were standing with their weapons.As soon as we came out on the door of our house, accused Ashok had asked my husband "TUNE HUME GALI KA MALWA SAAF KARNE KE LIYE KYUN KAHA".On this I and my husband tried to make understand accused Ashok that the accused persons used to put "Malwa" in the street in front of our house and it creates inconvenience to us.On this accused Ashok asked his associates to kill Ajay today itself.Accused Ashok took the sword from the hand of accused Dharampal and hit on the head of Ajay, my husband.I embraced my husband but accused Asha pushed me aside.In the meantime my Jethani Bimla and her son Golu @ Saurabh also came there on hearing the noise.Asha uttered to Susi @ Anil, "AJAY ASHOK KE TALWAR SE NAHI MAREGA, TU APNI TALWAR SE ISKE SAR PAR MAAR".On this my husband tried to run by saving himself.But accused Anar Singh, Dharmpal @ Anand and Dharampal caught hold my husband.Accused Dhammal and Dharampal uttered, "AAJ AJAY KO JAAN SE MAAR DO".On this my Jethani Bimla rushed to save my husband but Asha and Raj Kumar @ Billu pushed back my Jethani Bimla.Accused Susi @ Anil and Babley @ Shailender hit swords on the head of my husband.Ajay fell down on the ground.Bimla fell down on my husband to save him.Asha and Raj Kumar again pushed her back.At that time Shailender hit his sword on the head of Bimla.She also fell down on the ground.My son Kunal was standing on the roof of my house and was weeping and shouting that "MERE PAPA TO MAT MARO - MERE PAPA TO MAT MARO".All the accused ran away from the spot with their weapons.I, Kunal and Saurabh put Ajay and Bimla in a Rehri which is used to carry cow dung and took them to Maan Hospital, Roop Nagar and the concerned doctor did not admit them because of their serious conditions.Then we took them to Crl.After some time police also came at my house.I showed the place of occurrence to the police.My further statement was also recorded by the police.They also prepared rough site plan and also taken photographs.After two days I received copy of the FIR which was brought by my Jeth Attar Singh Rana.After going through the copy of FIR I came to know that name of accused Asha and the name of weapons was missing and the presence of my son Kunal was also missing.I told this fact to my Jeth.Thereafter, I and my Jeth went to the police station and reported the matter to the police but the police did not hear us and turned us out of police station while stating that statement is correct.Thereafter, my Jeth sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Police.On 27.9.05 the police had again recorded my statement which was recorded correctly.Farsa Ex. P3is the same which the accused Anand was having at the time of incident.Same is allowed to be opened.Seal is broken and its contents are shown to the witness).Iron pipe Ex. P4 is the same which the accused Anar Singh was having at the time of incident.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 21 of 46Seal is broken and its contents are shown to the witness) Sword Ex. P5 is one of the swords similar to which the accused persons namely Ashok, Shailender and Anil were having."Similar and identical testimonies in chief have been made by Saurav (PW-2), Vimla Rana (PW-4) and Kunal Rana (PW-6).The appellants herein belong to other fraction/group in the sense that they are family members or are related with Dharampal - being sons or relatives of late Dharampal.In such situations, it was the duty of the Court to microscopically scrutinize the evidence of the eye witnesses."PW-1s statements were recorded on four occasions.The first statement (Ex.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 23 of 46This statement under 161 Cr.This supplementary statement, as held below, does not appear to be true and correct.PW-1 has categorically stated, in her testimony in the court, that the 2nd statement was regarding pointing out the place of occurrence and details.The court testimony, in chief, is a combination of Ex. PW1/A and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.There are some differences between the court testimony and Ex. PW1/A, but the main and material difference relates to the allegations and presence of the appellant Asha, at the scene of the crime as a member of the assembly.The contention and statement of the witnesses is that the IO ACP Hira Lal (PW-24) was mixed up and under influence of the appellants.The aforesaid contention could be partially correct.It is not possible to accept that PW-10 and PW-24 could have been influenced by a third person so as to wrongly record the statement of Meenu Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 24 of 46 (PW-4).The said allegation has been made by PW-7 in his written complaint to the Commissioner of Police (Ex.In the said written complaint, PW-7 had stated that two retired police officers, namely, Ram Narayan, ACP (Retd.) and Bhagwan Singh, ACP (Retd.) were already present in the police station before the case was lodged to exert pressure for diluting the reporting of the crime.PW-1/A should be accepted, is that the Investigating Officer, it does appear, at the said time was not under any influence, as is reflective from the prompt and swift manner in which the appellants-Ashok and Raj Kumar were arrested from the hospital itself, vide arrest memo Ex.The said two appellants had got themselves admitted for treatment in the Hindu Rao Hospital.(The injuries suffered by them and the alleged failure of the investigation, has been examined separately).A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 25 of 46Statement of Meenu Rana (Ex.PW-1/A) does not make any reference to Asha.However, it implicates the other six appellants.The statement also implicates Dharampal who had expired during the trial.The roles have been attributed and specifically stated to the six appellants and their individual conduct had been elucidated and clearly mentioned.It is difficult to accept and believe that Asha w/o Ashok would have joined and was the sole woman family member of the unlawful assembly armed with swords/weapons and had gone to the house of Ajay i.e. House No.195, Gurmandi, Rajpura, Delhi.Meenu Rana (PW-1), Saurav (PW-2), Vimla Rana (PW-4) and Kunal Rana (PW-6) in their statements in the Court have not alleged or stated that Asha was carrying an iron rod and had attacked the deceased.The role attributed to Asha, in their statements, is entirely different and to the effect that Asha had pushed Meenu (PW-1) and Vimla (PW-4) and had instigated and shouted and called upon the male members to attack the deceased-Ajay and Vimla.In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not think that the statements of Meenu Rana (PW-1), Saurav (PW-2), Bimla Rana (PW-4) and Kunal Rana (PW-6), in the Court, implicating and stating that Asha was part of the assembly should be accepted.It has to be established beyond doubt that she Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 26 of 46 was present at the spot/place of occurrence.She is entitled to acquittal as her presence, at the spot, has not been proved and established beyond doubt.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 26 of 46We will now examine the involvement of the other appellants.As noticed above, Meenu Rana (PW-1), Saurav (PW-2), Bimla Rana (PW-4) and Kunal Rana (PW-6) are eye witnesses to the said occurrence.PW-1 is the person, on whose statement (Ex. PW1/A) the FIR was recorded immediately after the death of Ajay at night in the Sanjeevan Mann Hospital, Darya Ganj.We uphold and accept that she is an eye witness and had seen the entire occurrence.She was the wife of Ajay, the deceased.Presence of Vimla Rana (PW-4) can also not be doubted as she had suffered injuries at the time of occurrence and admitted in the Trauma Centre for treatment.When she arrived at the spot of the crime and what she had seen is a different aspect and is being examined separately.We reject the contention that Saurav (PW-2) and Kunal Rana (PW-6) had no occasion or cause to see the "occurrence".Their presences in the house at 9.30 P.M. to 10.30 P.M., is natural, normal and not a make belief.However, Kunal Rana (PW-6) is a minor child and, therefore, his statement has to be viewed and examined with greater caution and care.The fact that Kunals name was not mentioned in the FIR cannot be a ground to disbelieve and hold that he was not an eye witness who had seen the occurrence from the roof of the house.Family members of Kunal would not have wanted a small child to appear in the witness box and face cross-examination.PW-6 had lost his father and, therefore, the trauma and shock suffered by him should be recognized and accepted.Presence of PW-6, the minor child at Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 27 of 46 about 9 P.M.-10 P.M. at home is natural and probable.When an occurrence of this nature happens; children come out to see the happening, unless some elder family member prevents and directs them not see the occurrence.The contention that Meenu (PW-1) had not given or mentioned PW-6s name in her original statement cannot be a justification or ground to reject and hold that PW-6 was not an eye witness.Statement of PW-1 (Ex.However, the possibility of the family members influencing and prompting Kunal cannot be ruled out.This possibility in the present case is being taken care of as we intend to primarily and mainly rely upon the court testimonies of other witnesses, the first statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A and other corroborating material to the extent it supports the said statement.In view of the deposition of the said witnesses we accept the identification and presence of the five male appellants, along with Dharampal as the true and correct factual position.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 27 of 46However, we agree with the contention of the appellants that PW-2 and 4 were not present when Ashok had hit Ajays head with sword which he had taken from the hands of Dharampal.The statement of PW-2 and 4 that they had seen the said occurrence is not correct and plausible because they were in the cow-shed and came out Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 28 of 46 after hearing commotion, noise or the cries of Ajay and PW-1 and were only eye witnesses to the occurrence thereafter.But this does not help the appellants, Ashok, Anil, Anar Singh, Raj Kumar, Shailender and Anand.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 28 of 46It is also apparent from the statement of PW-1 that Ashok had given initial blow and hit the sword on Ajays head.To this extent there is no contradiction between the court deposition and Ex.PW1/A. The sword blows thereafter attributed to Anil, Raj Kumar and Shailender in the statement Ex.PW-1/A, were not on the head of Ajay.Whereas, as per PW-1, 2, 4 and 6 depositions in the Court, the sword blows given thereafter, by Anil and Shailender, were on the head of Ajay.Raj Kumar is not named by them as the person who had hit Ajay with the sword in their testimonies in the Court.We have referred to the Post Mortem Report Ex. PW Ex.PW15/A and the three injuries mentioned therein.There is one injury on the head of Ajay and the same had resulted in his death.As per Dr. Anil Shandil (PW-18), the said injury was caused by a single blow and was not a result of multiple blows.Ajay had also suffered injuries on his chest and index finger.In these circumstances, it will be reasonable and correct to hold that appellant-Ashok had given the sword blow on Ajays head and at that time nobody had joined him.Dharmapal, father of Ashok, did not hit Ajay and Ashok had taken the sword from his hands.The other five appellants did not, at that time or simultaneously, hit Ajay.Thereafter, Vimla had reached there and, when she tried to intervene, was beaten and injured.The appellants and Dharampal, who were present there, had caught hold of Ajay and Vimla.She and Ajay were given beatings by the Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 29 of 46 appellants but the said beatings/hits have not resulted in the injury no.2 that caused the death of Ajay.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 29 of 46In view of our aforesaid conclusion, it would be appropriate and proper to attribute and hold that the appellant-Ashok had acted individually when he had caused the head injury, which resulted in Ajays death.The injury may have been caused by a single stroke, but was caused by a dangerous weapon i.e. sword and the hit itself was directed on the head, a vital part of the body.The hit, it is apparent from the injury, was made with full force, impact and power.It was a deliberate and targeted hit.The sword (Ex.P-5) was shown to the said witness, in the cross-examination on behalf of the appellants.The next question which arises for consideration is whether there was any unlawful assembly and accordingly the other appellants Anil, Anar Singh, Raj Kumar, Anand and Shailender can be constructively convicted for the offence of murder and if not, can they be convicted under any other offence? In other words if there was an unlawfully assembly, what was the common object or whether members of the unlawful assembly were aware that an offence under Section 302 IPC or some other offences were likely to be committed?We accept the prosecution version that there was an unlawful assembly of the appellants, except that Asha was not a member of the said unlawful assembly.The term unlawful Crl.The appellants belong to one family and were residing at one place.Apparently, they were aggrieved and had grievance against Ajay.He was asked to come out.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 30 of 46The next question is, what was the common object and whether the appellants Anil, Anar Singh, Raj Kumar, Shailender and Anand, shared the common object of committing murder of Ajay or his family members including Vimla or they had knowledge that murder or attempt to murder/injuries was likely or could take place? Statement of Meenu Rana (PW-1) shows that the appellant Ashok was not armed but he took the sword from his father and attacked Ajay and hit him with the said sword on his head.No other member of the assembly joined in this strike or attacked him simultaneously.Vimla tried to save him and at that time, Shailender hit the sword on the head of Vimla.The injuries were on the chest and on the index finger of the hand.Keeping in view the facts, we do not think that the members of unlawful assembly had the common object to commit murder of Ajay or any of his family members.As noticed above, the two families were close to each other and even had business relationship.The motive and the cause of quarrel, as stated, was garbage/malwa on the street due to construction.Heated quarrel and arguments took place and thereupon the appellant Ashok took the Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 32 of 46 sword from Dharampal and hit it on Ajays head.Others were spectators till this happened and had not joined Ashok, by catching hold of Ajay or by simultaneously attacking him with sword or weapons in their hands.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 32 of 46The next question is whether the members of unlawful assembly knew that murder or killing was likely, though they did not share the common object and did not have intention to cause death.Noticing the conduct of the appellants, other than Ashok who has been convicted under Section 302, (and Asha who has been acquitted) we feel that the other appellants should be convicted by applying the likelihood clause under Section 304 Part II IPC.We have given benefit of doubt to the appellants keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered by Ajay, on the chest and on the hand, as well as injuries suffered by Vimla.As per the prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6, the appellants had full opportunity to cause injuries of their choice, desire and design, with virtual no or real resistance from Ajay and his family members except the attempt made by the two women, Meenu (PW-1) and Vimla (PW-4), to save and protect Ajay from further beating or hurt.The said injuries reflect the object which the appellants (other than Ashok) had in mind or had acted.Injuries, suffered by and caused to PW-4, as noticed are made subject matter of debate.The appellants have been convicted under Crl.As per statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6, Vimla had tried to protect Ajay who had fallen on the ground.Vimla was admitted in the Trauma Centre and was treated there.It is claimed that Vimla, because of the injuries, had become unconscious and had regained consciousness after a long delay.It is possible that Vimla (PW-4) may have become delirious or unconscious immediately after the occurrence, but she had soon regained her consciousness and was able to speak and narrate the facts when she was admitted in the Trauma Centre.The MLC (Ex. PW14/A), specifically mentions that the patient herself had alleged and given history of assault.She was conscious and oriented.Her BP was 118/98 mm and pulse was 84/m.The injuries suffered by her, as indicated, are as under:-A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 33 of 46"I/E - Incised wound on left parietal region is 10 cm x 0.2 cm.-Tenderness and restriction of movement of right shoulder.-Tenderness on left leg.-Tenderness and deep abrasion on left hand.-Tenderness chest right side."A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 34 of 46 of the doctor, were simple in nature.X-rays did not indicate any fracture.She had certainly suffered an injury on her head i.e. left parietal region and other parts of the body, like shoulder, hand and chest.But injuries were relatively not dangerous.(PW-14) Dr. Nitin Kumars statement, in the court, is relevant.He has stated that Vimla had an incise wound on the left parietal region on the head and there was restriction of the movement of right shoulder.The wound on the shoulder was caused by sharp edged weapon though weapon of offence was not shown to him.Other wounds were caused by another blunt object.It was put to PW-14, whether the incise wound on the head of Vimla was purely superficial and simple, but PW-14 opined that opinion regarding depth of the wound would be given by a forensic expert or the general surgeon.As per the MLC (Ex. PW14/A) Vimla (PW-4) was treated in the hospital from 3rd September, 2005 till 7th September, 2005 i.e. for a period of about 3 and a half or 4 days.Interestingly, Attar Singh Rana in his complaint (Ex. PW7/A) had the stated as under:-A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 34 of 46"Mrs. Bimla Rana, w/o of my second brother, who had come for rescue of Mr. Ajay Rana, was also attacked with same weapons by some people.She received multiple cuts & injuries, who was admitted to L.N.J. Trauma Centre of Civil line for treatment, who was discharged on the same date of admission i.e. 4.9.2005, inspite of the fact that her condition was not stable and wounds were still bleeding.She was given 28-30 stiches in the head and leg.When insisted by us, doctors at Trauma Centre agreed to review Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 35 of 46 the patient after which it was decided to keep her admitted for further observation & treatment.Now that she has been discharged and brought at home, police has not bothered to inquire about the condition of a eye-witness of the gruesome murder, what to talk of recording of her statement."A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 35 of 46The allegation in the said letter that Vimla was given 28-30 stiches on her head and leg was not supported by any evidence or material or the statement of PW-14. PW-4 has also not alleged that she was given around 28-30 stitches on her head and leg.Thus, it can be stated that it is a false statement in the said letter.Appellants have submitted that the prosecution version must fail because of numerous reasons.Appellants Ashok and Raj Kumar had also suffered injuries and were admitted to Bara Hindu Rao hospital vide Ex. DW1/A and DW2/A, respectively.It is contended that the police did not investigate or go into the question of injuries suffered by the appellants Ashok and Raj Kumar.The appellants have relied on several judgments to contend and plead that they and the other appellants are entitled to acquittal because of failure on the part of the police to investigate, elucidate and explain the injuries suffered by the said appellants and to investigate the offences committed by Ajay and their family members.We have examined Ex. DW1/A and DW2/A which relate to injuries suffered by Ashok and Raj Kumar.In the MLC of Raj Kumar (DW1/A), it was mentioned that the patient was conscious and had given the history of assault.His general condition was fair.He had a scar over right hand.The name of the person who had brought him was mentioned as Shailender, cousin brother who is also an appellant before us.Smell of alcohol was present.The remarks "Patient was brought by Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 36 of 46 police for medical examination" has been specifically scored off in the said MLC.But the said words are recorded in the MLC of Ashok Ex. DW2/A. However, it is also mentioned that Ashok was brought to the said hospital by Shailender, his brother.As per the said MLC, there was alleged history of assault and smell of alcohol was present.There was no distress and the patient was oriented.There was tenderness present on the left side of abdomen and right hypochondrium and limber region.CLW was seen over the forehead on right side.The so-called alleged injuries suffered by the appellants Ashok and Raj Kumar are minor in nature and superficial.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 36 of 46There is a contradiction, as noticed in the MLC (Ex. DW2/A) of Ashok Khatri.The contention that he was taken to the hospital by police at 11.00 P.M. of 3rd September, 2005, which though appears to be attractive on the first flush, has to be rejected for three reasons.Firstly, similar entry in the case of Raj Kumar has been scored off and secondly the MLC itself records that Ashok was brought by Shailender (brother), and one of the appellants.The time of arrest shown therein is 3.30 AM on 4th September, 2005 from Bara Hindu Rao Hospital.The arrest was made by Investigating Officer Hira Lal (PW-24) who, at least till 2.30/3.00 A.M, had been moving with the witnesses.In Takhji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersing & Ors.(2001) 6 SCC 145, it was held as under:The first question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons.In Rajendra Singh & Ors.The High Court ought to have made an effort at searching out the truth on the material available on record as also to find out how much of the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and was worthy of being accepted as truthful."We do not agree with the contention that there was failure to examine alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence in form of neighbours in the said locality who would have seen the occurrence.For one, the actual acts of violence hardly lasted 5 minutes and thus no one else might have seen the occurrence i.e. the actual acts of violence.Lastly, the testimonies of the witnesses who have deposed have to be examined on their own merits and not on the basis that a third person, who could have possibly also been a witness, has not been examined.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 39 of 46There appears to be justification that after initial investigation and arrest of Ashok and Raj Kumar, there was slackness and failure of the police to investigate and cause arrest of others.Other appellants, mentioned in Ex. PW1/A , were not questioned or arrested.As noticed, Shailender had brought the appellants Ashok and Raj Kumar to the hospital.Failure and inaction on the part of the police to take any action against all persons mentioned in Ex. PW1/A remains unexplained.Family of Ajay had apparently lost faith in the I.O. Hira Lal (PW24) as is clear from Ex. PW7/A, a complaint letter written by PW-7 Attar Singh Rana.The noting on the letters itself indicates that the case was subsequently transferred to the crime branch.Thereupon, the new I.O. SI K.B. Jha (PW-25) took over the investigation and the other accused, who are also the appellants herein, were arrested or surrendered subsequently.For one Vimla (PW4) was certainly injured and admitted in the hospital for treatment.As per MLC (Ex. PW14/A), PW-4 was unfit to Crl.On the next day, 5th September, 2005, copy of the FIR was given to Saurav.Question or debate arises whether PW-24 had tried and asked PW-4 to make/give her statement.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 40 of 46A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 41 of 46On 27th October, 2005, the other two accused Anand and Shailender surrendered before the court of ACMM and were arrested.PW-25 has averred that Anil and Anar Singh had made disclosure statements Ex. PW21/A and PW21/G-1 respectively, and on this basis on 19th October, 2005, weapons of offence i.e. sword used by Anil and the iron pipe were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/D. Similarly, Shailender and Anand had made disclosure statements Ex. PW21/G-2 Crl.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 42 of 46 and PW21/G3 on 28th October, 2005 respectively, and pursuant to their disclosure, PW-25 claims that a sword and farsa were recovered near a canal at Hyderpur outer Ring Road.The FSL Report (Ex. PW29/A-2) records that on sword and farsa Ex. 17 & 18, which were sent to them, no blood could be detected.The core case, as proved and established, sustains against them.The next issue is whether the six male appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC for attempt to commit murder of Vimla.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 43 of 46The evidence mentioned above, postulates that the common object of the assembly was to attack Ajay but Vimla was hit/attacked and suffered injuries because she intervened.The appellants, however, had caused hurt to Vimla by dangerous weapons and it can be gathered and inferred that they had common object to cause hurt/injure a third persons who intervened.This was also likely to happen when a number of assembly members are armed with weapons.The appellants are accordingly liable to be convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC for the injuries caused to Vimla.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 44 of 46(2) Conviction of Ashok Khatri under Section 302 IPC for murder of Ajay is maintained.He is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.(3) Raj Kumar, Anil, Shailender, Anar Singh and Anand are convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC for having caused injuries and death of Ajay and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 8 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.(4) Ashok Khatri, Raj Kumar, Anil, Shailender, Anar Singh and Anand are convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC for the injuries caused to and suffered by Vimla and they are sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with stipulation that in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six month.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 45 of 46The sentences are accordingly and to the extent indicated above modified.A 384/2012 + connected matters Page 46 of 46 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,665,929 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since all the applications are related with the same crime therefore, decided by the present common order.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.149/15 registered at Police Station Chorhata, District Rews for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506-B/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Special Act').Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.Except of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act, remaining offences are bailable.In the dying declaration, the victim did not state anything about the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. Initially, FIR was lodged for bailable offences but thereafter, the complainant changed his version and also alleged against the applicant about the offence of Special Act. It would be apparent that such allegations are afterthought.Prima facie, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is made out against the applicants and therefore, no Prohibition under Section 18 of that Act would be applicable in the present case.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Consequently, the applicants pray for anticipatory bail.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicants namely Rambilas Singh, Krishna Pal Singh, Binnu @ Nripendra Singh, Siddharth Singh Patel, Pintu @ Sukhendra Singh and Sandeep Singh be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider his application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,668,568 | 1 Cr.A.No.2069/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR (Division Bench) Hearing through Video Conferencing Criminal Appeal No.2069/2020 Shripat @ Juggan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, dated : 02.09.2020 Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Panel Lawyer for the State.1 Cr.I.A.No.7406/2020, an application for suspension of sentence at the instance of appellant who has been convicted for offences under Section 302, 354, 201 and 506B of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and RI for one year respectively with default stipulations.In view whereof, appellant's sentence deserves to be suspended.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, opposes the prayer.A.No.2069/2020 court testimony of PW-2 and PW-5 as well as other evidence on record has held the appellant guilty of murder of deceased Lauwa Bai.2 Cr. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,668,598 | The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh.Shiv Charan for quashing of charges/ setting aside the order dated 06.01.2015 framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 120B read with Sections 420/419/384/468/170 IPC in the case titled 'CBI v. Manish Sharma & Ors.' and consequently to set aside the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Revisional Court which sustained the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the Trial Court.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other co-accused in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy conducted illegal raid at the premises of complainant Sh.S.M.Jain on 28.04.2012 by impersonating themselves as officials of Enforcement Department.Page 1 of 5It is also alleged that Parveen Kaushik, one of the co-accused (since deceased), who was working with the complainant as Sales Executive had also taken active part in the conspiracy by furnishing details with respect to the business of the complainant and he persuaded the complainant to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the raiding party to get the matter resolved.The evidence produced by the prosecution is the statement of the complainant/Sh.S.M.Jain recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded telephonic conversations along with confirming report regarding the voice samples and also the statements of other witnesses.Out of the extorted money, Rs.3 lakhs has been recovered from the accused Mr.Parveen Kaushik and Rs.25,000/- has been recovered from the accused Mr.Manish Sharma.The Trial Court on the basis of the material has proceeded to frame charges against the accused including the petitioner vide Order dated 06.01.2015 under Sections 120B IPC read with 420/419/384/468/170 IPC and substantive offences under Sections 170/419/420/384 IPC.Thus, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.Even otherwise, the tape recorded conversations have corroborative value and cannot be counted as substantive evidence.At the stage of trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not required to be meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused.It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has refused to take part in Test Identification Parade (TIP) and also his name finds mention in the recorded voice conseravation of one of the co-accused Subhash Chandra.Thus, strong suspicion at this stage is sufficient to sustain charge framed by the Trial Court.Page 2 of 5The allegations involved in the present case are grave and prima facie there is sufficient material to put the accused to trial at this stage.The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge.The contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court can be decided only after evidence and material placed on record.With the inclusion of Section 120B IPC and material available on record, it is neither desirable nor feasible to segregate the role of each accused at this stage.Page 3 of 5Page 4 of 5In view of the given facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or ambiguity in the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the order 08.04.2015 passed by the Revisional Court upholding the order of the Trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court.This petition is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
566,725 | JUDGMENT Chaturvedi, J.Srimati Subhana has come up in revision against her conviction under Section 448, Penal Code by the Special Magistrate of Lucknow.She was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- and in default she was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.She went in appeal before the Assistant Sessions Judge, who maintained the order of the Magistrate.She has now come up in revision on the ground that her conviction under Section 448, I. P. C. was illegal.The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass.Hashmat Ali complainant filed a salt for ejectment against Munna Lal, son of the applicant.The suit was decreed and ultimately the possession of the portion of the house was delivered to Hashmat Ali on 3-2-1950 by the Civil Court.Hashmat Ali then put his lock on that portion of the house.A few days later when Hash-mat Ali went to realise rent from some other tenant, he found the accused in possession of the house after breaking open the lock which had been put by the complainant.Hashmat Ali at first tried to secure the help of the police to put him in possession of the house again.Ultimately, he filed a complaint about six months after the occurrence,The facts stated above have not been seriously disputed before us.They have further held that the lock which had been put on the house by the complainant had been broken open by the applicant who had taken forcible possession of the house after her son had been ejected earlier.The applicant is the wife of Mehilal, and mother of Munnalal.Mehilal had set up proprietary rights in the disputed house in the partition suit No. 65 of 1940 but it was negatived by the Civil Judge, and on an appeal to the Chief Court the finding of the Civil Judge was confirmed.After Mehilal had receded in the background, his son Munna Lal came forward.The complainant then brought a suit for ejectment against Munna Lal which was decreed.The decree was executed, and ultimately on 3-2-1950, the complainant was put in possession.Having secured possession of the house, the complainant put his lock on the door.Now came the turn of Munna Lal's mother, that is the accused applicant.The lock was put by the complainant on 3-2-1950 and when he again came to the premises on 7-2-1950 he found to his utter surprise and annoyance, that Srimati had taken possession of the house after breaking open the lock.Possession delivered to the complainant in execution of the decree is sufficient to show that it was complainant who was in peaceful possession of the portion of the house which had been locked by him.In the Division Bench case of Motilal, one widow was the owner of a shop which had been let out to a tenant named Yusuf.When the widow died, there were two claimants namely Kanhaiyalal, who claimed the shop as the next reversioner, and Motilal who claimed to be the adopted son of the widow.The applicant was, therefore rightly convicted.The sentence errs on the side of leniency.We dismiss the revision. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,673,992 | In default of payment of fine, four months rigorous imprisonment was directed in addition.The prosecution's story in short is that on 1/6/1997 the victim Neelkanth (PW2) was busy in collecting the bamboos so 2 that the roof of his house could be prepared at Village Vadhwakothar, Police Station Naigadhi, District Rewa.He was accompanied by Ramkumar (PW3).After doing some work in the evening he went to answer the call of nature.Thereafter, at about 6.00 p.m in the evening, he went to the courtyard of the witness Ramkumar (PW3) where the appellants were ready with axes, tangis and sticks and they assaulted the victim Neelkanth by such weapons.On shouting of the victim Neelkanth, Sulochana (PW1) came to the spot.(Delivered on the 26th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.2.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa in ST.Neelkanth was taken to the Police Station, Naigadhi where he lodged an FIR Ex.He was directed for his medico legal examination.He found as many as six injuries to the victim Neelkanth.Out of those there was an incised wound on the region of right parietal bone where some arteries were damaged.He sustained blunt injuries over the left calf, centre of the back, left shoulder, right jaw and on a canine tooth.The patient was admitted.In the opinion of Dr. Mishra, injury caused on his head was grave.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed by the Police of Police Station Naigadhi before JMFC, Mauganj who committed the case to Sessions Judge, Rewa and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj.The appellants adjured their guilt.They took a specific 3 plea that they were falsely implicated due to dispute of the land.In defence Gulabia (DW1), Dhanushdhari (DW2)and Satyahari Prasad (DW3) were examined as defence witness.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.During the pendency of this appeal the victim Neelkanth has submitted an application.On 14.5.2012 he appeared before the Court and after his due identification he has submitted that he is willing to do the compromise with a free consent and his application was kept pending because the offence under Section 307 as well as Section 148 of I.P.C were not compoundable.Dr. B.K. Sharma (PW4) an expert from the Forensic Department of Medical College Rewa had examined the witness Neelkanth after six weeks of the incident.He found that there was a scar on the head of the victim and wound was completely healed.Only offence under Section 324 of I.P.C may be constituted against the appellants who, assaulted the victim Neelkanth on his head and such offence will be constituted against the remaining appellants with help of Section 149 of I.P.C. Since Neelkanth has compounded the offence voluntarily and at the time of incident offence under Section 324 of I.P.C was compoundable therefore, not only the permission to compromise is granted but, the compromise filed by the parties is also accepted at present and therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C even due to that compromise.As far as the offence punishable under section 148 of I.P.C is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction directed against the appellants for that offence and therefore, there is no need to discuss the conviction of the said offence on merits.6 The trial Court has directed a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C. The appellants remained in the custody for approximately 50 days on average and they faced the trial and appeal for at least 14 years.Under such circumstances, looking to the compromise, custody period as well as the period of the trial and appeal it is a fit case in which sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and they cannot even be convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C under the same head of the charge because of the compromise.Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 26.7.2012 bina | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,668,023 | No costs.19.04.2018Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderpvsToThe District Collector,Kancheepuram District,Kancheepuram.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.B.Sudharsana Sundar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 3rd respondent.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.The case of the petitioner is that the lands in Survey Nos.74/1A1, 71/1, 74/1B, 74/4D and 74/3 were ancestral properties, belonging to his father and his two brothers.A power of attorney in favour of one Mr.Cyril Joseph was given to develop the properties.Based on the power of attorney a lay out was formed in the name of VMR Nagar and most of the properties have been sold out and some were not sold.At this juncture, the third respondent issued a notice under Section 3 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, to acquire the above said lands.The petitioner would state that his father Ganesan passed away on 26.11.2011 and thereby, the power of attorney would automatically cancelled.However, the said power agent had created forged documents and based on the power of attorney, executed sales deeds of some of the plots in favour of his wife and his company.The petitioner would state that though the lands of the petitioner's family were acquired in the year 2010, so far, compensation was not paid.Hence, he gave a representation to the 2nd respondent on 25.03.2018 to pass an award of compensation.Since there is no response, the present Writ Petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.In the light of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsels appearing for either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.The Special Thasildar (L.A.),SIPCOT,Unit-II & Unit-I,Sriperumpudhur Expansion Scheme-II,Sriperumpudhur.K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.pvs W.P.No.9649 of 201819.04.2018 | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,689,071 | Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by A.K. SIKRI, J.ASHWANI KUMARDate: 2017.10.3116:11:01 ISTReason:2) One, Amit Jethwa, stated to be an activist, who was complaining against the illegal mining in and around Gir Forest Sanctuary, was murdered.radius from the boundary of the Gir Sanctuary.In this FIR, amongst others, Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki (for short ‘Mr. Solanki’) and his nephew were also implicated.As per the father of Amit Jethwa (who was the complainant), State’s Police showed slackness in investigating the said case.He approached the High Court for transfer of investigation and vide order dated September 25, 2012, his petition was allowed and investigation was transferred to CBI.On transfer, CBI registered RC.11(S)/2012 SCU.V/SC.II/CBI and undertook the investigation.The aforesaid order dated September 25, 2012 passed by the High Court was challenged by Mr. Solanki as well as State of Gujarat by filing special leave petitions in this Court.This miscellaneous application was dismissed and CBI was given liberty to complete the investigation.In the chargesheet, Mr. Solanki has been arrayed as one of the main conspirators along with his nephew Pratap @ Shiva Solanki and few others.However, at the same time, bail was granted to Mr. Solanki on certain conditions mentioned in Para 65, relevant portion whereof is reproduced below:We are not much impressed by the submission of Mr Rohatgi that the appellant-petitioner ought to be released on bail simply because he happens to be a sitting MP, nor are we much impressed by the fact that further incarceration of the appellant-petitioner would prevent him from performing his duties either in Parliament or in his constituency.So far as the Court is concerned, the appellant-petitioner is a suspect/accused in the offence of murder.No special treatment can be given to the appellant-petitioner simply on the ground that he is a sitting1 (2014) 4 SCC 626 4 Member of Parliament.However, keeping in view the fact that CBI has submitted the supplementary charge-sheet and that the trial is likely to take a long time, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the appellant-petitioner on bail, subject to the following conditions:(i) On his furnishing personal security in the sum of Rs 5 lakhs with two solvent sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.5) Notice in the aforesaid criminal application, seeking cancellation of bail, was issued.During hearings, it transpired that there were three Sessions Cases i.e. 02/2014, 03/2014 and 01/2014 and trial had not started because CBI had filed application before the Principal Judge, Ahmedabad seeking consolidation of these cases.The trial was consolidated at the time of the framing of the charge.Taking note of these facts, this Court passed the order dated May 10, 2016 directing the trial court to proceed to frame the charges and start the trial on day to day basis.This application for cancellation of bail, thereafter, kept on getting adjourned at the behest 6 of one party or the other.In the meantime, trial proceeded with utmost expedition, pursuant to the aforesaid directions given by this Court.6) During the trial, it transpired that most of the witnesses had turned hostile.This further prompted the complainant to approach the High Court of Gujarat with an appropriate writ petition seeking certain reliefs including that of de novo trial.The parties requested that the hearings in the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous application (seeking cancellation of bail) be deferred to await the decision of the High Court.Allowing the said writ petition, the High Court has directed de novo trial of the case with the following specific directions:9) The High Court found that all the important witnesses including the eye-witnesses resiled from their statements made before the Police.Itis further submitted that till 24.11.2016 Eighty Nine (89)Prosecution Witnesses have been examined and out of these 40witnesses have turned hostile due to the influence/threat of theaccused applicant.The important witnesses including policeofficers are yet to be examined.Of Police, Distt.S.S. Kishore, the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime II, New Delhi, the following assertion is made:In response to the para 14 of the petition, it is submitted that some of the witnesses have intimated regarding threats given by Shri.Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki to them and to influence them and thereafter CBI as written letters on 09.10.2013 and 05.03.2014 to DGP of Gujarat Police for providing adequate security to the witnesses as they were under threat witnesses as they were under threat from Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki.That the contents of para 15 of the petition are matter of record.The complaint lodged with concerned police station against Sh.Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki and others for their alleged atrocities over the witnesses pertains to the jurisdiction of local police.That in para 1 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that the shooter in the instant case i.e. Shailesh Pandya, who is presently lodged in Patan Sub Jai, is running an extortion business from the jail itself.These allegations pertain to Sub Jail Patan and concerned Jail Authorities of Patan may take immediate action in this respect.That the apprehension of complainant in para 22 of the petition appears to be genuine witnesses have reported about the threats given to them by Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki and for that local police respondent no. 3 is competent authority to take necessary steps.”11) The High Court also took note of various complaints which were 13 made by the witnesses alleging threats being administered by Mr. Solanki as well as his accomplices.All those complaints are reproduced verbatim by the High Court in the impugned judgment.Even the Special Director, CBI had addressed letters to Director General of Police (DGP), Gandhinagar, Gujarat mentioning about the alleged threats which the complainant and his family members were receiving and requested the DGP to provide necessary police protection.So much so, the trial court was also compelled to pass orders for according protection to certain witnesses.I could have observed many things as regards the Presiding Officer, but, for one good reason, I have restrained myself.My observations would have only brought a bad name for this institution.Let the High Court on its administrative side look into the matter.”In that petition, he had pleaded for protection of environment generally and the biodiversity of Gir Forest, in particular.Mr. Solanki and his nephew were got impleaded in the said PIL whose names emerged during the pendency of that petition.37) After the murder of the said activist, the case was registered with the Sola Police Station.But the investigation was lackadaisical.The 33 complainant was forced to approach the High Court to seek necessary directions for proper investigation.It also needs to be borne in mind that soon after Mr. Solanki was released on bail, application for cancellation of bail was filed by the complainant with the allegations that Mr. Solanki was extending threats to the complainant, his family members as well as witnesses.Even some witnesses complained to this effect.44) Accordingly, we dispose of the appeals with modification of the direction of the High Court in respect of aforesaid two aspects.In the first instance, instead of entire de novo trial, only 26 witnesses would be examined afresh as per the list furnished by the CBI.We, therefore, dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 14006 of 2015 with the following directions:a) Bail granted to Mr. Solanki by this Court vide order dated February 25, 2014 stands cancelled for the time being.He shall be taken into custody and shall remain in custody during the period eight eye-witnesses are re-examined.b) The trial court shall summon 26 witnesses who are to be examined afresh.In the first instance, 8 eye-witnesses shall be summoned and examined on day to day basis.It will be open to the trial court to add any further conditions, if the circumstances so warrant.c) The trial court shall also endeavour to record the remaining evidence as well as expeditiously as possible by conducting the trial on day to day basis.49) Appeals and applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.(A.K. SIKRI) ............................................. | ['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
566,913 | (1) These two appeals arise from the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, so they arc being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) APPELLANT-SHANKER and appellant-Prem Chand were charged for an offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed robbery on March 14, 1985, at house No. C-1/19, Safdarjang Development Area, New Delhi, at about 2.30 P.M. of one Vcr make National Panasonic 370, one two-in-one make National Panasonic, one another two-in-one make Sharp and one transistor make Philip belonging to Smt. Uma Malhan.(3) Vide judgment dated October 4, 1988, Shri S, C. Jain.JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.Additional Sessions Judge, had sentenced accused Prem Chand to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to further undergo simple imprison- merit for one month under section 392, Indian Penal Code.and had sentenced accused Shanker to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code.(4) One Mohinder Puri from telephone No. 666287 had given information to Police Control Room regarding theft having been committed at the aforesaid house and the report was written in the daily diary No. 42B at 4.30 P.M. and Si Raj Kumar Along with Constable Mahinder Singh proceeded to the spot and there he recorded the statement of Kamlapati (Public Witness I), the employer of Smt. Malhan, who made the statement Ex. Public Witness 1/A in which he mentioned that he was alone presets in the house while his employer had gone to visit her brother in Malcha Marg and her daughter had also gone for some work and while) he was ironing some clothes that two persons aged about 30-35 years, one of short stature having semi black complexion of heavy built wearing black pant and white shirt and the other somewhat taller having wheatish complexion strongly built, entered the house and the short statured person took one video make National Panasonic 370 and tied in a sheet while the other person had placed a knife on his neck and after they left the house, he managed to come out from a window and informed the neighbour domestic servant Gopal and then police came to the spot and later on it was checked that besides the said video, two two-in-one one of National Panasonic make and the other of Sharp make.and one transistor of Phillip make also had been taken away by the said culprits.The case was registered on the basis of this statement vide F.I.R., copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 2[B. Site-plan Ex. Public Witness 3/B was also prepared.(5) These two appellants came to be arrested on August 13, 1985, in some other case and they are stated to have made disclosure statement regarding their having committed thefts and robberies including the robbery at the house in question and they offered to get recovered the case property of this case as well.Appellant-Shanker is stated to have led the police party to his house No. 97, Lane No. 3, Durga Puri and he got recovered a large number of case property including the video make Np 370 of this case vide recovery memo of which copy is Ex. W 7/B. Similarly Prem Chand-appellant got recovered one two-in-one National make Along with other goods of other cases from his house in bearing No. E-29, Jyoti Colony, East Shahdara, Delhi, which were taken into possession vide.recovery memo of which photo copy is Ex. Public Witness 71C. Smt. Malhan and her servant are stated to have identified the said case property at the Police Station.The accused were also not got identified in any identification parade from Public Witness 1 who was the only witness of the robbery.It is pertinent to mention that Public Witness I in court went on to identify the appellants as the two robbers who committed the robbery on that day.Indeed there cannot bs any doubt that the robbery had taken place at the said house as mentioned by Kamlapati.There was no reason for Kamlapati and Smt. Malhan to make a wrong statement on the point of robbery.(6) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Kamlapati bad stated that he had bolted the premises from inside while he was performing the domestic work and the culprits had forced open the door which had the effect of denting the kundi of the door but the police had not cared to take into possession the said dented kundi and so a doubt is caused regarding the factum of robbery itself.After all.the kundi had not broken and fallen apart so that the Investigating Officer should have taken into possession the said kundi.The culprits were not known.So, in the F.I.R. only some physical features of the unknown culprits were mentioned.I hold that in fact the: robbery did take place as stated by Kamlapati (PWI).The question which assumes significance is whether the said two culprits who committed the robbery are the two appellants before this Court ?(7) The appellants were arrested after about five months of the commission of offence.No facial features of the culprits had been enumerated in the F.I.R. If Kamlapati had noticed the facial features of the culprits, he would not have failed to mention them in the F.I.R. when he wept on to mention other physical features of the culprits.a statement was made by this witness to the police to the effect that he was not in a position to recollect the faces of the culprits meaning thereby that he was not in a position to now identify the said culprits.He was duly confronted with this statement in his cross-examination (portion A to A of mark 'A' document).1985, it is not understandable how he same to identify these two culprits in the court.At any rate, a serious doubt arises regarding the identity ct the culprits being established in view of the fact that there is no other evidence to prove that in fact these appellants had committed the robbery.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not noticed this particular lapse appearing in the prosecution case in his judgment.He only examined the statement of Public Witness 1 and came to the conclusion that Public Witness 1 bad identified the appellant as the culprits and there is no reason to doubt his testimony.The learned Additional Sessions Juge.forgets that Public Witness I had categorically stated in his statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded on August 30, 1985, that he was not in a position to recollect the faces of the culprits with which statement he was duly confronted.So, he cannot, in my opinion, be believed when he went on to identify the appellants as the said two culprits.(8) As far as the recovery of the robbed articles is concerned I have no reason to doubt the statement of the police officials PW7 Si Laxmi Narain Rao, and Public Witness 8 Si Chattar Singh.They have stated that at the tune of effecting the recovery the public witnesses were requested to join but none came forward.The disclosure statements made by the two accused were also proved by the said witnesses including Public Witness 4 Head Constable Balwan Singh and Asi Om Parkash.(9) The learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that there is no satisfactory evidence brought on the record to show that the articles recovered at the instance of the appellants were the robbed property belonging to Smt. Marian.I may mention that the testimony of Public Witness 5 Smt. Malhan went unchallenged to the effect that video Ex. Pi and the two-in-one Ex. P2 belonged to her which were robbed from her house and which she identified in the police Station.She had brought original documents showing the ownership of said two articles, photo copies of the same were proved on record as Ex. Public Witness 5/A. PW5/B & Public Witness 5/C. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that no special features of the robbed articles were mentioned in the F.I.R. which could be linked with Exs.I do not agree.After all Public Witness 5 made a categorical statement in court that these articles belonged to her and there is no reason to doubt the said statement when particularly her statement has gone unchallenged.It is evident that these two articles Exa.PI& P2 were the robbed property and were not recovered from the appellants.In the absence of any direct evidence of the involvement of the appellants in the commission of robbery, resort can be had only to the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that if a man is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft the court may presume that either he is a thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession.In Amar Singh & Others v. The Crown, Air 1949 East Punjab 315(1), the stolen goods were found to be in possession of the culprit after four months of the occurrence.The offence was brought home under Section.It was held that choice is to be made for drawing any of such presumptions keeping in view the facts proved in the case.In the cited case, all tre property which was stolen was not recovered from the appellant.Only some of the property was recovered from the appellants in that case and the appellant was held to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code in that case.Similarly, in the present case the appellants, in my view, cannot be convicted of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as the whole of the robbed properly had not been recovered from the appellants and only some of the case property had been recovered'.The appellants were liable to lie convicted of offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code only.(12) I, hence, partly allow the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentenced of the appellants under Sections 392 & 397, Indian Penal Code and instead I convict each of them for offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.The appeals are disposed of with above modification. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,417,272 | Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,419 | A fortnight before this occurrence there was a partition of the family properties, at which the father was.allotted, among other things, three bulls, one pah-valued at KB.On the morning of 5th August 1952, when the deceased was working in his field, the appellant approached him and suggested that the bulls valued at Rs. 550 might be given to him for Us.The father was not agreeable to this inequitable suggestion and wanted to sell them all in a shandy.This provoked the appellant who abused his father in filthy language.At that time, P. W. 2 the mother of the appellant and P. W. 3 his.sister also happened to be there and his maternal uncle P. W. 1 was working in the adjoining field.The deceased felt dishonoured by the vile Jan-guage used by the son.p. \v. 1 who was witnessing all these came there and advised the appellant to go away promising to settle the-matt er later.That evening when the deceased returned home for his night meal at about 9 o'clock P. W. 2 advised him not to get into the house since-the appellant was drunk and was threatening to-stab him.Thereupon the deceased fetched P. W. 1 to intercede in the matter.When P. W. 1 advised the appellant, not to quarrel with his father but to allow him to enter the house, take his food and go away, the appellant abused him for his interference.When P. W. 1 remonstrated, the appellant hurled an iron lock which hit the former on the forehead and caused a bleeding injury.On this, P. W. 1 came out of the house, accompanied by the deceased who was all the while standing outside, to apply some medicine to the wound.No sooner had they gone about ten feet than the appellant emerged with a bichuva.from the house of one Nallammal, which adjoins that of the appellant's family and to get into which there was a gap in the compound of the latter's house, abusing P. W. 1 and the deceased foully.Apprehending trouble, P. W. 1 caught hold of the appellant and the deceased went towards the house of Nallammal.The appellant tried to wriggle out of the hold of P. W. 1 and when the latter did not release him he stabbed P. W. l with his bichuva on tne right upper arm." Then the appellant pursued his father who was running away and stabbed him on the neck st the oil mill in the backyard of the house of Nallammal, which resulted in his death within an hour.P. W. l then caught hold of the appellant and while the latter was struggling to escape and run away, P. W- 4, the father-in-law of the P. W. 1 came there and disarmed the appellant who ran away immediately.The Injured man was-then taken to his house where he expired soon after.Information was then sent to the village munsif Jiving at a distance of about a mile.The village munsif arrived at the spot at about midnight and reduced to writing the statement of P. _W. 1 which is marked as Ex. D. l in this case.This document sets out the main features of the-prosecution case.It refers to the partition disputes between the father and the son and to the circumstances under which the appellant plunged his knife into the deceased Marappa Goundan.The report prepared by the village Munsif based, on the statement of P. W. 1, was despatched at about 2 a.m. and it was received at the Namakkal police station at 3-45 a.m. The Sub Inspector of Police P. W. 9 came to the village at 5 a.m. held the inquest, examined all the witnesses and sent the body for autopsy to P. W. 5 the Civil Assistant Surgeon in charge of the Government Hospital, Namabkal.The post mortem examination revealed a gaping incised penetrating wound on the right side of the neck above the collar bone, which injured the soft tissues, the subclavian injury and aorta.In the opinion of the doctor the injury was necessarily fatal.The same doctor examined P- W. 1 who was found to have five injuries: (1) a penetrating wound on the right shoulder joint with an entry and exit wound, (2) an incised wound on the right side of the forehead; (3) a punctured wound on the middle third of right eye brow and two other superficial wounds on the thumb.Four days later the appellant was also produced before this doctor who found a superficial incised wound on the back of his left wrist.The prosecution case rests mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, direct witnesses to the occurrence, and the circumstantial evidence of P. W. 4 who is said to have seized the bichuva from the appellant.P. Ws. 1 and 3 supported the prosecution case in its entirety at all the stages.But P. W. 2 who corroborated P. Ws. 1 and 3 in the Sessions Court did not speak to the actual stabbing by the appellant when he was examined by the Magistrate under S. 164, Criminal P. C.The plea of the appellant was that he did not commit the offence, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was false, that he was dead drunk that night and that he did not know what had happened.The Sessions Judge acting mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 sentenced him to death for the offence of murder and also to various terms of imprisonment under the other two charges.An appeal is filed by the appellant against his convictions.That appeal and the reference under Section 374, Criminal P. C. are before us.In this appeal, while not disputing that the stab injury to which Marappa Goundan succumbed was inflicted by the appellant, it is contended for the appellant that he must have stabbed the deceased in a quarrel in which he, the deceased and P. W. 1 took part and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should not be accepted 'in toto'.As regards the injury it has to be mentioned that it was a very superficial one and it might have been caused either at the time when there was a struggle between the appellant and P. W. 1 etc. after the attack on the deceased or sometime later.Further, the doctor was told that this was caused a about 6 p. m. on 6th August.As regards the omission of particulars as regards what happened after the stabbing incident, we will refer to it presently.He argued that according to Ex. P. 1 the appellant ran away immediately after he stabbed the deceased, while P. W. 4 now deposed that after the stabbing incident the appellant was caught by P. W. 1 and the former was trying to escape from the hold of P. W. 1 when he went there and seized the bichuva from him.We do not think that the omission to mention the details subsequent to the attack on Marappa Goundan should be a ground for rejecting P. W. 4's evidence.The explanation offered by P. W. 1 for this omission was that he was not well at that time and was feeling giddy.It may be recalled that P. W. 1 had as many as five injuries which have already been described.The Sessions Judge attributed this to the maternal instinct.However he was prepared to leave that evidence out of account and to rely only on the evidence of other witnesses.a bichuva. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,024,195 | During the search, 3 persons by name Abdul Gafoor, Abdul Malick and Abdul Hakeem were present in that room and Indian currency of Rs. 75,000 and certain documents were seized.When interrogated Abdul Gafoor stated that he was employed by the petitioner, that he used to collect monies from Madras and Tiruchirapalli as per instructions received from Singapore and that the amounts thus received were handed over to the petitioner for further disbursement.He had also stated that on 6-7-1972 he came to Madras on instructions of the petitioner for collecting a lakh of rupees from a local person, that he could collect only Rs. 75,000 and that the balance was promised to be paid next day.As a follow-up measure, the Athikadai was searched on 7-7-1972 as a result of which certain incriminating documents were said to have been seized.When interrogated with reference to the Indian currency of Rs. 75,000 seized at Madras from Abdul Gaffoor and others, the petitioner stated that he had nothing to do with the said amount.For purpose of further interrogation with reference to the said sum of Rs. 75,000 as also the documents seized from the residence of the petitioner on 7-7-1972, the petitioner was served with summons dated 26-8-1972 to appear before the first respondent under Section 19F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner sent a reply on 15-9-1972 through his counsel stating that the summons issued is vague as it did not contain the particulars about the name of the offender, the subject-matter of the offence, place of offence, etc., and that if proper summons is issued he is prepared to appear along with his counsel. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,421,659 | The appellant was convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) vide judgment dated 30.03.1995 and vide order on sentence of the even date sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of three months.A. No101/1995 Page 1 of 7A. No101/1995 Page 1 of 7On 13.08.2009, again none appeared for the appellant and fresh NBWs were directed to be issued against the appellant.On the said date, NBWs issued against the appellant remained unexecuted though surety of the appellant appeared in the Court and sought some time to produce the appellant.On 06.10.2009, next date fixed in the matter, surety of the appellant appeared and stated that she has not been able to produce the appellant and requested for some more time stating that the appellant is residing somewhere in Punjab and also prayed for issuance of NBWs against the appellant as the appellant may not be willing to come voluntarily with her and accordingly we again issued NBWs against the appellant and surety was directed to inform the IO about the present whereabouts of the appellant so as to execute the NBWs and the matter was posted for today.As per the status report filed in the Court today, which is taken on record, the NBWs could not be executed as no assistance was provided by the surety.The appeal was dismissed after making the aforesaid observations. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,422,533 | This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No.5 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 petitioner in Crime No. 5 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 352 and 506(ii) of IPC.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ksahttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 ToThe Inspector of Police, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17972 of 2018 21.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,424,817 | In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.04.2020 in connection with Belgharia P.S. Case No. 960 of 2017 dated 09.11.2017 under Sections 366A/370/370A/376/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Act and also Sections 17/18 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of : Mampi Dhole alias Mamon .... petitioner.Mr. Arka Chakraborty ...For the petitioner.Subject to such undertaking the application is taken up for hearing through Video Conference.The prayer for bail of the petitioner is sought for on the ground that one of the co-accused, namely, Shavan Bag, was released on bail by this Court.The petitioner stands on the same footing.Moreover, the victims, except one, did not name the petitioner and her complicity has not been established in the instant case, so she should be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is one of the prime accused who procured a minor girl for illicit sexual exploitation in a hotel.We have considered the materials on record as well as the statement of the minor victim girl.There remains direct allegation against the petitioner of procuring the victim girl and involving her in sexual exploitation in a hotel.Considering such materials, the prayer for bail being CRM 3496 of 2020 is hereby rejected.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) (Harish Tandon, J.) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,425,821 | rkd Ct.No.28 C.R.M. 12994 of 2017 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21/12/2017 in connection with Madhyamgram P.S. Case No. 496 of 2017 dated 12/09/2017 under Sections 366A/370/370A/372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic Act together with 4/17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act.And In the matter of: - Bittu Sharma ....petitioner.Ms. A. Bhattacharya, Adv....for the petitioner.Mr. P. Ganguly, Adv., ...for the State.Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Having considered the materials in the case diary prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner in penetrative sexual assault of minors who were sexually exploited, we are not inclined in granting bail to the petitioner at this stage.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,427,146 | I have considered the submissions of the respective parties. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,024,289 | Certain neighbours who were with them and who are the witnesses to this quarrel and the subsequent events, separated them.Manjar went away for the time, apparently quiet, but came back, now with a knife in his hand and accompanied by his brother Bhura who was carrying a stick.As soon as he arrived where Munna and others were still sitting, he stabbed Munna with his knife on different parts of the body, causing, as already noted, five injuries.While four of them were comparatively less serious and did not go very deep, one of them, on the abdomen, was deep, and entering from the front went right through the pertonial cavity and ruptured the left kidney on its lower part.JUDGMENT Krishnan, J.Death itself followed after about 48 hours.He has been awarded for reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, imprisonment for life.His brother Bhura Musalman was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, but was acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. He has not appealed.Otherwise simple, this case illustrates the tests for distinguishing between cases under Sections 302 and 304, I. P. C.The common ground is that on that evening, while Munna was sitting on a platform along with some other neighbours, the appellant Manjar went to him. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,430,508 | shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine."On perusal of the FIR (Exh."C") dated04/11/2018 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainantit is seen that respondent No.2 and her husband wentin the office of the District Collector, Nanded on30/10/2018 at about 10.30 a.m. as there was hearingof the proceeding under Section 10-1A of theMaharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Her husband afterleaving her at the gate of the said office went to ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 22 ) criappeal875.18the office of Superintendent of Police as he washaving personal interview with the Superintendent ofPolice.Respondent No.2 was waiting for her husbandat the gate of office of District Collector, Nanded.After sometime her husband came at the gate and sheasked him whether his work is over.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::taken up for final hearing with the consent of bothsides.By this appeal the appellants/accused Nos.1and 2 have assailed order dated 30/11/2018 in Misc.Criminal Application No.894 of 2018 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge-4, Nanded, therebyrejecting said application of the appellants foranticipatory bail.By order dated 15/01/2019 interimprotection that, "no coercive action be taken againstthe appellants till the next date", was granted andit was continued from time to time.3. Facts relevant to decide this appeal, inshort, are that respondent No.2-Vanita DhanajiMarakwad has filed the complaint with VazirabadPolice Station against the appellants and on thebasis of the said complaint Crime No.333/2018 came tobe registered against the appellants on 04/11/2018for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: (3) criappeal875.18Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities Act") andunder Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").It wasalleged that on 30/10/2018 in the office of Collectorat Nanded the appellants purposely picked up thequarrel with the husband of respondent No.2 andappellant No.2/accused No.2 abused husband ofrespondent No.2 on his caste.So also while going outof the office of Collector at Nanded near the gatethey had threatened to kill respondent No.2 and herhusband.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for theappellants submitted that in the Grampanchayatelections of 2015 the respondent No.2 got elected asa member and Sarpanch of village Hathral, Tq.Mukhed,Dist.Nanded and she belongs to 'Mannervarlu'Scheduled Tribe.As she belongs to Scheduled Tribeshe was required to file tribe validity certificatewithin six months of her election as a Sarpanch as ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: (4) criappeal875.18per Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra VillagePanchayats Act. But respondent No.2 did not submitsaid certificate and as such she incurreddisqualification.Therefore, appellant No.1 filedcomplaint with the Collector, Nanded on 03/10/2016.The Collector, Nanded vide letter dated 24/10/2016(Exh.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel furthersubmitted that the husband of respondent No.2 isserving in Police department.He threatened theappellants on account of filing election dispute bythem against his wife respondent No.2, on 30/10/2018.Therefore, immediately appellant No.2 made complaint(Exh.'B') to the District Superintendent of Police,Nanded against the husband of respondent No.2 aboutthe aforesaid incident happened in the office ofDistrict Collector, Nanded.It is after five days ofthe said compliant filed by appellant No.2, therespondent No.2 filed complaint dated 04/11/2018 with ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: (6) criappeal875.18Vazirabad Police Station regarding the so calledincident dated 30/10/2018 on the basis of which thepresent crime against the appellants came to beregistered.It issubmitted that the entire complaint/FIR against theappellants does not show about caste of respondentNo.2 and caste of the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel submitted thatin the above circumstances the appellants filed Misc.Criminal Application No.894 of 2018 in the Court ofSessions Judge, Nanded under Section 438 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, in the crime registeredagainst them, for anticipatory bail.There is nothingon record to show that respondent No.2 was insultedreferring her caste.There is nothing on record to ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: (7) criappeal875.18show that respondent No.2 was humiliated and saidincident was witnessed by the public.So also, thereis nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 wasabused on her caste by the appellants in a placewithin public view.As such, according to the learnedcounsel for the appellants when prima-facie offencesunder Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the AtrocitiesAct are not attracted, bar contemplated under Section18A of the Atrocities Act is not applicable to thepresent case and therefore the appellants wererequired to be granted anticipatory bail by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, but the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge has wrongly rejectedapplication of the appellants for anticipatory bailby the impugned order though the learned AdditionalSessions Judge observed that it is doubtful whetheroffence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Actis applicable or not.As such, according to thelearned counsel the impugned order is not proper andsustainable.It is submitted that after filing thisappeal interim protection has been granted to the ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: (8) criappeal875.18appellants and they have not misused the libertygranted to them by this Court.Thus, learned counselsubmitted that the impugned order be set aside andapplication of the appellants be allowed by allowingthe present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::To support his submissions Mr. Gaikwad,learned counsel has placed reliance upon thefollowing decisions:(i) Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and another Vs.State of Maharashtra, 2005 All M.R. (Cri)1948, and(ii) Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (Dr.) Vs.Mr. Morampalle, learned APP appearing forrespondent No.1/State submitted that Advocate forrespondent No.2/complainant was present at the timeof incident and as such, he is eye witness to theincident.Statement under Section 164 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure of the respondent No.2 wasrecorded and in the said statement caste of ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: (9) criappeal875.18respondent No.2 is mentioned.Thus, the learned APPsupported the impugned order.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for respondentNo.2 submitted that interim relief is granted infavour the appellants.The appellants may hamper andtamper the witnesses if they are released on bail.The husband of respondent No.2 is in service and heis residing at Nanded and the complainant alone isresiding in the village Hathral and as the appellantsare trying to disturb her, the appeal needs to bedismissed.According to learned counsel appellantsare strong.They may interfere in the investigation.Thus, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 hasprayed to dismiss the appeal.I have perused the copies ofdocuments produced on record by the appellants, thereply affidavit of respondent No.2 and the impugnedorder.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::At the outset, it would be appropriate torefer some facts in respect of which there appears nodispute between the parties and the said facts arethat in the year 2015 there was election of villageGrampanchayat, Hathral of the appellants andrespondent No.2/complainant and in the said electionrespondent No.2 was elected as Sarpanch.She hadfiled her nomination for the post of Sarpanch for theseat reserved for Scheduled Tribe claiming that shebelongs to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.RespondentNo.2 failed to submit tribe validity certificatewithin six months as per the provisions of theMaharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Appellant No.1had filed application dated 03/10/2016 before theCollector, Nanded stating that respondent No.2 hasincurred disqualification under Section 10-1A of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 11 ) criappeal875.18Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act as she failed tofile tribe validity certificate within six months ofher election as a Sarpanch and said application wasdisposed of by the Collector and appellant No.1 wasinformed vide letter dated 24/10/2016 (Exh.'A') thathe has to file election dispute in the matter.Thereupon appellant No.2 and one Prakash GyanobaTembhurne have filed election dispute/appeal No.277/2016 on 15/12/2016 against the present respondentNo.2 and two others to declare that the presentrespondent No.2 and respondent No.2 in the saiddispute have incurred disqualification as they didnot submit tribe validity certificates, in view ofSection 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village PanchayatsAct and said dispute was pending on 30/10/2018 beforethe Collector, Nanded when the alleged incident inthe present crime against the appellants had takenplace, and on the said date the appellants as well asrespondent No.2/original complainant and her husbandhad attended the Collector office, Nanded foraforesaid election dispute.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest .- (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail, and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors:- (i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 13 ) criappeal875.18 applicant;::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::(Emphasis supplied).To put it differently, once it is apparent from the FIR that an offence under the Act of 1989 is even alleged, the Courts would not be justified at all in weighing or scrutinising the preponderance of the probability of commission of the offence by the accused, but if from the FIR itself the ingredients of offence as laid down under Sec. 3 of the Act itself is found to be missing, the bar created by Sec. 18 would not be allowed to operate against an accused and only in that event his application for anticipatory bail would be dealt with by the concerned Court to determine whether the Act of 1989 can be said to be rightly applicable against the accused and not to enter into further enquiry into the matter so as to determine whether the allegations levelled against the accused in the FIR are true or false and there would be no justification to enter into the matter further in order to examine whether the allegations levelled against the accused are even prima facie correct or incorrect."::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::The ingredients of offences under Sections ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 21 ) criappeal875.183(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act allegedagainst the appellants are to be considered and saidprovisions are as under:::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::He told her thatSuperintendent of Police had gone to Kandhar and hehas been called on tomorrow.Thereafter, he went tothe office of District Collector and inquired aboutthe matter and again came to the gate and when sheasked him what has happened, he told her that heradvocate has asked him to wait for sometime.Therefore, both of them were waiting for theadvocate, but they could not contact their advocatefor long time.Therefore, her husband went in theoffice of the District Collector.There both theappellants were present.As her husband was in theuniform the appellant No.2 said him why he has comethere and said that they have made his wife to stepdown from the post of Sarpanch and they would alsocompel him to leave his job and appellant No.2 was ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 23 ) criappeal875.18abusing her husband on his caste.Her husband came tothe gate and told the above said incident to her.This shows that the respondent No.2 had not witnessedthe above said incident happened in the office of theDistrict Collector with her husband.It has furtheralleged in the FIR that thereafter while respondentNo.2 and her husband were standing at the gate of theoffice of Collector the appellants came on motorcycleand stopped the motorcycle near the respondent No.2and said that she has lost post of Sarpanch andwithin one month her husband would also loose his joband that, "rqeph yk;dh vkeP;k ik;ktoG jkg.;kph] ekxqu [kk.kkjh tkrrqeph pkj ?kj vlwu ,so<k ekt rqEgkyk" and further threatened tokill them with the knife and they further said thatthey would file false complaint to the Superintendentof Police.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::As such, applicationfor anticipatory bail can be entertained.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::Of course the statement of husband ofrespondent No.2 shows that his wife was elected as aSarpanch from Scheduled Tribe category and that boththe appellants were abusing him loudly on his caste.But when FIR and statement of husband of respondentNo.2 are not sufficient to state that either therespondent No.2 or her husband were abused on theircaste in a place within public view the say of thehusband of respondent No.2 is not sufficient toattract offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)of the Atrocities Act. At the most on the basis ofallegations referred earlier made in the FIR offenceunder Section 506 of the IPC which is bailable wouldbe attracted against the appellants on the backgroundof the admitted facts referred earlier regarding ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 26 ) criappeal875.18Grampanchayat dispute pending before the Collector,Nanded between appellant No.2 and others on the onehand and respondent No.2/complainant on the otherhand.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::The learned Additional Sessions Judge whilepassing the impugned order in paragraph No.14 thoughobserved that at this juncture it may be doubtful tosay whether Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Actwould be applicable or not, observed that there is nodoubt to say that the provisions of Section 3(1)(r)of the Atrocities Act will be applicable.When in theFIR the respondent No.2/ complainant does not saythat she belongs to Scheduled Caste or ScheduledTribe and further does not say that the appellantsare not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribeobservations of the learned Additional Sessions Judgethat provisions of Section 3(1)(r) of the AtrocitiesAct will be applicable are prima facie not correctand sustainable.::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::appellants have made out the case to extend benefitof anticipatory bail to them.Therefore, the orderimpugned in the present appeal needs to be quashedand set aside and application filed by the appellantsfor anticipatory bail needs to be allowed by allowingthe appeal.Therefore, in the result following orderis passed.Criminal Bail Application No.894 of 2018 is quashedand set aside.(iii) Said Misc.Criminal Bail Application No.894/2018 is allowed.In the event of arrest of theappellants in connection with Crime No.333/2018registered in Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, theappellants be released on bail, each on furnishing ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: ( 28 ) criappeal875.18P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)with solvent surety of the like amount on conditionsthat;::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::(a) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation as and when necessary;(b) They shall not tamper the evidence of prosecution in any manner and by brining pressure on the respondent No.2/complainant or any witness;(c) They shall attend Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded on fourth Saturday of each month between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the investigation.[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]SSP ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 06:56:15 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
102,430,878 | Previous application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.The applicant is in custody since 20.6.2014 in connection with Crime No. 213/2014 registered at P.S. Chhapara, District Seoni for the offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 353, 332, 333, 147, 148, 149, 324 & 325 of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged that in the incident co- accused Lekhram said to have assaulted Maya Bai by using knife.Maya Bai sustained as many as 5 incised wounds.During the aforesaid incident it is alleged that this applicant had assaulted Sunil by knife, who sustained as many as 2 incised wounds.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.None of the injuries said to have been found dangerous to life.Similarly co-accused namely Lekhram has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2015 passed in M.Cr.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.(G.S. SOLANKI) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,932,607 | The facts giving rising to this appeal are that the appellant was working as a labourer in the agricultural field of deceased Sita Bai.Near about one year before the incident, he was discontinued and he was insisting to be taken back on the work, but 8 days before the incident the deceased refused to take back him on work on account of aforesaid reason, the appellant was in anger and on 06/10/2004 near about 6.30 am, the appellant came towards the house of the deceased and assaulted deceased Sita Bai with the knife while she was coming from the house to throw garbage.On hearing the cries of the deceased, brother of the deceased's husband Laxman Singh (PW-2) rushed toward the place of incident and saw the appellant assaulting deceased Sita Bai with the knife and also found several injuries on the person of Sita Bai.ad { 17/01/2018 } M Per J.P.Gupta, J :of This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated rt 29/04/2005 passed by the 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, ou Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.345/2005 whereby the appellant C has been convicted under section 302 of IPC for committing h murder of Sita Bai and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life ig imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default H further imprisonment of 6 months.Chandan Singh (PW-3) husband of the deceased, and Narendra (PW-4) son of the deceased also rused to the place of incident and saw the appellant running away with sh the knife and several injuries and bleeding on the person e of Sita Bai and Sita Bai in injured condition was shifted to ad the hospital where during the treatment near about 11.50 Pr pm she was died.Laxman Singh (PW-2) lodged the Dehati Nalishi of the incident Ex.P-1 before the death of the a deceased.Therefore earlier offence under section 307 of hy IPC was registered and after death of the deceased ad offence under section 302 of IPC was registered as per FIR Ex.P-10 of Crime No. 228/2004 at the Police Station M Kajuri Sadak, District Bhopal.During the investigation, the appellant was arrested on 09/10/2004 and on the instance of the appellant, blood rt stained knife and clothes were recovered.After ou completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed C under section 302 of IPC before the Chief Judicial h Magistrate, Bhopal, who committed the case to the ig Session Judge, Bhopal and after receiving the case on H transfer, the 7th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal tried the case.During trial against the appellant charge for the offence punishable under sections 302 of IPC was framed.He abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.All the relevant sh witnesses have disclosed the different place of the incident e and from the place where they have claimed to see the ad incident, they were not able see the place of incident.Pr Therefore their statement that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased cant be considered to be reliable a and creditable.On the seized articles knife and clothes blood hy of the deceased has not been found to be proved.In the ad circumstance, it cant be said that prosecution succeeded to bring home the charge against the appellant.Hence, the M appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the of offence.Learned G.A has supported the findings of the learned trial rt court and opposed the aforesaid contentions of the learned ou counsel for the appellant stating that the findings of the C learned trial court are based on the cogent evidence and h prayed for rejection of this appeal.Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the H parties and on perusal of the record, in the case nature of death of the deceased, which was homicidal is not disputed.According to Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW-10) following injuries were found on the body of deceased Sita Bai:-i. Stab wound present on the right side face just anterior ear runs downward medially size 7 cm with 6 stitches in ends are pointed and 5 cm deep and it cuts all muscles of neck veins muscles are ecchynosed;Stab wound present 27 cm below right clavicle medial end of size 3 cm with two stitches both end pointed on stitch removal 1 cm wide vertical 3 cm away from away mid line 10 cm deep cut muscles and there is laceration of live of size 2.5 cm direction of wound is posterior and upward.Stab wound present 27 cm below medial end of left clavicle of size 3.5 cm with 3 stitches 1 cm wide and 3 cm away from mid line muscles are lacerated runs left to right for a depth of 4 cm;sh iv.Stab wound present 32 cm below medial end of left clavicle 5 cm e away from mid line of size 2 cm with 2 stitches vertical and 4 ad cm deep backward medially under skin and muscle Muscles are Pr lacerated both ends are pointed.On removing stitch 1 cm wide.v. Stab wound present 42 cm below medial end of left clavicle 3 cm a away from mid line lateral size 2 cm vertical both ends are hy pointed 3 cm deep runs left to right muscles are cut lacerated;ad vi.Stab wound present on flavor aspect of arm vertical with 4 stitches M 5 cm in length.It is 16 cm below tip of shoulder all muscles and structure are cut ecchynosed;of vii.The aforesaid statement of Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW-10) has not been challenged during the cross examination.There is nothing on record to make the statement doubtful or unbelievable.Thus it is held that deceased Sita Bai was died on 06/10/2004 on account of aforesaid injuries caused to her by other person.Hence nature of death was homicidal.Now the crucial question is that whether the appellant caused aforesaid injuries to the deceased with the intention to kill her.Laxman Singh (PW-2) has stated that the deceased was his brothers wife and they remained in the same house.On 06/10/2004 near about 6 to 7 am, he was standing on the outer door of his house.He heard noises of crying of Sita Bai, then he saw in the garden, the appellant was assaulting Sita Bai with the knife and when he rushed toward the place of incident and shouted, then the appellant ran away.There sh were injuries on the neck and stomach of Sita Bai and also e bleeding and at that time his brother Chandan Singh (PW-3), ad nephew Narendra (PW-4) and Devi Singh (PW-12) also Pr gathered.Thereafter in the auto of one Bhagwat Singh (PW-1), Sita Bai was taken to the hospital where near about 11 to 12 a oclock Sita Bai was died and near 8 days before the hy incident when deceased refused to appellant to take back on ad the work, he threatened the deceased for dier consequences and he lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 in the hospital.The statement of Laxman Singh (PW-2) has been of corroborated by Chandan Singh (PW-3), Narendra (PW-4), Devi Singh (PW-12) and Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) in which Chandan rt Singh (PW-3), Narendra (PW-4), and Devi Singh (PW-12) have ou stated that after hearing the hue and cries, they rushed C towards the place of incident and saw the appellant running h away with knife and laying injured Sita Bai.Bhagwat Singh ig (PW-1) has stated that Narendra (PW-4) told him that H appellant has assaulted his brothers wife, therefore from the place of incident he took the deceased in his auto to hospital.Devi Singh (PW-12) and Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) are independent witnesses.There are nothing on their statement to consider that they can falsely support the prosecution case.Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 has signature of Laxman Singh (PW-2) and on the basis of it, FIR Ex.P-10 has been recorded by Head Constable, Santosh Gautam (PW-11) in Police Station Kajuri Sadak, District Bhopal.The learned trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant caused aforesaid injuries to the deceased with intention to kill her.On behalf of the appellant, the creditability of the witnesses have been assailed on the ground that Laxman Singh (PW-2), Chandan Singh (PW-3) and Narendra (PW-4) are close relative of the deceased.Hence they are interested witness and their statement cant be relied.Apart from it, their testimonies have been supported by independent witnesses Devi Singh (PW-12) and a Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) and statement of Chandan Singh hy (PW-3) also get support by Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 and ad testimony of Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW-10).Similarly, the testimony of aforesaid witnesses cant be discarded or M disbelieved merely on the ground that prosecution has failed of to prove the presence of human blood or the blood of the deceased on knife and shirt recovered on the instance of the rt appellant as absence of any piece of evidence, having ou corroborative nature, testimony of eye witness cant be C disbelieved.The other contention of learned counsel for the appellant ig with regard to disclose different places of incident by the H prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same has no substance as they have claimed to see the incident standing from a certain point of place.They have categorically stated that they rushed towards the place of incident after hearing hues and cries of the deceased from the place of incident, which was garden situated outside the house of deceased. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,935,534 | Record of the Court below has been received.Heard on admission.Heard on I.A. No.12659/2018 (second application) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Tularam @ Tullu.His first application(I.A.No.22209/2017) for the same relief was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 02.02.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Shri Justice S. K. Gangele; however, his lordship has since demitted the office; therefore, the matter has been placed before this Bench.A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant stands convicted under Sections 304 (on two counts) and 323 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo effective rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine in the sum of Rs.600/-, with default stipulations.As per the prosecution case, appellant Tularam took a connection from electric line of Electricity Distribution Company and released electricity in naked GI wires, which were laid around his field for protecting the crops from wild animals; however, he had knowledge that even a human being coming in contact with aforesaid wire, would be electrocuted and die.Accordingly, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.5106/2017 Tularam @ Tullu Vs.State of M.P.deceased persons Santlal, and Kuldeep came in contact with aforesaid naked wire and died of electrocution.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at worst he could have been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., which is punishable by imprisonment for two years only.In support of aforesaid contention, he has invited attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.It has further been submitted that the appellant has been in custody for more than one year, therefore, it has been prayed that the appellant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.The appellant can be imputed with the knowledge that not only wild animals but even a human being coming in contact with that wire inadvertently, would be electrocuted and die.Due to such callous act on the part of the appellant, two persons lost their life.This practice has become menace in the villages.It was given in the facts and circumstances of that case.Consequently, I.A. No.12659/2018 (second application) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Tularam @ Tullu, is dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.08.07 22:08:51 -07'00' | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,937 | The facts giving rise to this petition are as under.There is a jewellery shop known as Madhuram Jewellers at Chembur, Bombay.On the night between 5th and 6th May, 1987 house breaking and theft of gold ornaments and cash took place at the shop of Madhuram Jewellers.Gold ornaments and cash worth more than Rs. 6,00,000/- were stolen.Ornaments worth more than Rs. 2,75,000/- alleged to have been stolen from the shop of Madhuram Jewellers were recovered from the shop of the accused No. 1 on 10th August, 1987 and on 12th August, 1987 gold ornaments weighing 300 Gms. were recovered at his instance.The accused No. 4 Bhimsingh alias Zapatya was the watchman at Trimurti Building where the said Singhavi Jewellers was housed.The other two accused, namely, accused Nos. 2 and 3, are the relatives of the accused No. 4 and are alleged to have assisted him in the commission of the crime.This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is the accused No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 1278-P of 1987 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court Kurla, Bombay, (presided over by Shri L. D. Motwani), for setting aside the order dated 30th June, 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, rejecting his Criminal Revision Application No. 145 of 1988 whereby he had challenged the order dated 25th April, 1988 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 20/TA of 1988 rejecting his application for the transfer of the criminal case from the 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay, to some other Court.The accused No. 1 was released on bail.The accused Nos. 2 to 4 were also granted bail, but they could not avail of the same and they are in custody since their arrest.While the Chembur police were investigating into the crime, the accused No. 1 filed Criminal Writ petition No. 897 of 1987 in this Court (who is also the accused No. 1 in the present writ petition) for enquiry into the death of the said Bhagwanlal in the police lock-up by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Bombay.He also prayed therein that the investigation in C.R. No. 166 of 1987 registered at Chembur Police-Station should also be handed over to the C.B.I. This Court on 16th December, 1987 directed an enquiry into the death of the said Bhagwanlal by the C.B.I. The request of the accused No. 1 to hand over the investigation of C.R. No. 166 of 1987 by the Chembur Police Station to the C.B.I. was not granted.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was asked to give his say.The learned trial Magistrate did not grant the request of the accused No. 1 mentioned in his order that the matter was fixed for framing of charge and after the charge was framed, the matter naturally would be adjourned for hearing and the accused No. 1 could bring stay order from this Court.On that day learned trial Magistrate framed charge.It was explained to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty.Criminal Writ Petition No. 897 of 1987 filed by the accused No. 1, as stated earlier, was allowed to the extent of enquiry into the death of the said Bhagwanlal by the C.B.I., and the request of the accused No. 1 to hand over the investigation in this crime to the C.B.I. was granted.On 11th November, 1987 charge against the accused No. 4 was framed and was explained to him.He pleaded not guilty.His plea was recorded and the case was adjourned to 19th November, 1987 for hearing.The accused No. 1 filed Criminal Revision Application No. 60 of 1988 in this Court against the charge framed by the learned trial Magistrate against him.The learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. Manjula Rao fairly conceded that there was no material to sustain framing charge for the offence under Sections 379 and 109, I.P.C. against the accused No. 1, and hence that charge was quashed.Mr. A. G. Sabnis, learned Counsel for the accused No. 1, has no objection if the trial proceeded against the accused No. 1 on the second charge, that is, for the offence under Section 411, I.P.C. Accordingly, the order to proceed with the trail on the second charge against the accused No. 1 was passed and the rule was made absolute accordingly.The applicants-complainants had applied for return of the property seized by the police to them.The recording of evidence before the learned trial Magistrate commenced on 2nd December, 1987 and on that day applicant No. 2 complainant No. 2 Ganpatlal Kisanlal Bavel (P.W. 1), who had lodged the F.I.R., was examined.As stated earlier, the charge for the offence under sections 379 and 109, I.P.C. against the accused No. 1 was quashed and the trial was ordered to be proceeded with against the accused No. 1 on the charge for the offence under S. 411, I.P.C. Thereafter on 10th March, 1988 the accused No. 1 filed an application for transfer of the criminal case from the Court of the learned trial Magistrate to any other Court, before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing on 25th April, 1988 rejected the application for transfer.Feeling aggrieved, the accused No. 1 preferred this writ petition.The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 1 urged three grounds for the transfer of the criminal case from the file of the learned trial Magistrate.These grounds are : (1) The learned trial Magistrate did not hear the defence Counsel before he framed charge on 14th October, 1987 find though the learned Counsel for the defence insisted insisted hearing before charge, his request was rejected and charge was framed.According to the learned Counsel, this was against the mandatory provisions of Sections 239 and 240, Cr.P.C. (2) The Roznama dated 1st October, 1987 shows that the accused No. 1 filed an application for discharge.According to the learned Counsel, the accused No. 1 did not make any application for discharge, but this false entry was dishonestly made by the learned trail Magistrate to show that he had heard the defence Counsel before framing charge.(3) The examination-in-chief of the witnesses was not done by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who appeared for the State, but it was all done by the learned trial Magistrate, and thought objected to by the learned Counsel for the defence, the objections were not recorded by the learned trial Magistrate.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that on those three grounds the accused No. 1 entertained a reasonable apprehension that the learned trial Magistrate was biased against him and he was not likely to get justice at his hands.As stated earlier, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade.Had the learned Assistance Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the defence been vigilant and had noticed that there is some error in framing the charge, they would have certainly moved the learned trial Magistrate to reconsider it, but nothing was done in that direction and the recording of evidence commenced.It was only when the second witness was being examined that the accused No. 1 moved the High Court for quashing the charge framed against him.It may also be mentioned that at that time he never made any grievance that the learned trial Magistrate refused to hear his Counsel before framing the charge and he mala fide framed wrong charge against him.On 1st October, 1987 the accused No. 1 had present an application for stay of the proceedings.A copy of that application is at p. 45 of the compilation filed with this writ petition.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was asked to give his say on 14th October, 1987 and on that day the learned trial Magistrate passed and order that the petitioner should bring stay order from this Court.The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 1 submitted that the applicants-complainants (P.Ws. 1 and 2) filed Criminal Application No. 1760 of 1988 for permitting them to join as party to these proceedings and for peremptory hearing of the petition filed by the accused No. 1 and in the alternative for vacating the stay and continuation of the criminal case indicate that the complainants are interested in continuing the proceedings before the same learned Metropolitan Magistrate.The learned Counsel contends that the complainants were satisfied that the learned trial Magistrate was against the accused No. 1 and, therefore, he wanted to continue the trial before the learned trial Magistrate.The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 1 has also submitted an application for prosecuting the said Investigating Officer Tambawekar for perjury. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
969,490 | PW.4 and A4 are sisters.PW.5 is the wife of Al.PW5s sister is Jenitha, who was the wife of deceased.There was prior enmity between the two families and they were not in talking terms.This was because Jenitha, wife of the deceased started living with AI by deserting her husband.The deceased married Jenitha about 1= years prior to the occurrence and a female child was born to them.The two families were not in talking terms a month prior to the occurrence.On 10.9.1993 deceased went to the house of Al and asked his wife to come back with him and there a quarrel arose.At about 5.00 p.m. on that day, all the four accused came to the house of PW-1 and asked her the whereabouts of the deceased and also told her that in their absence the deceased had called his wife and, therefore, he must mend his ways; saying so, they damaged the tube lights, cots and other house-hold articles; out of grace no complaint was given.Raja is her son and as he fell sick, and was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.93 and by his bed side PWs.1, 4 and the deceased were in the hospital.She shouted and PW 2 came running; at that time, all the accused made good their escape with the weapons of offences in their hands.She went to the house to get some money to take her brother to the hospital, where she found her house damaged; doors, windows and other things were broken; two of her brothers friends, namely, Aaroon, Singh came there and with their help she took her brother to the Government Hospital Kottar, where he was pronounced dead.12 examined her and reduced into writing what she stated.She read it and signed in that complaint which is Ex.The personal wearing apparels of the deceased, were bloodstained and they were recovered.PW.2 witnessed the occurrence.PW 10 is the Causality Medical Officer in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Nagercoil before whom at 8.00 a.m. on 18.9.1993, the deceased, was brought for injuries stated to have been sustained by him at the hands of three known persons.On him he found various symptoms, in all, 22 injuries and issued Ex.P.12, accident register.He sent Ex.P.13 intimation to the police and Ex.P.14 is the death intimation.According to him, except injury No.3, all the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like an aruval.At 7.45 am Al appeared before him for injuries stated to have been sustained by him at 6.30 a.m. at the hands of a known person, by using a cutting knife.He found two injuries and issued Ex.P. 15, accident register.P. 13 is the intimation sent by him to the police regarding the treatment on Al.J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1090 OF 2007(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3611 of 2006)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants while directing acquittal of the co-accused.The appellants are A1, A2 and A3 and have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).A4 was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 341 IPC.Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and one month respectively for the aforesaid two offences.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:The occurrence is shown to have taken place at about 06.30 a.m. on 18.09.1993, by Al to A4 who wrongfully restraining Gift (hereinafter referred to as deceased) and in course of the same transaction at the instigation of A4, Al to A3 attacked him fatally, resulting in his death.To prove their case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 besides marking Exs.PW-1 is the informant.PW. 12 was the head constable who had received information from the Government Head Quarters Hospital as well as the death intimation of the deceased.PW 14 was the investigating officer, PW 9 is the medical officer who conducted the post mortem and noted 22 injuries on the body of the deceased.After completion of the investigation charges were framed.The accused pleaded innocence and false implication.Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was conducted.15 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.Trial court placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1 and found all the four persons guilty.An appeal was preferred by the appellants taking the view that the evidence of PW 1 was not believable.Appellants took the stand that the deceased was the aggressor who had assaulted A1 causing two injuries.In any event the accused person had acted in exercise of the right of private defence and, therefore, no offence was made out.Reliance was made on the evidence of Exhibit P 20 to contend that the information lodged by A1 was not properly enquired into.The plea of right of private defence was also described.When the evidence has been discarded in respect of A4, conviction could not have been maintained for the present appellants.In any event right of private defence aspect has not been properly considered by the High Court.Learned counsel for the State supported the order.We shall first deal with the plea relating to right of private defence.The number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was.It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence.Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts.To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him.The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death.Sections 100 and 101, IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence.The right of private defence, as claimed by the accused persons, has been rightly discarded.Certain questions were put to PW 1 in her cross examination.The Ist accused attacked my brother on his head twice.The 3rd accused attacked him on his back, nose, hand and leg.My brother died only after taking him to hospital. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
969,511 | 1. Heard.The accused was summoned to appear on 19th August, 1994 and he appeared.More than two years have passed.Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties it is apparent that the accused applicant was summoned for offence under Section 379, IPC and offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act on 19th August, 1994 and he appeared accordingly.Both offences are punishable by imprisonment extending upto three years and fine.As such, since the matter is squarely covered by the two Common Cause judgments, the case is required to be closed against him and he is required to be discharged.Besides, the charge was framed on 7th September, 1996 and two years have passed since then.Petition allowed. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
969,515 | Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 391/1994, whereby convicted him under Section 306, I.P.C., sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional S.I. for one month, also convicted under Section 498A of the I.P.C., sentenced to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.L for one month.Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.She was found dead because of burn injuries along with her two minor sons Akash and Vikas aged one and a half years and seven months respectively inside the house of the appellant.FIR (Ex. P.31) was lodged by her father Sukhnandan (P.W. 7).According to this report, after the marriage, appellant and his other relations i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were taunting her for not giving proper dowry to her by him.They were asking her to bring colour TV, scooter.Whenever appellant was visiting his house at Indore, he was demanding T.V. and scooter.The complainant was not able to satisfy his demand because of which deceased Anita was ill-treated by the accused persons and they were beating her.Whenever she was visiting the house of the complainant, Sukhnandan (P.W.7), she was complaining against the appellant and other acquitted accused persons regarding demand of T.V, scooter and Rs. 25,000/- cash amount.He has further complained in the written report (Ex. P. 15) that because of poverty he could not satisfy their demands.Therefore, deceased Anita was turned out from her matrimonial house by the appellant after beating her and thereafter she lived with him for about eighteen months and also gave birth to the first child.After first delivery, father-in-law and the appellant reached at the house of complainant Sukhnandan (P.W. 7) and assured him for not demanding money, scooter, etc. Complainant was also suggested by his neighbourers to sent Anita with them.But, again appellant and acquitted co-accused persons started beating her and delivering threat to burn her.The complainant did not lodge any report regarding all these because of relation.On 29.4.1994, in the morning, at 8.30 a.m. appellant and acquitted co-accused persons attempted to commit murder of Anita by pouring kerosene oil on her person.At that time Anita ran away from their house and took shelter at the house of one Narayan.At that time appellant Omprakash was having can of twenty litre kerosene oil in his hand and deceased wife was saved by Virendra Chouhan (P.W. 1), Vijay Mehra (P.W. 2), Surendra (P.W. 3) and Chandrakala (P.W. 4) and one Kamal.In this report dated 18.4.1991, she had complained, about ill-treatment, against the appellant.On this report, police has not registered any offence saying that it was a family dispute between the husband and wife.On 2.5.1994, in the morning at 9.00 a.m., deceased Anita committed suicide by ablazing herself and her two minor children Akash and Vikas.The police registered Murg No. 21/94 and thereafter prepared spot map, done the inquest of deceased Anita vide Ex. P.3 and sent the injured Vikas and Akash for medical examination.They were examined by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 10).This doctor also had performed the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Anita vide post-mortem report Ex. P.25 and autoposy of Vikas and Akash were conducted by Dr. Surendra Dubey (P.W. 11) vide post-mortem report Exs.P.27 and P.29 respectively.Both the children died because of cardiac respiratory failure due to burn injuries and its complications whereas deceased Anita died asphyxial death due to burn injuries.Through Ex. P.4, several articles, burnt cloths having smell of kerosene, match stick, one stove in working condition with kerosene oil were seized.In Court, he has given explanation that after the incident he visited police station twice or thrice but his report was not written because of some or other reason, though, this fact is missing in his written report and he was contradicted on this point, but one can visualise the situation where the complainant (P.W. 7), father of the deceased, was in mental trauma because of death of his daughter and two young grand sons.He was residing in Indore.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 1.10.1996 passed by I Addl.Deceased Anita was having 100% ante mortem burn injuries, whereas Vikas and Akash were 90% and 100% bun injuries respectively.After required investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the appellant and father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased.They all have denied the charges and according to them all the three deceased had met accidental death and they claimed for trial.The prosecution examined in total thirteen witnesses to prove its case whereas appellants have not examined any witness in their defence.The learned Trial Court, after detailed assessment of the prosecution evidence and hearing both the parties, acquitted father-in-law Dwarkaprasad, mother-in-law Chandabai and sister-in-law Saintara from all charges.The appellant was also acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 304B of the I.P.C. but convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned above.Hence this appeal.I have heard Mr. S.K. Vyas and Mr. Vikas Rathi, learned Counsels for appellant, Mr. G. Desai, learned Dy.A.G, for respondent State and also perused the entire record carefully.The learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that the prosecution has suppressed Murg intimation report which could have given the earliest version about the incident and written report (Ex. P.15) lodged by Sukhnandan (P.W. 7) after the lapse of three days.This report (Ex. P.15) was a typed report and in this report he has not given any reason for delay in lodging the report.The learned Counsel has also submitted that in the statements of Sukhnandan (P.W. 7) and Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 8), brother of the deceased Anita, there are material omissions and contradictions, therefore, same could have not been relied by the learned Trial Court.He further pointed out the statement of Dr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 10), who has opined that there was possibility of accidental death of the deceased persons.On the other hand, the learned Dy. A. G. Shri.Having heard the learned Counsels for parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has passed a very well reasoned and detailed judgment after appreciating the evidence as well as the rival contentions.So far as non-production of Murg intimation report is concerned, the same would not affect the prosecution case.Apart from this, deceased wife Anita and her both the children received burn injuries in the residential house of the appellant in a day time at 9.00 a.m. According to admitted factual position, on the first floor, appellant was residing with the deceased persons and on the ground floor, his father, mother, brothers and sisters were residing.The deceased Anita died because of 100% burn injuries on the spot and her two minor children received 90% and 100% burn injuries.They were alive but nobody reached to rescue them till they received severe burn injuries, though it was the day time and the house was situated in a thickly populated locality as also on the lower portion of the house, the acquitted co-accused persons and other relations of the appellant were residing.This circumstance speaks volumes and is sufficient to draw adverse inference against the appellant and his other family members, though they were residing separate from the deceased.The appellant also kept silent regarding the fact of lodging of the report in the PS.When his wife and two sons had met severe accidental burn injuries inside his own house, either he had reported the matter in the Police Station or any other persons of that locality.According to the prosecution case, brother of the appellant Manoj who has lodged the report in the P.S., has not been examined by the prosecution and the neighboure broke open the door and thereafter took the children to the hospital.The report lodged by brother of the appellant Manoj, has not been filed along with the charge sheet and R.S. Chouhan (P.W. 13) in his statement in paragraph 12, has stated that this Murg intimation was not filed only because of mistake.He has denied the suggestion of the defence that deceased persons met accidental death.Obviously this suggestion of the defence does not appear to be appellable looking to the spot map, percentage of burn injuries and instantaneous death of deceased Anita inside the house where her two minor children had also received 90% and 100% burn injuries.The spot map (Ex. P.1) has been proved by R.S. Chouhan (P.W. 13).He has also seized through seizure memo Ex. P.4, burnt cloths having kerosene smell, match stick, and stove with kerosene from the spot.Incident had taken place in Mhow.Under this situation, if there is delay of two-three days, the same would not be fatal to the prosecution.The statement of this witness as well as the statement of Mahosh Kumar (P.W. 8) are containing ample material regarding the fact that after the marriage, deceased was ill-treated for demand of various articles as well as cash amount.Deceased and her brother Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 8) had also lodged report Ex. P.14 which has been proved by Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 8).This is the carbon copy of the report supplied to them by the concerned police after lodging of the report.In this report also, the fact of ill-treatment, demand of dowry and turning out the deceased from the house of the appellant by appellant is mentioned.This incident had occurred when the deceased was carrying her first pregnancy.Thereafter she lived with her father Sukhnandan (P.W. 7).After the birth of first child, the appellant and his father reached at his house and brought her back giving assurance for not demanding dowry and ill-treatment or cruel behaviour with her in future.But in spite of this, after some days the appellant started the same behaviour.The learned Counsel pointed out some contradictions in the statements of P.W. 7 Sukhnandan and Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 8).I have gone through these contradictions and according to me these are bound to occur, but all these contradictions are not very material.The FIR (Ex. P. 31) lodged by the complainant is fully corroborating the statement of Sukhnandan (P.W. 7) in Court on material particulars regarding demand of T.V., scooter, etc. just after the marriage by the appellant and cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-.His statement is also corroborated by Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 8), who has also emphatically stated that deceased was ill-treated by the appellant.He is a witness who brought the deceased from her house and went to the Police Station along with her for lodging the report (Ex. P.14).In view of his statement and the report Ex. P. 14, it is amply proved that the deceased was ill-treated and cruelly behaved for demand of T.V., scooter and other articles with cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the appellant and because of which she along with her two sons committed suicide.The spot map, post-mortem report as well as the surrounding circumstances are clearly establishing that deceased committed suicide after setting her to fire after pouring kerosene oil.Along with her, she also took her two sons in the unfortunate incident of suicide.This will not make any difference whether both the children met accidental death or deliberately set fire while committing suicide by the deceased Anita.There was no eye witness of the incident.Therefore, one has to visualise the situation on the basis of the circumstance.After setting fire, they must have raised cry which could be easily overheard by the inhabitants of their own close relations residing on lower portion of the house and other neighbourers.But nobody came in time to save them.Even deceased Anita had committed suicide but it is a general phenomenon that after receiving fire, the person is running here and there and because of pain and agony should also cry.In the room where Anita died and children received burn injuries, the pieces of burnt cloths and other articles were found by the police. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
969,570 | The firstappellant Onkar Singh, in Criminal Appeal No.534 of 1987 isthe father-in-law of the deceased.The second appellant inthat appeal, Santosh Singh is the husband of the deceasedwhile appellants 3 and 4 in that appeal Lallu Ram and Bandhaare the servants of Onkar Singh.She died of agun shot injury in the house of her husband on 22.11.1982 ataround 12.30 noon.The village Chowkidar Rameshwar was sentby the accused to the parents of Sudha who reside in adifferent village.He reached the house of Sudha's parentsaround 4.30 p.m. and informed them that Sudha had committedsuicide.He said that she was still alive and she was beingtaken to Hardoi Hospital.Accordingly, the entire family ofSudha went to Hardoi instead of to the village of theaccused.They reached there at about 8.00 p.m. They did notfind Sudha there.Hence the brother of the deceased went tovillage Samtharia where the accused reside on the followingmorning.On reaching their house he was told that his sisterhad died instantaneously the previous day and her body hadbeen cremated the previous evening at 4.00 p.m. The accusedcould not give any proper explanation why the cremationcould not wait till the arrival of the family of Sudha.Ithas been found the Sudha was being harassed by her husbandand in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry.As themarriage of Suman, the sister-in-law of the deceased hadbeen fixed, there was a renewed demand for ornaments fromthe family of Sudha.She was harassed on account of herfailure to get the ornaments.About a month prior to Sudha'sdeath, when she was at her parent's house, her husband hadcome to fetch her.Sudha was refusing to go back.Sudha hadtold her parents that she may not be sent there because onaccount of her failure to bring ornaments as demanded by herin-laws, they would kill her.However, she was persuaded togo.Thereafter, on or about 18.11.1982 the brother of thedeceased, Yaduvir Singh who is P.W.2 had gone to Sudha'splace in connection with the preparations for the marriageof Sudha's sister-in-law.He was at the house of thedeceased upto 22.11.1982, the day of the occurrence.On22.11.1982 he had been told by Sudha that she was treatedvery badly as she had not brought sufficient dowry and shewas given state food to eat.p.w.2 thereupon, thought itproper to talk to Sudha's husband Santosh Singh.But he didnot give a satisfactory reply and said that bad days hadcome and the day of extermination of his line hadapproached.So saying he picked up the gun and went outtowards his field.Thereafter, p.w.2 started back for hisown house around 10.00 a.m. and he reached his house aroundnoon.P.W.5 Rukmangal Singh has stated in his evidence thatwhile he was in his field, at about 12.30 noon, the heard agun shot.He rushed to the house of Onkar Singh where he sawSudha lying injured, and Santosh Singh, Onkar Singh,Rajeshwari, Suman and the servants standing there.Sudhadied shortly thereafter of gun shot injury.He was informedby Lallu and Bandhsa that on the instigation of Onkar Singh,Santosh had fired on his wife and injured her.P.W.5 toldthe Chowkidar to report the matter to the Police Station.The matter, however, was not reported to the Police Station.He has further stated that after sometime, he found smokecoming from the northern side of the ground near OnkarSingh's house.(With Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 1987)Onkar Singh & Ors.The State of U.P.J U D G M E N TMrs.Sujata V.Manohar, J.The appellant Rajeshwari, in Criminal Appeal No.38 of1987 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.Seven persons were tried before the Sessions court;Santosh Singh Onkar Singh, Rajeshwari and Suman alias Guddi,the sister-in-law of the deceased were charged under Section302 read with Section 149, Section 147 and Section 201 ofthe Penal Code.The Sessions courtacquitted Suman, alias, Guddi, the sister-in-law of thedeceased.It convicted the husband Santosh Singh and hisparents Onkar Singh and Rajeshwari and sentenced them tolife imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 ofthe Indian Penal Code.They were also sentenced to 2 yearsand 4 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 147 and 201respectively.The two domestic servants Lallu Ram and Bandhawere convicted and sentenced to four years' rigorousimprisonment.Rameshwar, the village Chowkidar was convictedand sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.In appeal before the High Court the High Court hasconvicted Santosh Singh under Section 302 and maintained hissentence of life imprisonment.Onkar Singh and Rajeshwarihave been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34,and the sentence of life imprisonment is maintained.The conviction ofLallu Ram and Bandha has been maintained while Mahipal Singhhas been acquitted.Rameshwar did not prefer any appeal andhas served his sentence.He went there and saw the two servants,throwing sticks on the fire and burring the dead body ofSudha Onkar Singh and Santosh were also present.No pyre wasmade and the dead body was burnt by sticks.The High Court, on the basis of circumstantial evidenceand, in particular, the fact that Santosh Singh had beenseen by Yaduvir Singh with a gun in his hand going to thefield and making a statement that his line was about to beextinguished, coupled with the evidence of P.W.5 hasconvicted Santosh Singh under Section 302 of the IndianPenal Code.The High Court has rightly negatived the theoryof suicide for the reasons which it has set out in itsjudgment.We do not see any reason to set aside thisfindings of the High Court.The cases of Onkar Singh and Rajeshwari, however, standon a somewhat different footing.The death of Sudha occurredprior to the two amendments of the Indian Penal Codeintroducing Sections 498A and 304B in the Indian Penal Codeand amending the Evidence Act by introducing Section 116B.Therefore, the presumptions under these Sections are notavailable to the prosecution although there is clearevidence relating to the demand for dowry by Onkar Singh andRajeshwari and harassment of Sudha on that count.The evidence of P.W.2 Yaduvir Singh is to theeffect that Santosh Singh had taken the gun in his hand andgone to the field after P.W.2 Yaduvir Singh had talked tohim about the treatment being given to his sister Sudha.There is no evidence to indicate any instigation by eitherOnkar Singh or Rajeshwari of Santosh Singh to kill Sudha.Rukmangal Singh, undoubtedly showsthe presence of Rajeshwari and Onkar Singh at the site ofthe occurrence.He has deposed that the two servants toldhim that Onkar Singh had instigated Santosh Singh to killSudha.This, however, is hearsay evidence.There is nosatisfactory evidence to establish that Onkar Singh was inany manner responsible for instigating Santosh Singh toshoot his wife Sudha.Undoubtedly, both Onkar Singh andRajeshwari had demanded dowry from Sudha's family and wereparties to harassing her.But in the absence of presumptionswhich are available after the amendments of the Penal Codeand the Evidence Act, there is no other direct orcircumstantial evidence which would justify the convictionof Onkar Singh and Rajeshwari under Section 302 read withTheir conviction on this count is, therefore, set aside.Onkar Singh, however, was present at the time of thecremation of the dead body of Sudha alongwith Santosh Singhand the two servants.The High Court has rightly come to theconclusion that Section 201 is attracted.Sudha was crematedon the land adjoining the house of her in-laws withoutwaiting for anyone from her parents, side to come and attendthe funeral.In fact (1) It was ensured that none from herparents' family would reach Onkar Singh's house until afterthe dead body was cremated; (2) The cremation did not takeplace at the usual cremation ground but in the field closeto Santosh's house; (3) Deliberate attempt was made toprevent anyone from Sudha's parents side to reach Santosh'shouse for cremation and (4) No report of her unnatural deathwas made at the police Station.As Onkar Singh was presentat the time of cremation and the servants who burnt the bodywere under his control and can be said to have acted on hisinstructions, his conviction under Section 201 of the PenalCode must be upheld.The two servants being theemployees of Onkar Singh, Onkar Singh was in a position ofexercise authority overthem.Being financially dependant onOnkar Singh and Santosh Singh, it is likely that theservants may have acted at the bidding of both of them.Thisis, therefore, a fit case for reducing the sentence of LalluRam and Bandha to the sentence already undergone.The appeals are accordingly partly allowed. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,957,604 | Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, after compliance with all necessary formalities.( R. K. Bag, J. ) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 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. |
96,957,624 | By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.1.1998 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling her arms licence and the order of the Commissioner, the Appellate Authority dated 10.2.1999 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was stated to be Pradhan of Gram Sabha Bishnodi, Tehsil Patiali, District Etah since 1988 up to 1995 and later on in the year 1995, she was again elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kutabpur Sarai.The contention of the petitioner is that because of her raising voice against the mis-deeds and atrocities committed on innocent people, the local police became antagonistic towards her.While she was Gram Pradhan, she was granted licence of a Revolver bearing No. 13711 and she purchased a Revolver bearing No. 123 Webley Scot.According to her, the licence of the Revolver had been renewed from time to time.During the general election of Gram Pradhan in 1995, an incident occurred in which a First Information Report was lodged against her and her sons-in-law and accordingly a report was submitted by the police of Police Station Patiali dated 18.8.1995 to the District Magistrate, District Etah.Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate cancelling her gun licence, she preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 before the Commissioner.Her appeal was also rejected.I have heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.The order is being dictated in open court.From the order of the District Magistrate, it will be seen that the reasons given for cancellation of the Arms Licence is that there were five criminal cases registered against the petitioner which are as follows:Crime No. 74/91, under Section - 302, 201 I.P.C; and .Crime No. 114/91, under Section-302, 307 I.P.C.; and Crime No. 140/95, under Section -364A I.P.C.; and Crime No. 131/95, under Section-362, 504, 506 I.P.C.Crime No. 132/95, under Sections -147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C.The District Magistrate therefore, formed an opinion that since the cases pending against the petitioner were of serious nature, relating to Section 302 I.P.C. (murder) and 364 A, I.P.C. (kidnapping for ransom), therefore, it was not in public interest that the petitioner should continue in possession of the arms licence.The District Magistrate also recorded a finding that in view of the serious charges against the petitioner, there was a possibility of her misusing her fire arms for criminal activities.The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act but the said appeal was also rejected on the same grounds that there was several cases registered against the petitioner relating to the Sections 302 and 364-A I.P.C.From a perusal of the impugned order and the emerging facts, it will be seen that;(i) in Case Crime No. 74 of 1991, under Section 302/201 I.P.C., a final report has been filed by the police.(iii) In Case Crime No. 131 of 1995, under Section 362/504/506 of I.P.C., the petitioner has been acquitted on 13.5.1996 and in;According to the petitioner, the judgments in these cases were filed by her before the District Magistrate but the District Magistrate failed to take notice of the same.So far as the Crime case No. 140 of 1995, under Section 364-A I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner on 10.7.2012 was granted time by this Court to file a supplementary affidavit, bringing on record the information regarding the said case.The petitioner has today filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the judgment of the trial court dated 9.8.1999 in which also she has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 364A and 368 I.P.C. in Case No. 111 of 1995, State Vs.In these circumstances, the petitioner having been acquitted in all the Criminal Cases, which were filed against her and which have been referred to in the order of the District Magistrate, there is now no other material on record to justify the order dated 6.1.1998 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner.It is also noteworthy that at the time of admission of the writ petition on 17.5.1999, this Court while issuing notice had been pleased to pass an order.The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:"In the meantime, the orders passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the licence of the petitioner to possess the fire arm as well as that of the Commissioner passed u/s 18 of the Arms Act dismissing the appeal shall remain in abeyance.The resultant effect of this order would be that the petitioner shall continue to possess the fire arm under the licence which was granted to him and if his weapon has been impounded/deposited in pursuance of the impugned orders, it shall immediately be returned to him."Since in terms of the above interim order not only the licence of the petitioner has been restored to her but it is also directed by the Court that in case the weapons in her possession have been impounded or deposited, the same should be returned to her, in these circumstances, since in the last 14 years, the petitioner has continued to be in possession of her arms licence as well as weapons purchased by her under the said arms licence therefore in view of the interim order of this Court, and the observations noted above in regard to the criminal cases said to be pending against her, in all of which she has been acquitted.The impugned orders dated 6.1.1998 of the District Magistrate and 10.2.1999 of the Appellate Authority-Commissioner are not liable to survive and are accordingly, quashed.The writ petition stands allowed.There shall be no order as to costs.Order Date :- 13.8.2012 Arun K. Singh | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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 201 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. |
96,964,550 | 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 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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. |
96,964,998 | Under such circumstances, applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,696,578 | On receipt of the same, it was forwarded to the file of the fifth respondent and a case has been registered in Crime No.497 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 364A, 343, 347, 395 and 397 of IPC, as against 10 accused persons, in which the fifth respondent arrested some of the accused and yet to arrest some of the accused.While being so, the petitioner is also having four previous cases andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 W.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2019 three crimes are pending.The petitioner is also a habitual offender and in which to escape from the clutches of law he also presented the complaint as against the fifth respondent, it is clear that abuse of process of law.No costs.W.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2019 12.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take departmental action against the 5th respondent on the petitioner's complaint, dated 08.08.2019 and to appoint an Enquiry Committee.2.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for fianl disposal at the stage of admission itself.He is also having a post of Assistant Coordinator in Pudukottai North District in Agriculture wing in the Tamilnadu opposite party viz., Diravida Munnetra Kazhakam.On 04.03.2019, when the petitioner was acting as a driver and travelling to Uraiyur Town, the accused persons have kidnapped him at gun point, in order to grab his properties and also for ransom.He identified thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 W.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2019 accused and lodged the complaint before the Commissioner of Police and the same was forwarded to the fifth respondent.Since even then the complaint was not registered, he filed a petition for direction before this Court and on direction, a Crime has been registered in Crime No.479 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 364A, 343, 347, 395 and 397 of IPC, as against the 10 accused persons, in which the third respondent arrested only few accused persons and wantonly did not arrest other accused persons and he directly helped the other accused persons by not arresting them and not allowing them to obtain anticipatory bail.He would further submit that the petitioner also filed transfer of investigation on the file of the fifth respondent to some other agency in W.P.(MD)No.11346 of 2019 and it is pending.Therefore, he submitted a detailed represenation to all Higher Officials for taking appropriate action as against the fifth respondent and the same is pending before the respondents 1 to 4 and they did not conduct any action on the represenation given by the petitioner.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner did not lodge any complaint before the fifth respondent, he directly lodged the complaint before the third respondent herein and the same was referred on the file of the fifth respondent .Thereafter, it has been registered in Crime No.497 of 2019 for the offences under Sectionshttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 W.P.(MD)No.19602 of 2019 364A, 343, 347, 395 and 397 of IPC as against 10 persons.He would further submit that according to the petitioner the occurrence was took place on 04.03.2019 and after five days on 09.03.2019 only he sent a complaint through Post to the third respondent herein.Though the case has been registered as against 10 accused persons, only 3 accused persons were arrested and yet to secure the other accused persons.Further, he would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender, there are four previous cases are pending as against the petitioner and three cases are pending.The petitioner is only to escape from the clutches of law, the present Writ Petition has been filed to protect himself from the offence of fifth respondent from taking any lawful action as against him.5.Heard both sides.6.The petitioner, on the occurrence dated 04.03.2019 itself, lodged a complaint by registered Post on 09.03.2019 to the third respondent herein.That apart, there are dispute between the petitioner and the accused persons in respect of somany issues.Therefore, the petitioner did not lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence before the jurisdiction police.The complaint has been sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Card to the Commissioner of Police vis., this respondent.Therefore, the present Writ Petition devoid of merits.7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.2.The Assistant Director General of Police, Directorate of Police Department, Chennai3.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy District.4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy District.5.The Inspector of Police, Condonmend Police Station, Trichy6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,966,208 | For the offence of Special Act there is five years imprisonment and hence, it is not so grave so that the applicant may not be released on bail.The applicant cannot be kept in the custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.(M.Cr.C.No.1039/2017, Lalla @ Lalaram Vs.State of M.P.) 2 Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Lalla @ Lalaram be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.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 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,968,458 | Shri Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the complainant.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.68/19 registered at Police Station Tilwara Distt.Jabalpur for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324/34, 354-B, 498-A of IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 13.2.2019 at about 7.00 am in the house of complainant Sandhya Mishra situated at Shashtri Nagar, applicant-Neeraj Kumar Mishra is said to be the husband of complainant abused and beaten her and her sister Mona Mishra and also her son Prince Mishra, by which she sustained injuries.The report of the incident was lodged on the same day.On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered against the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.2.19 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.C.C. as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2019.03.20 17:16:34 +05'30' | ['Section 324 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', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
969,732 | (a) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased.The deceased, aged 19 years was doing his 10th standard.P.W.1 desired to sell his land.He sold the same to his nephew one Chinnadurai.Despite her request, P.W.1 sold the land to Chinnadurai.On instigation of Rani, the accused questioned P.W.1, how he could sell the land to Chinnadurai P.W.1 in turn informed that it was his land and he would sell according to his wish.At that time, the deceased joined with his father and informed the accused that since the advance was obtained from Chinnadurai earlier, his father was proper in selling the land to Chinnadurai and thus, there arose animosity between the accused party and the deceased.(b) P.W.16 owned a TATA Sumo car.The 4th accused was employed as his driver.Terminating his service, P.W.16 employed P.W.21 Karaikalan as his driver.The accused were aggrieved over the same and on that account, they attacked P.W.21 in a public place.On coming to know about the same, the deceased questioned the accused stating if they were really aggrieved, they should have attacked the owner of the van and not the driver.The accused were enraged over the same.All of them were waiting for a chance.On the date of occurrence that is on 14.4.2005 at 10.30 p.m., when P.Ws.3, 4 and the deceased went to witness a film at kala theatre, at that time, all the accused armed with weapons like aruval went inside the theatre and indiscriminately cut the deceased Ilavarasan and the caused his death.On information, P.W.1 went to the theatre and found his son dead.Then, he immediately proceeded to the respondent Police Station where P.W.27 Inspector of Police was on duty and gave a complaint Ex.P1, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.171/2005 under section 147, 148, and 302 of IPC and the express F.I.R. Ex.P.27 was despatched to Court.(c) P.W.27 Investigating Officer took up investigation.He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.28 and also drew a rough sketch Ex.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.31 inquest report.Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem.P.W.20 doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ilavarasan has given his categoric opinion in Ex.P.18 that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained to the vital organs.The Investigation Officer examined P.W.6, the owner of the theatre, P.W.7 operator and also the employees of the theatre and recorded their statements.(d) Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A3 and he came forward to give confessional statement, pursuant to which he produced M.O.3 aruval and also TATA Sumo van and the same were recovered.Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know that A1, A2, A4 and A5 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court.These appeals are preferred under Section 374 Cr.For Appellant/A1 in C.A.No.860/2008 : Mr. P.Tamilavel For Appellant/A2 in C.A.No.841/2008 and for Appellant/A3 in C.A.No.778/2008 : Mr. V.Rajamohan For Appellant/A4 & A5 in C.A.No.778/2008 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango,J.) Crl.A.No.860 of 2008 was filed by the first accused, Crl.A.No.841 of 2008 was filed by the second accused and Crl.A.No.778 of 2008 was filed by the third, fourth and fifth accused.This judgment shall govern these three appeals.These appellants along with two other accused who were shown as A5 and A6 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:AccusedChargesFindingsSentenceA-1 to A-5148 IPC GuiltyTwo years rigorous imprisonment eachA-1 to A-5449 IPCGuiltyTwo years rigorous imprisonment eachA-1 to A-5302 IPCGuiltyLife Imprisonment eachA-1 to A-5 & A-7120(b)IPCNot GuiltyA-1 to A-5147 IPCNot GuiltyA-6449 r/w 109 IPCNot GuiltyA-6302 R/W 109NotThe short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:He recorded the statement of other witnesses also.He made an application for police custody and the same was also ordered.The accused came forward to give confessional statement and the same were recorded, pursuant to which, they produced the weapons of crime which were also recovered under a cover of mahazar and all the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Department on the request made by the Investigating Officer through the concerned Court.The chemical report ExP26 and the serologist report Ex.P42 were obtained by the Judicial Magistrate Court.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report.(e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and relied on 42 exhibits and 19 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution and they denied them as false.No defence witness was examined.The lower Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence as referred to above.Hence, these appeals at the instance of the appellants.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel inter alia made the following submissions.The case of the prosecution was due to previous enmity all the accused/appellants along with A6 and A7 in furtherance of common object went inside the theatre when the deceased along with P.Ws. 3 and 4 were witnessing a film and attacked the deceased indiscriminately by deadly weapons and caused his death instantaneously and fled away from the place of occurrence.In this regard, two eye witnesses were examined viz., P.Ws. 3 and 4 but they have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all.The other witnesses examined were the owner of the theatre, operator and the person who used to check and issue tickets.It is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place at 10.30 p.m. inside the theatre and it could have been seen by number of persons.Apart from that, according to the prosecution, the deceased accompanied by P.Ws. 3 and 4 went to watch a film but no independent witness was examined.The two eye witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 3 and 4 have turned hostile.As such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the overt act attributed to the accused.Added further learned counsel, in the instant case, so far as the recovery was concerned, though the prosecution examined P.Ws.17 and 19 as witnesses for recovery, confession, they have turned hostile and even the Village Administrative Officer Ex.P18 who was examined by the prosecution in this regard has spoken that after the accused were taken to the police station, his signature was obtained in the confession statement and in the recovery mahazars.Thus, it is quite clear that the prosecution could not bring home the fact of arrest, recovery and confessional statement.Therefore, that part of the evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.The other part which was available is the medical opinion canvassed.Ilavarasan was done to death inside the theatre but the prosecution had no evidence to offer in that regard.Thus, the trial Court should have acquitted the accused/appellants but failed to do so.Hence, the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.The Court heard the Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submission made.The fact that Ilavarasan died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court.Hence, there is no impediment felt by this Court in recording that the prosecution was successful enough to prove that the deceased Ilavarasan died out of homicidal violence.In order to substantiate the fact that these accused in furtherance of common object of causing death of Ilavarasan went inside Kala theatre at 10.30 p.m. on 14.4.2005 and attacked him with aruval and caused his death instantaneously, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as eye witnesses.The occurrence has taken place at 10.30 p.m. and P.Ws. 3 and 4 actually accompanied the deceased.Though the place of occurrence was inside the theatre which is a public place and number of witnesses would have been present, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, no independent witnesses were examined.P.Ws. 3 and 4 though claim that they knew the incident they did not come forward to speak about the occurrence.Further, the prosecution wanted to rely its case much on the recovery of material objects, the weapon of crime.It is true that the weapons of crime were produced before the trial Court and they were marked through the Investigating Officer and the witnesses examined for the arrest and confession statement have turned hostile.Equally, the other accused A1, A2, A4 and A5 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court on the request made by the Investigator and in the order passed by the Court it was stated that they were taken to police custody at the time of interrogation and before the investigator they gave confessional statement and it was recorded, pursuant to which they produced the weapon of crime.At this juncture, one would expect the witnesses to speak to the fact.Village Administrative Officer has been examined as P.W.18 and he has categorically deposed that he was called to the police station and at that time, the accused were also present there and the confessional statement were kept ready and his signatures were obtained in it.Thus, it would go show that these documents were all cooked up documents in order to strength the prosecution case.Under such circumstances, even the scientific evidence which is in favour of the prosecution is of no consequence at all.All the evidence putforth by the prosecution should have been rejected by the trial Court.In a given case like this, the prosecution has only proved the fact that the death of a person is due to homicidal violence and in the absence of any piece of evidence, the Court of Sessions i.e., the Principal Sessions Division has found the appellants guilty, which is a matter of shock and surprise to notice by this Court.The lower court, without considering all the aspects, has erroneously found the appellant guilty and hence, the judgment of the lower court has got to be made undone only by upsetting the same.Accordingly, the criminal appeals are allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court on the accused/appellants.The appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them.The bail bonds, if any executed by the appellants, shall stand terminated.The Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur.The Inspector of Police, Jayakondam Police Station, Perambalur.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,980,604 | The husband of the prosecutrix stored the Paddy after getting it thrashed in the go-down of the house of Kabraji where the accused used to work as Bataidar.(Jabalpur, Dated 13/8/2018) Per : J.K. Maheshwari, J.On 14.1.2016 at about 12:00 PM in the noon when the prosecutrix had gone to the house of Kabraji to take Paddy bags, the accused caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix, forcefully taken her in a room and committed rape upon her and threatened her to kill, if disclosed to anyone.When the husband of the prosecutrix came back from Gadarwara, she informed about the incident to him as well as to her son Raghvendra and on 16.1.2016 i.e. after two days, the First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Saikheda.Medical examination was conducted.The Police has completed other investigations like preparation of the spot map, collection of the Caste Certificate.The slide was sent for FSL examination.After completion of investigation, Challan was filed before the competent Court where the charges under Section 376(1), 506-II of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act have been framed.The accused abjured the guilt and demanded for trial taking defence that he resides in a joint family at village Chandaun and his father has been working with Kabra Seth for last about 20-25 years and looks after his agriculture.He belongs to Rajpoot community, other villagers belong to Gurjar community with whom the husband of the prosecutrix resides.The incident is alleged to have taken place on 14.1.2016 at about 12:00 PM in the noon but the First Information Report was lodged on 16.1.2014 after two days, though the husband of the prosecutrix came back on the same day along with his son.In addition, the prosecutrix has two major sons, who were also available in the village and we fail to understand, why she has not narrated about the incident to them. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,988 | (4) What is it that is alleged against the petitioner? This is how, in brief, the Charge Sheet proceeds to unfold the facts: During the course of investigation of Rc 5(s)/91 Siu (v)/CBI/New Delhi two diaries and two files were recovered from the residence of accused J.K.Jain.They contained entries about various payments to number of persons including certain political leaders some of whom, at the relevant time, were working as public servants.It was also revealed during investigation of that case that S.K.Jain, B.R.Jain, N.K.Jain and J.K.Jain had acted as middlemen in the award of certain big projects, that they were involved in Hawala transactions in a big way and that they had entered into a conspiracy among themselves with the object of receiving unaccounted money and to disburse the same among themselves and also to their companies, friends etc. including some public servants and political leaders of India and that this way a total sum of Rs.60,49,44,30 was paid to 115 persons/parties/ organisations including some public servants and political leaders of India.One of such persons happened to be the petitioner.Allegedly the petitioner was paid a sum of seven lakh fifty thousand rupees.These payments allegedly made to the petitioner find mention in the Charge Sheet in the following manner: "IT has transpired during the course of investigation that the above mentioned Jains had entered into separate criminal conspiracies with each individual separetly, whose names are recorded in coded abbreviations corresponding to the initials of their names, for making payments to them from time to time.One of the said recipients was Sh.Buta Singh, who worked as a Public Servant in the capacity of Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) from 31.12.84 to 27.11.89 and the Minister of Home Affairs in the Government of India from 12.5,86 to 2.12.89 during the relevant period.The above mentioned diaries and files seized from the residence of accused J.KJain indicate the payment of Rs.7.50 lakhs to Sh.Buta Singh as per details given below: S.No.Sept.89 5.00 Total 7.50 (5) Entries about the above mentioned payments have been recorded in one of the diaries and one File, which were seized from the residence of accused J.KJain on 3.5.91 as per details given below: Document No. Page No. Period Description of Amount Entry .Diary 71/91 Mr 5 May 89 Buta Singh 2.50 through Sandhu (Corroborates Sl.No.1 above) 6 Sept. 89 Buta Singh 5.00 Sandhu (Corroborates Sl.No. 2 above) File Mr 72/91 8 Poe from April Buta Singh 7.50 88 to March 90 (Corroborates Sl No.l&2 above) A/c fromApril Buta Singh 7.50 89 to Dec. 89 (Corroborates Sl.The authenticity of these documents and payments recorded therein indicate the actual transactions which took place from time to time and which have been accounted for in different forms in the said diary and file.It was against Shri Buta Singh.On March 8, 1996, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of "the offences complained against" and issued summons.The relevant portion of the order runs as under: "I have gone through the charge sheets, documents and other materials placed on record.After going through the record, I find that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against all the accused and as such I take cognizance of the offence complained of.Ahalmed to issue the process immediately for the date fixed."(2) Though the order of the learned Special Judge does not specify, admittedly the "offences complained of are section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act).(3) Shri Buta Singh is aggrieved by the above- noted order of the learned Special Judge.He feels that no case is made out against him and that for that reason not only the order in question requires to be set aside but the Charge Sheet also needs to be quashed. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
152,513,426 | This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of Cri.Case No.23561/2015 registered on the private complaint against the applicant under Section 500, 501, 502 of IPC.Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Indore to take cognizance against the respondent under Section 500, 501, 502 of IPC averting that applicant No.2 is the Chief Editor of weekly newspaper applicant no.1 Chand Par Udanand applicant No.3 is the Guardian of the newspaper.The applicants have published the news against the respondent that he is involved in many cases.So action be taken against the applicants.On that complaint learned trial Court took cognizance against applicants and summoned them and and by order dated 11.7.2016 framed charge against him under Section 500, 501, 502 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have published the news bonafidely.So their act comes under the exception of Section 499 of IPC. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,251,375 | 26.07.2013 CRM 10497 of 2013 Court No.29 In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on Item No. 95 24.07.2013 in connection with Chinsurah (Women) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2013 dated snandy 29.06.2013 (G.R. Case No. 1048 of 2013) for committing offence punishable under Sections (granted) 498A/406/354B of the Indian Penal Code.Item No. 95So, on any condition, the prayer for bail may be considered.The learned lawyer of the State resisted the prayer for bail by making his usual submission.On query, he submits that almost all the 'Stridhan' articles appear to have been seized.Further he submits that custodial detention is perhaps no more required.Therefore, considering the pros and cons of the matter, I release the petitioner on bail to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly at Chinsurah on condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer of this case as and when required as he is stated to be a diabetic patient.The prayer for bail thus stands allowed.The application is disposed of.(Toufique Uddin, J) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
152,513,843 | The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.109 of 2015, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 (2 counts) & 506(ii) IPC.The trial Court, by judgment dated 29.10.2015, though found this appellant not guilty for the offence under Sections 307 (2 counts) and 506(ii) IPC, found him guilty for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324 (3 counts) IPC, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year (each count), with a fine of Rs.2000/- (each count), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 324 IPC (3 counts).The appellant / accused paid the fine amount and filed this appeal on various grounds.When the appeal was taken up for hearing in the earlier occasion, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence was taken place between the 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.347 of 2015 neighbors, who also happen to be relatives, in cleaning the drainage water and pending this appeal, the accused and the victim have solved their differences amicably and filed a joint compromise memo before this Court dated 21.07.2020, signed by both the parties.The appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC, which is not a compoundable offence.However, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) to verify whether any compromise has been arrived between the parties.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has verified the same through the respondent Police and the respondent Police have also recorded the statements; collected the identification proofs and based on these statements and identification proofs, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has affirmed the compromise arrived between the parties.Insofar as the offence under Section 324 IPC (3 counts) is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year (each count) and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (each count), in default, to 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.347 of 2015 undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The appellant / accused has also paid the fine amount.It is also reported by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already undergone incarceration of 75 days in the prison.This fact has also been verified and affirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).In view of the subsequent developments and the compromise arrived between the parties; and considering the nature of offence and that the offence took place on account of a sudden quarrel between the neighbors, who also happen to be relatives, on cleaning of a drainage, this Court, while confirming the conviction, is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant / accused.Accordingly, the conviction ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.109 of 2015, dated 29.10.2015, is confirmed, however, the sentence as regards the offence under Section 324 (3 counts) IPC is modified to that of the period already undergone by the appellant / 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.347 of 2015 accused.The fine amount as well as default clause imposed by the trial Court remain unaltered.In fine, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi.2.The Inspector of Police, Seidhungnallur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper / Section Officer, E.R. / V.R. / Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.347 of 2015 B.PUGALENDHI, J.gk Crl.A.(MD)No.347 of 2015 27.07.2020 | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
152,514,707 | 1 Sl No. 97 17.02.2017 Rejected pk C.R.M. 740 of 2017 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.01.2017 in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 725 of 2016 dated 15.11.2016 under Sections 447/326A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Sl No. 97Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,525,170 | This Monikabai owned agricultural property in Survey No.320 admeasuring about 83R. It is alleged that the Monikabai had sold the said property to the applicant for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- Mother of the respondent no.2 is attesting witness to the said document of sale.It is alleged that out of the land purchased by the applicant, 64R land was converted for non-agriculture purpose.C.A.Jadhav h/f.Mr.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for the applicant.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally at the stage of admission.The petitioner is a original complainant and has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, questioning ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:51:39 ::: 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.294 of 2011 the correctness of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Appl.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:51:39 :::3. Heard respective counsels for the parties.The facts which gave rise to file the criminal writ petition can be summarized as : The complainant herein has filed a report before J.M.F.C. Rahata on 02/08/2010 against the respondent no.2 complaining that the respondent no.2 is the son of his sister Philominabai Joseph.The said Philominabai has one more sister by name Monikabai Shivraj.Thereafter, he had given one advertisement for sale of the N.A. plots created in that property.It is alleged that due to acts of respondent no.2, the applicant herein had sustained financial loss and hence he lodged a report complaining that the respondent no.2 has committed an offence punishable u/s. 463, 465 of The IPC.It appears that after recording verification on 03/08/2010, process was issued for the offence punishable u/s. 465 of The IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:51:39 :::It appears that, after the summons was issued on respondent no.2 herein, he had preferred criminal revision application no.54/2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon.After hearing both the sides, by judgment and order dated 21/03/2011, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon had allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of process dated 03/08/2011, which is impugned in the present criminal writ petition.In this background, I have heard learned counsel for revision applicant followed by the submissions of learned counsel for respondent no.2 and of learned A.P.P. for State.The first phase of submissions is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon has committed an error in entertaining the criminal revision application filed by the respondent no.2 herein as the order of issuance of process is an interlocutory order and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:51:39 ::: 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.294 of 2011 criminal revision application u/s 397(2) of The Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:51:39 :::In this light, I have also examined the text of the complaint. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
152,523,078 | As per prosecution story, on 10.9.2004 at about 11.30 P.M. in the night complainant Bhawar (PW-1) came to the Industrial Estate Police Station, Ratlam along with Wakil, Prem (PW-2), Dinesh (PW-3) and injured Bahadur S/o Naniya and lodged a report stating therein that he is residing in hut behind Roadways Bus Depot at Vedvyas Colony along with 3-4 more family of the same village and doing the business of preparing basket (Tokari).Accused Shaitan and his brother is also residing near to his hut.On 10.9.2004 at about 8.00 P.M. accused Shaitan, Bahadur, Vishram and Bhera were taking liquor.The complainant Bahadur (PW-1) was not well and, therefore, he was not taking the liquor.At that relevant point of time, accused Shaitan and Bahadur started abusing to each other.Suddenly accused Shaitan left for hut and came armed with axe and inflicted axe injury to Bahadur on his head from back side due to which Bahadur fell down.After causing 3 injury, accused Shaitan ran away from the place of occurrence.Complainant Bhawar (PW-1) took the injured--Bahadur along with Wakil (not examined), Prem (PW-2) and Dinesh (PW-3) in a Auto Rikshaw and lodged report.Police has registered the offence under Section 307 of IPC.After FIR the matter was investigated by the Station House Office--P. N. Malviya (PW-16).An information from Hospital regarding the death of Bahadur has been received and immediately thereafter inquest (Ex. P/4) was prepared and accused--Shaitan was arrested.On the basis of his memorandum, his blood stained clothes were seized.The assaults were made at random.(26.09.2017) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.Police statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused in the Court of CJM.The learned CJM on 4.12.2004 has committed the case to the Sessions Judge for trial.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial.As the autopsy was conducted by Dr. R. C. Damar (PW-8).The M.L.C. of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Shailendra Mathur (PW-11).(PW-1) Bhawar, (PW-2) Prem, (PW-3) Dinesh, (PW-4) Bhagudi, (PW-5) Naniya, (PW-6) Samdu Bai and (PW-15) Hasina in their statements have stated that the present appellant had 4 caused axe injury to the deceased.All the witnesses in their examination-in-chief have deposed that they were present at the time of occurrence but they in their cross-examination very categorically admitted that they were not present at the spot and are hearsay witnesses.(PW-17) Bheru in his statement has deposed that he was present at the spot and it is the present appellant, who was armed with axe and had caused injury to deceased.Ex. D/1 is his police statement in which there is no omission or material contradiction in respect of the fact that he had seen the incident and injury in question has been caused by the appellant.Dr. R. C. Damar (PW-8) Autopsy Surgeon in his statement has deposed that death was homicidal in nature.The cause of death is injury on head.Though, this witness in para 6 of his cross-examination has suggested that if any person after consuming liquor fell down on sharp edged weapon then such injury can be caused to him.As per postmortem report deceased was consumed liquor.Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statement of prosecution witnesses and submitted that the appellant was not having enmity with the deceased and he was along with three other persons including the deceased was 5 consuming liquor and his relation with deceased was very cordial.After consuming liquor, in a sudden quarrel he administered axe blow on the head of deceased causing his death.Thus, injury to the deceased was caused by the appellant without pre-meditation.The case of the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part-II of IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the injury results in the death of the victim.He further submitted that appellant gave a single axe blow on the head of the deceased over a triable matter.There was no pre-meditation and offence invariable falls within the scope of Section 304 Part-II, hence, prayed for altercation of conviction.He further submitted that the accused appellant is in jail since 11.9.2004 and at present he has completed more than 13 years of jail sentence and if period of remission is included then he has completed 16 to 17 years.He further submitted that his case would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.(PW-17) Bheru in para 2 of his statement has deposed that after consuming liquor he was accompanied with deceased-- Bahadur and was giving company to drop him at his house, on the way present appellant came from the back side and inflicted head injury from back side.He immediately turned around and saw the 6 accused.This witness in para-3 of his cross-examination has deposed that due to liquor consumed by the deceased, deceased was not able to walk properly and therefore, he was helping the deceased to go with him.None of the material prosecution witnesses have stated that accused was having any intention to kill the deceased or there was any enmity or accused had any intention to cause the death of the deceasedThe learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident in question, which enventually led to Bahadur's death, took place due to sudden fight ensued between them without any premeditation.Learned counsel referred to the evidence while supporting his submission and contended that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that either relation between the appellant and deceased was not cordial. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,525,278 | The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 3466 of 2000 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and he seeks to quash the records of the case.The allegations in the complaint are that there were disputes between the staff of Mitsui and Co. Ltd., Madras Office, with the management about promotion, increment and other benefits of the staff and no proper settlement was reached in the talks held at Chennai Office on 7-3-2000 between Dr. Veeramani, President of Bharatiya Kamagar Sena, Madras Unit and Mr. Parameswaran, representing the workers and the petitioner, representing the Management of the Company and in that meeting, the petitioner has allegedly called the workers "beggars" and representatives of the workers allegedly got very angry and agitated and went out of the room.The other staff workers also got very angry and agitated and they grabbed sticks and other objects and tried to attack the management people.The complainant and other representatives of the Union pacified the staff workers.The petitioner allegedly insulted the workers by calling "beggars" and committed defamation knowing fully the implications and thus instigated them to commit breach of peace and hence he is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 500 and 504 of I.P.C.The petitioner has further averred that the allegations that, in the meeting held at the Chennai office of the company on 7-3-2000, he called the workers "beggars" is totally false, baseless and malicious.During the discussion, when the representatives of the workers said "the staff are not beggars," the petitioner, as a joke said "they are bigger." But, unfortunately, the representatives of the workers suddenly started to say loudly "don't say as beggars" and never listened to further talks.The petitioner had no reason or intention to use the word 'beggars' about the staff of the company.The petitioner did not make any defamatory statement as alleged and he never insulted the workers.The petitioner always treated the employees as family members with great respect.ORDER C. Nagappan, J.Head Notes.For deciding whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied : (1) Whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence and (2) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,525,313 | No costs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by itsSecretary, Education DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai 92.The Director of School EducationDPI, College Road, Chennai 63.The Joint Director (Employees Section)College Road, Chennai 64.The Chief Educational Officer,Salem DistrictHeard both sides and perused the records.The petitioner was a Physical Education Teacher working in a Government Higher Secondary School.This was on the ground that he had contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was in subsistence.After conducting an enquiry it was found that the said charge was proved.The defence taken by the petitioner was that his first wife was suffering from a terminal decease had insisted that he should marry another person so that they can have a male child from out of the said marriage.He got the consent of his first wife and with the approval of the elders of the family.As against the order of removal the petitioner filed an appeal dated 24.10.1994 to the Director of School Education, Chennai, the second respondent.In the appeal he had stated that the marriage was performed at the instance of the first wife and the elders of the village and with the consent of the first wife who also wanted to have a male child through the second marriage.The petitioner filed a representation dated 4.9.95 by way of review before the Government vide his letter setting out the same defence.The petitioner filed O.A.No.8179/97 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of removal made against him.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of the dismissal the petitioner was only 52 years old and he had put in sufficient service.Out of that marriage he had a girl child.The second marriage was performed during the year 1992 i.e., after a period of 25 years after the first marriage.Though the counsel for the petitioner pleaded for leniency in the punishment this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment.The petitioner is a school teacher and he should have been a role model for others in following the practice of monogamy.When a question as to whether an husband who was discharged by a criminal court in an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. (bigamy) can be proceeded under the Government Servants Conduct Rules came up for consideration by the Supreme Court it answered positively.The said decision is relating to STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Vs.The following passage found in para 3 may be worth quoting:-There was a clear fallacy in such view because for purposes of Rule 28, such strict standards, as would warrant a conviction for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, may not, to begin with, be necessary."Every citizen of this country has to implement the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and Article 51-A(e) reads as under:"51-A.(e)to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;" (Emphasis added)Therefore, the petitioners contention that he had the consent of the first wife for the second marriage can never be a defence.Further the explanation offered by him that he wanted to have a male child is really an obscurantist idea which directly shower the indignity on women.Such derogatory practices has to be renounced in view of the fundamental duties of a Citizen of this country as noted above.In the light of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,525,354 | The adversecases are extracted here-under,____________________________________________________________ Sl.Police Station and Section of Disposal/PresentNo.C.9 Neelankarai 461 On 24.4.2003 he was convicted for 3 monthsPolice Station 380 Rigorous Imprisonment by the JudicialCr.The period of remand was set off.B.1 Sivakanchi 457 On 31.7.2003 he was convicted for 6 monthsPolice Station 380 Rigorous Imprisonment by the JudicialCr.3. S.8 Adambakkam 461 On 28.2.2004 during night at No.1, KarneekarPolice Station 380 Street, Adambakkam, Chennai-88, he brokeCr.No.56/2004 IPC.Open the lock of the TASMAC shop and committed theft of cash Rs.36,150/- with the cash box and Tr.The case is under investigation.The case is under investigation.S.8 Adambakkam 379 On 6.5.2005 between 7.30 and 10.30 hours Police Station IPC at St.Thomas Mount Railway ReservationCr.No.447/2005 Counter, he committed theft of TVS MAX motor cycle bearing Reg.Adverse case Nos.3 and 4 relate to theft of cash from a shopbelonging to a State owned corporation, namely, TASMAC.The fifth adversecase relates to theft of Motorcycle parked at St. Thomas Mount RailwayReservation Counter, which is a public place.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking usthrough the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raisedthe following contentions,(i) There was no ground for passing the order of detention under TamilNadu Act 14 of 1982;(ii) In the Special Report submitted by the Inspector of Police (S8Adambakkam Police Station), which finds place at page No.55 of the Booklet,the Officer has recommended for passing the detention order by describing thedetenu as a dangerous person (ga';fukhdtu;).It shows that the authoritiespredetermined to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu;(iii) The arrest of the detenu was not properly communicated to hisfamily members; andAfter finding that there is no material on record to showthat the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so greatas to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the localityor disturb general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm andinsecurity in the locality; and after pointing out that the solitary instanceof robbery is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for thepurpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial tothe maintenance of public order, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court quashedthe order of detention therein.6(b).In the Division Bench decision, viz., 2004-1-L.W.(Cri.)392, itis seen from paragraph No.4 that all the three adverse cases relate to theoffence of theft arising under Section 379 IPC.and the ground case was onlya solitary instance, wherein, a case was registered under Section 397 IPC.Since the factual position therein was almost similar to Darpan Kumar Sharmascase, the Division Bench rightly, following the decision the Supreme Court,quashed the impugned order of detention.Crime No. law Stage_______________________________________________________________Loganathan lodged a complaint in this regard.S.8 Adambakkam 461 Between 19.9.2004 at 21.00 hours and Police Station 380 20.9.2004 at 08.00 hours at No.6, KarneekarCr.No.374/2004 IPC Street, Adambakkam, Chennai, he broke open the lock of the TASMAC shop and committed theft of cash Rs.2,328/- and liquor bottles to the value of Rs.1,343/- and Tr.Jeevanandham lodged a complaint in this regard.TN.22 AB 3880 parked at the said premises belonging to Tr.Rooban Jayanth and Tr.Rooban Jayanth lodged a complaint in this regard.___________________________________________________________________The above details show that the first two adverse cases relate tohouse-breaking and trespass as well as theft and both the cases ended inconviction.The Division Bench,after distinguishing the case on their hand with Darpan Kumar Sharmas case,confirmed the order of detention and dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition.Distinguishing the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Darpan KumarSharmas case, other Benches of this Court also confirmed the orders ofdetention, vide a. HCP No.688 of 2004, order dated 23.09.2004 b. HCP No.773 of 2004, order dated 06.10.2004 c. HCP No.218 of 2004, order dated 28.04.2004Coming to the second contention, it is true that in the SpecialReport sent by the Inspector of Police, S8 Adambakkam Police Station, whichfinds place at page No.55 of the booklet, after furnishing various details,the Officer has concluded that the accused, who is confined in Central Prison,is a dangerous person (ga';fukhdtu;).It is only a Report, wherein, theInspector of Police narrated certain events.It istrue that 9.8.2005, 10.8.2005 and 11.8.2005 were working days.The Officersworking in the Department concerned ought to have prepared the rejectionletter immediately.Inasmuch as the rejection letter was prepared on12.08.2005, i.e., within a reasonable time, we are of the view that there isno undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any validground for interference.Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same isdismissed.1. Commissioner of Police, Chennai.Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.(In duplicate for communication to detenu)The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,884,420 | They belong to different political parties.It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1 Baban belongs to Congress party and was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat at the relevant time, whereas PW-6 Rajaram belongs to Shivsena Party.It is further the prosecution case that when PW-6 Rajaram and one Uttam Mandhare were constructing a temporary shed near the booth, the accused no.1 came there and threatened them to the effect that they should not construct the shed, otherwise the consequences would be dire.It is the prosecution case that on account of this incident relations between the accused and PW-6 were strained.It is the prosecution case that on the date of the incident i.e. on 7 th December, 1989 at around 8.30a.m.to 9.00a.m.the mother of PW-6-Complainant had gone to the nearby vasti of Gajendra Dhekle for the purpose of cooking.PW-6 had also come to the said vasti for taking water.It is the prosecution case that when PW-6 was going back to his vasti alongwith a pot of 4/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 ::: 5 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw water and when he came near the Bund where lemon tree was situated, he saw the Sarpanch coming alongwith his supporters namely Arjun, Revan, Baban, Bhimrao, Dattatraya, Mohan and Sajjan.Thereafter accused Arjun and Bhimrao rushed towards PW-6 Rajaram.Bhimrao started beating him with iron pipe and Arjun gave fists blows and kicks to Rajaram.Thereafter Vishnu who is the brother of PW-6 Rajaram rushed towards him.Baban told his followers to beat Vishnu.As such the other accused assaulted Vishnu.At that time Kashibai-the mother of PW-6 came there and she fell on the body of the Rajaram and Vishnu.Thereafter, Baban alongwith his followers went to the vasti of the Complainant's family.At that time the Complainant's father namely Nagnath, his brothers Krishnadev and Pandu were present in the vasti.After Nagnath asked the accused as to why they were beating his sons unnecessarily, Baban said "beat this old man as he was too much energy in his body".Thereafter, the accused beat deceased Nagnath with stones, sticks, Sattur and iron pipes.6 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw Janardhan, the uncle of Rajaram came from his vasti.It is further the case of the prosecution that after accused ran to the vasti of Baban, then the grand-father of Rajaram namely Govoind Dhekle and sister of Nagnath namely Chandrabhaga came to their vasti from village Dheklewadi and brought injured Rajaram and Vishnu firstly to the Hospital of Modnimb through bullock cart.It is further the prosecution case that meanwhile the incident was reported to Mohol Police Station by PW-5 police constable Tanaji Kashid as he received information from one Bandu Mali of Modnimb that there was scuffle at Dheklewadi between two parties, one belonging to 6/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 ::: 7 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw Sarpanch and another belonging to Nagnath Dhekle, in which Nagnath died whereas his two sons Rajaram and Vishnu were injured.After receipt of this information P.S.I. Ghadge, PW-9 I.O. came on the spot at around 12.00 at noon and saw the dead body of deceased Nagnath.The appellants-original accused nos.1-7 have moved this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1990 in Sessions Case 2/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 ::: 3 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw No. 100/1990 thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer one month's R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further four days R.I. and for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for 8 days and for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for six months and for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for four days and for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w with 149 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. For two months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for eight days and for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer further R.I. For four days and for the offence punishable under Section 447 r/w with 149 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. For one month and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for four days.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 :::4 Appeal.109-110.11.sxwThe prosecution case in nutshell is that there was a strained relationship between PW-6 Rajaram and accused persons.It is the prosecution case that on 24th November, 1989 there was voting of Loksabha Election.PW-6 Rajaram and his brother came from the place where they were residing (hereinafter referred to as 'vasti') to the village.It is the prosecution case that accused no.1 was armed with a gun, accused Revan with stick, accused Arjun with Sattur, accused Baburao with stick, accused Bhimrao with iron pipe, accused Dattatraya with stone and accused Sajjan with sticks.It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter accused no.1 told PW-6 Rajaram that since he has constructed the shed on that day, he should face the consequences.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 :::The stone pelted by accused Dattatray hit Nagnath on his head as a result of which Nagnath fell down.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 :::After hearing the shouts Kashibai also rushed to their vasti.Thereafter, accused Revan given stick blows on the left leg of Janardhan and also assaulted him on his left ear which caused bleeding injury to Janardhan.There were also injuries to Kashibai.As Nagnath was found dead, all the accused persons rushed towards the vasti of sarpanch.It can thus be seen in nutshell that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused nos. 1-7 formed unlawful assembly on that day on account of previous enmity with Rajaram and they came to the vasti of deceased Nagnath armed with deadly weapons like iron pipes, Sattur, sticks, stones and assaulted Rajaram and Vishnu and thereafter killed Nagnatgh.After executing the necessary panchnama he recorded written complaint given by Krishnadev as per his say vide Exhibit 65 which came to be treated as FIR.The investigation was conducted by the Investigating officer during which under memorandum of various accused, the weapons used in the crime came to be attached.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 :::Statements of witnesses were recorded.After the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol.Since the offence was punishable under Section 302, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur.Chargesheet came to be filed against the present appellants alongwith the accused no.8 namely Mohan.The accused pleaded non guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced other documentary evidence on record.At the conclusion of the trial learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused no.8 for the charges levelled against him and also acquitted the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the 7/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 ::: 8 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw Arms Act and convicted the accused-appellant for the offences as referred herein above and sentenced them as aforesaid.Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:07 :::Shri Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the conviction of the accused is based only on the basis of testimony of the interested witnesses.He further submits that as such the conviction only the basis of ocular testimony would not be sustainable.It is further submitted that incident has taken place at 9.00 a.m., police have received the information at 11.00 a.m.. There is also an entry with regard to the same in the register maintained by the police.It is submitted that prosecution has not produced entry in that register on record and as such it creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.It is further submitted that Exhibit 65 which is treated as a FIR also cannot be treated as a FIR inasmuch as the investigation is set in motion on the basis of prior information.It is, therefore, submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as 8/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 9 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw such the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::The learned APP Shri K.V. Saste on the contrary submits that ocular testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is consistent.The testimony is supported by medical evidence.It is submitted that postmortem report of deceased and the medical certificates of the injured persons corroborate the version given by the eye witnesses.It is submitted that merely because there are certain minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of the eye witnesses.It is, therefore, submitted that appeals are liable to be dismissed.Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel who appears for the Complainant also adopts the submissions made by the learned APP.With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the entire evidence on record.The prosecution story regarding the assault on PW-6 Rajaram and PW-7 Vishnu and assault on deceased Nagnath is supported by ocular testimony of four eye witnesses namely PW-6 Rajaram, PW-7 Vishnu who have sustained injuries in the incident and PW-4 Krishnadev- the Complainant and PW-8 Kashibai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::10 Appeal.109-110.11.sxwThe said ocular testimony is duly supported by the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Prabha Shinde who has examined the injured witnesses and PW-3 Dr. Sidramappa Kore who has carried out the post morterm examination of deceased Nagnath.Insofar as prosecution witnesses' testimony is concerned, the injured witness PW-6 Rajaram and PW-7 Vishnu have clearly stated in their deposition that when Rajaram was going back to his vasti after taking water from the vasti of Gajendra, the accused no.1 alongwith his supporters i.e. accused nos. 2-7 came towards him.He also categorically stated that accused no.1 said that on that day he constructed the shed, now face the consequences.After accused no.1 saying this, Bhimrao started beating PW-6 with iron pipe which hit him on right hand and right leg due to which he fell down.Arjun also gave fists and kicks blows to him.When Vishnu rushed towards Rajaram, Baban told his supporters to beat Vishnu.Evidence of Vishnu would also show that Bhimrao had given blow with iron bar on his left arm.Arjun had given a blow by Sattur on his left leg.Said version is also supported by PW-4 Krishnadev and PW-8 Kashibai.Though all these witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined, nothing damaging has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses insofar as assault on Rajaram and Vishnu is concerned.The ocular version is duly supported by evidence of PW-2 Dr. Prabha Shinde who has categorically stated 10/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 11 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw in her evidence that injuries on the person of Vishnu and Rajaram are possible with the means of iron pipes, sticks etc. and as such the findings of conviction insofar as offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of IPC, in our view calls for no interference.Insofar as charge for the offence punishable under Section 447 r/w 149 of the IPC is concerned, from the perusal of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that no interference is warranted insofar as the findings of conviction in regard to these offences is concerned.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::That leaves us with main offence regarding the death of Nagnath G.Dhekle, for which the accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC.Insofar as this offence is concerned, also the prosecution relies on the aforesaid four eye witnesses.From the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7, however, it appears that even according to them they were not conscious after they were assaulted.It will be relevant to note the following statement in the evidence of PW-6 Rajaram:It thus appears that after the assault on these two witnesses, they became unconscious and it is doubtful as to whether they have witnessed the assault on their father.Apart from that insofar as evidence of PW-7 Vishnu is concerned, 11/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 12 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw there is omission in his statement before the police regarding the details attributed by him to the accused about assault on his father.It can further be seen from the evidence of PW-4 Krishnadev-Complainant that after the accused started assaulting Rajaram and Vishnu, Kashibai fell on the body of Rajaram and Vishnu.In his evidence, thereafter he narrates the story regarding the altercation between the deceased and Baban and assault on the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::He further states in his evidence that thereafter his uncle Janardhan ran towards their vasti from his vasti after hearing their shouts.He further states in his evidence "at the sametime our mother rushed towards our vasti from Vishnu Rajaram".It can thus clearly be seen from the evidence of PW-4 Complainant that PW-8 Kashibai has arrived at the incident after the incident regarding the altercation and assault on deceased has taken place.In our considered view, therefore, insofar as evidence of these three witnesses regarding the assault on deceased Nagnath is concerned, is doubtful and, therefore, cannot be relied on.Sofar as the evidence of PW-4 Krishnadev who is also a Complainant deposed thus in his evidence:-"Then those persons came to our vasti.Then our father "Dada' asked these persons why you were beating his son unnecessarily.Then accused no.6 Dattatraya pelted stone towards our father.At that time accused no.1 told as there is too much energy in this old man, kill him.Then accused Arujn, Revan, Baburao, Bhimrao Dattatraya started beating our father with sticks, stone, Sattur and iron pipe.Stone pelted by accused Dattatraya on 12/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 13 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw the head of our father, then our father fell down."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::It can further be seen that medical evidence supports the prosecution case inasmuch as PW-3 clearly states that injuries 1-6 and 10 and 11 were grievous and serious and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.It can thus clearly be seen that the prosecution case establishes that deceased was assaulted by accused nos. 2-7 under the instigation of accused no.1 as a result of which he sustained several injuries.The prosecution also has established that injuries at Sr.No. 1-6 and 10 and 11 were grievous and serious and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.In that view of the matter, finding of the learned trial Court that the accused had inflicted injuries upon the deceased as a result of which his death occurred, cannot be faulted with.Therefore, only question would be as to whether the finding of conviction under Section 302 would be proper or not?Insofar as assault on deceased Nagnath is concerned, the evidence of PW-6 Rajaram and PW-7 Vishnu will not be relevant inasmuch as from their evidence it is seen that after assault on them, they fell unconscious, it is improbable they have witnessed assault on their father which has taken place subsequently.As already discussed herein above from the evidence of PW-4 Krishnadev, PW-8 Kashibai arrived at the spot where the deceased was 13/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 14 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw assaulted after the altercation and the act of assault was complete.As such it is difficult to believe the version of PW-8 insofar as the instigation given by accused no.1 to other accused to kill the deceased.As such the evidence of PW-4 Krishnadev would only be relevant insofar as assault on deceased Nagnath is concerned.PW-4 Krishnadev states in his evidence that the accused no.1 said "as there is too much energy in the old man, kill him".It is the prosecution version that after the accused no.1 said this to his supporters, the other accused started assaulting the deceased.From the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Sidramappa Kore, it could be seen that all the injuries sustained by the deceased were grievous and serious and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.It has also come in the evidence that the injuries mentioned in para-17 of the postmortem notes can be possible by means of Sattur.From the examination and cross-examination of said witness, it can be inferred that injury caused to the deceased on the head is possible by attack of Sattur from the blunt side.It can thus be seen that from the part of the body of the deceased on which assault was made, the weapons used and the nature of injury sustained, no fault could be found with the finding that the act of accused was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.The only question, therefore, is as to whether it was done with an intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.From the evidence it could be seen that the alleged enmity of the accused is with PW-6 Rajaram.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::15 Appeal.109-110.11.sxwIt can be seen that the accused had come to initially assault Rajaram, after that he assaulted Vishnu who came to rescue his brother Rajaram.After that when they went to the vasti of the deceased and his family members, the deceased asked the accused as to why they were assaulting his sons.It is a prosecution case that on this, the accused no.1 told his supporters to kill the deceased.It is to be noted that accused no.1 was armed with pistol and even according to the prosecution the other accused were armed with Sattur and other weapons.If the accused had an intention to cause death, they could have very alone run away with Rajaram since alleged enmity is with him, however, from the nature of injuries sustained by Rajaram or for that matter by Vishnu, it could be seen that no such intention could be gathered.If the accused had an intention to cause death of the deceased, then they could have very well assaulted the deceased with the pistol, however, it has not been done.It is to be noted that incident has taken place in the morning between 8.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. whereas FIR is registered at 5.30 p.m. It thus appears that the prosecution witnesses had sufficient time to improve their case.The possibility of putting the words in the mouth of accused no.1 "kill him" being improved, cannot be ruled out taking into consideration the long gap between the incident and the FIR.As already discussed herein above if the accused had an intention to cause death of the deceased, nothing prevented them from using the pistol or 15/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 16 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw the sharp side of Sattur.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::In that view of the matter we find that the prosecution has failed to prove that act of the accused was done with an intention to cause death of the deceased or to cause bodily injuries as is likely to cause death.In that view of the matter, we find that conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 would not be tenable and it will have to be altered to one under Part II of Section 304 of IPC.Hence, following order:-iii) The rest of the order as passed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed.iv) The accused are directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge within a period of two weeks from today who shall commit them to the concerned prison for undergoing the sentence as aforesaid.On failure, the learned Session Judge shall issue arrest 16/17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: 17 Appeal.109-110.11.sxw warrants against the appellants and on their arrest commit them to the concerned prison for undergoing the sentence as aforesaid.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:28:08 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,488,554 | Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.This is the first bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.196/2019 registered at Police Station Bagchini, District Morena (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 294,323, 324, 506, 34, 326 0f IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of present anticipatory bail application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail.He further submits that the trial Court be directed to decide the bail application filed by the applicant on the same day.Application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the applicant to surrender before the trial court and move an application for regular bail.Trial Court is hereby directed to decide the regular bail application, if filed by the applicant, as expeditiously as possible 02 MCRC-35308/2020 preferably on the same day, if possible, in accordance with law.It is made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner by the order passed by this Court.The application shall be considered and decided on its own merits.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,901,456 | It is alleged that Thakurdas died due to head injury caused by the persons having sharp cutting weapons.The applicants were not aware that the co-accused would assault the deceased Thakurdas in such a forceful manner with the sharp cutting weapons.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Hardayal is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.The applicants Harcharan and Chhotu are in custody since 05.01.2016 whereas applicants Matadeen and Dharmendra are in custody since 13.01.2016 relating to Crime No.06/2016 registered at Police Station Dheerpura, District Datia (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 294, 436, 307, 302, 506B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the reputed citizens of the locality.Out of them applicant Harcharan is an old person aged 60 years whereas applicants Dharmendra and Chotu are under the age group of 19 to 20 years.None of the applicants [Harcharan, Chotu, Matadeen and Dharmendra] has criminal 2 Mcrc.5765.2016 Harcharan and other Vs.State of M.P.Mcrc No.5813/2016 Matadeen and others Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh past as alleged against them.In the present case, it is alleged against the applicants Harcharan, Chotu, Matadeen and Dharmendra that they assaulted and killed the deceased Thakurdas, however, Thakurdas had sustained only six injuries whereas 13 to 14 persons were implicated in the crime.No common intention of the applicants [Harcharan, Chotu, Matadeen and Dharmendra] can be presumed with the co-accused persons Bhagwan Singh or Hardayal for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, hence, no such offence is made out against the applicants either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.It is not alleged against any of the applicants [Harcharan, Chotu, Matadeen and Dharmendra] that he set fire on any house and hence prima facie no offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against them.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,902,103 | Joy Kanmani and the first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar (A1) was solemnized atT.E.L.C.Church at Virudhunagar, in accordance with the religious custom.Duringthe course of their wedlock, the respondent/complainant had conceived andtherefore, she was brought to her parent's house for her first delivery.10.That on 04.07.1986, a male child, namely G.Victor Stanly was born tothe respondent/complainant, till then the first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar (A1)had been visitng the respondent/complainant frequently at her parent's house.11.It is also alleged that the first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar (A1) hadrepresented the respondent/complainant that his parents would come and take heralong with the child to the matrimonial home and thereafter he went away.Duringthe later period, he did not visit the respondent/complainant in her parent'shouse even after passing of several months.His whereabouts were also known tothe respondent/complainant.When enquired with the other petitioners (A3 to A6)viz., Mr.J.Gnanakumar's sisters and brother-in-laws, they had also not givenproper details about the whereabouts of the first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar(A1).12.On one occasion, the respondent/complainant was informed by thepetitioners in Crl.in brief:7.The respondent/complainant Mrs.Joy Kanmani, who claims to be the wife ofthe first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar (A1) has filed a private complaint undersections 190, 191 r/w 198(A) and 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, against the above petitioners alleging that theAccused 2 to 6 had conspired together, to marry the petitioner Muthulakshmi inCrl.O.P(MD)No.5942 of 2009 as the second wife to the first petitionerMr.J.Gnanakumar (A1), when the marriage between the respondent/complainant andMr.9.That on 16.09.1985, the marriage between the respondent/complainantMrs.O.P(MD)No.5910 of 2009, who are the sisters and brothers-in-laws of the first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar (A1) saying that he was no longerwilling to live along with her and therefore, he had married the petitionerMuthulakshmi (in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5942 of 2009).But they had also refused todivulge the whereabouts of the first petitioner Mr.J.Gnanakumar (A1).13.The respondent/complainant and her parents had negotiated with herhusband Gnanakumar(A1) in the presence of village elderly people to live alongwith the respondent/complainant, but the petitioner Gnanakumar had been givingevasive answer.Thereafter, the respondent/complainant and her son, are in thecustody of her father and he in-turn had filed a petition in MC No.8 of 1990, onthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, claimingmaintenance for his daughter's son.That petition was allowed and Gnanakumar wasdirected to pay a sum of Rs.300/- per mensum to his daughter's son towardsmaintenance.Then, the respondent/complainant was put to understand that herhusband Gnanakumar and Muthulakshmi, the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5942 of2009, had been living as husband and wife in a rented house.One Vimala, who isnone other than the daughter of her maternal Aunt was also employed at TamilNadu Agricultural Engineering Department in Trichy, where the petitionerGnanakumar was working and from there, she had collected certain informationabout the residential address of her husband.When she went there, she wasabused by the petitioner Gnanakumar and Muthulakshmi.This was also informed tothe respondent/complainant.Thereafter, the respondent/complainant along withher parents had met Gnanakumar at Trichy and he had also given his consent tolive along with the respondent/complainant and accordingly, on 24.08.2000, shecame to Virudhunagar along with the respondent/complainant.But the petitionersin Crl.O.P(MD)No.5910 of 2009 had lodged a complaint before K.K.Nagar PoliceStation, Trichy, on 26.08.2000 and based on that, a case in crime No.173 of 2000under sections 147, 448, 323 and 367 IPC was registered against her allegingthat they had kidnapped.Ultimately, they were acquittal of the charges.She has further stated that when her marriage withthe petitioner Gnanakumar in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4073 of 2009 is in subsistence allthe petitioners accused had conspired together and in furtherance of theircriminal conspiracy, solemnized the marriage of the petitioners Muthulakshmi andGnanakumar and thereby, the petitioner Gnanakumar had committed the offencepunishable under section 494 IPC and the remaining petitioners had committed theoffences punishable under sections 494 r/w 109, 120(B) and 506(ii) IPC.15.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, had taken the saidprivate complaint on his file in C.C.No.104 of 2009 and taken cognizance of theoffences under section 494 IPC as against A1, the petitioner Gnanakumar and 494r/w 109 and 120(B) IPC as against the remaining petitioners.16.Now the above private complaint is sought to be quashed, in thesepetitions, on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Virudhunagar, has wrongly taken cognizance of the above said offences as againstthe petitioners.T.Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,in all the petitions, has adverted to that the respondent/complainant had filedthe above private complaint, suppressing the earlier petition filed before theFamily Court, Madurai, in DOP No.37 of 2005 for a decree of restitution ofconjugal rights.In hiscounter statement, he has alleged that the respondent/complainant had developedillicit intimacy with one Arthur Sundararajan and she used to meet himfrequently in a clandestine manner.He has also alleged that when therespondent/complainant was caught red handed, she had openly declaredMr.Gnanakumar that he should either ignore or acquiesce with the act of thecomplainant having intimacy with the said Arthur Sundararajan, so as to run asmooth life.Based on the allegations in his counter statement, therespondent/complainant had filed a private complaint in C.C.No.37 of 2006 on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, under sections 499 and498(A) IPC against the petitioner Gnanakumar stating the above said allegationis defamatory in nature and subsequently that complaint was quashed by thiscourt on 16.11.2007 and made in Crl.20.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also argued thatafter the disposal of DOP No.37 of 2005 on the file of the learned Family Court,Madurai, the respondent/complainant has preferred the present complainant inC.C.No.104 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Virudhunagar, which is sought to be quashed in these petitions.21.On perusal of the averments in the petitions, this court is able tofind:-(a)That on 16.09.1985, the petitioner Gnanakumar had married therespondent/complainant in accordance with religious custom at ReformationJubilee Church, TELC, Virudhunagar;(c)On 18.08.2005, the respondent/complainant had filed a petition underIndian Divorce Act, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, in DOP No.37 of2005 seeking a direction to the petitioner Gnanakumar to resume cohabitationwith her;(d)That on 05.12.2005, the respondent/complainant had filed a complaintagainst the petitioner Gnanakumar under sections 499 and 498A IPC, on the fileof the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, based on the allegations madeby the petitioner Gnanakumar, in his counter statement filed in DOP No.37 of2005, that complaint was taken on its file by the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.VI, Madurai.(e)That on 16.11.2007, the above said complaint was quashed by this courtin Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6209 of 2009, which was filed by the petitioner Gnanakumar.22.Based on the grounds of the petitions and on the basis of the statementmade by Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, thefollowing points are arisen for the consideration of this court.(ii)Whether any such offence is made out as against the petitioners, asthe entire averments are based on his evidence?(iii)Whether the respondent/complainant has failed to disclose the factthat the alleged second marriage of the petitioner Gnanakumar with thepetitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5942 of 2009 Muthulakshmi was a valid, marriage dulyperformed in accordance with the essential religious rites, applicable accordingto the law of customs of the parties?23.On perusal of the complaint in C.C.No.104 of 2009, which is sought tobe quashed herein, it appears that the respondent/complainant has filed the saidcomplaint under section 190, 191 r/w.198(A) and 200 Cr.P.C.24.With regard to the provision of sections 190 and 191 of Cr.P.C.,Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has adverted to thatthe learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, without applying hisjudicial mind, had wrongly interpreted the provisions and taken the complaint onhis file.25.With regard to 198-A Cr.P.C., it is imperative on the part of thiscourt to extract the said provisions as under:-"198-A Prosecution of offences under section 498-A of the Indian PenalCode:- No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a police report offacts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the personaggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by herfather's or mother's brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by anyother person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption."26.In so far as the private complaint in C.C.No.104 of 2009 is concerned,the respondent/complainant has sought the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Virudhunagar, to punish the petitioners under sections 494 r/w.109, 120(B) and506(ii) IPC.27.It may be relevant to note here that no ingredients to make out anoffence under section 498(A) IPC are available in the private complaint andtherefore, the inclusion of section 198(A) Cr.P.C in the caption of thecomplaint is absolutely wrong.While so, thelandlady Shyamala Kamatchi had told her that she had let out her house to A1 andA2 believing that they were husband and wife.At that time, the petitionerGnanakumar had abused the said Vimala and asked to her, as to who had given thisaddress.29.Besides this, Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, the learned counsel for therespondent has also filed a typed set of papers, containing the copies of theservice record of Muthulakshmi, the First Information Report in Crime No.173 of2000, on the file of the K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy and 161(3) Statementof Muthulakshmi in Crime No.173 of 2000 and the application submitted byMuthulakshmi before the LIC.30.In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent has arguedthat in GPF nominee form, which is being maintained in the service record of herDepartment TNEB, where she has been working, in the first column with regard toname and full address of the nominee, it has been stated as 'J.G.Kumar, 7-B/2,Kaveri Street, Ayyappa Nagar, Trichy-21.' With reference to the above details,he has also canvassed in column No.2 the Relationship with the subscriber, hasbeen stated as 'Husband' and therefore, this piece of evidence would go toestablish the fact that the petitioner Muthulakshmi is the second wife ofGnanakumar.31.The learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that in columnNo.6 of the application submitted by Muthulakshmi, with regard to her maritalstatus, she has stated as 'Married.' In the First Information Report relating tothe case in Crime No.173 of 2000 on the file of the K.K.Nagar Police Station,Trichy, the complainant therein one V.P.Rajan, who is none other than thebrother-in-law of the petitioner Gnanakumar and the first petitioner inCrl.O.P.(MD)No.5910 of 2009 has stated that the petitioner Gnanakumar hadsuffered mentally, after the dissolution of his first wife and therefore, he hadbeen taking treatment in Ervadi Dharga and during the period of his treatment,he was assisted by the petitioner Muthulakshmi.Latter on, he had taken heralong with him and subsequently, he has been residing at Ayyappa Nagar, Trichy.K.P.Narayanakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondenthas also argued that the above materials would go to establish the fact thatMuthulakshmi was the second wife of the petitioner Gnanakumar, which was anoffence punishable under section 494 IPC, as the marriage with the first wifei.e., the respondent/complainant was still in subsistence.In order to supporthis contention, he has also added in the application submitted to LIC in columnNo.25 also she had stated in that the reason for her leaving is "Gettingmarried".In her 161(3) Statement recorded in the case Crime No.173 of 2000,she has stated that still she had not married, but 10 years before a man hadpromised her that he would marry her and developed intimacy with her.With theresult of her intimacy with him, she had delivered a male baby, namely Jeory andshe has also stated that when Gnanakumar had joined in the AgriculturalEngineering Department, as Assistant, he was staying in Kavery Street at Trichyand used to visit her house, whenever he fell ill.(b)that the accused contacted a second marriage during the subsistence ofthe first;(c)that both the marriages were valid and strictly according to lawgoverning the parties.41.On coming to the instant case on hand, as adumbrated at the openingparagraph of this order, all the petitions have been filed under section 482 ofCr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings pertaining to the private complaint inC.C.No.104 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Virudhunagar. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,912,840 | 2/ The complainant and appellants are near relatives.The appellant No.1 Bablu and appellant No.3 Lakhansingh are brother-in-law and appellant No.2 Devkaran is father-in-law of the complainant.3/ The prosecution story is that on 19.4.2017 at 23.30 P.M. wife of the complainant had called the appellants to their house because some dispute was going on between Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/08/2019 10:31:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 CRA No.5354/19 the complainant and his wife.The appellants thereafter had caused one injury on the head of the complainant with a wooden stick and had also abused him.The neighbourers namely Gangaram, Govind, Chhote Bhai Hari had intervened.It was alleged that on account of the dispute of the complainant with his wife, the appellants had caused injury by means of stick to the complainant.The complainant was taken to the hospital in Sonkatch and from the hospital itself the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2) was lodged.Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard finally.(JUDGMENT) 1/ By this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 4.6.2019 passed by the 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sonkatch, District Dewas convicting the appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentencing them to 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and default imprisonment of 6 months each.The Pre-MLC of the complainant vide Ex.P/6 was done and the offence under Section 307 and 294/34 of IPC was registered against the appellants vide FIR Ex.The investigation took place and the spot map Ex.P/17 was prepared , seizures were made, the appellants were arrested and the Challan was filed.The appellants had abjured the guilt, hence trial took place.2 CRA No.5354/193 CRA No.5354/19P/6 no fracture was found.Apart from this, no other injury was found on the complainant.The complainant (PW-2) Devilal has given the details of the manner the incident was caused.PW-1 Gangaram has not been found to be the eyewitness of the incident.There is no other person who had witnessed the incident.On the basis of the statement of injured complainant, PW-5 Suresh Goyal who had recorded the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2) and Ramesh Bourasi (PW-7) the investigating officer as also the seizure of the wooden sticks from the appellants and blood stained clothes of the complainant and the FSL report in this regard, Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/08/2019 10:31:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 CRA No.5354/19 the offence under Section 307/34 IPC has been found proved against the appellants.The aforesaid evidence establishes the commission of offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC by the appellants.Even otherwise the finding in this regard has not been challenged.4 CRA No.5354/198/ So far as the issue of sentence is concerned, the record reflects that the parties are near relatives as the appellants are brother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant and the dispute had taken place on account of the alleged illtreatment by the complainant to his wife.Before the trial court itself the matter was compromised between the parties and the compromise statement of the complainant was recorded on 5.4.2019, wherein the complainant had stated that he did not want any action against the appellants and this fact has also been recorded by the trial court in Para-39 of the judgment.9/ Supreme court in the matter of Ishwar Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2009 SCC 675 in a similar case where the offence under Section 307 of IPC was committed and parties had compromised the matter while noting the fact that though the offence is not compoundable but sentence can be reduced in view of the compromise, has held as under:Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/08/2019 10:31:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 CRA No.5354/195 CRA No.5354/19At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.It was his first offence.After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody.During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present.Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail.Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already undergone.Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/08/2019 10:31:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 CRA No.5354/196 CRA No.5354/19If the appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay such amount within four weeks from today.10/ Similarly in the matter of Bankat and another Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 17 where the conviction was under Sections 325 and 326 read with section 34 of IPC it has been held that:However, considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, and the further fact that the appellants have already undergone several months' imprisonment, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs.5000/- on each of the accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the appellants concerned shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months.We also refrain from imposing any separate sentence on the other counts of offences.The Court followed the view taken in the case of Ram Pujan and having regard to the fact that the parties had compromised and a period of ten years had elapsed from the date of the incident reduced the sentence of five years R.I. imposed under Sections 307 and 326 IPC to the period of sentence already undergone which was three months and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-.7 CRA No.5354/19There are several other decisions of this Court wherein factor of compromise has been taken into consideration and the sentence has been reduced mostly to the period already undergone and they are Bankat and another vs. State of Maharashtra, Badrilal vs. State of M.P. and Jetha Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan.Following the view taken in the above noted cases we are of the opinion that the complainant and the principal accused having already married it will be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.The conviction of the appellants under Section 313 IPC is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which appears to be about ten months.The fine imposed upon the appellants is also set aside.The appellants are on bail.Their sureties and bail bonds Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/08/2019 10:31:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 CRA No.5354/19 are discharged."8 CRA No.5354/1912/ The present case also stands on the same footing.Undisputedly the matter has already been compromised between the parties who are near relatives and the dispute no longer exists.The appellants had remained in custody for a period of about 1 and half months during trial and they are in custody since the date of judgment of the trial Court and have completed about 4 months in custody.13/ Having regard to the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by them.The appellants be now released from custody forthwith.C.C. as per rules.(Prakash Shrivastava) JudgeDigitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/08/2019 10:31:52 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,913,784 | ( Passed on this 20th day of April, 2016 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed against the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by JMFC, Khategaon, District Dewas in Criminal Case No.492/2012; whereby taking the cognizance against the applicants and Non-applicant No.2 for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and issued summons against them.R.R.Katara, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Satwas (Non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 herein) have seized 118 calves-: 2:- Misc.from possession of Non-applicant No.1 - Goma and his 3 companions in connection with offence under Section 8 of M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam.They and Kamdhenu Gaushala, Satwas have filed the applications for interim custody of the calves.The learned Magistrate rejected the application of Non-applicant No.1; whereas allowed the application filed by Kamdhenu Gaushala.Hence, Non-applicant No.2 - Vice President of Gaushala executed the bond and obtained 118 calves on interim custody.Before the revisional Court, it was reported that out of 118 calves, 18 calves have already been died.Non- applicant No.1 has furnished the Supurdiginama and the surety bond but only 58 calves were handed over to him and it was reported that rest of the calves have already been died.In support false postmortem reports were filed.Thereafter, Non-applicant No.1 has filed a private complaint against the applicants, who are Veterinary Surgeon; Station House Officer and Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Satwas respectively.Learned Magistrate after inquiry has taken the cognizance against the applicants and Non-applicant No.2 for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed this petition. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,915,529 | Deceased Naushad Abdul Rahim and his brother injured Sheikh Irshad Sheikh Rahim were sitting near Walisaheb Darga on 17.6.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. They were not knowing that, after few hours, Naushad Sheikh Abdul Rahim will not be alive.Appellants are residents of village Ner.They were knowing the deceased and the injured.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::2. Sanaullah Khan Ahamad Khan/appellant no.1 first quarrelled with the duo deceased and injured.Other appellants joined him and all assaulted the duo with iron pipes and sticks.At that time, three lady family members Gulnaz Parveen Sheikh Rizwan (PW-1), Malanbi Sheikh Rahim (PW-3) and their relative Zakira were present.They intervened.However, damage has already been done.The duo i.e. deceased Naushad and injured Irshad received head injuries.They were first taken to Ner Police Station.Gulnaz (PW-1) and family members accompanied them.The evidence of panch witness Shaikh Chand Shaikh Rasul (PW-4) is there.There is also rough sketch showing the location of the room attached to Crime Detail form.Police witness Police H.C. Ganesh Hirulkar::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 12 apeal.292.16.jud (PW-11 who carried out panchnama) is also examined.This panch-witness has also assisted in shifting deceased and injured to hospital.His statement was recorded.He arranged for the Ambulance.He denied those facts.But they were proved through I.O. PW-14 P.I. Waghu Khillare.There was unnatural death of Shaikh Naushad Sheikh Abdul Karim.As per oral evidence of PW-1 Gulnaz, he expired during a journey from Ner hospital to Yavatmal hospital.She is also not examined.If evidence of PW-1 Gulnaz is perused, we find inconsistency in between answer during chief-examination and cross-examination (by going towards Dargah and by giving call).During chief-examination, she said by going near Dargah, whereas during cross-examination, she admits by giving call (para 16).We also find inconsistency in between chief-examination and cross-examination of PW-2 Irshad.During chief-examination, he says by going near Dargah and before police, he says by giving call (Exh.134).Whereas PW-3 Malanbi disowned answer giving during chief-examination "by opening the door PW-1 Gulnaz told about the incident".But, during chief-examination, she never said PW-1 told the incident by going near Dargah.So issue is which version is to be believed that is to say by callying the brothers from the house or by going near the Dargah.on road from front side.- Deceased Naushad - He and deceased asked Sanaullah, why Naushad asked him as - Naushad and he went to his house.to why he entered in Irshad asked the house and teased Sanaullah as to why- Sanaullah called Malanbi.Accused No.1 assaulted by stick and accused Nos.2 to 4 assaulted by pipes, whereas evidence of PW-1 is general in nature about assault of Irshad.She made omnibus statement about assault by all appellants.When three ladies went to rescue two male members, accused No.2::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 36 apeal.292.16.jud rushed on them with iron pipe.PW-1 Gulnaz lodged the report at night (Exh.30 & Exh.31).She had not specifically told the timing (para 40).There are no contused wound.Exh.120 - Blood group could not be determined.It is inconclusive.On this background and on the basis of defence objection, we have scrutinized the oral evidence on the point of seizure of blood samples of the injured Irshad, we have got the evidence of panch-witness Sk.Chand PW-4 (panch to various panchnama) and the evidence of a seizure officer PW- 15 PSI Mahure.56 apeal.292.16.jud Chand has supported the prosecution, but apart from PSI Mahure, the Medical Officer who took out that blood sample and gave it to PSI Mahure was not being examined.On the point of seizure of clothes of deceased Naushad and of injured Irshad, We have got the evidence of same panch PW-4 Sk.Chand and a different Officer PSI Khilare.On the point of seizure of blood samples of the appellants, we have got the evidence of three witnesses.One is PW-10 ASI Kar, Seizure Officer, Medical Officer PW-10 Dr. Nandeshwar and same panch-witness PW-4 Sk.So, ASI Kar took all the appellants to Rural Hospital, Ner and Dr. Nandeshwar took out their samples by filling B-Forms.ASI Kar brought them back to Police Station and I.O. Khilare seized them.Because, it goes to the root of the matter.In above two referred judgments, importance of sealing the articles was reiterated.J U D G M E N T : (Per S.M. Modak, J.) In this appeal, apart from regular issues about proof beyond reasonable doubt, we are supposed to::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 ::: 2 apeal.292.16.jud decide the core issues of (1) variances in between oral and medical evidence and (2) non-explanation of injuries to two appellants and its effect.Both were referred to Ner hospital.They were examined and referred to Civil Hospital, Yavatmal.During journey, deceased Naushad Sheikh expired.Injured::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 ::: 3 apeal.292.16.jud Shaikh Irshad was first treated at Civil hospital and then at the Private hospital at Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::There is a background to this incident.Appellant no.1 Sanaullah Khan trespassed in the house of deceased on 17.6.2011 at 6.00 p.m. He outraged modesty of Malanbi (PW-3) and threatened her.Other two ladies Gulnaz (PW-1) and relative Zakira were also present in the house, but in different room.The murderous assault took place when witnesses Gulnaz and Malanbi and Zakira went near the Dargah and told the duo about the incident of trespass when the duo questioned Sanaullah/appellant no.1 about unjustified entry in their house.On being annoyed, appellant no.1 got assembled other appellants and then murderous assault as mentioned above took place.Initially, it was registered under Sections 324, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against these appellants.There is defence argument that the F.I.R. is not filed promptly and real F.I.R. is withheld.After death of Naushad and considering nature of assault on injured Irshad, police::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 ::: 4 apeal.292.16.jud added Sections 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code.All the appellants found involved in the incident and they were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Whereas Sanaullah Khan/appellant no.1 was also tried for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code for the first incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::The trial Court found all the appellants guilty under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to life imprisonment apart from payment of fine.Sanaullah Khan/appellant no.1 was also found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months apart from payment of fine and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year apart from payment of fine respectively.The Appellants feeling aggrieved due to the verdict have appealed before us.We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel Parvez Mirza for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. Barabde for the::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 ::: 5 apeal.292.16.jud respondent/State.Both have relied upon various judgments.We have gone through the various judgments filed by both the sides.The observations in them do guide us to consider the points raised before us.It includes broader issue of appreciation of evidence and its sub- topics like improvements in the evidence and its effect, background of enmity and its effect on reliability.It also includes effect on testimony of witnesses if F.I.R is delayed.It also includes variance in between oral and medical evidence and type of variance having material impact.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::Defence first do this and it is followed by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::6 apeal.292.16.jud We are not going to deal with every judgment except the judgment laying down basic principles.We are constrained to say few words about trial court judgment.The impugned judgment consists of 88 pages.We find prosecution story, reproduction of evidence of witnesses, reproduction of arguments up to 65 pages.In this case, core issues are inter se corroboration amongst three eye witnesses, delay in lodging F.I.R. variance in oral and medical evidence, explanation about injuries on two accused.We are not saying that trial Court ought to have accepted them/rejected them.But, trial Court ought to have given findings on them.This does not prevent us from doing that exercise.When we have undertaken this exercise, we find::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 ::: 7 apeal.292.16.jud that outcome of the case is totally reverse than one arrived at by trial Court.Appellants need to be given benefit of doubt.Now, we will deal with the issues.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::The defence attacked the correctness of the Judgment on the following points :a) Appellant nos. 2 to 4 are not concerned with first incident of trespass.b) inconsistency between oral and medical evidence.f) inconsistency in between evidence of material witnesses.g) non-examination of independent witness, though available.Whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor defended the Judgment for the reason that the::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 ::: 8 apeal.292.16.jud inconsistencies are minor, F.I.R. was filed promptly and there is more credence to the evidence of injured and evidence of independent witness is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:32 :::The murderous assault took place on the background of incident of trespass.There are two witnesses examined on happening of this incident and for that purpose, defence brought on record the location of the rooms in the house and surrounding.No doubt, the second incident has taken place on the background of happening of first incident.In both these incidents, the victim, are from same side.That is to say, PW-1 Gulnaz is the victim of the first incident and PW- 2 Irshad and deceased Naushad (who are brothers-in-law of Gulnaz) are the victims of second incident.We do not know the motive for the first incident.Defence tried to bring on record the relationship between PW-1 Gulnaz and appellant no.1 Sanaullah.But, certainly when the duo questioned, Sanaullah got annoyed and attacked the duo with the assistance of other appellants.This is the motive for second incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::We will scrutinize the evidence on the point of both the incidents separately.On careful consideration, we feel that the first incident has taken place and it is also proved.We are also satisfied about homicidal death of Naushad.But, we feel that there are certain lacunae and shortcomings in the prosecution evidence.We feel that the prosecution could not overcome the requirement of proving involvement of these appellants beyond shadow of doubt.Certain lacunae pertain to the evidence of eye witnesses and some of them pertain to Investigating Agency.With all our efforts, we find it difficult to reconcile these shortcomings and so going by the recognized and established principles of Criminal trial, we have to consider the possibility of giving benefit of doubt to applicants partly or fully.This incident took place inside the house on 17.6.2011 at 6.00 p.m. There were three ladies present in different rooms of the house.PW-1 Gulnaz was watching T.V. in the middle room.Whereas PW-3 Malanbi and Zakira (who is not examined) were cooking in the backside room.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::10 apeal.292.16.jud These names will come repeatedly.Hence, we will explain their relationship by way of chart._______________________________________________________ | | | | Rizwan NAUSHAD IRSHAD MALANBI (son) (DECEASED) (INJURED PW-2) (PW-3) | GULNAZ (PW-1) (WIFE)The trial Court has convicted Sanaullah/appellant no.1 for Criminal trespass (Section 448 of I.P.C.) and outraging modesty (Section 354 of I.P.C.).He was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.We agree with these findings.Gulnaz and Malanbi have said about utterances by Sanaullah as :" do whatever you can do"Certainly, these utterances do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.There has to be threatening to injury to person, property or reputation.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::If one enters into the house, catch hold hand of a lady, pulls her and teases her, he certainly insults the character of a lady.It must give a feeling of shyness to a lady.She will always dislike such acts.These acts must have outraged the modesty of Malanbi (PW-3).Sanaullah/ appellant no.1 does not claim that he did those acts with her consent.Sanaullah has breached the principles of decency.We negative all possible objections taken by Sanaullah in that behalf.The evidence of Malanbi and Gulnaz (PW-1) inspire confidence.We will look into the evidence on the point of spot of incident in order to deal with defence objection about improbability of Sanaullah entering the house and leaving it.SPOT OF FIRST INCIDENTThere is sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring on record the situation about place of first incident.It means he was acquainted with the family of deceased.This panch has also played part in Memorandum Panchanama.His evidence has to be scrutinized minutely.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::The rough sketch attached to Crime form shows location of three rooms.There is an issue raised from where Sanaullah entered and from where he left from the house.PW-1 and PW-3 says from backside.There is no door on backside of the house as shown in the rough sketch.There can be slip of tongue for witnesses while answering the question.But it is not sufficient to doubt the entry of Sanaullah in the house.The improvements in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are not material.We discard them.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::There are questions put to witnesses about relationship between Sanaullah and PW-3 Malanbi.Following are the relevant portions :(Evidence of PW-2 Sk.Irshad Sk.Rahim) "I do not know that Malanbi and Sanaullah were on talking terms and for that reason we had scolded Malanbi.Again says that my Bhabhi had scolded Malanbi about it.I do not know that my Bhabhi was feeling bad about the talking terms of Malanbi and Sanaullah.It is not true that on the day of incident I had given two- three slaps to Malanbi and there was rumors about it in mohalla".(Evidence of PW-3 Malanbi Sk.Rahim) "I was knowing the accused Sanaullakhan since 2 to 3 months prior to incident.I was not in talking terms with Sanaullakhan"These only suggest that there was previous interaction between them.But they are not sufficient to indicate that the first incident took place by consent.22] It is the fault of police not to apply Section 448, 354 of I.P.C. when PW-1 Gulnaz lodged complaint.It is not::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 14 apeal.292.16.jud the job of PW-1 to verify whether proper Sections of Indian Penal Code were applied.We affirm the conviction of appellant no.1 under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::There are two issues involved.There was an argument about inconsistency in between oral and medical evidence.We will deal with them later on.So he was taken to Yavatmal hospital in dead::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 15 apeal.292.16.jud condition.We have got testimony of two Medical Officers.One is Dr. Manish Bhimrao Nandeshwar (PW-12) attached to Ner hospital and second is Dr. Sachin Gyanbaji Gadge (PW-8) attached to Yavatmal hospital.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::EVIDENCE OF DR.From the spot deceased Naushad and injured Irshad were taken to Ner Police Station.P.S.O. present there has referred both of them to Ner hospital.The requisitions at Exh. Nos. 87 and 88 are duly proved through Police Head Constable Ashok Deshmukh (PW-9).He noticed three injuries on the person of Irshad.They are as follows :a) Laceration of temporal bone over head.b) Abrasion below lower lip.c) Abrasion on both knee joints.All were caused due to hard and blunt object.Whereas he noticed swelling on temporal bone of head of deceased Naushad.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::He has not noticed any injury other than mentioned above on the body of both persons.The above injuries are sufficiently proved through him.EVIDENCE OF DR.SACHIN GADGEEarlier to that, Inquest Panchanama was performed in Yavatmal hospital.PW-5 Ayubkhan Pathan is the panch witness.His evidence is reliable.Prima facie, opinion was 'due to injury to head'.After post mortem, Dr.Gadge has noticed the following internal injuries :a) under scalp contusion over left temporal and high-parietal region.b) undisplaced linear fracture from left temporal bone to anterior cranial fossa.c) extra-dural hemorrhage over left temporal region.d) sub-arachnoid hemorrhage over left parieto temporal and right parietal region.He has opined head injury as to cause of death.In ordinary course of nature, it is sufficient to cause death.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::17 apeal.292.16.jud He has not noticed any other external injury.He has not noticed any swelling on the head of deceased.All the three eye witnesses have deposed about assault on deceased by the appellants with the help of sticks and iron pipes.About inconsistency between oral and medical evidence, we will deal later on.But what we feel is that there was hemorrhage in the parietal and temporal region of the brain.This increases the pressure on the brain and that is how death took place.Nature of injuries will depend upon type of weapon used, the manner of assault, the impact of blow and several other factors.In certain cases, there may be external bleeding injuries to the head and may or may not be corresponding internal injuries, still the patient survives.At the same time, there may be external injuries not involving bleeding injuries and still disruption in the organism of the body resulting into death.The present case falls under second category.There is every reason to believe that Skeikh Naushad died of homicidal death.Dr. Gadge has not mentioned "injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature caused death" in::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 18 apeal.292.16.jud the Post Mortem report.These wordings find place in clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code when there is intention to cause bodily injury (not accompanied by knowledge to assailant as is likely to cause death) and such bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Clause Thirdly requires following ingredients -a] there is intention to cause bodily injury to any person, and b] such injury in ordinary course is sufficient to cause death.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::When deceased Naushad was assaulted with stick & pipes, there is certain intention to cause bodily injury.As already said, blow must not have been with great force.The assailants might not have predicted the internal injuries may cause death.It is the expert only who can tell about the -a] internal injuries, b] its connection with weapon used & c] likelihood of death due to these injuries.Medical Officer Dr. Gadge had seen the injuries and also opined about cause of death as head injury.Not mentioning in the Post Mortem report as mentioned above does not weaken the prosecution case.We conclude that clause Thirdly is satisfied and offence under Section 300 is proved.MURDEROUS ASSAULT ON INJURED IRSHAD SHAIKH RAHIMHe was being treated at three hospitals,1) Ner hospital,2) Yavatmal Civil hospital and3) Private hospital at Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::20 apeal.292.16.jud There are Certificates available about second and third hospital.But, prosecution could not prove them by examining the concerned witnesses.So we have got only certificate of Ner hospital and the oral evidence.So also we have got opinion of same Medical Officer about examination of seized weapon and possibility of injuries by use of those weapons.Every hurt is not required before an act will fall within the purview of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.It can be inferred from the circumstances including part of the body, nature of injuries, nature of weapon etc.We have already reproduced the injuries on the person of Irshad noticed by Dr. Nandeshwar.He has examined one Lathi and three iron rods.Injuries noticed by him were possible due to these weapons.Injuries to Irshad were simple in nature.He has not noticed any injury on his back.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Injury No.1 laceration is on vital part of the body that is on brain.So intention to commit murder can not be inferred.But we can certainly infer knowledge on the part of assailant about possible death of injured.So, the circumstances justify us to draw an inference that there was an attempt to commit murder of the injured Irshad.INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSEDNow, we will deal with the involvement of these appellants.It can be decided on the background of objections raised by the defence.It can be classified as follows :a] Evidence of three eye-witnesses and inconsistency, if any.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::One is inter se corroboration amongst witnesses and second is improvements in the evidence of witness.Both the sides also relied upon various judgments on this aspect.One is examining only family members and secondly not examining independent witness though available.Whereas prosecution contend that in fact evidence of injured inspires confidence and it is not a cardinal rule that independent witness need to be examined.Prosecution relied upon certain judgments.JUDGMENTS ON INTERESTED WITNESSESHon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of reliability of testimony of interested/partisan/woman witnesses.It is true that there may be a tendency for interested witness to drag a innocent person against whom::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 23 apeal.292.16.jud he has a grudge.The bondage of relationship may in some cases have the effect of losing impartiality of the witness.There are certain factors to be considered while appreciating such evidence.It includes -::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::"[a] Whether or not, there are discrepancies in the evidence.(a) telling the first incident by PW-1 and (by other two ladies to PW-2 and deceased);::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::(b) giving a call by A-1 to other appellants;(c) appellants assaulting the injured and deceased Apart from this, there are secondary events of intervention of Sk Gulab, shifting the duo to police station and so on.We will consider the eye-witness's account on main incident.For better understanding, we have reproduced them in a tabular format.TELLING THE INCIDENT TO INJURED AND DECEASED PW-1 Gulnaz / PW-2 Sk.Irshad / PW-3 Malanbi First Informant Injured 1 1 11 1 1- This witness, Zakira- On the day of - After the first and Malanbi [PW-3] incident i.e. on 17th incident, PW-1 Gulnaz went near Walisaheb June, 2011, at 6:00 opened the first door Dargah.p.m., he and his and went out and told younger brother Irshad [PW-2} and- Irshad and Naushad were near Naushad (deceased) Naushad were sitting Walisaheb Dargah.that Sanaullah near the Dargah.entered their room.- She narrated the - Gulnaz [PW-1], - Witness and Zakira incident to them.Zakira and Malanbi accompanied her.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Answers Given During Cross-Examination PW-1 Gulnaz / PW-2 Sk.Irshad / PW-3 Malanbi First Informant Injured- About narrating the said by going near not proved through incident, there is no Dargah.Whereas, I.O.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Anyhow we have not to believe presence of Zakira.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::28 apeal.292.16.jud Giving a call by Accused No.1 to other appellants PW-1 Gulnaz / PW-2 Sk.Irshad / PW-3 Malanbi First Informant Injured- Sanaullah, appellant - Witness saw - Sanaullah came No.1 came there.Sanaullah on the road.he entered their other three house in the appellants.- Sanaullah went near presence of a girl the house of his alone.brother and gave call.- Sanaullah gave a call to his paternal brother i.e. other three appellants.There is inconsistency in between answers given by PW-1 during chief-examination and cross- examination.During chief-examination she says Sanaullah called other accused, whereas during cross-examination she says "by going to house, he called other three accused persons (para 17).Further she denies, Sanaullah never called other accused by giving a call.In the evidence of PW-2 Irshad, inconsistency is pointed out.During chief-examination, he said Sanaullah went near the house of his brother and gave a call.Whereas during cross, he was asked whether Sanaullah gave a call by::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 29 apeal.292.16.jud going near the house.But this was not proved through PW-15 PSI Mahure.But this is minor inconsistency.During chief-examination PW-3, Malanbi said appellant No.1 gave a call to other appellants.No inconsistency in her evidence is pointed out.So issue is which version is to be believed that is to say A-1 called his brothers or going near the house and then calling.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Whether it is possible to call his brothers by standing on a road in front of Dargah and whether it is possible to call the two brothers sitting near Dargah from the house of first informant are the questions.Other circumstances about spot.There is a wall of 5 feet behind the house and it has collapsed.From Dargah, one can see who is going behind his house (para 15 PW-2).If one looks from door of my house, his voice can reach up to Dargah.If one looks from door of my house, he can see persons near Dargah (para 15 PW-12).There is chapari of 3 rooms to the house and there is a tin shed.There is a compound wall of six feet height and from Chapari one cannot see::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 30 apeal.292.16.jud beyond road (PW-2 Para 6).There is cement bench outside Dargah (para 9 PW-2).PW-1 Gulnaz cannot tell the distance between Dargah and her house.There is open space of 10-15 feet from the compound of Dargah to road.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::And house of Sanaullah/appellant No.1 is after the house 2/3 houses behind those houses.In addition to that we have got two rough sketches about the spot of incident.They are at Exh.50 (attached to crime detail form) and another at Exh.108 (proved through circle officer PW-13 Satyan Bhoyar).Admittedly Dargah is not shown in both of them.What is shown is road going towards Dargah.Furthermore, houses of appellants were not shown in them.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::considered, on one hand and answers given by these three witnesses (about the incident) on the other hand are considered, it is difficult to believe that PW-2 Irshad and deceased Naushad are in a position to hear call from house.From this perspective, when we have scrutinized the inconsistencies, we realized the reason.Inconsistencies occur in between whatever stated before police and whatever deposed in evidence.Particularly, PW-1 and PW-2 have realized (during the time gap of police statement and giving evidence) that PW-2 cannot hear (by sitting near Dargah) what PW-1 has said from the house so that is why PW-1 and PW-2 have improved their version by saying coming near Dargah (while giving evidence).So, this inconsistency is not minor.Trial Court was wrong in disregarding it.It throws doubt on veracity of witness PW-1 & PW-2 about manner of happening of incident.So also, it is difficult to believe that appellant Nos.2 to 4 can hear the call from co-accused appellant No.1 Sanaullah by standing in front of Dargah.As such, we do not find material inconsistencies in between the::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 32 apeal.292.16.jud evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on this issue.Still we find this theory improbable.We say because of the factors distance in between Dargah and house of appellant Nos.2 to 4, appellant Nos.2 to 4 immediately reached the spot and that too with weapons.So there is every reason to doubt this part of the incident.Trial Court appreciated the evidence with some presumption and overlooked these factors.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Assault by Appellants PW-1 Gulnaz PW-2 Irshad PW-3 Malanbi Chief Examination PW-2 Irshad PW-3 Malanbi- Accused No.1 was Chief-Examination - Chief-Examination :- Accused No.2 asked - it was not put to-Nothing deceased why he I.O. PW-14 Khilare.inconsistency was scolded his brother.- He went to rescue on his head with pipe.Irshad and Naushad::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 33 apeal.292.16.jud and he was beaten by - Other three by assaulting them four appellants.appellants assaulted with pipes and him by sticks and sticks.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::proved through I.O. accused Nos.3 & 4pointed out but not - These improvements proved through I.O. were put to witness, but all were not::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 34 apeal.292.16.jud proved through I.O.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::PW-15 PSI Mahure.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::In above scrutiny, we can find three major incidents.Chronologically they are as follows :a] assault on Naushad b] assault on Irshad c] threatening three ladies, when they intervene.PW-3 Malanbi has not given minutes details of these three incidents what she plainly stated all appellants fell on Naushad and Irshad and beaten them.She admits she cannot tell which appellant beat Naushad and number of injuries on body of Naushad.Whereas, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 about assault of Naushad is consistent.There is consistency in the evidence of three witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Intervention of Sk.PW-1 Gulnaz PW-2 Irshad PW-3 Malanbi Chief : - Sk.Gulab Chief - Panthela Chief - Sk.Gulab came there and tried owner Sk.Gulab obstructed the to convince the pacified them and accused and then appellants.hence appellants they went away.went away.cross-examination.The trial Court has not felt his evidence necessary.There is a consistency in above evidence about intervention by Sk.Gulab in the incident and all appellants leaving the spot.Admittedly, he is not examined.Even this Sk.Gulab visited the house of PW-1 on the night of incident.He was there for half an hour.(portion above para 21 of PW-1).PW-1 and PW- 3 wants to suggest that Sk.Gulab came to the spot after the incident was over (above para 21 PW-1 and Para 14 PW-13).::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::37 apeal.292.16.jud Fact remains, Sk.Gulab had come to the spot either during happening of incident or after incident was over.In these judgments, issues were raised about non-examination of other available witnesses.Those objections were turned down.There was an emphasis on reliability of an injured witness, as there is a implicit guarantee in his evidence.There is unlikely hood of false implication.There is also a rider to these observations.If there are major contradictions and discrepancies, when evidence of injured witness cannot be relied upon.So, in a given case, examination of an independent witness will be very much essential.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::On going through the entire evidence, we feel that prosecution ought to have examined Sk.Chand or any other person who has witnessed the assault.DELAYED F.I.R. AND WITHHOLDING REAL F.I.R.Prompt lodging of F.I.R. has got importance from different perspective.From witness point of view, if F.I.R. is lodged at an earliest opportunity, if gives weightage to the veracity of the incident.Even though two injured and first informant visited Ner Police Station after the incident (must be earlier to 07:00 p.m.).F.I.R. was not registered at that time.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Both the sides relied upon judgments on the point of delay in sending copy of F.I.R. to the Court of J.M.F.C. and its effect.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::There is no grievance that copy of F.I.R. was sent late to jurisdictional Magistrate.Not recording F.I.R.Defence relied upon three judgments on the point of not recording the first information received as F.I.R. They are -::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::3. Balu @ Bala Subramaniam & anr.vs. State (U.T. of Pondicherry), reported in IV (2015) CCR 181 (SC).We have gone through facts of these judgments minutely.Though information was given to police station, police either not taken F.I.R. or only taken an entry in station diary and preferred to visit the spot.F.I.R. came to be recorded after returning to the police station.On these facts, the in action of police was deprecated and F.I.R. was held inadmissible.In case before us, it is admitted fact that when deceased Naushad and injured Irshad went to Ner Police Station, initially police neither recorded their statements nor of accompanying person including PW-1 Gulnaz.Both the injured were referred to Ner Hospital.The forwarding letters (Exh.87 & 88) are proved through PW-9 PHC Ashok Deshmukh (who took them to hospital).Defence heavily relied on contents of these letters.These letters were given by Station House Officer.He is not being examined.We do not know the reason for that.The police present there must have been told something about the incident.Then, why::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 42 apeal.292.16.jud F.I.R. was not registered.The witnesses cannot be blamed for that.It may be due to approach of concerned Station House Officer to wail till receipt of medico legal certificate or it may be due to urgent necessity of sending injured to hospital or due to error of judgment also.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::No doubt F.I.R. could have been registered of PW-1 Gulnaz though not of two injured persons.Due to inaction of police, whether their action can be criticized.During cross- examination of the material witnesses, it was not pointed out that deliberately, at that time F.I.R. was not taken.It was not pointed out that PW-1 Gulnaz lodged F.I.R. subsequently with deliberations.So, we are not inclined to give benefit of those observations to the appellants.Withholding of F.I.R.If there are different versions about lodging of F.I.R., it has got damaging effect on prosecution case.In that case, there were different versions as to whether F.I.R. was lodged first in the police station or after::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 43 apeal.292.16.jud returning from hospital, actually who lodged F.I.R. and at which place F.I.R. was lodged.Accordingly, F.I.R. produced at the trial was not considered as F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::During cross-examination, at two places, she had given the timing.She went to police station at 12:00 in midnight (that is on second occasion on the date of incident).She was there for one hour.Her two signatures were obtained (paras 9 &10).Police obtained those signatures on the next day at about 07:30 to 08:00 a.m. (above para 21).PW-7 H.C. Eawanate recorded the complaint of PW-1 and registered it as an offence (Exh.30, 31).We do not think that there is any inconsistency in between the evidence of PW-1 Gulnaz on one hand and the written F.I.R. at Exh.30 & 31 on the other hand.Though PW-1::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 44 apeal.292.16.jud gave a different timing of F.I.R. that is to say at 12:00 midnight and 07:30 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. (During cross- examination), there is every possibility that she gave the timing of 07:30 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. as that of spot- panchnama.So, we do not find that there is withholding of F.I.R. or F.I.R. is anti-dated.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Lodging of Complaint with S.P. & Delay in F.I.R.This was brought during cross-examination of PW- 1 by defence.She was cross- examined by confronting to her the contents of that letter.She admits her signature.She gave instructions and father- in-law got it written.Exh.32 contains name of assailants in addition to four appellants.The new assailants named in Exh.32 did not instigate four appellants.It was filed for opposing bail to four appellants.The approach of PW-1 Gulnaz is of double standard.For opposing bail, she tried to involve more persons.Whereas, when it comes at the stage of giving of evidence, she had chosen to resile from the contents.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::PW-1 Gulnaz only made attempt to serious the issue by filing complaint to S.P. implicating new accused persons.Delay in Recording Statement of PW-2There is a defence objection that statement of injured Sk.Irshad was recorded belatedly after the incident.It depends upon the facts and circumstances.Statement of Sk.Irshad was recorded on 27 th June, 2011 in Gautam Hospital.It means 10 days after the incident.As said earlier, except the Medical Certificate of Ner Hospital, Certificates of other two hospitals were not proved by the prosecution.Hospitalization could have been a good ground for not recording the statement earlier.This could not have been enough.There ought to have been more material::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 46 apeal.292.16.jud to show that apart from hospitalization, the injured was not in a position to give statement.Either, the necessary material has not been collected and the collected material is not proved through evidence.So, there is a reason to believe that his statement is recorded belatedly.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::VARIANCE IN ORAL & MEDICAL EVIDENCEDefence relied upon in as much as seven authorities.There was oral version about firing by bullet.But, Medical evidence completely rules out firearm injury (para 27).Hence, the conviction was set aside.with weapon.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Contingency 2 & 3 is regulated by various factors like manner of assault, position of victim, resistance etc. There is a rule to give predominance to oral evidence because evidence of doctor is opinionative.Every such variance does not weaken the prosecution case.Those are two injured.One is PW-2 Irshad and second is deceased Naushad.Both were examined initially at Ner hospital.Irshad was taken from Ner hospital to Yavatmal Hospital and from there to private hospital at Nagpur.The injury certificates of later two hospitals were not proved.Dr Nandeshwar PW-12 examined Irshad.He noticed following injuries :-Swelling on temporal bone 3 x 3 cm.By hard and blunt object.Nature of injury was simple.Except this there was no injury, so let us see the oral evidence.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::appellant No.2 assaulted him on his head by pipe and other three appellants assaulted him by sticks and pipes on both the legs, back, waist whereas four appellants beat him by sticks and pipes.There was a swelling on temporal bone.Admittedly swelling is not on injury.There was not a bleeding injury.No marks of weapon on his body.Number of assailants is four and pipes and stick are the weapon used, can there only be swelling.Still there are no corresponding injuries.ASSAULT ON NAUSHADAs per PW-12 Nandeshwar there are three injuries :-::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::These are the external injuries.There are no bleeding injuries.Initially PW-8 Dr. Godge noticed contusion, fracture, hemorrhage to temporal and parital bone.Head injury is the cause of death.So internal injuries are serious than the external injuries.Because they were caused to vital part of the body.Hemorrhage stops the functioning of the brain and unless treated urgently, patient is likely to die.Naushad died while on his journey from Ner Hospital to Yavatmal Hospital.There are two aspects.But externally only we find laceration on temporal bone.This injury is opined as simple by Dr. Nandeshwar.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Summary of oral evidence of these witnesses is appellant 1 beat him by stick and other appellant by sticks and pipes.It is also strange when there is multiple assault by multiple weapons, how there can be a laceration only on external side.The trial Court observed "though PW-1 to PW-3 stated that deceased Naushad was beaten on his leg and PW- 8 and PW-12 Medical officers stated that they did not find injury on any part of the body except head, but it does not mean that deceased Naushad not beaten on his leg.There is every reason to conclude that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have exaggerated about the type of assault, weapons used and number of appellants involved.No serious injuries were noticed externally to PW-2 Irshad and deceased Naushad.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::51 apeal.292.16.jud INJURIES TO ACUSED NO.1 SANAULLAH & ACCUSED NO.3 MOHD.Law on this point is settled.Prosecution case do not suffer just because they fail to explain each and every injury caused to accused persons.It depends upon type of injury, time of injury, place of causing of injury.There is sufficient evidence brought on record by defence which suggest injury caused to appellant No.1 Sanaullah and appellant No.3 M. Hasin.(Cross-Examination Of PW-9 H.C. Deshmukh)PW-1 Gulnaz saw A-1 Sannaullah at Ner Hospital when they reached there (Para 5).PW-2 Irshad has expressed ignorance about injuries to A-1 Sannaullah.He had not seen him in the police station and in the hospital (para 10).Any explanation during statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not brought to our notice.Trial Court refused to consider the circumstance of non-explanation of injuries to them by the prosecution.Trial Court gave two reasons - (1) none of the accused have lodged any case and (2) there is neither counter version nor::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 52 apeal.292.16.jud plea of defence.Trial Court overlooked the basic principles of criminal trial.We can only infer about injuries to two appellants.We can also draw an inference that the injury caused during the same incident.We can draw no inference about nature of injuries, who caused it and weapon used.Now whether they were caused while assaulting the duo, while defending them or whether the duo in turn assaulted two appellants in right of private defence.It is difficult to get an answer.We got an answer whom we verified after corroborative material of report of C.A.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::It is in the form of discovery of places of concealment of weapons by appellant :-(a) Seizure of three iron pipes through A-2 Wasim.(b) Seizure of bamboo through A-1 Sannaullah.Apart from this certain articles from the spot, clothes of the duo and of A-1 to A-4 and blood samples of the duo and the appellants were also seized.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::53 apeal.292.16.jud JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY BOTH SIDESDue to lapse of time the blood group could not be classified successfully.There is a emphasis on sealing of the articles at the spot itself because in it's absence, it is going to affect its probative value.Before going into the oral evidence, the corroborative evidence is discussed.PW-6 constable Pund took 17 samples to chemical analyzer.The necessary documents are proved.The forwarding letter is given by PW-::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::The reports of chemical analyzer are as follows :ARTICLES SEIZED FROM THE SPOT (EXH.115)(i) Coal tar mixed with concrete - mixed with blood.(ii) Coal tar mixed with concrete - no blood.CLOTHES OF APPELLANTS (EXH.115) (I) Jean pant and shirt of A-2 - Blood Group on Jean pant is 'A' group.(ii) Full Pant and shirt of A-3 Haseen - There was human blood on full pant.(iii) Full pant and shirt of A-4 - No blood on full pant and human blood on shirt.(iv) Full pant and T-shirt of A-1 Human blood of 'A' group.CLOTHES OF DECEASED AND INJURED (EXH.115)(i) Shirt of deceased - Human blood.(ii) Full pant, T-Shirt and Sando Banian of injured- Human blood 'A' group.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::This blood sample was collected by PSI Mahure from Darda Hospital, Nagpur and seized in the Police Station by drawing the panchnama.No doubt panch Sk.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::On the point of seizure of articles from the spot, we have got the evidence of panch-witness Sk.Chand and Investigating Officer PW-11 Hirulkar.Coal tar mixed with concrete was seized from spot in front of a Dargah.Human blood was found in it.Question arises, to whom this blood::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 57 apeal.292.16.jud belongs.There are two views for that.The first possibility will not be there.The reason is, none of the two Doctors have stated about any bleeding injury to deceased and injured Irshad.But, we cannot come to a concrete conclusion that this blood belongs to these two injured appellants.Their blood group was of 'B'.This circumstance also fortifies the grievance that there is injury to these three appellants and during the incident only.Furthermore, prosecution agency during trial has overlooked this anomaly and this circumstance certainly goes against them.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::On the point of seizure of clothes of all the appellants, we have got the evidence of PSI Khilare and the same panch Sk.It happened on 18 th June, 2011 from 20:25 hours up to 20:55 hours.The defence challenged these seizures mainly on two grounds.First, sealing of those clothes is not mentioned in those seizure memos and second the Investigating Officer sought for police custody remand on 18th June, 2011 itself on the ground of seizing the clothes of the appellants.The Investigating Officer admits about non- mentioning the fact of sealing in seizure memos (para 13).::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::We have perused it.One of the grounds was to seize the clothes of the accused.Actual sealing is required as well as its documentation.For these reasons, the evidence of seizure of clothes from the appellants goes away.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::On the point of seizure of the weapon at the instance of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2, we have got the evidence of panchwitness Sk.Chand and PSI Khilare.Appellant No.1 Sanaullah produced one stick from his house on 22nd June, 2011 whereas appellant No.2 Wasim produced three iron pipes from his house.The testimony of Sk.Chand is challenged on the ground of close intimacy with the deceased and his overall involvement in the incident apart from a panch-witness.There is a sufficient evidence on record to suggest that this Sk.Chand is related to the deceased and apart from being a panch, he has participated in post incident events.He admits that police recorded his statement.Though, he has disowned some of the portions from his statements, they were duly proved through Investigating Officer PSI Khilare.It shows his relationship with the deceased, helping the deceased and injured in a shifting them to Yavatmal Hospital by arranging an Ambulance of one Jagdish Telange.It deals with attending the funeral of deceased Naushad.There is nothing wrong in helping your relative or your neighbour or your villagers.But, when all these facts comes on the background of such a witness deposing as a::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 60 apeal.292.16.jud panch, Court has to appreciate such evidence with care and caution.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Trial Court has considered these facts as immaterial.Though it may be true from the point of view of the incident, but from the point of view of trustworthiness of witness, they are important.It is surprising why the police called him to act as a panch to as much as 9 panchnamas.Some of them may be considered as a formal, but at least two of them are material.These two panchnamas pertains to seizure of weapon from two appellants.When we have perused his evidence, we find that he had given all the details of all the panchnamas.Sometimes giving minute details also suggests tutoring.He had attended the Court while giving evidence along with the complainant party.So, even though we have not found out material shortcomings in his evidence, we are treating his evidence with great suspicion.We do not find any difficulty to believe the evidence on the point of seizure of clothes of injured and the seizure of blood samples of four appellants.Blood group of::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 61 apeal.292.16.jud appellant Nos.1 and 3 was of B group, whereas Blood Group found on clothes of injured was of A group.However, for above discussions, we are not inclined to believe the evidence on the point of seizure of clothes of appellants.So we are discarding this evidence.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Applicability of Section 34 of I.P.C.Admittedly, appellant Nos.2 to 4 were not party to the first incident of entering the house.It is only appellant No.1 who entered the house.The trial Court convicted all the appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Defence has got a serious objection to this and they relied upon the judgments in the following cases :2. Balu @ Bala Subramaniam & Anr.vs. State (U.T. of Pondicherry), reported in IV (2015) CCR 181 (SC).::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::Babu Ram and Anr.Dinesh s/o Ganesh Deshpande & Ors.As said above, we are not discussing the ratios laid down in all the judgments.The principles which emerges on their reading are - there is a per-arrange plan, overt act committed either by all or some of them, it can be deduced from the circumstances, common intention can be developed at the spot also.If these principles are considered and applied to the evidence before us, we can find that admittedly there is no evidence adduced to show that earlier to the incident, all appellants have planned to assault the duo.Considering the time spent in between a call by appellant No.1 and arrival of appellant Nos.2 to 4 at the spot, it is surprising as to how other three appellants were ready with weapons.There is no evidence which suggests that there was an interaction in between::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 63 apeal.292.16.jud appellant No.1 on one hand and appellant Nos.2 to 4 on the other hand.There is no evidence to show that they have formed a common intention at the spot itself.So, the evidence is short to show that all the appellants shared a common intention to assault the deceased and the injured.The learned trial Court has invoked the provisions of Section 34 wrongly.In nutshell, if offence is proved, each of the appellants will be guilty of individual act and not for vicarious liability.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::For the above discussions, though the prosecution has proved the homicidal death and a culpable homicide amounting to murder of Naushad and a life attempt on injured Irshad, the prosecution is unable to prove guilt of these appellants beyond reasonable doubt.We are giving benefit to the appellants for the reason that PW-1 to PW-3 have attempted to exaggerate the incident.Even PW-1 went to the extent of adding the names of assailants when she filed a complaint to::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: 64 apeal.292.16.jud the Superintendent of Police after the incident.However, when question of explaining the injuries to appellant No.1 and appellant No.3, these witnesses have remained silent.We are inclined to give benefit also for the reason of certain defects in the investigation.The Investigating Agency have not tried to collect the materials showing how there were injuries to these two appellants.Further more, we find that there was a lapse on the part of prosecuting agency to examine the independent witness during the trial though available.The trial Court has overlooked these facts and convicted all the appellants.We are only confirming the conviction of appellant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of I.P.C. The conviction for all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. needs to be set aside.So we are allowing the appeal partly and proceed to pass the following order :::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::ORDER I. The appeal is partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::65 apeal.292.16.jud II.The conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is set aside.They are acquitted for those offences.Fine amount paid, if any, imposed for those offences, be returned to them.They may be set at liberty from jail, if not required in any other case.V. The conviction of appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 354 & 448 of I.P.C. is maintained.(S.M. MODAK, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) [hedau/jaiswal/sandesh/yadav]::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2019 05:21:33 ::: | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,273,358 | It is alleged that the minor prosecutrix who was living in Narangibai Mandir, Madhoganj, was taken for a ride by the applicant.On 24.2.2015 at about 5 PM near Dhanmill Ground in the bushes, the applicant outraged her modesty and tried to remove her clothes.On her shout, Akhilesh Gurjar and Rajeev Jha came to the scene.The applicant left the prosecutrix and fled away from the spot.On behalf of the applicant, this fresh application has been filed as the statement of the prosecutrix has been 2 M.Cr.On perusal of the record it is found that the prosecutrix is a student in a school for mentally retarded persons.The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in the statement before the Trial Court has stated that the accused tried to undress her and also committed oral sex with her.The argument that the minor prosecutrix was tutored by 3 M.Cr.C.No.9449/2015 her parents can not be accepted at this stage.The eye witnesses Akhilesh and Rajeev in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have also alleged that the accused was trying to undress the girl near the bushes.The evidence of the prosecution cannot be evaluated at this stage.3 M.Cr. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,227,745 | The other accused No.2 Anil @ Piraji Sukhdeo Pawar was acquitted by the trial Court.In brief, the case of prosecution is as under :-On 13.8.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., daughter of P.W.1 Eknath (hereinafter referred as victim) was passing on bicycle from near Gat No.415 at Dorhale, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, belonging to one Nanasaheb Dange (P.W.3), and accused No.1 Anil Jagannath Pawar (hereinafter ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 3 referred to as accused) dragged the victim girl, aged about 13 years, inside the field.She was taken inside portion of standing sugarcane crop and she was raped and murdered.After committing the offence, the accused escaped from the spot.The complainant Eknath, when he was proceeding towards his field, met with son on the way, who informed that victim had not come to the field.ig Eknath searched for his daughter and noticed her bicycle lying near the field of P.W.3 Nanasaheb.Footprints from the spot were going from field of Nanasaheb where bicycle was lying near portion of pomegranate into the field portion where sugarcane crop was standing.They followed and the complainant and the other villagers found dead body of the victim in naked condition in the crop.The clothes of the victim were lying nearby.She had injuries on various parts of her body including vagina.The complainant Eknath, father of the victim, could not see her naked and put the clothes on her body.The spot was field near village Dorhale, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar.The police was informed on phone about finding the dead body and P.I. Dattatraya Pawar (P.W.14) reached the spot where he recorded the F.I.R.(Exh.56), which was given by P.W.1 Eknath.The offence was ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 4 registered.The inquest panchanama was carried out on the spot and the body was sent for post mortem.The police carried out spot panchanama.A dog from dog squad was called, who led the police towards north from the spot.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::However, the dog did not lead to the accused who was absconding.The evidence of the complainant P.W.1 Eknath Dange and P.W.3 Nanasaheb Dange is material.P.W.1 Eknath on that day had gone in the early morning to village Dorhale with his uncle to buy bullocks and returned home at about 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. He enquired from ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 9 his parents about his children.It appears, he had two daughters, one was Bhagirath and the other, the victim.He also has a son Sagar.The evidence shows that, after coming back from Dorhale, P.W.1 enquired about his children and he was told that they had gone to the field.He had his lunch and started going towards his field.On the way, his son Sagar met him and informed that the victim had not come to the field and they had waited for her.P.W.1 Eknath deposed that he then started searching for his daughter.In the course of the search, he noticed the bicycle of the victim lying at the corner of the field of P.W.3 Nanasaheb.The evidence of P.W.3 Nanasaheb shows that, he had gone to his field Gat No.415 at Dorhale in the morning at about 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. to water the pomegranate trees by drip irrigation.The electric supply stopped at about 9.30 a.m. He started going back at about 9.45 a.m. He proceeded from his common brotherhood private road.He noticed one unknown person with yellow colour shirt and Khaki trouser who was on motorcycle.The person was of semi-dark ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 10 complexion of the age group 40 - 45 years.According to P.W.3 Nanasaheb, he returned to village, had Darshana of God and reached home at 12.00 - 12.45 when he got message from some boys that bicycle of daughter of Eknath was in his pomegranate field.It appears from the evidence of above witnesses as well as P.W.5 Sitaram Hengde, in whose presence spot panchanama (Exh. 32) was recorded, that the field of Nanasaheb had on the eastern side an orchard of pomegranate trees and there was sugarcane crop on the western side.It appears from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that the persons gathered at the field noticed foot prints of the victim as the field was wet.Foot prints led these persons to the portion of field where sugarcane crop was standing and the body of victim was discovered.P.W.1 has deposed that he saw the victim was lying between the crop of sugarcane.The victim had injury near her right eye and there was bleeding from her private part.There was no cloth on her person.She was already dead.The complainant Eknath ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 11 concluded from the situation on the spot that the victim had been raped and had been killed.Her clothes were lying nearby.He stated that he then put on clothes on the body of his daughter.The clothes had blood stains.The evidence shows that a phone call was made to the police at Shirdi Police Station, which is about 6 to 7 Kms.from Dorhale and the police arrived almost immediately.The police recorded the report of P.W.1 Eknath and F.I.R. Exh.56 was registered on 13.8.2011 at 2.30 p.m.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::The police carried out panchanama.The evidence of P.W.3 shows that he had left his field at about 9.45 a.m. and by about 12.15 Hrs.The prosecution has brought on record evidence of P.W.13 Minanath Hingal (Panch) and P.W.14 P.I. Dattatraya Pawar, which shows that on 22.8.2011 the police laid a trap and arrested the accused at Shirdi Railway Station.The evidence of these witnesses shows that the police had information that the accused would come there and they went and waited for him till the accused came and then seeing the police the accused started running.The police ran after him.The accused fell on the railway track and suffered serious injuries to his knee and other body parts.The accused resisted but was caught and police prepared panchanama Exh.54 on 22.8.2011 at about 4.00 - 4.45 p.m. DISCOVERYAccording to the investigating officer, P.W.14 Dattatraya Pawar and evidence of P.W.6 Panch Vishwanath, the accused was in police custody and agreed to give discovery of the knife and motorcycle used and also to show the spot.The prosecution has relied on the above evidence to show that knife which was used in the incident was discovered at the instance of the accused.He had hidden the same at the place of his father-in-law.The motorcycle had Gujarat passing number.The Criminal Appeal has been filed by Anil Jagannath Pawar against death sentence awarded to him.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::On 14.8.2011, P.W.3 Nanasaheb, in his statement, referred to the presence of dark complexion person seen by him near the field when he was going home on 13.8.2011 before the incident took place, who was on motorcycle.The accused who had been earlier convicted in Sessions Case No.185/1996 and who was released on furlough on 22.9.2013 for 14 days, had jumped furlough and the present crime had been committed.On arrest, P.W.3 Nanasaheb Dange identified the accused at Police Station as the person whom he had seen near his field before the incident took place.Police found blood stained clothes of the accused.The accused gave discovery of the knife used in the incident and the motorcycle found from Wahegaon from a house of his father-in-law.Police forwarded seized articles like blood stained earth from the spot, the clothes of the victim, clothes of accused and other material to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 5 Chemical Analyser at Nasik as well as Mumbai and reports were obtained.The post mortem had revealed death due to asphyxia due to compression of neck associated with genital injuries.The police collected evidence of earlier similar offences committed by the accused and filed the charge sheet.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::Matter was committed to the Court of Sessions.The accused pleaded not guilty.His defence is of denial.According to him, he was arrested merely on suspicion.The girl had suffered injury to her vagina due to pedal of bicycle and to her head due to handle of bicycle when she fell.The prosecution brought on record evidence of 14 witnesses.The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and convicted the accused for the rape and murder of the victim and interalia took note of the earlier convictions and imposed death sentence on the accused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No.2 Anil @ Piraji, against whom prosecution brought evidence that he had lent his motorcycle to the accused No.1, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 6 using which motorcycle the accused No.1 had gone to the spot and committed the offence, came to be acquitted.The motorcycle was standing on the name of mother of accused No.2 Anil @ Piraji.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::The present Confirmation Case and the Criminal Appeal came up before us for arguments.ig The appeal of the accused raised various questions regarding the conviction.The learned A.P.P. argued that the prosecution has duly proved on record the circumstances that just before the incident took place, accused No.1 was seen near the spot;that subsequently the knife used in the offence and the motorcycle were discovered at the instance of the accused;the blood stained clothes of the accused were seized from his person; and that the accused had been convicted earlier for committing offences using similar modus-operandi of grabbing a girl or woman in isolated place and committing rape and murder.The A.P.P. referred to the oral evidence of various witnesses and the documents proved including forensic evidence brought on record by the prosecution in the form of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 7 C.A. reports.The A.P.P. submitted that, P.W.3 Nanasaheb had seen the accused near the spot and had given description of the accused to the police on 14.8.2011 and looking to the modus-operandi of the accused, the police arrested the accused and P.W.3 Nanasaheb had identified the accused before police.According to him, the necessary circumstances had been proved, which shows that, none else except the accused committed the offence.The knife recovered from the accused had human blood stains on it, which can be seen from the C.A. report.The accused was arrested.Even his clothes had blood stains.Thus, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, the conviction needs to be maintained.According to him, it is rarest of rare case and the death sentence should be upheld.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 Nanasaheb shows that he had seen the person concerned only from a long distance and there were no special identity marks stated by the witness.The witness was unable to tell the colour or make of the motorcycle.When the knife was recovered, the panchanama did not note that it had blood stains.Still, the C.A. report shows that, it had blood stains.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::The learned counsel submitted that, looking to the facts of the matter, the holding of test identification parade was necessary.The prosecution did not take any steps in that regard and the identity of the accused is not established.Prosecution brought on record evidence of 14 witnesses.Out of these witnesses, P.W.4 Umesh Jundare is Jail Officer, who was examined regarding other earlier offences.At present we proceed to discuss the evidence on record regarding the present offence, without keeping in view the earlier incidents or offences.VICTIM FOUND RAPED AND MURDEREDP.W.1 Eknath called out to his daughter but he did not get any reply.He contacted his uncle Vishwanath and a couple of persons from brotherhood were called.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::P.W.3 claims that he also went to the field.Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 shows that some people thus gathered at the field of Nanasaheb where bicycle of the victim was lying.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::P.W.2 Shivaji Jape, a villager from Dorhale was panch.The panchanama Exh.24 was prepared on spot.In the panchanama the injuries were noted.After the inquest panchanama which was carried on 13.8.2011, between 2.45 - 3.50 p.m., P.W.14 P.I. Pawar prepared spot panchanama Exh.32 between 4.00 - 4.40 p.m. The panch for spot panchanma was P.W.5 Sitaram Hengde.Before discussing further, it would be appropriate to take note of the spot.From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 as well as the investigating officer in examination-in-chief and cross-examinations, various details ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 12 about the spot have come on record.What can be seen is that, Gat No.415 is on the name of wife of P.W.3 Nanasaheb.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::He appears to have been cultivating the field.It appears that, there is Pohegaon-Dorhale Road on the south.To the north of this road, first there is field of one Madhav Mohan, then towards north of that field there is field of P.W.3 Nanasaheb.After the field of Nanasaheb, further north there is field of Kondaji Dange.ig Then further north, there is Ranjangaon Savali Vihir Road.Thus, the field of Nanasaheb is sandwiched between other fields and one road Pohegaon-Dorhale to the south and another road Ranjangaon Savali Vihir on the north.It appears, there is Kaccha i.e. unbuilt road on the east of the field of Nanasaheb and there is another field of one Jagan Ananda Dangae on the west.Although in the spot panchanama Exh.32, Shiv Wahini - the Kaccha Road shown to the east in map is shown leading from Pohegaon - Dorhale Road, the Ranjangaon Savali Vihir Road on the north, there are admissions of the witnesses as well as the investigating officer P.W.14 (in para 4 of his evidence) that the private road of Nanasaheb on the eastern side of the land does not join to Savali Vihir - Ranjangaon Road which is to the north.The evidence of witnesses has ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 13 brought on record that Dorhale village to the spot is a distance of about 2 Kms.(See P.W.1 and P.W.3).It also appears, there is some hut of Lord Janardhan Swami with family of Kisan Dinkar residing nearby.The said Kuti appears to be about 1000 ft. away from the spot (See evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2).It also appears that, field of P.W.1 Eknath was about 1000 ft. away from the spot concerned.From the field of P.W.3 Nanasaheb, Dorhale - Ranjangaon road on the south is about 2000 - 2500 ft. away.As per P.W.3 Nanasaheb, Ranjangaon - Savali Vihir Road on the north is about 1000 - 1200 ft. away from pomegranate field.The evidence brought on record shows that the Pohegaon -::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::Dorhale Road was being used by people.However, what appears is that, the spot of the field of P.W.3 Nanasaheb was not visible from the road.Going through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 as well as inquest panchanama, P.W.2 although these witnesses have been extensively cross-examined, the fact is still clearly established that the bicycle of the victim was found at the edge of the field of P.W.3 in the portion of pomegranate trees to the west of the Shiv Wahini Kaccha Road.The witnesses noticed that the victim had been dragged to the portion of field where sugarcane was standing.The evidence of witnesses brought on record that the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 14 sugarcane standing was aged about six months and was higher than the shoulder.Although the accused tried to show that there were people trafficking on the Pohegaon - Dorhale road, which was to the south, the spot itself was clearly isolated which could be accessed only from the Shiv Wahini Kaccha way on the east going south-north to the field of P.W.3 Nanasaheb.We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 about finding the victim dead at such an isolated spot.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::he received message about bicycle of the victim lying in his pomegranate field and he going to the field and along with other villagers discovering the dead body of the victim.The evidence of P.W.3 makes it clear that the incident occurred some time between 9.45 a.m. when he left his field and 12.00 noon when information was received about the bicycle lying in the pomegranate part of the field and information that the victim was missing.IDENTITY OF ACCUSEDAdmittedly, there was no eye witness of the incident.On spot no footprints of accused were either seen or picked up.No marks of motorcycle tyre were also noticed or ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 15 picked up.As such, the circumstance tried to be proved by the prosecution of seeing the accused near the spot is material.In this regard, there is sole testimony of P.W.3 Nanasaheb.It would be necessary to scan his evidence carefully.P.W.3 Nanasaheb claimed that he had gone for watering his pomegranate trees by drip.As the electricity supply was stopped at 9.30 a.m., he washed his hands and legs and started his motorcycle to go home.He deposed that the time was about 9.45 a.m. According to him, he started going from his common brotherhood private road.He deposed that he saw one unknown person with yellow colour shirt and Khaki colour trouser.The said unknown person was on motorcycle.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::According to Nanasaheb, he, after seeing such person, came home.There is no material that such person had been seen earlier also lurking or passing from there.Now, if the further evidence of P.W.3 Nanasaheb is seen, we have already referred that, coming to know about bicycle in his pomegranate field, he went back to his field and the body was discovered.There is evidence of P.W.1 Eknath about police coming to the spot and he giving his F.I.R.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::The F.I.R. Exh.56 has endorsement of registration of Crime No.175/2011 at Shirdi Police Station on 13.8.2011 at 14.30 Hrs. Of course, Dorhale is about 6-7 Kms.from Shirdi Police Station, but the timings of inquest panchanama recorded by P.W.14 with P.W.2 Shivaji as panch on spot is too close at 2.45 p.m. We may not be too technical about time.May be investigating officer sent off complaint taken from P.W.1 to Police Station and once offence was registered, took number of offence on phone and proceeded to record inquest panchanama on spot.P.W.3 Nanasaheb deposed that later on P.W.14 P.I. Pawar called him on 26.8.2011 and showed him an apprehended person who was the present accused.Nanasaheb deposed that he identified the accused on the basis of his clothes which were yellow colour shirt and Khaki colour pant.The witnesses clarified that the accused was identified from his clothes and description.P.W.3 Nanasaheb admitted in his cross-examination that when P.I. Pawar ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 17 showed him the accused, other persons were not shown.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::Nanasaheb deposed that he had told about seeing the man because of doubts.Question is whether identity of accused connecting him to the incident could be said to be established.P.W.3 Nanasaheb has admitted that he identified the accused only on the basis of clothes which he was wearing and the description.We will discuss the evidence regarding recovery of clothes later.igAt present, it needs to be mentioned that, such identification would be quite unsafe, unless it was to pass the test of identification parade.The poor quality of this identification becomes more obvious from the cross-examination of Nanasaheb where he deposed (in para 4) that he could not tell the Company of the motorcycle or its number, "As I have seen him at far distance".It is clear that, the witness was unable to give the make or particulars of the motorcycle, the number of vehicle or even its passing (as later it is stated to be Gujarat passing).Admittedly, he had seen the person he was referring to only from "far distance".The other material thing is that, although Nanasaheb claimed that he had seen unknown person on motorcycle, his evidence did not bring on record as to the exact place where this P.W.3 Nanasaheb was and where exactly the said unknown person was on motorcycle.It is not clear if the said unknown person ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 18 was standing besides the motorcycle or was sitting on the motorcycle which was in idle condition or was going on a moving motorcycle.He was on or near the Shiv-Wahini Kachha way or on Pohegaon-Dorhale Road or what, no particulars are stated.P.W.3 claimed that he was himself going on motorcycle.It is not even claimed that they crossed each other.Even if it was so, it would be a passing glimpse of the said unknown person.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::ig Without having any other point noted for identifying, the description that the unknown person was dark complexion and in the age group of 40-45 would be too vague specially when it appears that Pohegaon-Dorhale Road did have some people passing from there.We find it was duty of the investigating officer to have got an identification parade held looking to the facts of the present matter.It is too risky to link the accused to the incident on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3 Nanasaheb, which claims to have identified the accused only on the basis of clothes and description seen from far distance and not on the basis that he had clearly seen the face of the accused and could identify him.There is another aspect which needs to be kept in view.P.W.3 Nanasaheb claimed to have seen the unknown ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 19 person while proceeding home to Dorhale.The concerned road is to the south of the spot.The Shiv Wahini Kaccha road going south-north does not connect to the Ranjangaon Savali Vihir road on the north, we have already observed.In such situation, if Nanasaheb had seen the person on motorcycle, it would be on the Pohegaon - Dorhale road on the south.Now if the evidence of P.W.14 is perused, the dog brought from dog squad led the police from the spot towards north.If the Pohegaon - Dorhale road is to the south, and the unknown person came from that side on motorcycle and so could have left from that direction only, it is surprising that the dog led the police to further north from the spot.We are aware that the evidence regarding dog leading the police is not very scientific.However, the prosecution brought on record evidence in this regard and we find that it does not really help the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:04 :::circumstance relied on by the prosecution that the accused was seen near the spot before the incident took place cannot be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 20 ARREST OF ACCUSEDThe accused took the police party along with him first and showed the spot at the field of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 21 Nanasaheb and from there he had taken the police party to Wahegaon.There was a house outside the village at about 50 ft. and from such house where there was nobody, the knife was discovered at the instance of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::Before discussing the evidence regarding discovery of motorcycle and knife, reference needs to be made to the seizure of clothes of the accused.SEIZURE OF CLOTHES - CONFUSIONNow, firstly the prosecution has not explained ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 22 why if the accused was arrested from the Shirdi Railway Station on 22.8.2011, his clothes were also not seized on the same day.In the cross-::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::examination, this witness deposed that the accused had also given his shirt, pant, banian and underwear and police had seized the same and taken his signature.The witness denied suggestion that the clothes were removed from the person of the accused.He insisted that the accused had taken out those clothes from the house.Thus, as per P.W.6 Vishwanath, clothes were recovered from the house from where the knife and motorcycle is supposed to have been discovered.The investigation raises doubts not merely because P.W.6 Vishwanath gave some admissions in his cross-examination regarding discovery of clothes from the house.There is further evidence from the record itself.Pawar was confronted with muddemal receipt Exh.69 in the cross-examination.Confronted with such documentary evidence, P.W.14 P.I. Pawar tried to explain in his cross-examination that the muddemal was deposited with Clerk at one time and, therefore, the articles were mentioned in Exh.69 like that.There is no obvious reason for this.Then to claim the clothes were blood stained would be still questionable.It only shows that, there is room to doubt the manner in which the investigation has been done.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::We have observed that there is room to doubt the investigation for above reason and there is still more.Then description is given as a sharp edged knife, its size etc. The panchanama mentions that such knife was ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 24 seized and it was sealed.The panchanama does not appear to be mentioning that there were any blood stains on such knife.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::The knife sent to Chemical Analyser, however, had blood stains.The C.A. report Exh.42 shows that the knife sent to C.A. which was given Exh.1 by the C.A., had human blood on it, the group of which remained inconclusive.FORENSIC EVIDENCE - NEUTRALThe evidence of P.W.7 Dr. Jane shows that he carried out the post mortem.The unfortunate victim had various injuries which also showed that she had been dragged.The doctor proved post mortem report Exh.39 which concluded that the death of victim was due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck associated with genital injuries.He saved the vicera for examination.The evidence of P.W.7 Dr. Jame Baseer shows that he collected samples of pubic hair with mud, nail scrapping, blood for grouping, vaginal smears, vaginal wash.He also collected necessary samples for D.N.A.Prosecution has examined P.W.8 to P.W.11 Police Officials who took various samples to the Chemical Analysers at Nasik and Mumbai.Going through the C.A. reports, although human blood was ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 25 shown as detected in various samples, the blood group remained inconclusive.On the Kurta and knicker of the victim, blood group noted was "AB".D.N.A. report Exh.72, which examined the scalp hair, vaginal smear, skin swab, lip swab from the victim did not find any male D.N.A. in the same.Thus, going through the C.A.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::According to the prosecution, for 2899 days the accused was absconding and during such period he committed different similar offences.The trial Court permitted such evidence to be brought on record and in the judgment para 50, prepared a chart highlighting the different crimes and even the manner in which the offences were committed and the results whether the accused was convicted or acquitted etc. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the concerned provisions of law.Question is, whether while holding trial for the Crime No.175/2011 in present matter the evidence regarding earlier convictions demonstrating general modus operandi of similarity of committing different earlier crimes was relevant.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 :::Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 29Under law, the Sessions Judge could examine the appellant only about the evidence, which was proposed to be used against him.The trial Court invoked Section 106 of the Indian ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 ::: Confirmation Case No.2/2014 with Criminal Appeal No.77/2015 36 Evidence Act for this.The trial Court concluded in reason (vii) that there was unbreakable chain of circumstances.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:05 ::: | ['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. |
52,287,016 | of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 2 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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. |
52,290 | The case of the prosecution, as held out from the recorded oral and documentary evidence, in brief, is as follows :- The deceased Jayaraman is the sister's husband of P.W. 1 Sekar.They belong to Kallar community.The accused 1 to 3 and one Dhanapal belong to Padayachi community.All of them were living in Asur village, situate 2 Kms.away from Kumbakonam town.P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 8 were also residents of Asur village.In the said village, there were two temples, known as Pattari Amman temple and Mari Amman temple.Initially, the said temples were being maintained by the village panchayat and the panchayat was in charge of them.There were eight nattanmies, seven of whom belonged to padayachi community and one to Kallar community.The temples owned two tanks and up to the year 1975, the said nattanmaidhars themselves were appointing trustees and leasing out the tanks.After the year 1975, three persons belonging to kallar community became Trustees and, therefore, the aggrieved members of the padayachi community insisted the Commissioner of the H.R. & C.E. Board, Thanjavur, not to hand over the charge of the temples to the said Trustees, belonging to kallar community.Being unable to get a stay from there, the padayachi community members preferred an appeal before the Commissioner at Madras and there also their appeal was dismissed.Thus, there had been a bitter enmity between the members of padayachi community and kallar community.While so, on 5-6-1983, P.W. 1 and the deceased Jayaraman had been to Kumbakonam in order to purchase padlocks.The deceased Jayaraman was riding the bicycle and P.W. 1 had been sitting in the back carrier of the bicycle.The time was 8.00 p.m. when they were proceeding near 'Moorthi Auto Workshop' situated on the side of the Neelathanallur road and at that time the street lights were burning.Suddenly, the accused 1 to 3 and one Dhanapal intercepted them.A-1 Swaminathan was armed with a sulikki and A-2 Rajendran and A-3 Ramachandran were having aruvals in their hands.The other accomplice Dhanapal stood beside them idly.The deceased and P.W. 1 took to their heels towards South and at that time A-2 and A-3 obstructed them and A-3 cut the deceased on his left hand with aruval.A-2 also cut the deceased with aruval on his left hand.A-2 again cut P.W. 1 and, since P.W. 1 tried to ward off the cut with his right hand, the cut fell on his right palm.Then, P.W. 1 and the deceased rushed to the four-road-junction.There again, A-3 Ramachandran intercepted them and cut the deceased on his right shoulder and right neck.At that time, A-1 Swaminathan, by saying "Are you still alive" ? stabbed the deceased on his stomach with the sulikki armed by him.The intestines of the deceased had emerged out.The entire occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 4 Sundaresan, who was in his tea stall, situated near the scene of occurrence.P.W. 2 Subramanian, who was returning to Asur village via Neelathanallur at the time of occurrence heard the noise and rushed to the scene.Then he saw the deceased Jayaraman lying on the ground with his intestines out and with cut injuries and P.W. 1 Sekar standing with cut injuries on his right hand.P.W. 3 Thamilarasan, who had been returning home, after seeing his advocate Arumughasamy at Kumbakonam was proceeding towards Neelathanallur road, near the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Then, he heard the noise and rushed to the scene and found the deceased Jayaraman lying there with cut injuries and his intestines out.He also found P.W. 1 Sekar having sustained cut injuries.Likewise, P.W. 5 who had been returning to Asur village after work, from Kumbakonam, and P.W. 6 who had been in his cycle shop near the scene of occurrence, on hearing the noise, went to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased and P.W. 1 having sustained cut injuries.Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 3 took the deceased Jayaraman and P.W. 1 to the Kumbakonam Government Hospital, in a cycle rickshaw.Wound needed exploration in theatre.Linear injury 3" x 2" x 1" over the back of upper part of the right upper arm.Shoulder dislocated.Wound sutured.Incised wound 2" x 1" x the back of right hand below the above other fingers.According to the doctor P.W. 9, the injuries found on the person of the witness P.W. 1 were simple in nature and could have been caused in the manner and at the time alleged and injuries Nos. 1 to 3 could have been caused with single cut or more than one cut.P.W. 12, Panneerselvam, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Kumbakonam North Police Station received the intimation sent by P.W. 9 from Kumbakonam Government Hospital, at 9-30 p.m. on 5-6-1983 while he was in charge of the Police Station.He immediately left for the hospital, visited the deceased, who had been in a state of semiconscious, and P.W. 1 Sekar, examined P.W. 1, recorded his statement Ex. P-1 and obtained the signature of P.W. 1 and the doctor P.W. 9 thereon.(sutured at G.H.K.).Another sutured injury on the outer aspect of left fore-arm.Ex. P-8 is the copy of the accident register prepared by P.W. 10, regarding the injuries found on the deceased.P.W. 17 Kumaresan, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam, when he was in his office on 5-6-1983 at 10-15 p.m. received the phone message given from Kumbakonam North Police Station about the case.At 10-45 p.m. he went to the Kumbakonam Government Hospital, examined P.W. 1 Sekar and recorded his statement.At 10-50 p.m., he recovered M.O. 3 dhoti, and M.O. 4 shirt which had been worn by P.W. 1, under the cover of Ex. P-22, in the presence of one Ramanujam and one Kaliyamurthy.According to P.W. 15, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by him.He has also opined that injuries Nos. 1 to 11 could have been caused by cutting with a sharp edged weapon like aruval and Injury No. 12 could have been caused by stabbing with a weapon like sulikki and pulling the weapon out and that there is possibility of delicate organs found in the abdomen, sustaining injuries during such course as stabbing with a weapon like sulikki and pulling out the same.P.W. 14 Devendran, Police Constable attached to the Kumbakonam North Police Station escorted the body during autospy and thereafter, handed over the same to its relatives.P.W. 17 Kumaresan, the Inspector of Police, on 7-6-1983, examined P.Ws. 10, 11 and 15, the doctors, and the Police Constable No. 457 Lawrance.On the same day, at 10.00 a.m. he went to the scene of occurrence, visited the scene and prepared observation mahazar Ex. P-2 in the presence of P.W. Anantharaman and one Chinna.Then he drew rough sketch Ex. P-25 with regard to the scene of occurrence.At 11-30 a.m. on that day, he recovered M.O. 1 bicycle and M.O. 2 (series) iron padlocks, from the scene of occurrence, under the cover of mahazar Ex. P-3, in the presence of the above witnesses.At 12.00 Noon, he recovered M.O. 5 blood stained earth under mahazar Ex. P-4, in the presence of the same witnesses.Then he examined other witnesses and recorded their evidence.Since the accused had surrendered it various courts and had been kept in judicial custody, P.W. 17 gave a requisition Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam asking for police custody of the accused 1 and 2 in order to secure the weapons of offence from them.But, the Magistrate had declined to give the accused in police custody.On 25-11-1983, P.W. 17 examined one Chitra, working in the office of the Tahsildar, Kumbakonam and on 29-11-1983, he examined one Anandakrishnan, working as Head Clerk in the office of the Asst.Then, at about 3-30 a.m. on that day, he recovered M.O. 6 under the cover of Ex. P-5 mahazar and at 7-15 a.m. on 6-6-1983 he examined witnesses and went to Kumbakonam and on receipt of the death intimation regarding the death of the deceased Jayaraman, he altered the section of the case into one under S. 302, IPC prepared the Express report Ex. P-20 and sent the same to the Court.Then, between 11-00 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. on 6-6-1983 he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Jayaraman in the presence of witnesses at the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and prepared Ex. P-24, the inquest report.JUDGMENT Arumugham, J.The accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1984, on the file of the Session Judge, Thanjavur West, have preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment, dated 30-6-1986, convicting accused 1 to 3 for an offence under S. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them, thereunder, to undergo imprisonment for their lives and also convicting accused 2 and 3 for an offence under S. 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them thereunder to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months.Thereafter, they filed a petition before the High Court, Madras, and obtained a stay.Notwithstanding the stay granted, the petition was dismissed and it ended in favour of the members of the kallar community.Meanwhile, when the stay was in force, Rasu Padayachi and party filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam stating that the Trustees had no right to fish in the tanks belonging to the temples.At that time, A-2 cut Jayaraman (the deceased) on his back, by saying, "It is only because of you that we could not get the Trustee post and conduct festival for Kali Temple"(Vernacular matter omitted) When A-3 Ramachandran tried to cut P.W. 1, P.W. 1 jumped out of the cycle and the deceased tried to ward off the cut with his right hand.Consequently, the cut fell on the right palm of the deceased. A-2 Rajendran again cut the deceased on his back with the aruval.The deceased fell down by shouting.(Vernacular matter omitted) Thereupon, on a call given by A-1 Jayaraman as, (Vernacular matter omitted.) all the accused had fled away from the scene with their weapons, via the College.On 5-6-1983, at 8-30 p.m., when P.W. 9 Abdul Ajeez was on his duty in the Government Hospital at Kumbakonam, he examined the deceased Jayaraman, who was brought by P.W. 2 Subramanian.At that time the deceased was confused and semiconscious.P.W. 9 found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-Linear injury 3" x 1" x 1" on the middle of left fore arm with underlying bone exposed.Suspected fracture of bone.2. Lacerated injury abdomen 3" x 3" with fresh bleeding and faecal matter seen, and bowels protruding out of the wound.Linear wound 4" x 2" x 1" over the back.P.W. 9 gave initial treatment to the deceased Jayaraman and referred him to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, for further treatment.Ex. P-6 is the Wound Certificate issued by P.W. 9 regarding the injuries found on the deceased.On the same day, at 8-5 p.m. P.W. 9 examined P.W. 1 Sekar for the injuries alleged to have been caused to him by two known persons at about 8-00 p.m. on that day.Linear cut injury 2 1/2" x 1" x 1/2" above the right pale.Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" above the right middle finger.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" above the right ring finger.P.W. 12 returned to the Police Station along with Ex. P-1, got it registered as a case under sections 341, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 433/83, prepared Ex. P-11 F.I.R. and sent it along with Ex. P-1 to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, through P.W. 13, Police Constable No. 2340, by name Ramadass.He also sent the copies of Ex. P-11 to higher officials for taking up further action.At that time the deceased was in agony due to pain and in shock due to pain and Hypovolein.He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.An incised injury, horizontal, extending from the front of right flank extending across the abdomen up to the middle of the upper abdomen (torn) above the ambitions with protrusion of the loops of small intestines and the (torn).A linear incised injury on the outer aspect of right shoulder 10 cm.x 1.5 cm.x muscle deep (sutured at G.H.K.).Another linear incised injury on the left inter scapular region, oblique, 1.2 cm.x 1.5 cm.x muscle deep.At 3-30 a.m. on 6-6-1983, he recovered blood stained dhoti M.O. 6, which had been worn by the deceased, under the cover of Mahazar Ex. P-5 in the presence of P.W. 8 Thiyagarajan and one Jayabal.Meanwhile, on 6-6-1983, at 5-45 a.m., when P.W. 1 Dr. Perumal was in charge of Ward No. 16, in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where the deceased Jayaraman had been admitted for treatment, the said Jayaraman passed away in spite of the best treatment given to him.Thereupon, P.W. 11 sent death intimation Ex. P-10 to the Police.Ex. P-9 is the case sheet regarding the treatment given to the deceased Jayaraman.Meantime, P.W. 13, the Police Constable 2340, who received Exs.P-1 and P-11 from P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 10-30 p.m. on 5-6-1983 took them to the residence of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam.But since the said Magistrate was in sound sleep, he waited till 5.00 a.m. on the next morning and after the Magistrate woke up, he handed over Exs. P-1 and P-11 to him.On 6-6-1983 at 7-15 a.m., P.W. 17 went to the Kumbakonam North Police Station and received the wireless message about the death of Jayaraman, given by one Lawrance Police Constable No. 457, from the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital Out Post Police Station.Thereupon, he altered the case into one under S. 302 IPC and prepared Ex. P-20 Express Report and sent it to Court through Police Constable Rajendran and its copies to the concerned higher authorities.He then went to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased from 11-00 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdhars.Then, P.W. 17 entrusted the body of the deceased to P.W. 14 Devendran, Police Constable, alongwith Ex. P-12 requisition for conducting autospy.On 6-6-1983 at 3-45 p.m., P.W. 15, Dr. K. Palani, Professor, attached to the Medico-legal Department, Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, received the requisition Ex. P-12 and the body of the deceased from P.W. 14, and started conducting post-mortem examination on the body at 3-55 p.m. on the same day.The condition of the body then was cold and rigor mortis was present all over the body.He found the following injuries on the body :-A pointed cut injury on the left collar bone at its middle 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.An incised gaping wound noticed over the outer aspect of right shoulder in its upper part, slightly oblique 5 x 2 x 2 cms.On dissection, the muscles are found to be cut.An incised wound noticed over the front of right little finger at its root 1 x 1/4 x 1/2 cm.An incised wound noticed over the front of right ring finger at its middle 1 x 1/2 x 1/3 cm.An incised wound noticed over front of right middle finger at its middle 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.An incised wound noticed over the front of left arm below its middle 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.found sutured.An incised wound noticed over back of left fore-arm below its middle lengthwise in direction 5 x 1 x 3 cms.found sutured.A small incised wound noticed over the front of left thumb at its middle 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.An incised wound noticed over the front of left palm at its inner part (hypothenar emiaence) 5 x 1/4 x 1/4 cms.An incised wound noticed over the right shoulder blade region.Oblique in direction 7 x 1 x 5 cms.found sutured.An incised sutured wound noticed over the back of left side chest inner to the scapula 9 x 2 x 5 cms.oblique on direction.A sutured wound noticed over the front of abdomen just to the right of midline 26 cms.On dissection of the wound and on opening the abdomen the following internal injuries were noticed.Transverse colon is found to be injured.Mescentary is found to be injured at its root.Inferior vena cava (?) found to be served near its beginning.Reparative sutures were noticed for the above injuries.Haematoma noticed on the posterior wall of abdomen, on the right side reparative sutures were noticed by the side of ascending colon.(for treatment purpose).Heart : Chambers empty.Stomach contains mucus (?).Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale.Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board, Kumbakonam.Meanwhile, on the requisition Ex. P-14, given by P.W. 17, the Inspector of Police, dated 16-7-1983, P.W. 16, the Head Clerk attached to the Kumbakonam Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, by name Kesavamoorthy, sent M.Os.Accordingly, Chemical Examiner's Report Ex. P-16 and Serologist's Report Ex. P-17 were received in Court.In Ex. P-16, it had been mentioned that in the properties sent for chemical examination there had been human blood stains.In Ex. P-17 also it had been stated that there were human bloodstains in the properties but that the group of the blood had been undetectable.15A. P.W. 17, the Inspector of Police, after completing investigation laid charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, under sections 302, 307 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.When the accused were questioned by the learned trial Judge, under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of the incriminating circumstances appeared against them from the tendered oral and documentary evidence by the prosecution, the accused submitted that there was no enmity between the people of Kallar and Padayachi communities in the scene village, that they had no knowledge about the occurrence and that the prosecution witnesses were giving false evidence.The first accused further stated, while admitting the enmity between himself and the deceased Jayaraman, that he had given a police complaint and that at the instigation of P.W. 8 Thiyagarajan, P.W. 1 Sekar was giving false evidence against him.He has also submitted a file sent for from the H.R. & C.E. Board, in support of his case.Accused 2 and 3 denied their complicity in toto and stated that the case of the prosecution itself is a false one.The accused examined no witness on their behalf.On assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence tendered by the prosecution, the statements made by the appellants/accused and the documents relied on by them and on hearing the rival contentions of both counsel, the learned trial Judge has found the accused guilty of the offences charged against them and sentenced them as stated above, aggrieved against which, the present appeal is being canvassed by the accused.We have heard Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, who, though several grounds have been urged in the Grounds of Appeal, confined his arguments on the following main points only :-1) that the admitted prolonged enmity existing between the prosecution party, belonging to Kallar community, and the appellants party, belonging to Padayachi community, was the only source and basis for P.W. 8, who was the brain behind the prosecution and who instigated P.W. 1 and other prosecution witnesses to implicate the appellants herein in the crime;2) that there was a delay of about seven hours in sending the FIR Ex. P-1 and the Printed FIR Ex. P-11 from the police station to the Magistrate's Court, which remains inordinate and unexplained and points out the possibility of fabrication of the said documents getting all the accused implicated falsely and that the explanation given by P.W. 13, the Police Constable, who had been entrusted with the job of handing over these vital documents to the Magistrate, cannot at all be believed but to be rejected;3. that the so called dying declaration Ex. P-23, alleged to have been recorded by P.W. 17 from the deceased, during the night of 6-6-1983 at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital projects very grave doubt upon its genuineness and credibility as a result of which, it is unsafe to record any conviction on the basis of Ex. P-23;that the later part of the investigation claimed to have been done by P.W. 17 in preparing Exs. P-2 to P-5 on the basis of Ex. P-23, clearly demonstrates that these documents were merely make-believe statements created by P.W. 17 on the table of the police station and were not really prepared at the scene of crime as claimed by the prosecution; andthat in the context of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 having turned hostile before the trial Court, the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 4 could not be believed as they had been instigated by P.W. 8 to speak against the appellants herein out of the inimical vendetta.Urging the above points, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, pursued us to reject the prosecution case in toto as highly suspicious.In the light of the above rival contentions being canvassed before us, the only point that has arisen for our consideration is whether the prosecution had established the guilt and the complicity of the appellants herein in committing the murder of the deceased Jayaraman and attempting on the life of P.W. 1 Sekar, beyond all reasonable doubts.While probing the existing physical features and the topography of the scene of crime as projected in the rough sketch Ex. P-25 and the observation mahazar Ex. P-2, prepared by P.W. 17, the recovery of M.O. 1 bicycle and M.O. 2 padlocks under Ex. P-3, the recoveries of M.O. 5 bloodstained earth under Ex. P-4 and the bloodstained dhoti (M.O. 6) under Ex. P-5, from the scene of crime, coupled with the evidence of the attesting witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8, the evidence of the ocular witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 4 and even the hostile witnesses viz. P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6, we have not even the slightest doubt in our mind about the fact that in the road leading to Neelathanallur village in Kumbakonam town, near the old Palakkarai, at about 8-00 p.m., on 5-6-1983, both the deceased and P.W. 1 have been attacked by the assailants, whoever they may be, with deadly weapons like aruval and sulikki and that whereupon both of them have been brought down to the ground.P.W. 9, Dr. Abdul Ajeez, attached to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam has testified before the Court that on 5-6-1983 at 9.00 p.m., he examined the deceased Jayaraman at the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam as he was brought by one Subramaniyam for treatment of the injuries found on his person, stating by himself that he was attacked by three known persons with aruval and sulikki, near Palakkarai in Kumbakonam town, at about 8-00 p.m. on that day.This witness has stated that at that time the deceased was in a confused and semiconscious stage.He had found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased :-A linear injury 3" x 1" x 1" on the middle of leftfore arm with underlying bone exposed.Suspected fracture of bone.2. Lacerated injury abdomen 3" x 3" with fresh bleeding and faecal matter seen and bowels were protruding out of the wound.Wound needed exploration in theatre.Linear injury 3" x 2" x 1" over the back of upper part of the right upper arm.Shoulder dislocated.Wound sutured.Linear wound 4" x 2" x 1" over the back.Linear Wound 2" x 1" x 1" over the back 2" away from the wound No. 4 Ex. P-6 is the wound certificate issued by P.W. 9 regarding the injuries found on the body of the deceased.P.W. 9, after giving initial treatment to the deceased, referred him to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, for further treatment.The same doctor, P.W. 9, then examined P.W. 1 Sekar at about 8-50 p.m. on 5-6-1983 who was brought by his brother by name Radha stating to have been attacked by five known persons with aruval at 8-00 p.m. on that day near the Palakkarai at Kumbakonam town.At that time, P.W. 1 was fully conscious and the doctor had found the following injuries on his person.Linear cut injury 2 1/2" x 1" x 1/2" above the right pale.Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" above the right middle finger.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" above the right ring finger.Incised wound 2" x 1" x the back of right hand below the above other fingers.Ex. P-8 is the Original Accident Register relating to the deceased Jayaraman.According to this doctor he admitted P.W. 1 as an in-patient in the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam and since it was a medicolegal case, he sent intimation to the police.He has also opined that all the injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 Sekar could have been caused by cutting with a weapon like aruval either by one cut or by more than one cut at the time and in the manner alleged.Similarly, he would opine that the injuries found on the deceased Jayaraman could have been caused by attacking with weapons like aruval and sulikki.In Ex. P-8, P.W. 10 has stated that Jayaraman was alleged to have been assaulted by three persons using pitchuva, sulliki and aruval at about 8.00 p.m. on 5-6-1983 at his place.He has also noted the following four injuries on the person of the deceased :-An incised injury, horizontal, extending from the front of right flank, extending across the abdomen up to the middle of the upper abdomen (torn) above the ambitions with protrusion of the loops of small intestines and the torn).A linear incised injury on the outer aspect of right shoulder 10 cm.x 1.5 cm.x muscle deep (sutured at G.H.K.).Another linear incised injury on the left interscapular region, oblique, 1.2 cm.x 1.5 cm.x muscle deep.(sutured at G.H.K.)Another sutured injury on the outer aspect of left fore-arm.P.W. 10 has noted that the patient at that time was conscious, but was in agony due to pain and in shock due to pain and Hypovolein.During autopsy, the doctor had noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-A pointed cut injury noticed on the left collar bone at its middle 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.found sutured.An incised gaping wound noticed over the outer aspect of right shoulder in its upper part, slightly oblique 5 x 2 x 2 cms.found sutured.On dissection, the muscles are found to be cut.An incised wound noticed over the front of right little finger at its root 1 x 1/4 x 1/2 cms.An incised wound noticed over the front of right ring finger at its middle 1 x 1/2 x 1/3 cms.An incised wound noticed over front of right middle finger at its middle 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 cms.An incised wound noticed over the front of left arm below its middle 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 cms.An incised wound noticed over back of left fore-arm below its middle lengthwise in direction 5 x 1 x 3 cms.found sutured.A small incised wound noticed over the front of left thumb at its middle 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.An incised wound noticed over the front of left palm at its inner part (Hypothenar emiaence) 5 x 1/4 x 1/4 cms.An incised wound noticed over the right shoulder blade region.Oblique in direction 7 x 1 x 5 cms.found sutured.An incised sutured wound noticed over the back of left side chest inner to the scapula 9 x 2 x 5 cms.oblique on direction.A sutured wound noticed over the front of abdomen just to the right of midline 26 cms.On dissection of the wound and on opening the abdomen following internal injuries were noticed.Mesentery is found to be injured at its root.Inferior vena cava is found to be severed near its beginning.Reparative sutures were noticed for the above injuries.Haematoma noticed on the posterior wall of abdomen, on the right side reparative sutures were noticed by the side of ascending colon.Gauze is found to be kept in the raw area and one end of it was kept outside the external wound No. 12 (for treatment purpose).He would opine that all the injuries found on the person of the deceased were antemortem in nature.It is the further evidence of P.W. 15 that injury No. 12 was necessarily fatal while injuries Nos. 1 to 11 wereof simple nature, that all the internal injuries found on the internal organs of the abdomen of the deceased were connected with injury No. 12 and that injury No. 12 might have been expanded during the course of treatment.He has further opined that injury No. 12 could have been caused by stabbing with a weapon like sulikki and pulling out the same and that there is possibility of the delicate organs of the stomach sustaining injuries during the said course.It is the opinion of the doctor that injuries Nos. 1 to 11 could have been caused by cutting with a weapon like aruval.Though, the said four doctors have been cross-examined to considerable length, nothing seems to have been brought out to discredit or falsify their testimony.Consequently, we are fully satisfied to believe the evidence of the medicos and their respective medical certificates and hold that the deceased Jayaraman and P.W. 1 Sekar had been attacked with deadly weapons like aruval and sulikki, near Palakkarai, Kumbakonam town, at 8.00 p.m. on 5-6-1983 and that whereupon both of them had been brought down to the ground.27C. At this juncture, however, we may point out certain aspects as found in Ex. P-7, noted by P.W. 9, in his original Accident Register Ex. P-7, pertaining to the statement alleged to have been made by P.W. 1 as stating that P.W. 1 was assaulted by five known persons on 5-6-1983 at about 8-00 p.m. near Palakkarai, Kumbakonam town.But, in Ex. P-8, the original Accident Register, prepared by P.W. 10, regarding the deceased Jayaraman, in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, it has been mentioned that the deceased was alleged to have been assaulted by three known persons using pitchuva, sulikki and aruval at 8.00 p.m. on 5-6-1983 at his place.In this context, much was argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, stating that if the said statement were to be taken as true, then one can see that a weapon called pitchuva had also been used, which has not been recovered and produced before the Court, by the prosecution, and that more than three persons had involved in the crime, which raises every grave doubt regarding the prosecution case.In this regard we cannot but hold that at about 8-00 p.m. on 5-6-1983, in Kumbakonam town, near the old Palakkarai, both the deceased and P.W. 1 had been attacked by the assailants, whoever it may be, with deadly weapons like aruval and sulikki and that whereupon both of them had been brought down to the ground and consequently, in spite of the best treatment given to the said Jayaraman, he had succumbed to the injuries when P.W. 1 had survived.Further, as was rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, Exs.Coming to the motive portion of the prosecution case, in transpires that there had been a prolonged enmity between the two communities in the village, viz. kallar community and padayachi community in relation to the appointment of trustees to the temple situated in Asur village, conducting festivals to the temple and auctioning the fishing right of the tanks belonging to the said temple.In this regard, we see every justification to place reliance on the documents contained in the file sent for from the H.R. & C.E. Board on behalf of the first appellant herein.Though P.W. 8 is said to have been the brain behind this case, yet his testimony appears to be quite consistent with the plea put forward by the first appellant during the course of questioning under S. 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is the natural, cogent and convincing evidence of P.W. 8 that since the deceased Jayaraman was responsible for the appellants not getting the post of Trustee and for conducting festivals for the temple and auctioning the fishing right of the tank belonging to the temple, by the minority kallar community, in spite of the objections raised by the first appellant, the appellants who belong to the padayachi community had developed a serious grudge against the deceased Jayaraman.We are, therefore, satisfied to hold that the prosecution had established the clear motive for the appellants to do away with the deceased Jayaraman and to attack P.W. 1 as claimed in the instant case.Though an attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that P.W. 8 was the brain behind the prosecution and only on whose instigation P.Ws. 1 and 4 have spoken against the appellants herein, we are totally unable to countenance the same as it lacks any basis, spelt out against him.On The basis of his selfservient imagination in the context of the prolonged enmity as admitted, nothing has been pointed out or brought out against the evidence of P.W. 8 to suspect or reject his testimony about the motive portion of the prosecution case, against the appellant herein.In this regard, we do not come across any material infirmity upon the testimonies of the witnesses above referred to with a view to gain support to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants herein.On the other hand, we are of the firm view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the motive for the appellants herein to get themselves involved in the offence.Coming to the legal proof offered by the prosecution against the complicity of the appellants herein for the murder of the deceased Jayaram and the attack perpetrated on P.W. 1 by means of homicidal violence, it appears that the prosecution dwells upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 out of whom, P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6, though claimed to be ocular witnesses for the occurrence had not rendered their support to the prosecution case as a result of which they have been treated hostile by the prosecution resulting in their evidence being of no use for the prosecution case.Then, there remains the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 alone regarding the occurrence proper.The learned trial Judge has accepted the evidence of these witnesses in toto and though much was canvassed before us against their oral testimonies, we are of the view that nothing is available to differ from the view taken by the learned Trial Judge upon their testimonies.P.W. 1 was the person who had accompanied the deceased during the occurrence by sitting in the carrier of the bicycle driven by the deceased.According to P.W. 1, when they were proceeding to their village from Kumbakonam, after purchasing the iron padlocks, M.O. 2 (series), on their bicycle M.O. 2 by himself sitting on the carrier and by the deceased Jayaraman riding the cycle, near Murthy Auto Workshop, on the side of the Neelathanallur road, they were intercepted by the appellants herein and one Dhanapalan.At that time the first appellant was armed with a Sulikki and the appellants 2 and 3 were having aruvals in their hand.The 2nd appellant, by stating, "It is only because of you that we could not get Trusteeship and conduct festival for the Kali temple", cut the deceased on his back.The third appellant cut P.W. 1 with the aruval in his hand.When P.W. 1 jumped out of the cycle, the cut fell on the deceased and when the deceased tried to ward off the cut with his right hand, it fell in his right hand.The second appellant again cut the deceased on his back with the aruval.The third appellant cut the deceased on his left hand.The 2nd appellant also cut the deceased on his left hand.Again, the 2nd appellant cut P.W. 1 and when he tried to ward off the cut, it fell in his right palm.Then, P.W. 1 and the deceased ran towards the four road junction and there also, the third appellant intercepted them and cut the deceased on his right shoulder and right neck indiscriminately.At that time the first appellant, by saying "Are you still alive" ?, stabbed the deceased on his stomach with the sulikki armed by him.The deceased, by shouting "vernacular matter omitted" fell down and on a call given by the first appellant stating all the appellants fled away from the scene through the college road.This categorical evidence of P.W. 1 clinches the fact that all the three appellants herein had perpetrated the violence against P.W. 1 and the deceased Jayaraman at three places in the scene of crime on three instalments and during the course of the said transaction, all the appellants had got themselves involved in attacking the deceased and P.W. 1 indiscriminately one and the same time.The said P.W. 1 had also sustained injuries occurrence and even with regard to the injuries sustained by him his narration of the events is quite convincing.He has stated that when the third appellant tried to cut him, he jumped out of the cycle and, therefore, the cut fell on the deceased.This, he claims to have taken place where they were intercepted on the first instance.Then, when they ran from the said place to some distance both of them were overpowered by the appellants herein and then again, the 2nd appellant cut him with aruval and when he tried to ward off the cut, he sustained the cut injury on the palmar aspect of his right hand.It has to be noticed at this stage that P.W. 9, the doctor who got P.W. 1 admitted in the hospital for injuries has stated in Ex. P-7 itself that P.W. 1 was stated to have been assaulted with aruval by five known persons on 5-6-1987 at about 8.00 p.m. near Palakkarai, Kumbakonam.But, however, the doctor P.W. 9 was firm in his view that the injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 could have been caused not by a single cut but were due to more than one cut.In the context of the established circumstances and supporting nature of the medical evidence to the claim of P.W. 1 since he happened to be the injured who had been more promptly, without any delay, admitted in the hospital and treated by P.W. 9, we find no reason to suspect or discredit the ocular testimony of P.W. 1 in giving the accounting of the overt acts of the appellants herein in the instant case.The narration of P.W. 1, the injured witness, derives every support in substratum to his ocular testimony, by the evidence of P.W. 4 Sundaresan.According to P.W. 4, at the time of occurrence, when he was standing in front of his father-in-law's rice mill, situated on the side of Neelathanallur road, near the Palakkarai, the deceased and P.W. 1 were proceeding along the road on their bicycle, by the deceased riding the cycle and P.W. 1 sitting on the carrier of the cycle, towards North.At that time, the appellants herein along with one Dhanapalan, intercepted them and the third appellant, by saying."It is only because of you that we could not get trusteeship", cut the deceased on his right shoulder.Then, the third accused proceeded to cut P.W. 1 and as P.W. 1 jumped out of the cycle, the cut fell on the right hand of the deceased.The deceased and P.W. 1 turned back and ran away.Thereagain, the 2nd accused overpowered them and tried to cut the deceased.Again the third appellant cut the deceased on the right shoulder with aruval.When the first appellant intercepted the deceased, the third appellant came before him and cut the deceased on the left shoulder with aruval.At that time, the first appellant, by saying, "(vernacular matter omitted)", stabbed the deceased on his stomach with the sulikki armed by him.Then, all the appellants fled away from the scene along with their respective weapons.Further, we find that though P.Ws. 1 and 4 have been subjected to rigorous cross examination, they have withstood the same and never failed to establish the prosecution case.P.W. 4 claims that he was examined by the police at 12.00 Noon, on the day of the occurrence itself.We do not find any merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that P.Ws. 1 and 4 are not the true witnesses who could have seen the occurrence and that therefore, their versions could not be believed, simply because a suggestion had been made apparently attributing something with no basis or indication.In the context of four witnesses viz. P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, and 6 not supporting the prosecution and turning hostile, we have scrutinised the oral testimonies of the ocular witnesses viz P.Ws. 1 and 4 with great care and caution.It is the claim of P.W. 9, the doctor, who had no cause to speak against any of the parties herein, that he has seen P.W. 1 within half-an-hour after the occurrence at the hospital along with the deceased Jayaraman, the deceased.It was the main flank of attack made by the learned Senior Counsel at the first instance against the despatch of Exs. P-1 and P-11 from the police station to the Court after a delay of seven hours, which according to him, remains inordinate and unexplained.P.W. 12 then came to the Police Station got Ex. P-1 registered as a case under Cr. 433/83 for offences under sections 341, 323 and 307, I.P.C., prepared Ex. P-11, the First Information Report and sent both Ex. P-1 and P-11 to the Magistrate's Court, Kumbakonam through P.W. 13, the Police Constable No. 2340, by name Ramadas.His evidence further clinches the fact that he could not get any statement from Jayaraman, the deceased, as he was unable to speak due to his injuries.But, however, the Sub-Inspector would admit in his cross-examination that the distance between the Kumbakonam North Police Station and the residence of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Kumbakonam is about one kilometer which can be covered by travelling in a cycle within five minutes and by walk within ten minutes.But, he could not remember the exact time at which he sent Exs. P-1 and P-11 to the Court.He would admit that he registered the case by 10.00 p.m. on that day.It was the consistent evidence of both the Court Clerk P.W. 16 and the Police Constable P.W. 13 who took Exs. P-1 and P-11 to the Court, that during the hard hours of night if the Magistrates were found asleep the Police Constable could disturb him and handover the First Information Report or any urgent posts to him at his residence.He also examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and others.Then he handed over the body for post-mortem examination through P.C. No. 211, examined as P.W. 14, with a requisition for conducting autopsy.Then at about 11-30 a.m. he recovered M.O. 1 cycle and M.O. 2 series iron padlocks under the cover of mahazar Ex. P-3 from the scene of crime followed by the recovery of the blood stained earth M.O. 5 under mahazar Ex. P-4 as attested by P.W. 7 and another.Though he has recovered the blood stained earth and the cycle and the iron padlocks from the scene of occurrence under the cover of mahazar attested by P.W. 7 and another he ought to have visited the scene of crime and recovered the material objects at the earliest point of time.P.W. 17, however, has not given any explanation for having not visited the scene of crime in the middle.This kind of inaction on the part of P.W. 17 is highly deplorable in the light of a grave crime committed in this case.But, the evidence of P.W. 9, the doctor reveals that the injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 are simple in nature.But, it is clear that P.W. 1 had sustained the said injuries during the occurrence and inflicted by the appellants 2 and 3 as is clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4, the injured witness as well as the ocular witness.Viewed in this context, the attack said to have been committed on P.W. 1, in our view had not inflicted any grievous injuries amounting to the commission of the offence under S. 307, IPC.But, in the context that the attack had been made by appellants 2 and 3 on the witness P.W. 1 with weapons like aruval, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the offence against the appellant 2 and 3 on the second count is modified into one under S. 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, we are inclined to modify the offence said to have been committed by appellants 2 and 3 under S. 307 read with Section 34 IPC into one under S. 324 read with S. 34 IPC and to sentence the appellants 2 and 3 thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months.Thus, having cogitated the entire prosecution case on the basis of the tendered oral and documentary evidence by the prosecution and the rival contentions of the respective counsel we are fully satisfied to hold that the prosecution has proved its case against all the appellants herein by acceptable and sufficient evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, and we are therefore inclined to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge, against all the appellants herein with the modification of the offence as against the 2nd and 3rd appellants herein on the second count from S. 307 read with S. 34 IPC to one under S. 324 read with S. 34 IPC, as stated above.In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,293,746 | Anchal Digitally signed by ANCHAL KHARE Date: 2020.06.26 12:29:27 +05'30' | ['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,301,888 | The applicants are reported to be under custody.Heard on point of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition record of the lower court.Heard on I.A. No.7969/2015, which is first application under section 397(1) r/w section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants- Vishnu S/o Kedarnath, Raja S/o Kedarnath, Rajesh S/o Kedarnath and Munna S/o Jagannath.The present appellants suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merit, the application is allowed.(Alok Verma) Judge Kafeel | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,230,248 | This is First application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant has not committed any offence.The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the applicant has received the money on behalf of the company, therefore, prima facie he has committed the offence.Learned Counsel for the complainant also opposes the application.Accordingly, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest applicant shall be released on bail upon depositing Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in cash and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for his appearance in investigation as and when directed and required.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,984,994 | The first accused is the son of the second accused.P.W.5 is the native of Gudalur, Uthamapalayam Taluk.They have two sons and a daughter by name Jayalakshmi.The marriage between the first accused and Jayalakshmi took place on 6.9.1998 in a Kalyanamandapam at Gudalur.At the time of marriage, the accused demanded 50 sovereign of jewels and Rs.2 lakhs cash.The parents of the deceased gave 35 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.50,000/- cash.Thereafter, there were demands during festive occasions like Deepavali and Pongal and every time, payments were made.Subsequently, there was demand for a motor bike by the first accused which was also made by the parents of the deceased in the presence of P.W.6 Village President, but the demand continued.At one point of time, in the month of July 2000 Jayalakshmi came to her mother's house, when questioned, she replied that her husband demanded 15 sovereigns of jewels and asked her to come home with 15 sovereigns of jewels otherwise she should not come back.Subsequently, a panchayat was convened and thereupon the first accused and Jayalakshmi were living separately in a house belonging to P.W.2 at No.9, C.N. Krishna Street, Bharathi Nagar, Perianatham.P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.4. P.W.4 was a driver attached to a Transport Corporation and he is also a neighbour of the first accused and P.W.2 is the owner of the house.Jayalakshmi had told P.W.3 that the first and the second accused are torturing her.On 17.4.2001 at about 11.30 hours, P.W.2 returned home from his work and called his wife by pressing the calling bell.The second accused who is his neighbour came and opened the main gate before P.W.2's wife could come and open the gate.Then, P.W.2 took his food and went to bed.At about 12'O' clock, P.W.4 also came from his job, had his food and went to bed.At about 1 'O' clock, P.W.3 noticed smoke coming from the down portion of her house where the deceased was living.Immediately, she informed it to P.W.4 and he also came out and saw the same.Both of them came out of their house and pressed the calling bell of P.W.2's house.P.W.2 and his wife came out of their house.P.W.2 found the first accused and the second accused standing outside the gate.When P.W.2 found the house of the deceased locked, he asked the accused about the key but the first accused replied that the second accused had thrown away the key.Immediately, P.W.2 who is the owner of the house, went to his house and took the duplicate key and opened the house of the deceased.He found the room full of smoke and also found Jayalakshmi dead on the bed with burn injuries.Immediately, Fire squad was informed.P.W.8 Fire personnel came to the spot with his company at 1.45 p.m. and they extinguished the fire.P.W.1 the close relative of the deceased was informed.P.W.1 came over there and he went to the police station at 8.30 a.m. on 18.4.2001 and gave a complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.12 the Sub-Inspector of Police who in turn registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2001 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The first Information Report was handed over to P.W.13 Investigating Officer who took up investigation.He proceeded to the spot, investigated and prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P6 and also prepared a sketch-Ex.P13 and took photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body of the deceased through P.W.11 photographer.The photographs and the negatives were marked as M.Os.2 and 3 series.The investigating officer recovered the materials objects under Ex.P7 mahazar.Since the marriage between the first accused and the deceased Jayalakshmi took place only 2 1/2 years before, the matter was informed to P.W.10 Sub-Collector who came to the spot and conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P10 inquest report and recorded the statement of the witnesses and the dead body was sent to post mortem.The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:P.W.9, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Chengleput conducted post mortem and gave his opinion that the deceased died due to smothering and burn injuries and gave the post mortem certificate which is marked as Ex.P.W.13 converted the case of offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to that of Section 302 Cr.P.C. Further, he arrested both the accused and sent them to judicial remand and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied upon 14 exhibits and 3 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, one witness on the defence side was examined and four documents were marked.On hearing the arguments advanced on either side and after looking into the materials available, the lower court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and ordered acquittal of the accused.Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the State, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the instant case, the trial Court has thoroughly failed to appreciate the evidence which was brought forth.Admittedly, the first accused/husband of the deceased & son of the second accused, the second accused and the deceased were in the house at the time of occurrence.It was night hour. P.W.3, smelt smoke coming from the house of the accused and informed it to P.W.4 her husband.P.W.2 also came out of his house.At that time, P.W.2 saw the first and the second accused standing outside the gate.He found the house of the deceased locked.He took the duplicate key from his house and opened the house of the deceased and found the deceased dead with burn injuries.Under such circumstances, when he questioned the accused, they admitted the offence and asked him to help them.Hence, it is quite clear that the first and the second accused were present at the time of occurrence.The explanation of the second accused was that they were actually inside the house at the time of occurrence and were watching Television in one room and the deceased went into the other room and closed the door and thereafter, they found the fumes coming out of the next room.They stated that the deceased had committed suicide.Learned Additional Public Prosecution further stated that the doctor never gave opinion that the deceased died only due to smothering.The doctor has categorically given in his evidence and also in the report that the death had caused due to smothering and also burn injuries.The charges were also framed only to that effect.This would clearly go to show that the medical evidence was never against the prosecution but in support of the prosecution case but the trial Court has misconstrued as if the evidence of the doctor was against the prosecution and recorded the finding that both the accused were not involved in the offence.Considering all the aspects of the evidence put forth in the instant case, the explanation putforth by the first and the second accused that the deceased had committed suicide, could not have been accepted.It is quite clear that both the accused are present at the time of occurrence and they are expected to give reasonable answer but failed to do so.They have further gone to the extend of screening the offence.Since the deceased died within 2 1/2 years of her marriage with the first accused, the Sub-Collector was informed, who immediately came to the spot and recorded the statement of the witnesses.The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contention.It is true that both these accused were actually staying in the house with the deceased and these accused were found standing outside the house at the time of occurrence which cannot be stated that they were the culprits.In the instant case, the doctor's opinion is clear to that effect and the prosecution story could not be believed.According to the doctor certificate the laceration and abrasion injuries were not found and when a question was put, the doctor gave opinion that when the body was totally burnt those injuries could not be noticed.Under such circumstances, the question of causing injuries by smothering and causing death was ruled out.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the son of the second accused.The marriage between the deceased and the first accused took place at Gudalur on 6.9.1998 and there was demand for jewels and cash.Since, part of the demand was given, the demand continued thereafter.It is pertinent to point out that so far as dowry demand is concerned, except the neighbours who had spoken about the fact, there is no evidence which could be sustained and convict the accused in this regard bringing home the guilty of the accused.Further, it is quite clear that the deceased was living in her mother's house for some time and panchayat was convened and she was taken back by the first accused.They were living as separate family at No.9, c.N.Krishna Street, Bharathi Nagar.P.W.2 is the owner of the house who was residing with his family in the upstairs.The occurrence has taken place on 17.4.2001 during night hours.According to P.W.2, he came back from his job at 11.00 p.m. P.W.4 and P.W.3 were neighbours.P.W.4 also came back from his job at 12'O' Clock. P.W.3 first witnessed fumes coming out of the house of accused.Immediately, she informed her husband and both called P.W.2, the house owner who is residing upstairs.He also came out from his house.From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, it is quite clear that when they saw the fumes coming out of the house of the accused, the first and the second accused were standing outside the house.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that it was the first accused who was living with the deceased who is his wife and during the relevant time on that day they were staying together.It is also not in dispute that the second accused was also living with them that night.Thus, it is quite clear that only three persons were staying viz., A1, A2 and the deceased Jayalakshmi in the said house and it is a small house with few rooms.The statement of the accused before the trial Court was that they had dinner that night and after watching television, the deceased Jayalskhmi went inside the next room and closed the door and thereafter they found fumes coming out of the said room.If it is so, the natural conduct as the husband and mother-in-law would be, to go and rescue the deceased, instead, both of them were found standing outside the house.Further, it is pertinent to pointed out that P.Ws.2 to 4 found the house of the deceased locked and when P.W.2 asked about the key of the house, the key was not handed over by the accused.So, P.W.2 went upstairs and took the duplicate key and opened the house and found the dead body of the deceased.Therefore, the only persons who could give proper answer is the first and the second accused and the law would except responsible answer from those persons as they are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively who were staying with the deceased at the time of occurrence.But they answered that the deceased committed suicide.The theory of suicide as putforth by the accused has got to be negatived for more reasons than one.Naturally, when a wife or daughter-in-law attempts to commit suicide in the next room and when the husband and mother-in-law who were staying in the same house come to know of it they would have tried to save the deceased from committing suicide.On the contrary, according to P.W.2, after closing the door of the house they were found standing near the gate.Hence, it could be seen that the accused were about to escape from the scene but they could not do so since the neighbours and the house owner came out of their house immediately and saw both the accused standing near the gate.In the instant case, the lower Court has not properly looked into the evidence given by the doctor.There was a specific charge alleged against both the accused that actually there was smothering and thereafter kerosene was poured and set fire and caused the death of Jayalakshmi.In the instant case, the Sub-Collector P.W.10 was informed and immediately, he came to spot and conducted inquest and the statement of the witnesses were recorded.At this juncture, at the earliest point of time P.W.2 had informed the Sub-collector that when he came down from his house, he found both the accused standing near the gate and when questioned, they asked him to save them.Further, it is the statement to the effect that he went upstairs and took the duplicate key and opened the house of the deceased.All would go to show that the first and the second accused were about to leave the place by locking the door but P.Ws.2 to 4 came out and stopped them.At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the alleged extra-judicial confession was nothing but the development made by the prosecution and nowhere before the Sub-Collector P.W.2 has stated that the first and second accused, when questioned came out with the reply that they have committed the offence.Pursuant to the notice of the court, both the respondents are present before the court.They were informed that they were convicted under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC.They were asked to tell about the sentence to be awarded to them. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,506,328 | PP, Mr. Arijit Ganguly ... For the State. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,509,181 | The case of the prosecution is that at around 4.30 pm on 21 st March 2006 the call bell rang at the residence of deceased S.N. Gupta.His CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 4 of 45 wife Kanta Devi (the complainant) opened the main door and found a person with beard aged about 25 to 30 years wearing spectacles, black cap with a bag standing at the door.He told the complainant that he was a courier boy and had brought a letter for S.N. Gupta.The complainant went inside the house, informed S.N.Gupta and then went to the kitchen.S.N. Gupta went to the door of the house and received the letter.The complainant who was in the kitchen heard 2 or 3 gun shots.She ran towards the door and in the meanwhile the maid servant also shouted for her.The complainant found S.N. Gupta lying on the floor and blood was coming out from his chest.She called the neighbours and with their help the deceased was taken to the Jaipur Golden Hospital where the doctors declared him brought dead.SI Dharambir Singh along with Constable Vijay Kumar and Constable Prasan reached the spot.Blood was found at the spot near the door of the House No. 260, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura.A rukka was sent to the police station at about 6.50 pm.FIR No. 200 of 2006 under Sections 120B, 302, 201/120B read with Section 34 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered at PS Mangol Puri.On 21st March 2006 itself Satish Gupta and Suresh Gupta, sons of R.D. Gupta, and the brothers of the deceased S.N. Gupta, made CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 5 of 45 statements to the police under Section 161 CrPC.According to them S.N. Gupta had invested a considerable amount of money in certain (chit fund) committees organised by accused Shiv Charan Bansal.He informed them that both he and his father deceased S.N. Gupta, had invested a lot of money in the committees being run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.Rajesh Gupta and Sachin Bansal jointly owned Action Shoes Private Limited (ASPL) which had a factory at Bahadurgarh.Rajesh Gupta had desired to separate himself from the partnership.Rajesh Gupta, Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal also were in a partnership firm M/s. Akash International earlier.When Rajesh Gupta left that partnership the money invested by him therein was taken away by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal.Rajesh Gupta alleged that the father and son duo also intended to take away the factory of ASPL at Bahadurgarh in similar fashion.Despite the deceased S.N. Gupta and Rajesh Gupta demanding return of the money invested by them in the committees, Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal did not do so.Satish Gupta also informed the police that the deceased S.N. Gupta had told him that both Shiv Charan Bansal and Satish Bansal intended to take away the factory at Bahadurgarh and they had also not repaid a large amount owing to them as a result of the dissolution of the CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 6 of 45 partnership firm Akash International.Suresh Gupta, a brother of Satish Gupta and late S.N. Gupta, informed the police that his son Naveen Gupta has been threatened even earlier by accused Narender Mann, Lalit Mann and their cohorts with a view to extorting money.Suresh Gupta also received threats from these accused that he would be killed along with his family members.Suresh Gupta had told the deceased S.N. Gupta about these threats.Suresh Gupta on the advice of the deceased S.N. Gupta, lodged a complaint against Narender Mann at PS Mangol Puri.Naveen Gupta @ Cheenu, the son of Suresh Gupta also made a statement to the police.Apart from mentioning about the threats received on the telephone, he named Narender Mann, Lalit Mann and Sachin Bansal along with their associates as being responsible for the murder of the deceased.One Ashok Kumar Aggarwal son of Shri Sunder Lal also gave a statement under Section 161 CrPC to the police on 7 th April 2006 stating that Sachin Bansal and Shiv Charan Bansal were in the business of running 60 to 70 committees and each committee had sums ranging in between 5 to 20 lakhs.He too had invested in about 5 to 7 such committees.He confirmed that the deceased S.N. Gupta had invested around 70 to 80 lakhs in the committees being run by Shiv Charan Bansal and that the deceased was a member of several of CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 7 of 45 such committees of which Shiv Charan Bansal was the organiser.He also stated that Sachin Bansal was also associated with the committees.On 7th April 2006 one Ajit Prasad Gupta son of R.D. Gupta also stated that he had invested in 4 committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and that he along with his son Sachin Bansal were running 70 to 80 such committees.He also confirmed that deceased S.N. Gupta had invested in nearly all of the committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal.He also confirmed that the accused were dragging their feet about returning the moneys owing to S.N. Gupta.Ajit Prasad Gupta also made a statement before the learned MM on 1 st Jun 2006 under Section 164 CrPC.At around 5 pm on 29th March 2006 he was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded at around 8.30 pm on that day.Narender Mann, his brother Lalit Mann and the lawyer Rajbir Malik were arrested on 29th March 2006 when they were traveling in an Esteem car.It is stated that joint recoveries of a blank photo frame, a black cap, black goggles and a photo of the deceased were recovered from the Esteem car.Narender Mann made a CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 8 of 45 disclosure and offered to show the place where he had parked his car near the Deepali Colony, the shop from where he purchased the caps and goggles.He offered to get Shailender Singh arrested stating that it was Shailender Singh who gave him the weapon used in the murder.He offered to get the weapon recovered.He also offered to get recovered the Getz car in which Joginder Singh travelled to the place of murder and offered to get Joginder Singh arrested.Disclosure statements were also purportedly made on 29th March 2006 by Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh.On the pointing out of Narender Mann the place near Deepali Colony where he had parked his Getz car was located.On the pointing out of Narender Mann, the Getz car was recovered from the house in his village.On 30th March 2006 at around 5 am accused Joginder Singh was arrested and a black goggles and a cap were recovered from the car in which he was travelling.Joginder Singh then made a disclosure statement.Further, at the instance of Narender Mann an unlicensed weapon along with two live cartridges 7.65 mm were recovered from Flat No. A-11/35 Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi which allegedly was the office of accused Shailnder in the presence of his servant Padam Bahadur.On 30th March 2006 the accused persons were produced in the court of the learned MM at Rohini.While accused Joginder Singh, CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 9 of 45 Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh were sent to judicial custody, accused Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal were sent to police custody.On 31st March 2006 Narender Mann made a further disclosure statement.He informed the police that his licensed weapon was with Sachin Bansal whereas the license was at his residence and that he could get it recovered.On that date Sachin Bansal made a disclosure that after the murder was committed Narender Mann had given him a licensed pistol and 11 live cartridges in a polythene paper which was lying in his office at T-1/11 Industrial Area, Phase-1, Mangol Puri.The said licensed weapon of Narender Mann along with 11 cartridges were thereafter recovered from the office of Sachin Bansal.The arms license was also got recovered from Narender Mann from his residence.On 12th April 2006 Joginder Singh refused to participate in the test investigation parade (TIP).Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal were in the business of running committees where moneys would be invested and in turn reinvested by them to generate returns.S.N. Gupta and his son Rajesh Gupta had invested considerable sums of moneys in these committees.Rajesh Gupta had been in partnership with Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal in a firm M/s. Akash International which subsequently was dissolved.The moneys invested therein by S.N. Gupta and his son were not returned by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal.Likewise, Rajesh Gupta had also invested ASPL along with Sachin Bansal.The said company had a factory at Bahadurgarh.The apprehension expressed by CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 11 of 45 deceased S.N. Gupta to his brother Suresh Gupta was that the accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal might somehow take away the factory at Bahadurgah.When S.N.Gupta and Rajesh Gupta would demand return of the moneys invested by them in the factory at Bahadurgarh, Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal refused.According to the prosecution Narender Mann had given on loan around Rs. 7 lakhs to Naveen Gupta on the recommendation made by Sachin Bansal.Together with interest, the amount owing to Narender Mann by Naveen Gupta worked to about Rs.15 lakhs.Narender Mann decide to effect improvements to his hotel in Manali and demanded the amount owing to him from Naveen Gupta alias Cheenu and his father.Instead of repaying him the money they lodged a complaint against him with the police.Narender Mann spoke to Sachin Bansal and asked him to return the moneys owing to him by Cheenu since he had lent money to the latter only on Sachin Bansals recommendation.According to prosecution Sachin Bansal told Narender Mann that he too was owed money to the extent of over Rs. 30 lakhs by Naveen Gupta.Sachin Bansal further offered to pay for the expenses involved in CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 12 of 45 carrying out the killing of S.N.Gupta.Narender Mann agreed to the above proposal.He first asked his brother Lalit Mann to carry out the killing of S.N.Gupta by disgusing himself as a Sikh.After initially agreeing, Lalit Mann backed out.Thereafter Jitender Singh Sodhi, who was a neighbour, was asked and he agreed to execute the task.It is alleged by the prosecution that accused Rajbir Malik, an Advocate who was advising Narender Mann, suggested that Narender Mann should not use his own licensed weapon for committing the murder but should use another weapon identical to it.It was expected that the police would seek to connect the cartridges recovered at the site with the licensed weapon of Narender Mann.They would then be able to show that the said weapon was never used but was kept in the custody of Sachin Bansal.It is stated that pursuant to the conspiracy, Sachin Bansal took a photo of S.N.Gupta from his marriage album and gave it to Narender Mann.1.1 The order dated 17th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2007 arising out of FIR No.200 of 2006 registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, concerning the murder of deceased S.N.Gupta on 21st March 2006, has given rise to this batch of petitions.The State is aggrieved by the order to the extent that some of the accused i.e. Rajbir Malik, Lalit Mann and Shiv Charan Bansal have been discharged and to the extent that accused Shailender and Sachin Bansal have been charged only for CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 3 of 45 the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The State is also aggrieved to the extent that Narender Mann and Jogender Singh Sodhi have not been charged for the offence under Section 120B IPC but only with Section 302 read with 34 IPC.The complainant Kanta Devi, the wife of the deceased S.N. Gupta, has filed a separate revision petition praying for the same reliefs as the State.The revision petition by the accused Shailender Singh and Sachin Bansal have challenged the said order to the extent that they have been charged with the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. According to them they ought to have been discharged.Narender Mann has filed a criminal revision petition challenging the order on charge claiming that he too should have been discharged.He has also separately filed a bail application.Since all these petitions arise out of the common set of facts they are being disposed of by this common judgment.1.2 At the outset this Court allows an application by the State (Crl.M.A.No. 3994 of 2009) seeking impleadment of Narender Mann and Joginder Sodhi in its revision petition.Both were represented by counsel and heard in the revision petition by the State.The application stands disposed of accordingly.On 25th April 2006 Shiv Charan Bansal was arrested.Shailender Singh was arrested on 2 nd June 2006 after the anticipatory bail application filed by him was dismissed.On 4 th June 2006 Shailender Singh identified the place from where the unlicensed weapon was recovered by Narender Mann.On 14th June 2006, the police found that the address given in the application made by Shailender Singh for a mobile phone was A-11/35 Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 10 of 45He also showed him the house of S.N.Gupta and informed him of S.N.Guptas daily routine and further informed him that he receives courier packets/letters in connection with his investments in shares.Joginder Singh Sodhi was running a shop below the office of Lalit Mann.He was offered a sum of Rs.2 lakhs by Narender Mann for committing the murder of S.N.Gupta.Joginder Singh Sodhi was also shown the photograph of S.N.Gupta and the exact location of his CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 13 of 45 house.On the date of the offence, 21st March 2006, pursuant to the above criminal conspiracy, Narender Mann borrowed the Getz car from his cousin, the unlicensed pistol with five rounds from Shailender Singh.He then took Joginder Singh to the place of occurrence in his Getz car, by making him wear the goggles and cap and giving the cover with the name and address of S.N.Gupta.He parked the car near the apartment and was waiting in it while Joginder Singh went to the house of deceased S.N.Gupta and caused his murder by shooting him at point blank range.Narender Mann then helped to Joginder Singh to get away.The case of the prosecution further is that a call was made from his mobile phone by Sachin Bansal to Narender Mann on 21st March 2006 soon after the killing of the deceased.This was to confirm if the killing had taken place.Narender Mann gave the confirmation by calling Sachin Bansal back.The police arrived at the scene of offence and commenced investigations.The blood samples, cartridges collected at the spot were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for the opinion of the ballistic expert.The letter delivered to S.N.Gupta by the assailant (Joginder Singh) was in an envelope with the address of S.N.Gupta hand written thereon.This was seized and sent to the FSL for comparison of handwriting.The call details of mobile phone 9818411470 from which Narender Mann gave a call to Sachin Bansal on the latters phone 9818119624 on 21 st March 2006 CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 14 of 45 after the commission of the murder, were also recovered.The telephone records also showed that the accused were in contact with each other both before and after the occurrence.Proceedings before the learned ASJBefore the learned ASJ it was urged on behalf of the prosecution that against all the accused persons there exists a prima facie case for framing charges for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, 302 read with 120B/34 IPC, Section 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It was submitted that the disclosure statements made by the accused were admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (EA) as all the accused were being tried together in the same case and therefore the statement made by one accused would be relevant against the other accused as well.The statements made by witnesses under Section 161 CrPC did show that accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal had organized the committees, that the deceased and his son had invested in these committees, that they were demanding return of moneys which was not liked by the accused.It also disclosed the active involvement of Narender Mann, Lalit Mann, Rajbir Malik, Shailender and Joginder Singh Sodhi in the commission of the crime.There was no evidence to prove the motive for the crime.It was submitted that, therefore, the accused were liable to be discharged.The learned ASJ agreed with the defence that the prosecution could not rely upon the disclosure statements of the accused as evidence of criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 10 EA.The evidence which had come to the knowledge of the investigating agency after the arrest of the accused persons was not legally admissible material which could give rise to a grave suspicion against the accused persons and therefore none of them could be charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.As regards conversations on the mobile phone between Narender Mann and Sachin Bansal it was held that the actual content of the conversations was not known and while the existence of calls may create a suspicion such suspicion was not grave enough to frame CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 16 of 45 charges against accused persons for the offences under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC.The learned ASJ then proceeded to discuss the case of each of the accused.As far as accused Joginder Singh was concerned, it was held that the writing on the envelope was confirmed by the FSL to be his.The ballistic expert had opined that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased were fired from the recovered pistol of 7.5 mm.Joginder Singh Sodhi had also declined to participate in the TIP.Later the complainant Kanta Devi identified him as the assailant.The learned ASJ held that there was material to raise a grave suspicion against Joginder Singh Sodhi for being tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC.As regards Narender Mann it was held that the weapon of offence was got recovered by Narender Mann from the office of accused Shailender at the instance of Narender Mann.The ballistic expert had connected the weapon with the cartridges recovered from the scene of occurrence.It was for Narender Mann to explain therefore the circumstances in which he had kept the weapon of offence at the office of Shailender.He was arrested on 29th March 2006 while travelling in an Esteem car from where the black cap, goggles and photo of the deceased were recovered.He had purchased two sets of goggles, black cap and beard.One set was given to Joginder Singh CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 17 of 45 Sodhi for wearing at the time of commission of the offence and the other set was kept by him.His licensed pistol was recovered from the office of Sachin Bansal.All these facts showed that he along with Joginder Singh Sodhi was liable to be tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act.As regards Lalit Mann and Rajbir Malik, the learned ASJ found that the evidence was insufficient to charge them with any of the offences.Nothing incriminating was recovered at his instance to connect him with the crime.As regards Sachin Bansal it was held that his case was not very much different from that of his father Shiv Charan Bansal.The only additional evidence against him was that on 31st March 2006 he had got recovered the licensed pistol of Narender Mann and 11 live cartridges from his office.This by itself was not grave enough to CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 18 of 45 connect him with the crime of murder.There was no evidence to show that any financial transaction had taken place between the accused inter se and with the deceased.There was no action taken by the police on the two complaints stated to have been made by Satish Gupta.Since there were considerable doubts about the manner of arrest and the recoveries made, the benefit of doubt should in fact go to the accused.In addition to the above submissions, it was urged by Mr.Sud, in the context of his plea for release of Narender Mann on bail, that he did not have any previous criminal record.He stays in a village 60 km away from the place of occurrence and had clean antecedents.He is the only son of his parents.He was unlikely to violate any of the conditions of bail.It was inconceivable CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 22 of 45 that Sachin Bansal and Shiv Charan Bansal would want to eliminate S.N.Gupta only for retaining the moneys since in any event his son Rajesh Gupta would be continuing in ASPL.Therefore, those moneys were not bound to automatically come to Sachin Bansal or Shiv Charan Bansal.He pointed out that as far as Shailender Singh is concerned, the recovery itself was improbable.The weapon was not recovered as a consequence of his pointing out but that of Narender Mann.It was also recovered from a open drawer without a lock.There are invoices to show that he had purchased live cartridges using the said licence.While these pieces of evidence when considered separately may not suffice to prove the existence of a criminal conspiracy, when seen in totality they might.At the present stage, when viewed collectively they give rise to a strong suspicion of the involvement of Narender Mann in the criminal conspiracy.As regards Sachin Bansal, the recovery of Narender Manns licensed weapon and 11 live cartridges from his office is one important piece of evidence linking him with Narender Mann.The record of the calls made soon after the incident is another.Again, the probative value of such evidence, when viewed collectively, cannot be determined at this stage.The statements of the witnesses naming him as a possible suspect in the murder of S.N.Gupta cannot at this stage be brushed aside.Their examination at the trial will ultimately determine if their evidence is to be believed.At the same time they cannot be kept outside the cauldron of relevant evidence for testing if the case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out.In the considered view of this Court the material on record when viewed collectively gives rise to a strong suspicion of the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy by Sachin Bansal, Narender Mann and Joginder Singh.Now turning to Shailender Singh, this court finds merit in the criticism that the disclosure made by Narender Mann leading to the recovery of the unlicensed weapon used in the crime cannot be used against Shailender Singh.The evidence of Shailender Singh being in possession of the premises from where the said weapon was recovered also creates only a suspicion at the highest and not a grave suspicion.The prosecution has been unable to explain why it took them 8 months to record the statement of Ramesh who was on the ground floor of the same building.While some of the witnesses have specifically named Sachin Bansal and Narender Mann as being responsible for the murder they did not name Shiv Charan Bansal.In any event, at best it would supply the motive for the commission of the offence but not show the involvement of Shiv Charan Bansal himself in the commission of the offence.Conclusions regarding chargeThe net result of the above discussion is as under.CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 41 of 45Accordingly, his revision petition will stand allowed and the States revision petition to that extent stands rejected.(d) The revision petition of the complainant Kanta Devi is also CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 42 of 45 disposed of in the same terms as the revision petition filed by the State.As regards the accused against whom charges have been directed to be framed, the observations made are not intended to influence the opinion to be formed by the trial court upon an independent assessment of the evidence at the conclusion of the trial.Narender Mann's bail application(b) The impugned order dated 17th March 2008 passed by the learned ASJ is confirmed to the extent that Shiv Charan Bansal, Rajbir Malik and Lalit Mann have been discharged.(d) Crl.P. No. 430 of 2008 of Shailender Singh is allowed and he stands discharged.CRL.REV.P. No. 335 of 2008 page 44 of 45(e) Bail Appln.The trial court record be sent back immediately.The case will be listed before the trial court on 1st July 2009 for further proceedings in terms of the present order. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,514,664 | The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Abul Husain through his natural guardian/ father Ayub Raza, be released on bail in Case Crime no.399 of 2012, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj, upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj, subject to the following conditions:Heard Sri Mohammad Nadeem, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.This Revision is directed against an order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal Appeal no.05 of 2019, by which the learned Judge has dismissed the said Appeal and affirmed an order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj, rejecting the revisionist's bail plea in Case Crime no.399 of 2012, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj.Shorn of unnecessary details, the case against the revisionist appears to be that a First Information Report was lodged on 19.11.2012 at 7.15 p.m. by the second opposite party, Hashim Ali against unknown offenders carrying information to the effect that his son, Talib Ali, aged about 28 years, left home on 18th November, 2012 in the evening hours at 7' O clock after eating his dinner.He had gone into the town.He did not return home until the following morning.The informant came to know through word in the locality that his son's dead body was lying on a Kachcha Road, branching of from Sakarwara Road and leading to Kabeerpur.Upon receipt of this information, the second opposite party along with a multitude of natives of the locality went to the place where the body was reported to be and discovered his son's dead body in the field of one Shakir Ali.There is no recovery from him and his name has been brought in during investigation on flimsy evidence.It is argued that the revisionist was arrested from home by the Saurikh Police and after paper work he was remanded in the present crime.The bail application moved by the revisionist was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and his Appeal has come to be dismissed.The matter can be looked at from another angle. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,515,637 | Through: Mr. U.A. Khan, Adv.with Mr. Sunil Sagar and Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Advs.% HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALThe present Revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Additional Session Judge (hereinafter referred 'ASJ'), Shahdara/Karkardooma Courts in FIR No. 243/2014, under Section 392/ 397/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 'IPC') whereby the respondent was discharged from the offences under Section 392/ 397/ 34 IPC registered at Police Station Jagatpuri.The brief facts of the present case are that on 24.04.2014, the complaint was lodged by one Ms. Deepti Uppal alleging that on 24.04.2014 around 10.05am while she was buying flowers outside the temple, two persons riding on the motorcycle without wearing CRL.REV.P 97/2015 Page 1 of 6 helmet came from the side of the Vijay Chowk, and snatched her gold chain.As they fled away towards the Veer Bazar, she ran after them but the pillion rider showed her something like pistol due to which she withdrew chasing.Thereafter, on 28.04.2014, the respondent was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.The co-accused Shakil was arrested in another FIR and was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who made disclosure statement that they have sold the gold chain.Since the complaint showed her inability to identify accused, he was released from the present case.The petitioner refused to take part in the TIP proceedings and was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 392/397/34 IPC.The cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and vide order dated 24.11.2014, the respondent herein was discharged of all charges.Hence, the present petition.CRL.REV.P 97/2015 Page 1 of 6The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court had erred in passing the said order as the same is based on conjectures and surmises; that the statement of the complainant, refusal to take part in TIP proceedings as well as the other corroborating evidence is sufficient to frame charges against the respondent; that at the stage of framing of charges, the court cannot examine or assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution; that to substantiate its case, he had placed reliance on State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj and State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & ors.At this juncture, the said order is liable to be set aside.CRL.REV.P 97/2015 Page 2 of 6Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Trial Court had passed the said order after considering all the materials placed on record, and therefore it suffers from no infirmity; that apart from disclosure statement of the respondent, there is no other evidence against the respondent; that the valid ground for not participating in the TIP proceedings has been explained by the respondent; that the petitioner has give three contradictory statements with regard to the identification of the accused(s)/respondent; that the story of the prosecution is solely based on the assumptions of the disclosure statement, as to who was driving the bike and who was the pillion driver; that on the basis of such vagueness in the statement of the prosecution, the present petition is not maintainable.The submissions made by the both the parties have been considered and the records have been perused.Before adverting to the question raised in the revision petition for and against framing of charges under different provisions, it has to be clearly kept in view that a revisional Court must not interfere with the findings of a Trial Court on the ground of insufficiency or otherwise of the material on record, so as to substitute its own opinion unless some patent perversity or glaring illegality is brought to the notice of the Court.CRL.REV.P 97/2015 Page 3 of 6In State vs Siddarth Vashisth & Manu Sharma reported in 2001 CriLJ 2404, it was observed by this court that:If upon consideration of the material on record, documents and surrounding facts and circumstances of the case the Trial Judge considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against an accused he is under duty to order his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.However, if upon the consideration of the material on record the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he is under a legal obligation U/S 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to frame a charge against him and put him on trial.The law as to under what circumstances the Courts should pass an order under Section 228 of the Code for framing a charge and on what ground a discharge should be ordered under Section 227 of the code has been the subject matter of deep deliberations by the High Courts as well as Apex Court in a number of cases.Leading judgments on the question are in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs.The State of Maharashtra, 1972 Crl.L.J. 329, Malkhan Singh & Another Vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh, , State of Bihar Vs.State of Bihar, , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs.Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Others, , Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs.Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Another, , State of Maharashtra etc. Vs.Som Nath Thapa etc., 1996 Crl.L.J. 2448, Satish Mehra Vs.Delhi Administration & Another, 1996 (5) SCALE 523 and Sumitra Banik Vs.In the light of the principles governing the discharge of an accused under 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is observed by this court that during the course of investigation, the complainant in her statement failed to give the description of the person who allegedly committed the offence.More so, the description of the weapon alleged to be used by the respondent during the time of commission of the offence was also not stated by her.Further, nothing incriminating was recovered from the respondent at the instance of the police officials during investigation.As per the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution failed to establish the respondent to be the perpetrator of the alleged offences and completely based their case on the statement of the complainant and also on the basis of the disclosure statement.Baseless suspicion, imaginary inferences and groundless conjectures are to be discarded by a discerning judicial eye.Therefore, no interference in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is called for as the same is a well explained order.Hence, the petition is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,852,117 | (Emphasis Supplied) Brief factsOn 15th June, 2017 at about 09:00 PM, the appellants namely Karan, Sunny and MB a juvenile in conflict with law dragged Gulfam out of his house to a nearby park where Karan and Sunny caught hold of Gulfam and MB stabbed Gulfam in his back with a knife/chura.Gulfam suffered fatal injuries.It was submitted that the Courts below are not conducting any inquiry to ascertain the impact of crime on the victims and the paying capacity of the accused before awarding the compensation.It was further submitted that guidelines be framed in this regard.Prof. G.S. Bajpai, Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice, National Law University, Delhi, who has done extensive research on Victimology has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist in this case in framing guidelines under Section 357 CrPC.Fathers /Spouses name7. AgeAddresses: Permanent PresentMonthly income from all sources including employment, business, vocation, interest, investment, income from properties, assets etc.Whether you are assessed to Income Tax? If yes, file the copy of Income Tax Returns for the last three years.Complete details of the immediate family members (Name, age, relation, occupation, income and their address)(ii) Whether the business/profession is carried on as an individual, sole-proprietorship concern, partnership concern, company, HUF, joint family business or in any other form.(iii) Net monthly incomeIncome from other sources:Agricultural Income; Rent; Interest on bank deposits, FDRs, investments including deposits, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF, loans;Dividends; Mutual Funds; Annuities etc.Total Income Monthly AnnualImmovable properties Particulars of the immovable properties including joint properties, built up properties, lease hold properties, land/ agricultural land and investment in real estate such as booking of plots, flats etc. in your name or in joint namesFinancial Assets Account Name of Current Number Bank Balance Particulars of all bank accounts including Current and Savings, Demat accounts in your name or joint names held in the last three yearsInvestments Particulars Current Value FDRs, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc.; Deposits with Government and Non-Government entities; Stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units and mutual funds, etc.Movable Assets Particulars Cost of acquisition Motor Vehicles, live stock, plant and equipment etc.List of other assets not itemized aboveValue of total assets Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 111 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41 DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT S. No. Particulars Please Tick Attached NA To followSignature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 111 of 133Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 112 of 133Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 113 of 133Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 114 of 133Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 115 of 133(iii) Less-Personal expenses of the deceased (C)(iv) Monthly loss of dependency [(A+B) - C = D](ix) Funeral Expenses(x) Any other pecuniary loss/damage Non-Pecuniary Losses:(xi) Loss of consortium(xii) Loss of love and affection(xiii) Loss of estateName of hospital and period of hospitalizationDetails of surgeries, if undergoneWhether any permanent disability? If yes, give detailsWhether the injured got reimbursement of medical expensesDetails of family/dependents of the injured:Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 118 of 133Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 119 of 133The accused has submitted the affidavit of his assets and income in the format Annexure-A. The particulars given by the accused in his affidavit have been verified through SDM/Police/Prosecution and after considering the same, paying capacity of the accused is assessed as under:V. Recommendations of Delhi State Legal Services Authority After taking into consideration the gravity of the offense, severity of mental/physical harm/injuries suffered by the victim(s); losses suffered by the victim(s) and the paying capacity of the accused.The recommendations of the Committee are as under:-Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 120 of 133Documents considered and attached to the report In death cases:Proof of age of the deceased which may be in form of a) Birth Certificate; b) School Certificate; c) Certificate from Gram Panchayat (in case of illiterate); d) Aadhar CardProof of Occupation and Income of the deceased which may be in form of a) Pay slip/salary certificate (salaried employee); b) Bank statements of the last six months; c) Income tax Return; Balance SheetProof of the legal representatives of the deceased (Names, Age, Address, Phone Number & Relationship)Treatment record, medical bills and other expenditureBank Account no. of the legal representatives of the deceased with name and address of the bankProof of age of the deceased which may be in form of a) Birth Certificate; b) School Certificate; c) Certificate from Gram Panchayat (in case of illiterate); d) Aadhar CardProof of Occupation and Income of the deceased which may be in form of a) Pay slip/salary certificate (salaried employee); b) Bank statements of the last six months; c) Income tax Return; Balance SheetTreatment record, medical bills and other expenditure.Disability certificate (if available)Proof of absence from work where loss of income on account of injury is being claimed, which may be in the form of a) Certificate from the employer; b) Extracts from the attendance register.Proof of reimbursement of medical expenses by employer or under a Mediclaim policy, if takenAny other document found relevant Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 121 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41 ANNEXURE-B1 Format of VICTIM IMPACT REPORT (To be filed by DSLSA in all criminal cases relating to motor accidents within 30 days of conviction and to be considered by the Court at the time of sentencing) S. Description Particulars No.Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 121 of 133Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 122 of 133Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 123 of 133(iii) Less-Personal expenses of the deceased (C)(iv) Monthly loss of dependency [(A+B) - C = D](xi) Loss of consortium(xii) Loss of love and affection(xiii) Loss of estate(xiv) Emotional harm/trauma, mental and physical shock etc.Name of the injuredFathers /Spouses nameAge of the injuredNature and description of injuryMedical treatment taken by the injuredName of hospital and period of hospitalizationDetails of surgeries, if undergoneWhether any permanent disability? If yes, give detailsWhether the injured got reimbursement of medical expenses(vii) Loss of future Income -(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)(viii) Any other pecuniary loss/damage Non-Pecuniary Losses:Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 126 of 133(xi) Non-observance of traffic rules(xii) Poorly maintained vehicle(xiii) Fake/forged driving license(vi) Driving close to vehicle in front(vii) Inappropriate attempts to overtakeProof of age of the deceased which may be in form of a) Birth Certificate; b) School Certificate; c) Certificate from Gram Panchayat (in case of illiterate); d) Aadhar CardProof of Occupation and Income of the deceased which may be in form of a) Pay slip/salary certificate (salaried employee); b) Bank statements of the last six months; c) Income tax Return; Balance SheetProof of the legal representatives of the deceased (Names, Age, Address, Phone Number & Relationship)Treatment record, medical bills and other expenditureBank Account no. of the legal representatives of the deceased with name and address of the bankAny other document found relevant In injury cases:Multi angle photographs of the injuredProof of absence from work where loss of income on account of injury is being claimed, which may be in the form of a) Certificate from the employer; b) Extracts from the attendance register.Proof of reimbursement of medical expenses by employer or under a Mediclaim policy, if takenAny other document found relevant Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 133 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 133 of 133J.R. MIDHA, J.The appellants have been convicted by the ld.Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 IPC.The ld.Sessions Judge reserved the judgment, after conclusion of the arguments, on 06th March, 2020 while being posted at Karkardooma Courts.On 13th March, 2020, ld. Addl.The appellants have challenged impugned judgments on the two grounds: first, that the ld.FIR No. 465/2017 was registered at P.S. Nand Nagari and both the appellants were charged for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC.The chargesheet was committed to the ld.Sessions Judge Shahdara, vide order dated 23rd October, 2017 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and both the accused persons faced the trial.Jagdish Kumar, Addl.Vide transfer notification/order bearing No. 10/G-I/Gaz.IA/DH/2020 dated 13th March, 2020, Sh.Jagdish Kumar was transferred from the post of Addl.Sessions Judge, Judge-04, Karkardooma Courts to Addl.Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), North Rohini with immediate effect.Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 4 of 133Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41On 09th July, 2020, Sh.Jagdish Kumar, Addl.Sessions Judge delivered the judgment while Presiding as Addl.Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), North Rohini.These appeals came up for hearing for first time on 16th July, 2020, when the Division Bench of this Court issued notice to the State.Considering that the grounds raised by the appellants had wide ramifications on the Criminal Justice System, the Division Bench of this Court issued notice to the High Court on administrative side.The Division Bench further appointed Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate to assist this Court as amicus curiae.The Division Bench further directed the ld.Sessions Judge to defer the hearing on sentence by two weeks.Vide order dated 10th August, 2020, the Division Bench referred these matters to a larger Bench considering the important questions of law relating to the criminal justice system involved in these cases.On 25th August, 2020, this matter was placed before the present Bench of three Judges.The brief notes of submissions were filed by Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, ld. counsel for Delhi High Court as well as ld.Sessions Judge and not to press these appeals but with liberty to challenge the conviction on merits after the passing of the order on sentence.This Court, vide order dated 25 th August, 2020, permitted the appellants to withdraw the objections to the jurisdiction of the Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 6 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41 ld.Sessions Judge and the bail applications were dismissed as infructuous.However, the appeals were kept pending to consider the legal issues raised by the High Court.Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 6 of 133Submissions of Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Ld. counsel for Delhi High CourtThe ld.Copy of this judgment along with affidavit of accused in the format of Annexure-A and Victim Impact Report in the format of Annexure-B and Annexure B-1 be uploaded in the District Court Website (in .pdf format) to enable the lawyers/litigants to download the same.Name of Police Station3. Date, time and place of offenceContact information: Mobile Email IDEducational and professional qualificationsOccupation Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 109 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 109 of 133If the deponent is a salaried person:(i) Designation(ii) Name and address of the employer(iii) Monthly Income including the salary, D.A., commissions/ incentives, bonus, perks etc.The copies of the documents filed with the affidavit are the true copies of the originals and I have self attested the copies after comparing them with their originals.Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41I understand that any false statement made in this affidavit may constitute an offence under Section 199 read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment up to two years and fine.DEPONENT Verification:I further verify that the copies of the documents filed along with the affidavit are true copies of the originals.DEPONENT Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 113 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41 ANNEXURE-B Format of VICTIM IMPACT REPORT (To be filed by DSLSA in all criminal cases, other than motor accident cases, within 30 days of conviction and to be considered by the Court at the time of sentencing) S. Description Particulars No.(v) Annual loss of dependency (D x 12)(vi) Multiplier (E)(vii) Total loss of dependency (D x 12 x E = F)(viii) Medical ExpensesName of the injuredFathers /Spouses nameAge of the injuredGender of the injuredMarital status of the injuredOccupation of the injuredIncome of the injuredNature and description of injuryMedical treatment taken by the injuredAny other document found relevant In injury cases:Multi angle photographs of the injured(v) Annual loss of dependency (D x 12)(vi) Multiplier (E)(vii) Total loss of dependency (D x 12 x E = F)(viii) Medical Expenses(ix) Funeral Expenses(x) Any other pecuniary loss/damage Non-Pecuniary Losses:(xv) Post-traumatic stress disorder (anxiety, depression, hostility, insomnia, self-destructive behaviour, nightmares, agitation, social isolation, etc.) panic disorder or phobia(a) which got triggered by the incident/death of the deceased victim.Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 124 of 133Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41 (xvi) Any other non-pecuniary loss/damage Total loss suffered II.Injury Case S. No. Description ParticularsGender of the injuredMarital status of the injuredOccupation of the injuredIncome of the injured(v) Driving a stolen vehicle(vi) Vehicle taken out without the consent of the owner(vii) Driving dangerously or at excessive speed(viii) Dangerously loaded vehicle/ Overloaded(ix) Parking on the wrong side of the road(x) Improper parking/ Parking on wrong side of road(xiv) History of convulsions/ seizures(xv) Fatigued/ Sleepy (xvi) Guilty of violation of traffic rules in the past (xvii) Previous convictions (xviii) Suffering from medical condition that impairs driving (xix) Using mobile phone while driving (Handheld) (xx) Using mobile phone while driving (Handsfree) (xxi) More than one injured/ dead (xxii) Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 129 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 129 of 133(i) Jumping Red Light(ii) Abrupt braking(iii) Neglect to keep to the left of road(iv) Criss Cross Driving(v) Driving on the wrong side(xv) Improper passing (xvi) Improper turning (xvii) Turning without indication (xviii) Driving in no-entry zone (xix) Not slowing at junctions/ crossings (xx) Turning with indication (xxi) Not respecting stop sign (xxii) Not respecting right of way to pedestrians Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 130 of 133 Digitally Signed By:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:02.12.2020 19:33:41Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 352/2020 & CRL.A. 353/2020 Page 130 of 133(i) Failing to stop after accident(ii) Ran away from the spot after leaving the vehicle(iii) Destruction or attempt to destroy the evidenceProof of age of the deceased which may be in form of a) Birth Certificate; b) School Certificate; c) Certificate from Gram Panchayat (in case of illiterate); d) Aadhar CardProof of Occupation and Income of the deceased which may be in form of a) Pay slip/salary certificate (salaried employee); b) Bank statements of the last six months; c) Income tax Return; Balance SheetTreatment record, medical bills and other expenditure.Disability certificate (if available) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,522,287 | In the event she fails to appear before the trial Court without justifiable cause, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel her bail in accordance with law without further reference to this court.The application for bail is, thus, allowed. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,379,033 | Shri Pawar informed that victim is already served.With the consent, finally heard.This first appeal filed under Section 14-A of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for regular bail on behalf of appellants in Crime No.88/2020 registered at P.S. Langi, District Balaghat under Section 366A,376,376(2)N, 376D, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 51, 6 of POCSO Act.The appellants were falsely implicated by the prosecution.The victim, aged about 16 years deposed her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C and did not support the story of the prosecution.The MLC also does not indicate commission of rape on her.Accordingly, impugned order be set aside and appellants be released on bail Prayer is opposed by learned P.L on the strength of case diary.However, he fairly stated that in view of MLC report and section 164 statement of victim, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be doubted.I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.In view of the aforesaid material, in the opinion of this court, the court below has committed an error in not granting the bail.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.5.2020 is set aside.This appeal filed under Section Signature Not Verified SAN 14-A of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for regular bail Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2020.08.05 15:00:00 IST 2 CRA-3491-2020 is allowed.It is directed that the appellant No.1 Limesh and appellant No.2 Santosh shall be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his regular appearance on all the dates fixed by the Trial Court and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE MKL Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2020.08.05 15:00:00 IST | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,381,394 | DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19th DECEMBER, 2016 .............................ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::ig The applicants/accused have filed this Revision Application challenging the Judgment passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the Appeal filed by the applicants and maintaining the Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the applicants [accused Nos. 7,8,9 and 10] for the offences punishable u/ss 326,324,447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. R.N.Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate has stated that during the pendency of this Revision Application, the applicant No. 3 [accused No. 9] has expired.The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has made elaborate submissions and has ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: 5 Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J] taken me through the record to point out omissions, contradictions and discrepancies in the statements and evidence of the witnesses, especially of Dr. Shinde [P.W.11] and Dr. Kshirsagar [P.W.12] to urge that the case of the prosecution is false and unreliable and it can not be said that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the applicants beyond doubt.However, after examining the record, going through the evidence and the Judgment passed by the Sessions Court as well as the Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, I find that the sub-ordinate Courts have elaborately delved into all the relevant aspects, have examined the evidence in the right perspective and it can not be said that the appreciation of evidence on record suffers from any illegality or perversity, which necessitates the re-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::appreciation of it by this Court.The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants then submitted that the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable, as the evidence ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: 6 Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J] on record is not sufficient to establish that the victims Sachin and Sahebrao suffered grievous injuries.In support of this submission, the learned Senior Advocate has referred to the evidence of victim Sachin, who has admitted that he had not gone to the Corporation hospital and had not taken any treatment from Dr.Shinde, though Dr. Shinde [P.W.11] has deposed that he has treated victim Sachin, found that he suffered grievous injury and then referred him to the specialist-Dr.However, the evidence of Dr. Kshirsagar [P.W.12] proves beyond doubt that victim Sachin suffered fractures on both fore-arms at lower ends with contusions and Dr.Kshirsagar has explained how it falls in the category of grievous injury.I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Kshirsagar.Apart from this, the evidence on record proves beyond doubt that victim Sahebrao also suffered grievous injury i.e. incised wound over the left side of neck, 2 cm.X 1 cm.muscle deep.Though a submission is made by the learned Senior Advocate that the evidence of Dr. Shinde or Dr. Kshirsagar does not show that the above injury suffered by Sahebrao ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: 7 Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J] can be classified as grievous injury, considering the nature of injury, it can not be said that the conclusions of the sub-ordinate Courts on this point are unsustainable.I see no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the sub-ordinate Courts convicting the applicants for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code, the findings being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::It is submitted that the applicants are released on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 05/08/2003 and though the applicants and the complainants/victims are residing in the same village, there has been no complaint by the victims against the applicants.It is prayed by the applicants that considering these facts lenient view be taken and the sentence may be reduced for the period for which the applicants had been in Jail.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::8 Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J]Mr. R.R.Mantri, learned Advocate for non-applicant No. 2 has submitted that though there is nothing on record to show that the applicants have mis-used the liberty after being released on bail by this Court, the facts on record show that the conduct of the applicants in prosecuting the matter before this Court had not been proper and, therefore, they are not entitled for any leniency.It is submitted that this Court had passed order that if office objections are not removed within stipulated time, the Revision Application shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court, those office objections were not removed and the Revision Application was treated as dismissed, however, the applicants filed Criminal Application No. 1549 of 2003 in Criminal Application No. 934 of 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2002 and succeeded in getting the Revision Application restored by making incorrect statements that office objections were removed though factually the office objections were not removed.It is submitted that the applicants deliberately avoided to implead the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 [complainants] ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: 9 Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J] as party to the Revision Application.In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for non-applicant No. 2 relied on the Judgment given in the case of Raj Bala Vs.State of Haryana & Ors.In my view the submissions made by the Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 are not relevant for considering whether lenient view is required to be taken while considering the issue of sentence.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::Though Mr. R.R.Mantri, and Mr. K.C.Sant, Advocates for the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5/complainants and Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra have opposed the alternate submission made on behalf of the applicants, it is required to be accepted.Hence, the following order :(i) The Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the applicants for the offences punishable u/ss 326,324 and 447 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: 10 Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J] order directing payment of fine is also maintained.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::However, the order directing the applicants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable u/s 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable u/s 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is modified and it is directed that the applicants [accused No. 7 Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon, accused No.8 Bhaskar Machindra Makone and accused No.10 Bhausaheb s/o Gopala Hon] are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period for which they had been in Jail.(ii) In addition, the applicants [accused No. 7 Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon, accused No.8 Bhaskar Machindra Makone and accused No.10 Bhausaheb s/o Gopala Hon] are directed to pay ` 20,000/- each towards compensation as per Section 357-A of the Indian Penal Code.This amount shall be deposited before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon within 2 months from today.If the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: 11 Cr.138.2002 - [J] amount is not deposited by the applicants within time, the learned Magistrate shall take steps to recover the amount from the applicants, if necessary by resorting to coercive steps.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::On deposit of the amount of compensation, ` 5,000/- shall be given to the victim Sahebrao Arjun Hon and ` 5,000/- shall be given to the victim Sachin Sahebrao Hon.ig The balance amount of ` 50,000/- shall be deposited with the State.The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed in the above terms.[Z.A.HAQ, J.] KNP/Cr.Revn.138.2002 - [J] ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,381,742 | Appellant/accused is acquitted of all charges.Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant.Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.06.06.2018Speaking order/non-speaking orderIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoToThe Criminal Appeal shall stand allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.197 of 2010, dated 01.12.2010, is hereby set aside.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.The Record Clerk, VR Section.CRL.A.43 of 2011 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 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.