id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
109,383 | JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellants Niyaz and Umashanker have been convicted under Sections 452 and 324, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and to a fine of Rs. 250/- for the former offence.In the FIR (Ex. P-3) he had stated that both the accused persons were armed with swords.As the complainant has himself made a volte-face on the crucial point it is difficult to base conviction on his vascillating testimony.The appeal is allowed. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,387,347 | sdas rejected C.R.M. 4392 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.04.2019 in connection with Dantan Police Station Case No. 89 of 2019 dated 12.03.2019 under Sections 333/353/307/427/506/143/148 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the PDPP Act.Accordingly application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2 | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,392,287 | In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 7.5.2015 there was marriage ceremony of daughter of Meghraj (PW-8), his son namely Khushyal with his friends Pappu @ Jitendra and Sachin went by motorcycle for fetching garland from village Adhariya to Amla.The said motorcycle was being driven by Khushyal and at about 4 Oclock between Sasabad and Adhariya near bridge, applicant / accused Ravi @ Avinash Koshti driving the bus bearing registration no. KL03K-7498 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of Khushyal, on account of which, Khushyal, Pappu @ Jitendra and Sachin received the injuries.Heard on admission.The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 20.8.2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in Criminal appeal No.76/18 partly allowing the appeal and partly affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.2018 passed by the J.M.F.C. Amla, District Betul in criminal case no. 423/15, maintained the conviction under Section 337 of the IPC and sentence thereof 3 months RI with fine of Rs.200/- and also maintained the conviction under Section 304-A (two counts) of the IPC but reduced the sentence from 2 years RI to 1 year RI (two counts) and enhanced the fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/- (two counts), with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.The incident was seen by Madhu (PW-4) and also by Laxmi Bai (PW-7), who were travelling in the said bus.The information whereof was sent to Dhanraj (PW-2) uncle of Khushyal and Meghraj (PW-8) father of Khushyal.Complainant Dhanraj came to the spot and all three injured persons were sent to hospital for treatment but on the way to the hospital, Khushyal and Pappu @ Jitendra succumbed to the injuries received in the incident.Complainant Dhanraj (PW-2) lodged the report at Police Station Amla, upon which, crime no. 250/15 for offence under Sections 304-A, 337 and 279 of the IPC was registered against the applicant.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant-accused before the J.M.F.C., Amla and learned trial court after Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 30/09/2019 17:49:34 2 CRR-4238-2019 trial of the case found the applicant " accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A (two counts) of the IPC and vide its judgment dated 13.3.2018 convicted and sentenced the applicant.Being aggrieved thereof, the applicant " accused preferred criminal appeal before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul but the learned Appellate court partly allowed the appeal and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Hence, this revision.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the finding of learned both the courts below is merely based on the statement of injured witness Sachin (PW-1) which is contrary to the police statement and the statements of the other witnesses Madhu (PW-4) and Laxmi Bai (PW-7) who were passengers of the offending bus and this aspect has been ignored by both the courts below.Hence, this Court has jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence.Further submitted that from the evidence on record it appears that the incident was merely an accident and the applicant is not guilty of rash and negligent driving.Hence, prayer is made to admit the revision.Hence, the revision be dismissed.O.P. Yadav (PW-5) who investigated the matter, has stated that in the presence of the witnesses, he prepared Lash Panchayatnamas, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 of the deceased Khushyal and Jitendra and also stated that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was done by Dr. N. K. Rohit who gave reports as per Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14 but on account of non-availability of Dr. N.K. Rohit, the relevant documents were got verified by Dinesh Soni (PW-6) working on the post of Compounder in CHC, Amla, District Betul. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,396,117 | Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2007, passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Pandharpur; whereby the Criminal Appeal came to be dismissed andthe judgment and order dated 15th June, 2007, passed by the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Sangola in R.C.C.No.10 of 2003, ofconviction of the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 ::: 37 REVN 161 OF 2016Sections 419 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Penal Code"),and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year,respectively, and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of the counts, came to beconfirmed.::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 :::3] The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that theimpugned judgment came to be passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, in the absence of the appellant and without hearing the argumentsof the learned counsel for the appellant-accused in support of the appeal.The applicant has placed on record a copy of the roznama of theproceedings of appeal before the learned Sessions Judge.On the said date the learned SessionsJudge passed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.4] In the impugned order also, the fact that the appellant remainedabsent has been recorded with an observation that the appellant had lostinterest in prosecuting the appeal.Indisputably, the learned SessionsJudge has made an endeavour to peruse the record and arrive at theconclusion to concur with the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate,yet the fact remains that the appellant was not heard.6] In the aforesaid view of the matter, especially in the backdrop ofgravamen indictment against the applicant and the grave nature of theoffences for which the applicant has been found guilty by the learnedMagistrate, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to provide aneffective opportunity to the applicant/appellant to prosecute the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 :::ii] The impugned judgment and order dated 8 th January, 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, Dist.Solapur, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2007, stands quashed and set aside.iii] The Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2007 stand restored to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur.iv] The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur is directed to hear and decide Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2007 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 ::: 37 REVN 161 OF 2016 afresh by providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant/ appellant and the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 :::vii] Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly.[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 05:23:42 ::: | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,093,993 | By this common order, I would be deciding the question of transfer of suits instituted by Banks and Financial Institutions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, constituted under "the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993" hereinafter referred to as the Act.By virtue of Section 17 of the Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been conferred the jurisdiction to try and entertain an application for Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions.An appellate Tribunal has also been constituted to entertain appeals from orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.This has given rise to several questions regarding transfer of suits, wherein cross suits have been instituted or counter-claims are filed.(iii) Suits instituted by the Banks and Financial Institutions for recovery, wherein the defendants have filed separate cross suits for seeking declaration, damages, for failure to honour its commitments, and such suits have either been consolidated with the suits filed by the Bank or Financial Institutions for purposes of trial and recording of evidence.(iv) Suits instituted by the Banks against the employees for amounts embezzled or misappropriated.At the very outset, it may be noted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal would not have any jurisdiction to entertain claims or suits instituted against a Bank or Financial Institutions.The questions therefore, that arise for consideration relate to suits where pleas of adjustment or set off is raised in written statement.Further directions would be required for the trial of cases, which are liable to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and which involve a counter-claim, cross suit or separate suit for damages filed by the defendant and the two have been consolidated for the purposes of trial and recording of evidence,5. Let us examine the first category of cases wherein adjustment is claimed or set off is claimed.The net effect would be to either wipe of or to reduce the plaintiffs claim.The plea being pure and simple in defense, subject to the conditions for invoking the claim for adjustment and set off namely the amount being an ascertained amount being legally recoverable and the parties filling in the same character in the claim for set off as that of in the plaintiffs suit being satisfied, are liable to be considered in the suit itself.In these cases, no relief independently of the claim if suit is being claimed.The defendant's claim in suit is by way of set off or adjustment is confined either to wipe out or reducing the plaintiffs claim in suit.The above class of suits wherein claims for adjustment and set off are made, would be liable to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for trial.The second and third class of suits are where either a counter-claim is filed on which Court-fee is paid or a cross suit is instituted claiming damages for alleged breach.The counter-claim or cross suits may be in respect of same or a different cause of action accruing to the defendant against the Banks or Financial Institutions either before or after the filing of the suit by the Banks or Financial Institutions.I am, therefore, of the view that cases wherein a counter-claim has been filed along with the suit, directions should be issued for separately registering the counter-claim as a suit if not already done.The counter-claim should be delinked from the suit file even though trial with the suit could be expedient and convenient.The suit instituted by the Bank be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal without the counter-claim.Regarding the third category i.e. cases where defendants have filed cross suits or separate suits for claiming damages and seeking declaration and injunction against the Banks.The injunctions could well be against sale of hypothecated assets or property and the declaration may be sought challenging the notice for recall of loan or seeking damages for the alleged failure of the Bank or Financial Institution to perform their obligations.The above suits could have been consolidated with the suit instituted by the Bank or Financial Institutions for recovery, for an expeditious trial.The suits instituted by the Banks and Financial Institutions are liable to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, while the suits instituted by the defendants either for declaration, injunction or damages are liable to be delinked and tried by Civil Courts.The Registry in all these cases, where the suits were consolidated shall place on record of the other suit, copies of the orders passed and evidence recorded, pleadings and documents wherever necessary.Arguments were addressed by the parties against transfer of the suits instituted by the Bank or Financial Institutions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal wherein the said suits had been consolidated with the suit filed for damages, declaration and injunction by the parties.These have been considered and separately dealt with.As regards suits instituted by the Banks and Financial Institutions against employees for amount misappropriated or embezzled, reference may be invited to OA 7/95 in Suit No. 550/94 titled Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sh.Mohan Gupta.I have held that the suit for recovery of misappropriated or embezzled amounts by the Banks or Financial Institutions against the employee, would not be one which would come within the definition of a "debt arising during the course of business" as contemplated under the Act. Hence the said suits would not be liable to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal.Having considered the broad categories and situations in which the question of transfer of pending cases has arisen.Let me now deal with specific cases, wherein questions of transfer arise.The State Bank of India has filed the undermentioned suits against the Tayal Group and their associate concerns, partners and family members.(i) Suit No. 2806/93 titled State Bank of India v. Mr. Vijay Kumar Tayal and others for recovery of Rs. 2,44,17,286.34 paise.It includes a claim for the sale of mortgage property.(ii) Suit No. 2807/93 titled State Bank of India v. Sandeep Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and others for recovery of Rs. 2,13,2S,596/-.It includes a claim for the sale of mortgage property.(iii) Suit No. 2808/93 titled State Bank of India v. Geeta Ram Gupta and others for recovery of Rs. 1,05,38,614/-.It includes a claim for the sale of mortgage property.(iv) Suit No. 2809/93 titled State Bank of India v. Kusum Gupta and others for recovery of Rs. 95,06,800.92 paise.It includes a claim for the sale of mortgage property.(v) Suit No. 2810/93 titled State Bank of India v. Tayal Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and others for recovery of Rs. 2,58,69,053/-.It includes a claim for the sale of mortgage property.(vi) Suit No. 2811/93 titled State Bank of India v. Tayal Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others for recovery of Rs. 3,84,89,483.41 paise.It includes a claim for the sale of mortgage property.Apart from the foregoing suits filed by the State Bank of India, Mr. H. C. Dhall urged that the following suits have been filed by the Tayal Group and their Associate Companies and its partners/family members.(i) Suit No. 150/94 titled M/s. Tayal Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India, Delhi, The suit is for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs, for declaration with consequential relief and for injunction.The plaintiff in this suit is seeking adjustment of the claim in Suit No. 2812/93 said to have been instituted by the State Bank of India against the plaintiff for Rs. 1,48,38,922.75 paise and has sought in addition a decree in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs as damages apart from the relief and declaration.(ii) Suit No. 493/94 titled Sh.(iv) Suit No. 837/94 titled M/s. Sandeep Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India.(v) Suit No. 2085/94 titled M/s. Tayal Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India.Suit at S. Nos. (i) and (ii) above were on my board.Suit at S. Nos. (iii) to (v) are said to be pending before other benches.Mr. H. C. Dhall, appearing for the defendants in the suit instituted by the State Bank of India and for the plaintiff in the suits listed above and instituted against State Bank of India, has argued against the transfer of the suits filed by the Bank to the Debt Recovery Tribunal.It would be worthwhile to reproduce the prayer Clause in Suit No. 493/94 filed by Sh..Geeta Ram Gupta against State Bank of India.(i) a judgment and decree of declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-bank, declaring :--(a) that the defendant-bank is not entitled to interest on any debits up to Rs. 61.47 lacs from 1-3-1990;The claim for adjustment, if any, had to be made in the written statement to be filed in the suit instituted by the Bank.It goes without saying that this Court has no jurisdiction to continue with the trial of the suit instituted by the Bank, which arc required to be transferred forthwith. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
109,405,947 | Heard on this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants.The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2020 in M.Cr.T h e applicants are in jail in connection with Crime No.496/2019 registered at Police Station Banda, District Sagar, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 201 and 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.The case of prosecution, in short, is that, both the applicants with a common intention gathered in the shop of the complainant.Applicant No.1 fired a gun-shot, the bullet crossed by touching the abdomen of the victim.Thereafter, applicant No.2 Lokendra fired gun shot, the bullet hit upon the leg of the Ravi-servant of the complainant present on the spot.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, applicants have been falsely implicated.During trial the injured and other important witnesses have been examined and they have not stated anything against both the applicants.In support thereof, he has filed copy of the statement of the witnesses recorded during trial.It is further submitted that after investigation charge- sheet has been filed, the applicants are in jail since 23.09.2019, the trial would take considerable time for its final disposal, therefore, prays to release the applicants on bail.On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prays for its dismissal.Signature Not Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.On SAN Verified Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU Date: 2020.07.28 16:11:07 IST 2 MCRC-12426-2020 perusal of statement of witnesses recorded during trial it reveals that, injured Ravi turned hostile and not supporting the case of prosecution.None of the witnesses identified presence of both the applicants on spot.Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is now inclined to release the applicants on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant No.1 Kundan Singh Lodhi and Applicant No.2 Lokendra Singh Lodhi stands allowed.J a il authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicants.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 201 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. |
108,739,596 | 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 indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;In the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed by this Court, the complainant/victim/State will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted today.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE pb Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2020.10.23 16:19:55 IST | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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. |
108,745,739 | He would further submit that the second respondent uncle, namely, Ramalinga Goundar had purchaed the property in respect of Old S.No.84/10, new S.No.74/10B measuring 2.5 cents situated in Kenjampatti Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, through a registered sale deed Doc.9409 of 2019 10.09.2019No. 966/1981 dated 19.06.1981 and Doc. No.1136/1984 dated 11.10.1984, but the second respondent's husband and his brother's names were wrongly included in the Patta of the petitioners aforesaid property.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9409 of 2019The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that after lodging of the complaint they examined witnesses and recorded statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and the statements recorded by them corroborated with each other and the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 would attract as against the petitioners.He would also submit that they are about to take the trial in C.C.No. 10 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.Therefore they sought for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.Side) appearing for the first respondent.While the second respondent/defacto complainant cleaning her house, the petitioners went to the second respondent's house and try to assault the defacto complainant and her sister by using wooden log and also threatened her by using filthy language with dire consequences.It is also seen from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that there are 3/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.The petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.9409 of 2019In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.10.09.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ksa 8/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9409 of 2019The District Munif -Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9409 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, ksa Crl. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
10,875,494 | No.8 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 11349 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.12.2019 in connection with Saktipur Police Station Case No. 173 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014 under Sections 148/149/153A/353/332/342/333/186/ 436/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Mosaraf Sk.@ Master @ Mosaraf Molla ... ... Petitioner Mr. Arnab Chatterjee .. Advocate Mr. Anisur Rahaman .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy .. Advocate ... ... for the State Pursuant to our earlier direction, Investigating Officer is personally present before this court.His presence is noted and dispensed with.Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.It is further submitted that there is no material to show that he had assaulted the police personnel.Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the injured police personnel had named the petitioner and there are other witnesses corroborating his statement.He further submits that the petitioner had absconded for about five years.We have considered the materials on record including the statement of the injured witness who named the petitioner as one of the assailants.That apart, the 2 petitioner had absconded for a protracted period of time.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.However, it is open to the petitioner to appear and pray for regular bail within seven days from date.In the event the petitioner does so, the court below shall consider his prayer for bail independently and in accordance with law without being swayed by observations made in this order and in the light of the fact that other co-accused persons are on regular bail. | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,756,790 | A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 1 of 11 order on sentence dated 13.01.2015 whereby they have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC and sentenced as under :-Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 1 of 11(i) U/s 392 IPC - to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of 2000/-.(ii) U/s 397 IPC - to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of 3000/-.(iii) U/s 411 IPC - to under RI for SI for one year.(ii) U/s 411 IPC - to under RI for SI for one year.Case FIR No.236/2013 has been registered on the statement made by Yogesh Kumar, PW1 whereby he reported that he was working at shop No.2097/28 at Bhaagirath Palace and was resident of Bhajan Pura, Delhi.On 11th September, 2013 at about 9:00 pm, he left his work place for going to his house.When he reached BDS Office near Hanuman Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, three persons came in front of him.One of them caught him and the other two persons, who were having weapons, grappled with him.One of them put knife on his abdomen and other put a razor (ustra) on his neck and asked him to give whatever he had or face consequences.The third person took out mobile phone, purse from his pocket, his purse was containing `200/- with R.C. and motor vehicle license DL7SAX5753 as well his Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 2 of 11 driving license.All those three persons pushed him and started running towards Kalkatia Gate, Jamuna Bazar.He raised alarm and chased those three persons.Police officials on checking duty on hearing the alarm, apprehended all the three persons while they were running.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 2 of 11In the meantime, he also reached there.Those three persons were identified as Ravi, Shahrukh and Suresh.On search of Ravi, one mobile phone was recovered from the right pocket of his pant and ustra from the left pocket from Shahrukh, one mobile phone was recovered from the right pocket of his pent and one vegetable cutting knife from the left pocket.From Suresh, his purse containing `200/-, RC of motorcycle and driving license were recovered.All those three persons apprehended by the police officials on checking duty alongwith complainant were brought to the police station where they were produced before ASI Muninder Singh, who was on emergency duty.The articles seized from them were also produced before ASI Muninder Singh who recorded the statement of the complainant and after making the endorsement Ex. PW9/A got FIR 236/2013 registered at PS Kashmere Gate, DelhiAfter completion of investigation, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted.Before appreciating the testimony of the material witnesses i.e. PW Yogesh Kumar, PW 4 Constable Vijay Kumar and PW9 ASI Muninder Singh, it is necessary to examine the sequence of events as reported in the complaint Ex. PW1/A and the endorsement made thereon, on the basis of which FIR 236/2013 was registered:(i) On the date of occurrence i.e. 11th September, 2013 at about 9:00 PM, Yogesh Kumar was going from Baghirat Place to Bhajanpura, Delhi and near BDS Office, near Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar he was caught by three persons.(ii) One of those persons caught him and other two persons grappled him with one of them putting knife on his abdomen and another putting razor on his neck, asking him to hand over whatever he had.(iii) Third person took out mobiles and his purse.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 6 of 11(iv) Those three persons pushed him and started running towards Yamuna Bazar and he also raised alarm and chased them.(v) Police officials on checking duty heard his noise and caught all the three persons while they were running.(vi) In the meantime, the complainant also reached there.(vii) In the presence of the complainant from the search of Ravi@Wasim one mobile, make Samsung, was recovered from the right pocked of his white pant and from the left pocket razor(ustra) was recovered.From the right pocket of the pant of Shahrukh one mobile phone, make Nokia, and from the left pocket, vegetable cutting knife, was recovered.From third person Suresh his purse was recovered.(viii) The endorsement on the rukka i.e. Ex. PW9/A records that Head Constable Gajender and Constable Vijay and Constable Rakesh produced all the three apprehended persons along with the recovered articles and the complainant before ASI Muninder Singh.(ix) After recording the statement of the complainant Yogesh Kumar FIR was registered against the three accused persons for committing offence punishable under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC.A bare perusal of the above sequence of events reveal that immediately after taking out the articles from the pocket of the complainant and pushing him, all the three persons started running and at that time they were also being chased by the complainant while raising alarm.They were also apprehended by police officials on checking duty.Thus they hardly had any time to distribute the robbed articles.The MLC of the accused persons have been placed on record which are marked Ex. PW 10/A to 10/C and records as under:Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 7 of 11- Opoid addiction x 5-6 yrs. 3-4 times/day.Alleged History - Beaten by public approx 4 hours back near Hanuman of Mandir, Kashmere Gate as told by himself.- Opoid addiction - 10 yrs.4-5 times Complaint of Pain in left forearm and right foot.- Bruise of size 02" x 01" over left iliac region.- Tendum over right foot.Referred to SR Ortho for further evaluation and management.Alleged History - Assault by public approx 2 - 2 hours back near of Hanuman Mandir, Kashmere Gate as told by himself.- Opoid addition x 2 yrs.3-4 times/day.These appeals have been preferred by the appellants, namely, Ravi @ Wasim, Shahrukh and Suresh impugning the judgment dated 05.01.2015 and Crl.(i) U/s 392 IPC - to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of 2000/-.(ii) U/s 397 IPC - to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of 3000/-.(iii) U/s 411 IPC - to under RI for SI for one year.(i) U/s 392 IPC - to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of 2000/-.Since the offence allegedly committed were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.During trial, three accused persons were charged for committing offence punishable under Sections 392/411/34 IPC.Accused Ravi and Shahrukh charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC for allegedly using razor (ustra) and knife at the time of committing offence.Believing the testimony of PW1-Yogesh, the complainant and PW4-Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 3 of 11Constable Vijay, who was part of the police team which apprehended the accused persons and PW9 ASI Muninder Singh, the leaned Trial Court convicted the appellants observing as under:-PW1 Yogesh Kumar had correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court.He had also deposed that one person caught him and remaining two grappled him while he was coming from his work place to his house and reached near BDS office, Near Hanuman Mandir.He had narrated the incident that one of the persons put knife on his stomach and another razor (ustra) on his neck and took him towards the wall.He Had also deposed that from the possession of accused person two mobile phones, one make Nokiaand other Samsung were recovered.One razor was also recovered from the possession of accused Ravi.From the possession of accused Shahrukh, one Nolkia mobile phone and one knife was recovered.He further deposed that from the possession of accused Suresh, pocket purse was recovered.Defence counsel tried to make dent in the testimony of PW1 stating that witness has admitted that there was darkness.However, the witness has explained in the same breath there was electric light coming from the electric pole.PW4 had corroborated the fact that these three accused persons were apprehended by him while he was on picket duty near Kalkatia Gate on 11.09.2013 when he had seen three accused persons running and one person chasing him.If we read the testimony of PW1, PW4 and PW9, then it has come only conclusion that there accused persons had robbed the complainant after putting ustra and razor on his body.There is no reason to the complainant to depose falsely.Defence of the accused Ravi that he was picked from his house is not tenable particularly when the witness PW1, PW4 and PW9 affirmatively deposed the fact that the accused persons were apprehended at the spot and they were taken to the police station and there the investigating Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 4 of 11 officer had recorded the statement of the complainant.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 4 of 11In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the prospection had proved its case against accused Ravi and Shahrukh for the offence punishable under Sections 392/34 and 397/211 IPC.Prosecution had proved its case against the accused Suresh for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC.All the accused persons are convicted accordingly."On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that on the date of occurrence, they were under the influence of Alcohol.They were living on footpath at Jamuna Bazar, Hanuman Mandir and have no permanent place of stay.On the date of occurrence, they were taken to the police station for being under the influence of Alcohol.They have no criminal antecedents and they do not know why they have been charged for committing the offence of robbery or using knife or razor.They further submitted that after they were taken to the police station, they were given beatings and taken for medical examination.The appellants have specifically denied committing any robbery or recovery of any razor, knife, mobile, purse of the complainant from their possession.They have further submitted that they are in custody since the date of arrest in this case for the reason that even their family was not informed at their native place and they are languishing in jail for no fault.On behalf of the State, learned APP for the State has submitted that all the appellants are vegabonds.The complainant Yogesh has fully supported the case of prosecution so far as the commission of robbery on knife point and putting razor on neck is concerned.Learned APP has submitted that the complainant raised the alarm and the police officials who were on duty, on hearing the alarm apprehended the three accused persons when they were Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 5 of 11 running after committing the offence and recovery has been effected from them immediately thereafter.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 5 of 11Learned APP for the State has also referred to the statement of constable Vijay who has corroborated the version given by PW1 Yogesh which is further supported by the testimony of PW9 ASI Muninder Singh before whom the complainant, the three accused persons alongwith the recovered case property robbed from the complainant was produced.I have carefully considered the rival contentions.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 8 of 11They were referred to SR Ortho for further examination.On local examination by the Ortho it was opined that the injuries were caused by blunt object.The question arises that when the complainant was chasing him while raising alarm and the police officials caught them while they were still running, where was the occasion for public to give beating to them, causing multiple injuries on their bodies by blunt force.Statement of the complainant PW1/A and the endorsement of rukka PW9/A do not mention about any of the accused persons being given beating by the public.Rather there was no intervening time between their alleged escape from the spot after committing robbery and apprehension by the police on checking duty.It may also be noticed that as per the statement of the Nodal Officer, Aircel, Delhi Service Area Ex.PW3, no call was made by the petitioner on 11th September, 2013 hence location of his mobile could not be ascertained.The date of occurrence as per the complainant is 11th September, 2013 at 9:00 PM the rukka in this case has been sent at about 10:50 PM and FIR has been recorded at about 10:55 pm vide DD No. 37A. In ordinary course, after such an incident, a person informs his family about the incident and that he would be late in reaching home.But no such call was made by the complainant from his mobile phone.The complainant PW1, Yogesh Kumar claims that he was robbed on the point of knife and razor but not even a scratch has been reported on his abdomen or his neck by him which makes his testimony doubtful.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 9 of 11On critical analysis of the testimony and the statement of material witnesses i.e. PW Yogesh Kumar, PW 4 Constable Vijay Kumar and PW9 ASI Muninder Singh before whom the complainant and the accused persons along with the robbed property were produced, and the MLCs of all the three accused, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts.There are several lacuna, inconsistencies and loose ends in the case of the prosecution which could not have been ignored by the Court while considering the testimony of the complainant.When the entire case is examined with reference to the MLCs which show multiple injuries being caused to all the accused persons by blunt force, there being no occasion for the public persons to intervene and to assault the appellants.It appears to be a case where after giving beating to the appellants, they have been implicated in this case, may be for the reason that all of them are vagabonds.It is also necessary to mention here that the arrest memos Ex. PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K1 & Ex."Radhey r/o Vagabond Jamana Bazar, K. Gate.Delhi 7838398050 (Friend)"20. ASI Muninder Singh in his statement nowhere states as to who called on this telephone number to inform Radhey who himself is a vagabond but having mobile number and at what time it was informed.Thus, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 10 of 11 prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.The learned Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellants for the evidence adduced by the prosecution was indicating towards their innocence.Crl.A. No.508, 1135 & 932 of 2015 Page 10 of 11Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 5th January, 2015 and order of sentence dated 13th January, 2015 are set aside.Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.LCR be returned alongwith copy of this order. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,758,673 | The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 07.08.2003 around 11 O'clock in the night at Hatwara Mohalla Chhatarpur near Disk, appellant Kamlesh armed with Lathi, appellant Vinod armed with Katta (country made pistol) Pramod armed with iron rod alongwith accused Pradeep due to previous enmity, caught hold of deceased Bali @ Hafiz, and started beating him.Appellant Vinod pointed Katta at the chest of Hafiz, accused Pradeep had caught hold of him and Kamlesh and Pramod inflicted multiple injuries by lathi and rod to Hafiz.The witnesses Mohd. Akhtar, Mohd. Ajmeri and Bablu Chourasiya were passing by that area, saw the incident and went to the house of Hafiz and informed his father Mohd. Zaheer about the incident.Mohd. Zaheer went to the 3 Cr.A.No.1807/2005 Cr.A.No.1911/2005 spot but he did not find his son there.Next day when deceased did not return home, his father mounted search of him.Later on, the dead body of deceased was found in a Santri pond situated near the spot.Mohd. Zaheer gave information of incident at Police Station Kotwali Chhatarpur where Police recorded Marg Intimation Ex.P-6 and First Information Report Ex.P-7 and initiated inquest.The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the pond and Panchnama of dead body Ex.P-10 was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem.During investigation, the spot map was prepared, red earth and plain earth were seized.It is revealed that after killing the deceased, appellant had carried his dead body in a Thilia (cart) and thrown it in the pond.Appellants were arrested and on the basis of their memorandum statements, a lathi was recovered and seized from Kamlesh, similarly iron rod was seized from Pramod, Katta was seized from Vinod and Thilia was seized from Pradeep.The statements of witnesses were recorded.A sanction for prosecution under Arms Act was obtained from District Magistrate against appellant Vinod and after usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Court.Prosecution has examined Mohd. Akhtar and Mohd. Ajmeri as eyewitness to the incident.Mohd. Akhtar (PW-7) deposed that on the date of incident, around 11:30 p.m. in the night he and Ballu Chourasiya were coming from Asati Mohalla, when they arrived in Hatwara near a Disk shop, he saw the appellants and deceased Hafiz present there.Kamlesh exhorted by saying that "Hafiz ko pakdo, yeh zinda na bachne paye" , then accused Pradeep caught hold of hand of Hafiz, Pramod pointed Katta at his chest and appellant Vinod inflicted a blow of iron rod on his head and Kamlesh assaulted him by lathi.Appellants had beaten Hafiz, who fell down on the ground.He was badly injured.Other witness Mohd. Ajmeri had also arrived on the spot during incident.Mohd. Akhtar, Ajmeri and Ballu Chourasiya went near the deceased, seeing them appellants ran away from the spot.Accused Pradeep caught hold of hand of deceased, Kamlesh was pointing Katta at Hafiz, than Pramod and Kamlesh started inflicting blows of iron rod and lathi on Hafiz.They were shouting that they would not leave Hafiz alive.The witness Mohd. Akhtar and Ballu Chourasiya has also arrived on the spot.They went near Hafiz to save him.The appellants flew away from the spot when they saw these witnesses coming towards them.Hafiz was badly injured and lying on the ground.Thereafter, Mohd. Ajmeri, Mohd. Akhtar and Ballu went to the house of the deceased to informed his father.After informing Mohd. Zaheer father of deceased, they again came back on the spot but found no one present there.Next day the dead body of deceased was found in the Talliyya.9. Mohd. Zaheer (PW-6) deposed that deceased was his son.On 07.08.2003 around 11:45 p.m. in the night he was at home, Mohd. Akhtar and Ajmeri came to his house and informed him that appellant Vinod, Pramod, Kamlesh and accused Pradeep had beaten Hafiz by iron rod and lathi.Appellant Vinod was armed with Katta, Pramod armed with iron rod and Kamlesh armed with lathi.Pradeep had caught hold of Hafiz The appellants were exhorting to kill the deceased.It is further deposed by the witness that he told 7 Cr.A.No.1807/2005 Cr.A.No.1911/2005 Mohd. Akhtar and Ajmeri to go to the spot and he will follow them after getting dressed.Thereafter, Mohd. Zaheer reached on the spot but he found no one present there.Then he went to the house of his father-in-law Shamsuddin and inquired about Hafiz.Next day when Hafiz did not return home, he started making search of him and found his dead body in Talliyya.Thereafter, he went to Police Station City Kotwali and lodged First Information Report Ex.P-7 and Marg Intimation Ex.Police recovered the dead body from the pond, prepared spot map and Panhnama and sent the body for postmortem.Shamsuddin (PW-10) deposed that in the night of 07.08.2003 Mohd. Hafiz came to his house and inquired about his son Hafiz.(16.11.2017) Per Anurag Shrivastava, J :-The accused/appellants have preferred the present appeals under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved of the judgment and conviction dated 25.7.2005 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.189/2003, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and under section 201 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulations.Accused Pradeep was minor at the time of incident, therefore, the charge-sheet has been filed before Juvenile Court against him.The trial Court has framed charge of offence under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act against appellant Vinod and other appellants Pramod and Kamlesh were charged for commission of offence under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC.Appellants abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.A.No.1807/2005 Cr.The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses whereas appellants have examined 3 witnesses in their defence.The trial Court on appreciation of evidence arrived at the findings that appellants had committed murder of the deceased and thrown his dead body in a pond in order to destroy the evidence of murder in furtherance of common intention and convicted them under Section 302/34, 201/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above.It is not disputed that deceased had sustained injuries.His dead body was recovered from a public pond.The police initiated the inquest and sent the body for postmortem to District Hospital, Chhatarpur.Dr. L.C. Chourasiya (PW-11) deposed that on 08.08.2003 at District Hospital, Chhatarpur he had performed the postmortem of deceased Md. Hafiz and found following injuries :-i Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm skin deep present over just lateral to right eye.ii Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm over left eye lid.iii Lacerated wound 7 cm x 3 cm bone deep over right parietal region dark coloured blood present underlying parietal bone fracture.iv Extensive Lacerated wound 7 cm x 5 cm bond deep present over right parito occipital region underlying hemotoma present over skull depressed fracture present over parietal bone, bone broken in several pieces and depressed over brain surface, sub dural heomotoma present over surface of bone .viii Contusion 10 cm x 3 cm over left shoulder.It is opined by the doctor that injury No.i is caused by hard and sharp object and other injuries are caused by hard and blunt object cause of death is comma due to injuries caused to deceased on skull and brain.The time of death is within 6 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem.The report of doctor is duly corroborated by postmortem report (Ex.P/16).Relying upon the statement of doctor it is rightly found proved by the trial Court that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries and his death was homicidal.Mohd. Akhtar, Ajmeri and Ballu went to the house of deceased and informed his father Mohd. Zaheer about the 6 Cr.A.No.1807/2005 Cr.A.No.1911/2005 incident.Thereafter, they returned again on the spot but they did not find deceased or the appellants there.Next day, dead body of deceased Hafiz was found in the Talliyya.The statement of Mohd. Akhtar (PW-7) is duly corroborated by Mohd. Ajmeri (PW-8).Mohd. Ajmeri deposed that at the time of incident he was coming from bus stand, when he reached near Disk shop in Hatwara Mohalla, he saw appellant Pramod armed with iron rod, Kamlesh armed with lathi, Vinod armed with Katta alongwith Pradeep.He also informed him that appellants had beaten Hafiz in Hatwara Mohalla.Next day, the dead body of Hafiz was found in pond.It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is material discrepancies occurred in testimonies of prosecution witnesses.The presence of Md. Azmeri at the time of occurrence is not reliable, it appears that he arrived on the spot after incident.The report of incident was lodged after due consultation after a recovery of dead body.When father of the deceased had been informed that the appellants had beaten the deceased, than why he did not go to Police Station and lodge the report.Why the eye witnesses have not informed the police after the incident, no explanation is given by prosecution.The place where it is alleged that the appellants had assaulted the deceased, no blood stains or any other incriminating material has been found there.This creates doubt on the evidence of eye witnesses.One of the eye witness Md. Akhtar is not sure as to who was carrying 8 Cr.A.No.1807/2005 Cr.A.No.1911/2005 Katta at the time of incident.There is material discrepancies in his statement in this regard.The deceased had criminal back ground and it is quite possible that some one else might have killed the deceased.There is discrepancies between medical and occular evidence also.The prosecution witness Md. Akhtar and Md. Azmeri are history-sheetor and have criminal records.They have enmity with the appellants.The testimony of prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.The trial Court has wrongly relied upon their testimony and committed illegally in recording conviction against the appellants.On perusal of record, it appears that, the report of incident has been lodged by Md. Zaheer (PW-6) father of the deceased on the next day when the dead body of deceased was found in Talliyya (public pond).Md. Zaheer has given explanation to this by stating that in the night when witness Md. Akhtar informed him about the incident he went on the spot but he did not find any one present there, than he went in search of deceased to the house of his father-in-law Shamsudeen.At that time he was not knowing that deceased was died, he was under impression that deceased may be alive and return home.Therefore, he did not report the matter to police in the night.The conduct of this witness is natural and the explanation given by him is acceptable.Similarly witnesses Md. Akhtar (PW-7) and Md. Azmeri (PW-8) had informed the father of deceased soon after the incident.Since, they are not concerned with the deceased, and at that time they were not knowing that deceased had expired, therefore, they did not report the matter to the police.Thus, we cannot disbelieve the case of the prosecution on account of delayed FIR.The incident of 9 Cr.A.No.1807/2005 Cr.A.No.1911/2005 beating took place on the road in a market area situated at Hattwara.The blood stain earth was seized by Investigating Officer from this spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/31).The FSL report (Ex.P/34) confirms the blood stain.Thus, there is no discrepancy in regard to place of occurrence.There is some discrepancy in the statement of Akhtar (PW-7) as to who was holding Katta at the time of incident.In his in-chief he had stated that appellant Pramod was holding Katta but in cross- examination he deposed that appellant Kamlesh had pointed Katta at the deceased.He had given explanation in this regard by stating that due to lapse of time he could not remember and recollect the details of incident and inadvertently stated that Pramod was armed with Katta.The witness PW-7 had stated the presence and participation of appellant Kamlesh and Pramod in beating the deceased.Another witness Md. Azmeri (PW-8) has corroborated his statement.It is quite natural that due to passage of time this witness PW-7 was not able to remember the details of incident.He had informed the father of deceased PW-6 about the incident wherein he had stated that appellant Vinod was carrying Katta.The testimonies of eye witnesses Md. Akhtar (PW-7) and Md. Azmeri (PW-8) are duly corroborated by Md. Zaheer (PW-6) the father of the deceased on all material particulars.Shamsudeen (PW-10) verifies the fact Md. Zaheer had come to his house in the night in search of his son.Only on the ground of their 10 Cr.A.No.1911/2005 criminal antecedents their statements cannot be disbelieved.The deceased had sustained about nine fatal injuries caused by hard and blunt object.The injury No.i described in pm report (Ex.P/16) could be caused by edge of iron rod because there was a lacerated wound also present on the right eye of the deceased.Therefore, the statement of witnesses are duly corroborated by medical evidence.The testimonies of witnesses Md. Zaheer (PW-6), Md. Akhtar (PW-7) and Md. Azmeri (PW-8) appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy.The trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence had relied upon their testimonies and arrived at the conclusion that the appellants had assaulted the deceased and committed his murder and thereafter thrown his dead body in the public pond in order to destroy the evidence.The findings recorded by the trial Court is proper and acceptable.In view of aforesaid discussion, we affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 and Section 201 of IPC. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,761,558 | Shri Pushp Raj Singh Gaharwar, Advocate for appellants.Shri R.S.Shukla, PL for the State.Heard on I.A. No. 21038/15, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant no.1 Dhirendra Singh @ Lallu.The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 392 and 397of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with default stipulations.He further submits that earlier the appellant was released on bail by the Court but as he could not appear on the dates fixed, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued and appellant was arrested.Counsel submits that appellant is a poor person, he had gone out of State for labour, therefore he could not appear.Now he will appear on each and every date in case he is released on bail.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge Jk. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,763,700 | At the request of the petitioner, the second respondent entered into the house of the petitioner and immediately, he tied Thali to her.Thereafter, on 23.09.2015, she was asked to come to his house to remove the Thali.When she went to his house, the petitioner had a sexual intercourse with her forcibly by making her to believe as if the petitioner is her husband.Thereafter, the petitioner arranged rental house for her and she washttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 living in that separate house.On 24.06.2016, she also delivered a female child.Subsequently, she was subjected to criminal intimidation by the petitioner and others.It shows that the mala fied intention of the defacto complainant only to threaten the petitioner and to accede her terms.When he was not there in the shop, the petitioner used to came to his shop and acquaintance with the second respondent.While doing so, on 22.09.2015, he phoned to the second respondent and told that he fell down in the bathroom and not able to stand-up.Therefore, he requested to take the shop's key.When the second respondent went to his house, immediately, he tied Thali and thereafter, he threatened her with dire consequence.Thereafter, on next day, he compelled her to have physical relationship and rapped her.Due to the rape committed by the petitioner, she delivered a female child.Thereafter, he threatened the second respondent with dire consequence by engaging some hooligans.He further submitted that there are incriminating materials to attract the offence under Sections 417, 378 and 506 (ii) IPC as against the petitioner and as such, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.The points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial before the Trial Court.The petitioner is a sole accused and the charges are that on 22.09.2015, he called the defacto complainant through phone with a false intention.When the defacto complainant went to the house of the petitioner, he tied Thali to her and threatened her to have sexual intercourse on compulsion.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2015, when the defacto complainant was called by the petitioner, she went to the house of the petitioner.Immediately, he tied Thali and told her to come on next day to remove the Thali.Believing his words uttered by the petitioner, again the second respondent went to his house and on that day, she was rapped by the petitioner.She was threatened by the petitioner with dire consequence.The petitioner is the owner of the building in which, one shop was rented out to the father of the second respondent.Therefore, the second respondent was well acquaintance with the petitioner.She also knew about the family of the petitioner that he is a married man and he is the father of two children.Knowing these facts fully, the second respondent went to the house of the petitioner, where the petitioner tied Thali (Mangalyasuthra).Thus, they were living together, sometimes at her house and sometimes at the residence of the appellant.This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.33/2019 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court (District and Sessions Court), Sivagangai, for the offence under Sections 417, 376 and 506 (ii) IPC.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sole accused.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is known to the petitioner through her father.Her father is running a petty shop, which was rented out by the petitioner to her father.On 22.09.2015, the petitioner called the second respondent over phone and instructed to come to his house.Insofar as the offence under Section 417 of IPC is concerned, there must be fraudulently and dishonestly inducing a person by deceiving him to deliver any property.The essential ingredients required for attracting the penal provision are 'deception' and 'dishonest intention', that too, right from the inception.He further submitted that insofar as the offence under Section 376 of IPC is concerned, the petitioner tied Thali on 22.09.2015 and had physical relationship with her on the pretext of wedded husband.Thereafter, the petitioner had taken a house for rental and lived together as a husband and wife and also they had physical relationship on many occasions.Thereafter, they lived with a child.After two years from the date of alleged occurrence i.e., 23.09.2015, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint as against the petitioner on 08.03.2017, alleging that she was threatened by some unknown persons at the instance of the petitioner.In fact, at the time of lodging the complaint, she was pregnant.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.After completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.He committed rape on 23.09.2015 andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 as such, she also got pregnant and she delivered a girl baby and she was threatened by the petitioner and some others with dire consequence.Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.On next day, 23.09.2015, again she was called by the petitioner to remove the Thali.Believing his words, again the second respondent went to his house and the petitioner committed rapped on her.No prudent woman would go again to the house of the accused, when he tied Thali against her Will and compulsion to remove the same.It is also seen that on 22.09.2015 or 23.09.2015, no complaint was lodged by the second respondent.After the alleged occurrence, the petitioner and the second respondent lived together in a rental house.It is seen from the statements recorded from the second respondent under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that she got pregnant and as such, on the advice of her relatives, she lived with the petitioner, though he is a married man.It is further stated that they lived together in ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 separate house.Some days before the complaint, she was threatened by two persons as per the direction of the petitioner.As such, to take appropriate action as against the petitioner, she lodged a complaint.In her statement, she further stated that only based on the fear, the petitioner abandoned her.Therefore, she foisted a false case as against the petitioner.After the period of two years from the date of occurrence, the complaint was lodged by the second respondent and there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.In fact, after the alleged occurrence they lived together in a rented separate house and she also delivered a female baby.It proves that the second respondent and the petitioner continuously lived together.Even after the complaint, she had continuous co- habitation with the petitioner on her consent and delivered the another child.At this juncture, the charge under rape cannot behttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 sustained as against the petitioner.In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown-up girl studying in a college.She was deeply in love with the appellant.She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent.She must have known the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of caste considerations.Thereafter, they lived together in a rented separate house and continuously had sexual relationship.She also delivered a female child.The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well.The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to herein above, would have far-reaching consequences, inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's-Admittedly, they belong to different communities.They were in a relationship with each other for quite some time and enjoyed each other's company.The incident is alleged to have taken place near a path which has been admitted by the prosecutrix and her aunt P.W.3 as common path.If indeed the prosecutrix has raised hue and cry as in Kaini Rajan Vs.“ That on 10.07.2000 at Village Bhoga, you along with your co-accused in furtherance of common intention, criminally intimidated Kumari ... to do away with her life and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and within my cognizance;And I hereby direct you accused be tried on the said charge by this Court.27.The trial Court, in fact, has proceeded to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix about the appellant threatening her that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone she will be killed by the accused.The appellant was so charged in alleged furtherance of common intention along with the co-accused.The trial Court has also proceeded to convict the co-accused relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix.The State of Maharashtra & another passed in Crl.A.No.1165/2019 @ SLP (crl) 2712 of of 2019, which held as follows:-http://www.judis.nic.in 18 “ 19.The allegations in the FIR indicate that in November 2009 the complainant initially refused to engage in sexual relations with the accused, but on the promise of marriage, he established sexual relations.However, the FIR includes a reference to several other allegations that are relevant for the present purpose.They are as follows:-(i) The complainant and the appellant knew each other since 1998 and were intimate since 2004:(ii) The complainant and the appellant met regularly, travelled great distances to meet each other, resided in each other's houses on multiple occasions, engaged in sexual intercourse regularly over a course of five years and on multiple occasions visited the hospital jointly to check whether the complainant was pregnant; andThis led to arguments between them.Due to their relationship, she also delivered two children.It is also seen that the second respondent filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.18/2019 as against the petitioner and it is pending for trial.Thereafter, she also filed a complaint in D.V.O.P.No.05/2019 and it is also pending for trial.http://www.judis.nic.in 21It clearly shows that the second respondent fully aware that the petitioner is a married man and he is the father of two children.Thereafter, she consented to live with the petitioner and had physical relationship.Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner to prosecute him.Accordingly, the proceedings in S.C.No.33/2019 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court (District and Sessions Court), Sivagangai, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.However, considering the facts that the second respondent is now deserted by the petitioner and as such, the second respondent was constrained to file a maintenance case and also a Domestic Violence complaint.She is now living with two children without any source of income.There is no dispute that the children born to the second respondent only through the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioner is liable to maintain the second respondent as well as his own children born through the second respondent herein.Therefore, in the interest of justice, and considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the second respondent and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each child till the disposal of the maintenance case in M.C.No.18/2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Family Court, Sivagangai and till the disposal of the complaint in D.V.O.P.No.5/2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Sivagangai, as interim maintenance. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,765,227 | Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission.Both these revisions have been preferred against order dated 06.07.2015 passed by Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-herein after for short 'the act'), Indore, in Special Case No.10/2009, whereby charges for offences under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the 'the Act' and Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 467 IPC have been framed against the accused persons including petitioner Dharmendra Jain and Vikas Jain.In addition charges U/s 201 IPC has also been framed against Dharmendra Jain2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has also rejected the application moved by Dharmendra Jain under Section 223 of the Cr.P.C, whereby he prayed for separate trial on the ground that the case alleged against him stands on a different footing than the case of other five accused persons3. Application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., moved by Vikas Jain for considering the documents submitted by him and petitioner/Dharmendra Jain in their defence also came to be dismissed by the same order.The petitioner/Dharmendra has challenged the impugned order precisely on the following grounds; Firstly, the document placed by him before the Court in his defence have not been considered; secondly, the petitioner acquired membership of Vikas Apartment Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Indore(herein after in for short 'the Society') only on 13.02.2006, hence, he could not have been charged for any transaction prior thereto; thirdly, he says to be the Manager of 'the Society' w.e.f 15.07.2008, therefore, the charge with regard to disappearance of evidence pertaining to year 2009 is not sustainable; lastly, the charges framed against the petitioner referring to multiple transactions from the year 1998 to 2009 are quite vague and suffer from the defect of misjoinder.Vikas Jain has challenged the impugned order on the ground; Firstly, that the learned trial Court committed serious illegality in not considering documents filed by him in his defence; secondly, he purchased the land of 'the Society' on the same price for which the land was sold to other members of 'the society', hence, it cannot be said that he caused wrongful loss to 'the society' or wrongful gain to himself; thirdly, the petitioner acquired the membership of 'the society' only on 09.06.2006, therefore, he cannot be held liable for transactions which took place prior thereto;lastly, the charges framed against him suffer from the defect of misjoinder because multiple transactions have been included in each charge.Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed because of the aforesaid infirmities which go to the route of the matter.On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners were involved in series of acts, whereby, the land belonging to the Society was mis-appropriated by way of conspiracy.It has further been submitted that as per settled law, the documents filed in defence cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charge, the acts alleged against the petitioner constitute a series of transactions, hence it cannot be said that the charges framed against them suffer from defect of misjoinder.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.It transpires from the record that pursuant to a report lodged by Shrichand Kalra Crime No.681/2009 was registered in Police Station, Palasia, Indore against the petitioners and 4 other persons with regard to offences under Section 420/467/468/409/120-B/201 IPC read with Section 13(1) (D) of 'the Act'.After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against them for the aforesaid offences.Following specific allegations have been made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner Dharmendra Jain:B vkjksi dk laf{kIr fooj.k vkjksih fodkl vikVZesaV x`g&fuekZ.k lgdkjh laLFkk dk eSustj dh gSfl;r ij Fkk ftlds }kjk voS/k ykHk vtZu djus dh fu;r ls vius lg&vijk/kh fodkl tSu ls laLFkk dh djksMksa dh Hkwfe dks nks ckj Loa; dz; dh gS rkfd voS/k ykHk ys lds rFkk laLFkk dks voS/k gkfu igqWpkbZA laLFkk dk vfHkys[k okf"kZd lk/kkj.k lHkk izkslsfMax jftLVj vkfn xk;c dj lk{; foyksfir fd, gSa vkjskih dk vijkf/kd d`R; /kkjk 420@409@120@B@34@201 Hkk-n-fo- ,oa 13]1 (D) Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh Js.kh esa LFkkfir ik;k tkrk gSAFrom the aforesaid, it emerges that petitioner Dharmendra Jain was party to two transactions of sale of land belonging to 'the society'; Firstly, sale of 9027 sq.ft. land, vide sale deed dated 21.06.2006, by Vikas Jain on behalf of 'the society' in favour of Dharmendra Jain for Rs.14,08,2012/- which allegedly was much less than the market price;secondly, sale of 1.87 Acres of land of 'the society' by Vikas Jain, vide sale deed dated 19.10.2007, to Dharmendra Jain for Rs.7,48,000/- which allegedly as per Govt. guidelines had a market rice of Rs.73 lacs.From the record, it appears that certain other transactions with regard to sale/lease of the land belonging to 'the society' also took place, however, nothing specifically has been alleged by the prosecution against petitioner Dharmendra Jain with regard to those transactions, particularly, regarding sale deed dated 31.03.1998 of 3.5 Acres of land by Krishna Kant Nagar in favour of Devki Nandan Agrawal and lease of 9 Acres of land on 16.06.2003 by Krishna Kant Nagar in favour of Prominent Education Society and the sale of 3.35 acres of land on 18.07.2007 to Rajesh Bhagtariya.Further, perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner/Dharmendra Jain reveals that the transactions which took place in 1998 and 2003 have been mentioned as the acts forming charge of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including petitioners, though, nothing in that connection has been specifically alleged by the prosecution against petitioner Dharmendra Jain.Apart this, it is also found that reference in the charge regarding sale deed, said to have been executed by the petitioner Vikas Jain in favour of Dharmendra Jain, with regard to commercial plot admeasuring 2907 square feet and a land admeasuring 1.87 Acres is apparently incorrect because these transactions have respectively been made on 21.06.2006 and 19.10.2007, while the dates mentioned in the charge are 29.09.2009 and 22.09.2009, respectively.As regards charges pertaining to Section 201, IPC regarding disappearance of evidence, the description in this respect in charge No.6 framed against petitioner Dharmendra Jain is quite vague because it does not say as to which year's register and with regard to which proceedings was eliminated or destroyed by the Dharmendra Jain and that how, in what capacity and during which period he was in power and possession of those documents.Without these specific facts, the charge U/s 201 IPC cannot be said to be complete. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,051,802 | ORDER Dipak Misra, J.The facts as have been depicted are that the petitioner alongwith some other family members was charge-sheeted in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.') in Crime No. 81/2000 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol.It is averred in the writ, petition that the deceased Jyotsna was married to the son of the petitioner and she expired on 284-2000 under unnatural circumstances.The further allegation of the prosecution is that said Jyotsna was illtreated for demand of dowry and death had occurred due to asphyxia caused by strangulation.On the basis of the said allegations criminal law was set in motion by the parents and brother of the deceased.The petitioner alongwith his family members were arrested.When the matter stood thus the brother of the deceased submitted an application on 2-2-2000 before the District Magistrate, Shahdol, the respondent No, 2 herein, for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case and expressed his willingness to pay the fees of such Special Public Prosecutor.On the basis of the aforesaid application the District Magistrate vide Annexure P. 2 appointed the respondent No. 3 as the Special Public Prosecutor.In justification of the appointment it has been pleaded that the State Government after receiving the recommendations for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor in the case considered the matter objectively and called upon the Collector to narrate special circumstances that may warrant appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and on consideration of the correspondence dated 31-5-2000 of the District Magistrate the State Government came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where an appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was warranted and accordingly appointed respondent No. 3 who is an experienced lawyer.A return has been filed by the respondent No. 3 contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands in asmuch as there has been a considerable length of delay in assailing the order of appointment.It is put forth by him that he has been appearing for the State as a Special Public Prosecutor right from the beginning and none of the accused persons have ever raised any objections with regard to his appointment.Annexure R-3/2, that the appointment order should come from the State Government.It has been further set forth that he is not the choice of the complainant.It has been further pleaded that as the brother of the deceased expressed his apprehension to the District Magistrate in getting justice as the accused persons are very rich and influencial persons of Shahdol he had requested for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and the State Government keeping in view the past experience of respondent No. 3 appointment him as the Special Public Prosecutor and there is no illegality in passing of the said order.I have heard Mr. S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.The District Magistrate has also stated that the accused persons are influential and rich people.He also mentioned that the parental house of the deceased is in the State of Bihar.It has further been mentioned that the brother of the deceased had made a request for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,182,608 | The appellants have impugned a judgment dated 21.07.2016, whereby the appellants were convicted of offences punishable under section 323, 354, 354A, 356, 394, 450, 452, 506 (Part II) read with CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 1 of 12 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).In addition, the appellant Vinay was also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.The appellants also impugn an order on sentence dated 25.07.2016, whereby the appellants were sentenced in respect of the offences committed by them.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 1 of 12A tabular statement indicating the sentences awarded to the appellants in respect of the offences for which they were convicted is set out below: -1. S. 323 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with fine of 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days.2. S. 354 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days.4. S. 356 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with fine of 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 30 days.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 2 of 125. S. 394 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years with fine of 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.S. 450 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.S. 452 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.S. 506 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine Part II IPC of 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint made by Dolly Mondal, an FIR (FIR bearing no. 677/14 CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 3 of 12 under Sections 323/354/354A/394/397/452/411/506/34 of the IPC registered at PS Khajuri Khas) was registered against the appellants.The complainant alleged that on 07.07.2014 at 11.30 a.m. at H. No. B- 65, Gali No. 2, Dayal Pur, New Delhi, the accused Vinay and Raj Tilak entered the complainant's house on the pretext of shifting the electricity meter.They robbed her of her jewellery and mobile phone thereby, causing hurt and outraging her modesty.It was also alleged that the accused used a knife - a deadly weapon, at the time of committing the said robbery.Upon hearing the alarm, the public near her house caught the accused Vinay.The accused Raj Tilak managed to escape and was apprehended from his house at around 8 pm later that day.Pursuant to aforesaid FIR, the accused were charged with the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323/354/354A/ 394/397/452/411/506/34 of the IPC.They pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 3 of 12During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses.She stated that on 07.07.2014 at 11.30 a.m., the accused Vinay and Raj Tilak entered the complainant's house on the pretext of shifting the electricity meter.PW-1 called her husband (PW-2) from her mobile phone to confirm the same.She also asked the accused Vinay to talk to her husband on phone.She stated that her husband had asked them to CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 4 of 12 come the next day before 10 am when he would be home.The accused Vinay and Raj Tilak asked her to show them the air-conditioner.She stated that she asked them why they wanted to see it and asked them to leave so that she could shut the door.The accused Raj Tilak became aggressive and asked her what she had said (kya bola, kya bola) and inserted his fingers into her mouth and brought her down on the floor.PW-1 stated that the accused Raj Tilak bit her on her left cheek.He pinned her down and the accused Vinay bolted the door from inside.She testified that the accused took her forcibly inside the room and pinned her down.The accused Vinay dragged her by her hair; he bit her on her forearm, upper arm of her left hand; and gave fist blows on her back and other parts of the body.She alleged that he bit her on her back and other parts of her body.She alleged that the accused robbed her of her gold chain, two gold rings and four ear-rings (two small and two large) which PW-1 was wearing at the time of the incident, and a Samsung mobile phone.She stated that she kept screaming and heard the accused telling each other to kill her.She stated that Vinay was holding her legs and tried to stab her with a knife but she caught it in her hand.Consequently, she suffered a cut injury on her left palm.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 4 of 12She stated that hearing her screams, local persons in the neighbourhood gathered outside the door that opened on the side street and started knocking on the door.They asked her to open the door while enquiring as to what had happened ("Didi, kholo kholo andar kya hua hai").She stated that the accused left the house from the main door.She followed them raising an alarm and the accused Vinay was CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 5 of 12 apprehended by the public present outside the house.The accused Raj Tilak managed to escape.Someone took her phone from the accused Vinay and handed it over to her.Someone called the PCR, which arrived about 10-20 minutes later and took her to the Hospital.Thereafter, at around 3 pm, she was medically examined at GTB Hospital and her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by SI Shalinder Singh (Ex. PW1/B).She stated that she returned to her house and the IO also came there.She testified that she handed over the recovered Samsung phone to the IO at her house (Ex. PW1/C).She further stated that at around 8 pm, the accused Raj Tilak was also arrested by the IO and she identified him at Village Sherpur (Ex. PW1/E).A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 5 of 12She affirmed that the place where the initial conversation with the accused persons had taken place was not visible from the houses situated opposite to her house.She affirmed that around fifty persons from the locality were present when the accused Vinay was apprehended by the public.She stated that she does not know the person who recovered mobile phone from the accused Vinay and handed it over.She denied having a nephew by the name of Pradeep or that the accused Vinay had provided a loan to Pradeep or on his surety.She denied knowing the accused Raj Tilak and also CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 6 of 12 denied owing him any money.She denied that all the documents were prepared at the police station by the IO or that she had signed the same without verifying the contents.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 6 of 12Robin Mondal, the husband of the complainant, deposed as PW-He stated that on 07.07.2014 at around 11:30 am, he received a telephonic call from PW-1, wherein PW-1 informed him that the accused persons had come to their house.PW-2 stated that he spoke to one of the accused over the telephone, asked him to come the next day and disconnected the call.He stated that his subsequent calls to PW-1 were not received by her.She returned his call after 25-30 minutes informing him about the alleged incident.Thereafter, he reached GTB Hospital and he and the complainant went home after her treatment.On cross examination, PW-2 affirmed that the police did not make any enquiries or recorded his statement regarding the alleged incident.He affirmed that he had prepared the gold ornaments that were robbed by the accused, from the gold received by him as labour charges.He affirmed that he did not maintain a record of the customers who gave gold to him as labour charges.He affirmed that he did not give the receipt of the ornaments to the IO.He also identified the photographs showing the injuries suffered by the complainant.He further CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 7 of 12 affirmed that PW-1 had informed him that she had sustained the injuries on account of her being bit by someone.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 7 of 12In his cross examination, he affirmed that he reached the spot of the alleged incident at around 12:30 pm and there were fifty to sixty public persons present there.He affirmed that the accused Vinay had sustained injuries.He affirmed that the accused Raj Tilak was found outside his house with two or three persons.He affirmed that the accused did not run away and stood silently when he was apprehended from Village Sherpur.He affirmed that on 07.07.2014 he reached the spot of the alleged incident at around 12- 12:15 pm and there were fifteen to twenty persons present at the spot.He further affirmed that the accused Vinay did not sustain any injuries.SI Shailender Singh, the Investigating Officer, deposed as PW-He stated that on 07.07.2014, after being informed of DD No. 23A at 12:08 pm, Ct. Subodh (PW-6) and him reached the complainant's house.He stated that the accused Vinay had sustained injuries, as the public had beaten him.After being rescued, the accused Vinay was sent to the police station.Thereafter, he and Ct.He prepared a rukka (Ex PW11/A) for registration of the FIR.VIBHU BAKHRU, JIn addition to the above, the appellant Vinay was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 30 days for committing an offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.All the sentences awarded to appellants were directed to run concurrently.Thereafter, on the basis the information given by the CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 8 of 12 accused Vinay, he along with PW-6 arrested the accused Raj Tilak at around 8 pm from Village Sherpur.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 8 of 12On cross examination, PW-11 affirmed that the accused Vinay was medically examined at JPC Hospital (Ex. PW11/D-1).He affirmed that he asked persons from the public to join the investigation, however, none agreed.He denied that he went to the house of the accused Raj Tilak and apprehended him from there while he was sleeping.He affirmed that the accused Raj Tilak tried to run away before being apprehended and no person from the public were present at that time.He denied making any enquires from the neighbours of the accused Raj Tilak.The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.They stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.The accused Vinay stated that he had gone to the complainant's house alone to demand money from her nephew.He stated that he did not enter the complainant's house.He further stated that he had sustained injuries because of the police officials and not the public.He stated that he was made to sign blank papers at the police station.The accused Raj Tilak stated that he was apprehended by the police from his house while he was sleeping.The prosecution's case rests almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant (PW1) and the MLC.The complainant's MLC (PW1/A) clearly indicates that she had suffered a wound on her left CRL.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 9 of 12 cheek measuring approximately 3 x 1.5 cm.She had swelling on her lower lips and there were bruises present on the left cheek and the left forearm.In addition, there were bite marks on the left cheek and the left forearm.The photographs (PW1/G colly) establish that the complainant had suffered an ugly injury on her left cheek.One of the photographs clearly indicates the bite marks of her cheek as well as an open wound.Although the investigation in this case has been shoddy and wanting, however, it cannot be disputed that the prosecution has clearly established that the complainant had suffered the injury.This lends much credence to her testimony.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 9 of 12The jewellery stated to have been robbed by the appellants has not been recovered.Although, no bills have been produced for purchase of such jewellery; the complainant's husband had explained that the jewellery was made by the gold received by him as labour charges for making jewellery.The mobile phone stated to have been stolen by the appellant Vinay was not recovered from him by the police officials or by the complainant.According to the testimony of the complainant, someone from the crowd had recovered the same and had handed it over to her.As to who had recovered the said mobile has not been brought on record.None of the persons who had apprehended the appellant Vinay, have been examined.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 10 of 12According to the testimony of the complainant, a large number of persons had collected on the side lane of her house and had heard her scream.They had knocked on the door and had enquired as to what was happening inside.However, none of the said neighbours were examined.In view of the above, one may have doubted the prosecution's case against the appellants.But the appellant, Vinay had clearly admitted that he had gone to the house of the complainant.In this view, there can be no doubt that the appellant Vinay was present at the spot.There is also no doubt that he had been apprehended by the public.The appellant Raj Tilak was not apprehended at the spot but he has also been identified by the complainant.The appellant Vinay, has not led any evidence to establish as to why they had gone to the complainant's house.Although, in his statement, the appellant Vinay, had stated that he had gone there because the complainant's nephew (one Pradeep) had borrowed money from him.However, there is no evidence to establish the same.Suggestions to the aforesaid effect were put to PW1 (the complainant) in her cross-examination.However, she denied that she had any nephew by the name of Pradeep.Thus, there is no substance in the defence sought to be built up by the appellants.The complainant had suffered injuries and there is no reason whatsoever for her to falsely implicate the appellants.Thus, this court finds no reason to doubt her testimony that the appellants had entered her premises and had robbed her of her valuables.A. Nos. 790 & 791 of 2016 Page 11 of 12The complainant had identified the appellants and her testimony remained unshaken.The appellant Vinay was aged about 21 years at the material time and had no criminal antecedents.The appellant Raj Tilak was also aged about 24 years.His antecedents are clean as well.He has a minor daughter, which was about four months old on the date of the impugned judgment.The court had also disbelieved the case set up by the prosecution that either of the appellants were armed.The appellants have already served their sentences for all the offences except the offence punishable under section 394 of the IPC.They have also served more than six years for the said offence.In the given circumstances, the sentences awarded to the appellants are reduced to the period already served.The appellants are directed to be released forthwith.The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.The pending application is also disposed of.VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 05, 2021/RK CRL. | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,185,269 | M According to prosecution story, on 2.5.2015 at about of 8.00 p.m. in the night, respondents kidnapped abducted the rt prosecutrix, a minor girl, and sexually assaulted her.After ou investigation, charge sheet was filed and case was committed.Respondents abjured their guilt saying that they were falsely C implicated.The mainstay of the prosecution case is the h ig evidence of Siyarani (PW-1) mother of the prosecutrix, PW-2 H prosecutrix, Roshni (PW-3) sister of the prosecutrix and Harishankar Raikwar (PW-12) father of the prosecutrix have not supported the prosecution case in the Court and therefore, trial Court has acquitted the respondents.It is also noticed that no FSL report was produced before the trial Court.After going through the evidence on record, we find that findings recorded by the trial Court are not perverse calling for any interference.There is no merit and substance in the application for grant of leave to appeal.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands dismissed. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,185,648 | Heard on this first application for bail under section 4 3 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant in connection with Crime No.280/2017 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur, under Sections 354, 354-A and 509 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to unavoidable circumstance, he could not appear on the said date.The applicant undertakes to appear on each and every date as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court.Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, is allowed.It is directed that if the applicant produces receipt evidencing deposit of Rs.2,000/- before the trial Court, then he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 15/05/2019 14:23:24 2 MCRC-15115-2019 sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 15/05/2019 14:23:24 | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,186,208 | The conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 06/10/2020 11:29:05 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,187,577 | Record of the trial Court has been received.Heard on admission.It is ordered that subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the applicant/accused shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 19/2/2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard.In case, applicant is found absent on any date fixed by the trial Court then the said trial Court shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.List the case for final hearing as per its turn.Certified copy as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.10.11 05:32:18 -07'00' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,051,903 | It is alleged in the petition that until 17-12-1947, the petitioner used to work in the Force Department of the Inspector General of Police office along with one Upanand'a Mukherjee and one Bolai Chand Mukherji.The Inspector General of Police office is divided into three departments, (1) The Intelligence Branch department which operates from 13, Lord Sinha Road, (2) Force Department and (3) the Budget Department which operates at the Writers Buildings.It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed a clerk in the Bengal Police some time in April 1927 by the Deputy Inspector General, Backergunj range, and the petitioner was given a letter of appointment according to the service rules of the Police Service.This fact of the petitioner being appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Backergunj, is, however, not stated in the petition but it appears that for the purpose of establishing this fact before the Court the petitioner's solicitor by a letter dated 9-4-1951 called upon the respondents' solicitor to produce the Police Gazette dated 13-1-1928, and the service book of the petitioner at the hearing but none of these documents have been produced on behalf of the respondents.The same request was repeated at the hearing but with no effect.Until 17-12-1947 the petitioner was an Assistant in the Force Department, while the said Upananda was in charge as the Assistant Inspector General of Police and the said Bolai was his Head Assistant.The said Bolai Chand who had as long a service to his credit as the petitioner is alleged to have entertained feelings of jealousy towards the petitioner as likely rival to the post of Superintendent in the Inspector General's office.The said Upananda is alleged to have been openly hostile to the petitioner, as the petitioner objected to the transfer and promotion of one Tarananda a brother of the said Upananda some time in 1947 and also for other reasons.On 17-12-1947, the petitioner was transferred to the Intelligence Branch office at Lord Sinha Road as an Assistant.Respondent 2 was the Special Superintendent and respondent 1 was the Special Assistant in that office.On 25-8-1947, one Amulya Choudhury made an application to the Inspector General of Police for re-appointment in the Police Force.On 1-12-1947 the said Amulya made a further application to the same effect.On 5-1-1948, the said Bolai endorsed the first petition of Amulya dated 25-8-1947, keeping the question of his re-appointment pending.On 13-1-1948, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 22-12-1947, under Rule 7, Bengal Subordinate Service Rules.In the circumstances the petitioner moved this Court for the reliefs stated above and also for certain other directions and reliefs but this Court on 30-1-1951, issued a rule nisi only for the quashing of the departmental proceedings and the orders made in relation thereto.It is stated in this affidavit that being directed by the Inspector General of Police of West Bengal on 2-5-1949 respondent 1 drew up charges against the petitioner for holding the departmental enquiry into such charges.The charges drawn up were placed before respondent 2 and were approved by him.It is pointed out by setting out the different dates and the events that took place on such dates that the petitioner was repeatedly given opportunities to defend himself against the charges drawn up against him and every facility was afforded to the petitioner for the purpose.The petitioner, however, did not avail himself of such opportunities and ultimately the enquiry had to be held in his absence and respondent 1 after having considered the materials, papers and events which were produced before him at the departmental enquiry made his report on 18-4-1950 recommending dismissal of the petitioner from service.The petitioner was thereafter supplied with a copy of the findings of respondent 1 and was asked to show cause by respondent 2 why he should not be dismissed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,051,980 | (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu by name PondicherryKumar @ Kumar, who was detained as a 'Goonda' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video PiratesAct, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned detention order dated03.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learnedGovernment Advocate for the respondents.At the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that though in the grounds of detention, particularly in para 3, thedetaining authority has stated that the knives and the bags were retrievedfrom the co-accused Kandhasamy and Shanmugam, a copy of the mahazar relating to the seizure of those knives and bags were not furnished to the detenu.Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the threeadverse cases as well as the ground case dated 2.7.2005 submitted that all thethree adverse cases relate to theft of sandalwood trees and only in the groundcase he was charged for the offences under Sections 3 37, 427, 307 and 506(2)IPC.In such circumstances, according to the counsel, the detaining authorityis not justified in passing the detention order based on the solitary instanceof the ground case.With reference to the said contention, we verified the threeadverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention.The first case relatesto an occurrence on 23.06.2005 for offences under Sections 35B and 36-AE ofTamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 r/w 44 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Amendment) 1992 r/w Rule 3 of Sandalwood Transit Rules 1967 r/ w 379 IPC on the file of J.5Shastri Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1425 of 2005, which shows that he andhis associates committed theft of sandalwood trees from Sappotta Garden ofTheosophical Society at Adayar premises.In the second case that had takenplace on 27.6.2005, he was charged for the offences under Sections 35-B, 36-AE of Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 r/w 44 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Amendment) 1992 r/w Rule 3 of Sandalwood Transit Rules 1967 r/w 379 IPC on the file of J.5 Shastri Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1471 of 2005, which showsthat he and his associates committed theft of two sandalwood trees at Adyarriverside platform of Theosophical Society at Adyar premises.In the thirdcase that had taken place on 01.07 .2005, he was charged for the offencesunder Sections 35-B, 36-AE of Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 r/w 44 of Tamil NaduForest Act ( Amendment) 1992 r/w Rule 3 of Sandalwood Transit Rules 1967 r/w379 IPC on the file of J.5 Shastri Nagar Police Station Crime No.1496 of 2005,which shows that he and his associates committed theft of two sandalwood treesat Alcot Bangalow of Theosophical Society at Adyar premises.Coming to theground case, it is seen from the complaint that one Murali, who is theWatchman of Adyar Theosophical Society informed that on 2.7.2005 at about5.45.p.m.while he was proceeding to his house after attending to his worknear Oorurkuppam Boys Club, he noticed Kandhasamy, Shanmugam and Pondicherry Kumar @ Kumar carrying bags and on suspicion, the complainant Murali enquired them and immediately all the three, including the detenu threatened thecomplainant by uttering vulgar words.The co-accused viz., Kandhasamy andShanmugam took out their knives and rushed to cut the complainant over hisneck and the complainant escaped from the said attack.Since the complainantraised hue and cry, the public gathered on the spot.All the three byuttering vulgar words, threatened the public and also threw bottles and thebroken pieces of bottles scattered all over the road.The public, who were atthe spot ran hither and thither for safety out of fear of danger to theirlives and properties.The other details mentioned in para 3 of grounds ofdetention makes it clear that it was not only Kandhasamy and Shanmugam, who were involved in the theft of sandalwood trees but also the detenu, whothreatened the public by throwing bottles on them.No doubt even according tothe detaining authority, the detenu escaped from the scene of occurrence.However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate based onthe confession statement of all the three accused, knives and bags were seizedunder mahazar.Accordingly, the saidcontention is also liable to be rejected .Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there isunexplained delay in disposal of the representation dated 14.10.20 05of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention.With regardto the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certaindetails, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by theGovernment on 17.10.2005 and remarks were called for on 18.10.2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 28.10.2005 .In between21.10.2005 and 25.10.2005 , there were two holidays viz., Saturday and Sunday.We verified the factual details and various dates from the saiddecision.It is seen that even after exclusion of public holidays, Saturdayand Sunday, in the case decided by the Division Bench, after taking note ofthe fact that 19.11.2001, 20.11.2001 and 21.11.2001 were working days, theyblamed the authorities concerned for not preparing the rejection letter withinthe prescribed period.In our case at no point of time the working daysexceeded beyond two days.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.Index:Yes Internet:1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.(In duplicate for communication to detenu)The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,199,222 | That the mother of the complainant got executed a sale deed of 238 square meters land in her favour on 14.6.2004 from its owner on payment of Rs. 70,000/- as sale consideration and spent over Rs. 30,000/- in getting the sale deed executed, as she was fully assured of due performance of licence agreement by the revisionists.Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar summoning the revisionists for proceeding under sections 406, 417 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.The brief facts of the present case are that Saurabh Kumar Jindal filed a complaint case under sections 120B, 405, 406, 147, 420 and 427 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur on 11.3.2005 for summoning the accused for trial, with the allegations that on 10.6.2004 the revisionists entered into a written agreement with the mother of the complainant, according to which they had to take on rent 238 square meters land of his mother, @ Rs. 6,000/- per month as license fee and a sum of Rs. 36,000/- was to be paid by the revisionists in advance for six months to be adjusted in one year. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
105,208,186 | kindly be directed to register the FIR on the application Annexure P/1 filed by the petitioner and respondent no.2 be further directed to take action against respondent no.3-Shri Vivek Ashthana, S.H.O. Police Station Huzrat Kotwali on the application filed by petitioner Annexure P/2, who has not registered the FIR as he has joint hands with Smt. Baby Arya W/o Shri Raj Kumar Arya and favours her.(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that one Smt. Baby Arya (who has not been impeaded as a party in this petition) prepared false caste certificate and on the basis of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.25075/2019 (SMT.Thereafter, the petitioner tried to verify of the caste certificate of Smt. Baby Arya and committee was situated for the verification of the same and the committee by its report dated 02/09/2019 has given a specific finding that Smt. Baby Arya has got the caste certificate prepared by the misleading the authority and she has taken undue advantage of the same.It is submitted that the petitioner has given an application to the SHO, Police Station Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior, which has not been acted upon.It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that once the committee has found that Smt. Baby Arya fraudulently obtained the caste certificate, therefore, the SHO, Police 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.25075/2019 (SMT.MANU RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ) Station Huzrat Kotwali was under obligation to register the FIR and in spite of the fact that the complaint dated 13/10/2019 made by the petitioner had disclosed the commission of the cognizable offences but still the SHO, Police Station Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior has not registered the offence.Heard the counsel for the petitioner.Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents / guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificatesThe inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day to day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months.If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same.No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,949,653 | Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.M.C No.3991/2012 and Crl.M.A. No.19078/2012 (Stay)This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of RC No.DAI-2003(A)-0049 registered with PS CBI/ACB/New Delhi as well as the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings pending pursuant thereto against the petitioner, in view of the compromise entered into Crl.M.C. No.3991/2012 Page 1 of 18 between petitioner and respondent No.2-Bank in civil litigation.Alongwith the petition, the petitioner has also annexed the copy of the FIR and the chargesheet.M.C. No.3991/2012 Page 1 of 182. Notice.In the chargesheet, apart from other allegations, the main allegation is that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy Shri Vijay Manchanda, partner, SLF Housing Company, C-1, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad, executed a sale deed in favour of M/s. SLF India Ltd. through Shri B.R.Bajaj, S/o A.L.Bajaj regarding a plot measuring 25 sq. Yards situated at C-1, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad on 09.06.1998 and after that by adding figure "9" before 25 sq. yards, the size of the plot was changed to show it measuring 925 sq. yards.Investigation further revealed that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy Shri V.P.Aneja, approved Valuer, evaluated the said plot on 11.06.1998 and as per his report he evaluated the said property to be of Rs.64,75,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- per sq. yds.The said valuation was falsely done is established from the fact that subsequently at the time of filing the suit before DRT, when valuation of the said property was done by Sh.Moreover, as mentioned earlier the sale deed of the said property submitted to bank was executed on 9.6.1998 at a premium of Rs.2,19,500/- and on 11.06.1998 i.e. after three days how a property could be evaluated to be of Rs.64.75 lakhs which shows that Shri V.P. Aneja, the valuer was in league with Sh.M.L.Vij and Shri S.C.Gupta and falsely evaluated a non-existing property at Rs.64.75 lakhs.Similarly, Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate also submitted non-encumbrance certificate dated 21.07.1998 wherein he certified that the said non- existing property is free from all encumbrances.It was established during investigation that as per the record of Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, the area of the said property was only 25 sq. yds and the sale deed was executed at a valuation of Rs.2,19,500/-.As per chargesheet, the above omissions/commissions on the part of the bank officers disclosed their dishonest intention in enhancing the limits and releasing the property worth Rs.1,00,78,000/- kept as equitable mortgage.The said bank officers had not secured the interest of the bank and rather facilitated the party to get the public money.The above circumstances show that the bank officers were in criminal conspiracy with private accused persons and in pursuance thereof, they did above acts.It was revealed during investigation that in criminal conspiracy with Shri M.L.Vij and Shri S.L.Gupta both directors of MIPL, private persons Sh.Vijay Manchanda executed the forged/fabricated sale deed, Sh.B.R.Bajaj mortgaged the said sale deed to the bank, Sh.V.P.Aneja prepared forged/fake valuation report and Sh.Anil Sharma prepared fake search report regarding the title of the sale deed of the plot which does Crl.M.C. No.3991/2012 Page 3 of 18 not exist and facilitated the accused persons to cheat the bank by submitting the forged/fake documents prepared by them.M.C. No.3991/2012 Page 3 of 18In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was partner along with one S.C.Gupta in the firm M/s. Madhusudan International.The partnership firm applied for working capital credit facility to respondent No.2 for its business requirements and the same was sanctioned by way of fund based limits of Cash Credit (Hypothecation) of Rs.15 lacs and Overdraft facility against Book Debts of Rs.10 lacs and Non-Fund based limit of Import LC (DA 90 days) of Rs.100 lacs against hypothecation of stocks/book debts and mortgage of residential property of Mr.Subsequently, constitution of the firm was changed from partnership to private limited company with permission of respondent No.2-Bank and fresh loan documents were executed by both the Directors on behalf of Madhusudan International Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as MIPL).% Crl.M.A. Nos. 19079-80 of 2012 (Exemption)Application stands disposed of.Suraj Bhan, father of other partner Mr.At the time of renewal, proposal for enhancement of credit facility was submitted which was allowed vide letter No.At the time of renewal of credit facilities in 1998, MIPL submitted proposalof enhancement of credit facility.Request was also made for substitution of the existing collateral security of father of S.C. Gupta with plot of the petitioner at Paschim Vihar because of some personal family dispute in respect of the property of father of S.C. Gupta.The bank did not respond to said proposal for substitution of the collateral security.M.C. No.3991/2012 Page 4 of 18On the request of Mr.S.C.Gupta, originally mortgaged property of his father bearing No.E-1, Dairy Road, Adarsh Nagar Extn., Delhi was substituted with another property bearing No. C-1, Ambedkar Nagar, Ghaziabad which was allowed by the respondent No.2-Bank.Since MIPL could not maintain financial discipline, respondent No.2-Bank asked MIPL to liquidate the entire amount.Thereafter respondent No.2 Central Bank of India, after serving a legal notice, filed a civil suit on 03.06.2002 for recovery of Rs.114.76 lacs before Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi.The respondent no.2 also sent a notice under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which indicates that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature i.e. non-payment of the loan amount but false evidence was produced by the respondent no.2 bank to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case and civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal liability.Then the petitioner vide letter dated 04.07.2012 initiated the process of negotiation, in response thereof, the respondent No.2 issued a letter No.ARBDEL/F-96-2012-13/17 dated 11.09.2012 wherein the respondent no.2 has settled the dispute for a sum of Rs.55 lacs which amount has been deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.2 bank.and by committing forgery, it was made to appear in respect of plot size of 925 sq.yds.Even the valuation report and the search report by the Advocate, were false as revealed during investigation.Relying on Y.N.Kashyap & Ors.During the pendency of the criminal case, the dispute between husband and wife and family members was settled.The compromise was effected in the civil suit filed by the bank and as per clause 11 of the compromise, both the parties agreed to withdraw all allegations and counter allegations made against each other.At the stage of framing charge, the appellant filed an application for discharge.M.C. No.3991/2012 Page 17 of 18Taking into consideration that the petitioner is involved in a serious economic offence and huge loss has been allegedly caused to the exchequer by the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the criminal proceedings is declined.For the reasons given above, I am of the considered view that merely on account of discharge of civil liability, the petitioner is not entitled to quashing of criminal proceedings against him in the case RC No.DAI-2003(A)-0049 registered with PS CBI/ACB/New Delhi.The petition is hereby dismissed.PRATIBHA RANI, J NOVEMBER 23, 2012'dc/st' Crl. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,459,565 | WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.767-768 OF 2008 O R D E R The facts leading to these appeals are as under: On 28th October, 2001, at 8.00 p.m. accused A.1 toA.8 armed with sickles (aruvals) and accused 9 to 15 armedwith sticks went to the house of the deceased SeeniappaNadar and inquired about PW.13 Mariappan, his son.Thedeceased informed the accused that Mariappan was notpresent in the house.Annoyed at this answer A.13 Ayyanar Nadar instigated the other accused and all of them attackedthe deceased with their weapons killing him on the spot.Asper the prosecution story the motive for the incident wasthe serious animosity between Mariappan Nadar PW.13 on theone hand, and A.13 Ayyanar Nadar accused on the other withregard to the affairs of the Nadar community inasmuch thatthey represented two different groups in the Committee runby the community.It also appears from the record thateven prior to this incident, several incidents had takenplace between the parties with complaints inter se, notonly in court but even in the police station.The incidentin question was witnessed by Sornammal, the wife of the -2- deceased, her daughter P.Chellam (PW.1) who was living in ahouse about 100 yards away and Muthu (PW.2) the grandsonof the deceased.Sornammal then rushed to the policestation and lodged the report within a short time.TheInvestigating Officer (PW.25) also reached the place ofincident, made the necessary inquiries and sent the deadboy to the hospital for the post-mortem examination.Thepost-mortem conducted by Dr. Ramesh (PW.17) revealed thepresence of nine incised wounds on the dead body.Afterinvestigation PW.25 filed the charge-sheet against A.6,A.7, A.9, A.10 and A.11 and one Paneerselvam, wassubsequently charge-sheeted as well.As the complainantwas not satisfied with the investigation, she moved theMadras High Court for further investigation in the matter and the High Court by its order dated 11th December, 2001,directed that the Superintendent of Police CBCID (PW.27) toexamine the proceedings himself and in case he found thatthe investigation made by PW.25 was faulty, to furtherinvestigate the matter as postulated by Section 173(8) ofCr.P.C. It appears that further investigation was indeedmade by PW.27 whereafter he filed a charge-sheet againstall the 15 named persons leaving out Paneerselvam the 16thaccused.The matter was thereafter brought to trial beforethe Sessions Judge who by his judgment and order dated 16 thJune, 2006, held all the accused (Save A.7 who had died)guilty as follows :Appellants Convictions under Sentence Awarded Sections.Read with 149 IPC imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC for each of the Accused.2.One month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC.3.Life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC for each of the accused.An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to theHigh Court.The High Court maintained the conviction ofA.1 to A.6 and A.8 and acquitted the other accused.Two appeals have been filed against the order of theHigh Court, one by the convicted accused inCrl.A.No.584/2008 and the second Crl.A.Nos.767-768/2008 by -4-PW.1 the daughter of the complainant seeking a reversal ofthe High Court's judgment insofar as some of the accusedhad been acquitted and as the complainant had died beforethe evidence could be recorded in the trial Court.Leavehas been granted in both these matters and we have heardthe learned counsel for the parties today in extenso.We find from a perusal thereof that PW.27 hadmade a comprehensive further investigation, recorded thestatements of the witnesses who had already been examined -7-by PW.25 and in addition the statements of several otherwitnesses as well and their their statements under Sec. 164of the Cr.P.C. and on reappraisal had filed a fresh charge-sheet.We have also considered Mr. Natarajan's argumentswith respect to the finding recorded by the High Court onthe evidence.He has first and foremost pointed out thatthough the trial Court had convicted all the accused, theHigh Court in appeal had acquitted several of them and ithad, therefore, to be presumed that the evidence did notjustify a conviction.We notice that necessaryinvestigation into the facts has already been made by theHigh Court as also by the trial Court.We would ordinarilybe hesitant to re-appraise the evidence.We havenevertheless done so and have gone through the statementsof the two primary witnesses PW.1 and 3 We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve their statements as fortified bythe medical evidence given by PW.17 Dr. Ramesh who hadfound the following injuries:1 A deep cut injury in the centre of the head with fracture of parietal bone on left side size 10cm x 3cm.Blood coming from the fracture site.2 A cut injury on left parietal region size 5 cm x 3 cm near lest ear.-9- 1 A deep cut injury with fracture of occipital bone size 6cmx3cm.Blood coming from fracture site.2 A cut injury near left eye size 4cmx2cm.3 A cut injury on left jaw size 4cmx2cm.4 A cut injury on left shoulder size 3cmx2cm.5 A cut injury on left forearm size 3cmx2cm.6 Two cut inury on the back on left side of lower chest size 3cmx1 = cm.7 A cut injury near right back side ear size 2cmx1cm.It must also be borne in mindthat the factum of animosity between the parties standsadmitted.In such a case the real assailants would not beleft out although false implication could be a possibility.It is in this background that the High Court has alreadygranted the benefit to some of the accused on theunderstanding that the medical evidence did not indicatetheir presence as the acquitted persons were armed withsticks and no blunt weapon injuries had been detected bythe doctor.A.Nos.767-768/08 filed by P.Chellam also lack merit for thereasons given above. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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. |
145,963,197 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No.4765 of 2015 (State Vs.Rajesh Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.70 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Ghaziabad rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionist.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the incident dated 18.10.2013, the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.06.2014 by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist and his brothers and sisters.Subsequently, after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted on 14.08.2014 against the revisionist.Application 482 No.31210 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 25.04.2016 disposed off the said application with the direction to the applicant to surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail.The facts and grounds taken by the revisionist have not been taken into consideration by both the court below while passing the impugned order.Therefore, the order impugned is perverse and liable to be set aside. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,965,134 | As per the prosecution case, PW8 girl aged around 16 years is a victim girl.Her maternal uncle PW1 on 24 th June, 2017 lodged FIR at Mudkhed Police Station.As per FIR, the victim's father had died and her mother was suffering from mental disorder.Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for ApplicantMr.A.A. Jagatkar, APP for Respondent/State CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J DATE : 14th JUNE, 2019 ORAL ORDER:While listening the learned Advocates on the point of suspension of sentence, it is deemed necessary to admit the Appeal and hear it finally at this stage.The learned Counsel for the parties agreed to take up matter for final hearing but learned APP submitted that the record would be necessary.The admitted facts are such that the appeal can be disposed of without record.The Appeal is admitted.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::On 18th June, 2017, the victim was admitted in the Government Hospital due to abdominal pains.On 21 June, 2017, PW1 met her.There was also allegation that accused had threatened to kill the victim and relatives, in case she discloses the incident.Due to fear, she did not disclose it to anyone for 7 to 8 months.The crime was registered at Crime No. 184/2017 under section 376 (2) ((i) and 506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POSCO Act. After the committal of a case and after framing of the charge, prosecution examined 11 witnesses.Learned Special Judge observed that no witnesses have supported the prosecution.However, there was evidence in the form of DNA report showing that the child begotten by the victim which expired in short time was biological child of the accused.The learned trial Judge held that the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. recorded of the ma terial::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 ::: 3 916-CRI.APPLN.1706-2019 witnesses also could not be used as substantive evidence and those are only corroborative evidence.Still, in absence of evidence, the learned trial Judge held that as the accused had not taken defence that the sexual intercourse was consensual the offence of rape is proved.Pertinently, the learned trial Judge did not accept the case that the victim PW8 was below 18 years of age.He also considered the school record to consider that she was not below 18 years.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::In the light of these facts, the learned Advocate Mr. Ghanekar argued that the conviction is based on no evidence with regard to the absence of the consent of the child, and therefore, the offence under section 376 of IPC of rape cannot be said to be proved.Per contra, learned APP submitted that the victim child had no father and her mother was mentally weak.The victim was of tender age.In the circumstances, she has not supported the prosecution, but her statement under section 164 Cr.PC.supports the prosecution.He also argued that the learned trial court has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-, and therefore, the victim should be heard.Learned Advocate Mr. Ghanekar submitted that provisions of section 357-A are not attracted unless the crime of rape is::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 ::: 4 916-CRI.APPLN.1706-2019 proved, but without considering the said fact, the appellant is ready to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the victim as he was biological father of the expired child.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::In view of the matter, the presence of the victim is not necessary.The point for my consideration with my finding are as follows :-Whether it is proved that the accused committed rape on minor girl, PW8 and made her pregnant ?The prosecution PW8 has turned hostile.She was not ready to lead evidence.The evidence recording was haulted twice to give opportunity to make her mentally stable but still she has stated that she was aged 21 years and declined to lead evidence against accused.She has denied that she had given the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate (Exh.15).Since the mother of PW8 was mentally not sound, she could not be examined PW1 is her maternal uncle.He has also turned hostile.He did not say that the victim told him that the accused had committed rape on her.PW3 - Tulsa had taken the victim to the hospital when she had abdominal pain.She has also turned hostile.PW2 is a irrelevant spot panch.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::5 916-CRI.APPLN.1706-2019PW5 Dr. Wakode has deposed that on 18 th June, 2017, the victim girl gave a birth to a girl child after full gestation of 9 months and she was not mentally balanced.His evidence does not connect the accused with the birth of child.The evidence of PW6 Dr. Umesh Atram, Psychiatrist is not on material point.She has also turned hostile.Her evidence is not material on the issue involved i.e. involvement of the accused in crime.PW10 Manchanwad is Head Master of Zilla Parishad Primary School.He has produced the extract of admission register and original school leaving certificate.It has come in the evidence that in this school, PW8 was brought for the first time in 4 th Std.and PW10 was unable to tell on what basis her birth date is recorded in the admission register.The record of earlier school where she was first admitted is not brought on record.PW11 API Khandagale is the Investigating Officer.He has proved the contradiction in the evidence of witnesses examined and turned hostile.He stated that DNA samples of the accused and victim child were taken and sent it to forensic laboratory at Nagpur and the DNA report Exh. 74 shows that the accused was biological::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 ::: 6 916-CRI.APPLN.1706-2019 father of the child.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::Learned Advocate Mr. Ghanekar submits that even if the factum that the accused is biological father of the child is not disputed, still, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the material ingredients, namely the sexual intercourse was committed by the accused without consent of the child or against her wish.In the light of these facts, there was necessity of specific evidence regarding absence of the consent.I find no reasons to differ with the findings of the learned trial Judge that the prosecution failed to prove that the child was below 18 years age.In that case, the prosecution has to prove that sexual intercourse with the child has taken place without her consent or against her wish.The DNA report though it is doubtful whether it is duly proved or not, only prove the sexual relations between the victim and the accused resulting into conceivement.It cannot prove the absence of consent of the victim.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::7 916-CRI.APPLN.1706-2019There are several factors in favour of the accused on this point.PW8 has not reported the matter to anybody for almost 8 to 9 months till she gave birth to the child.She has turned hostile and has declined to take name of the accused.She had allegedly disclosed name of the accused to her maternal uncle who lodged FIR, but the maternal uncle has also not supported prosecution.She has denied that her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.In the present case, the PW8 has denied that her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded.Even otherwise, the said statement can be used for the purpose of corroboration.State of Rajasthan Vs.Kartar Singh AIR 70 SCC 1305, State of Delhi Vs.Sradha Manohar AIR 60 SCC 402 .The statement registered under section 164 Cr.P.C. Is only corroborative piece of evidence and not substantive evidence.When the witness has turned hostile, those can be used for corroboration of contradiction and not as evidence.In the light of these facts, when the absence of consent is not proved, the learned Special Judge erred in holding that the accused had not raised defence of consent.Since absence of consent, is essential ingredients of 376 Cr.P.C. It is to be proved by prosecution and when there was no evidence on this point, the absence of specific defence of consent by the accused is not::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 ::: 8 916-CRI.APPLN.1706-2019 material.In the light of these facts, the conviction cannot be sustained.The learned trial Judge has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-.Learned Advocate Mr. Ghanekar fairly concedes that the victim has given birth to a child of the accused, and therefore, the accused on his own is ready to pay the compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::With these observations, the Appeal is allowed.Conviction and order of compensation are set aside.The balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- be deposited in two weeks.The Criminal Application stands disposed of.[ A. M. DHAVALE ] JUDGE mta::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 13:47:36 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,969,610 | ---2---The prosecution story in brief is that Arman Khan lodged an FIR on 27.12.2012 against the petitioners that at 12:30 noon, the petitioners came to the house of the complainant and demanded money, when the same was not given, they started abusing.Accused Salman held a sword at his neck, accused Suleman was holding an Iron rod with intent to cause death and inflicted injuries to him.The complainant sustained injuries.The accused persons then left the house.The injured complainant was sent to the hospital for medical examination.Crime was registered under Section 323 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, crime was registered under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506-B and 325 of I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.It is contended that the learned Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 307 read with Section 34 and 506 Part II of I.P.C. which is erroneous and requested to set aside the same.Learned panel lawyer opposed the contentions and justified the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Perused the record.The report lodged by the complainant shows that the accused persons tried to injure the complainant by sword and iron-rod.The MLC report of Arman Khan shows that he received---3---(i) one lacerated wound, (ii) one linear abrasion and (iii) there was complaint of pain.The injury is on the right hand lateral view hamate bone.A sword has been seized from accused Salman and an iron rod has been seized from accused Suleman.The lacerated wound on the parietal region was inflicted by iron rod, though no bony injury was found on the head, fracture has been detected on the left hand.Therefore, in the present case, the weapons used are iron rod and sword, can be taken as weapon dangerous in nature and one of the injury caused is grievous in nature. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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. |
145,975,056 | For the last 3-4 days, two boys were visiting my father in law.On one or two occasions, those two boys used to come in the absence of my father in law and they used to ask about him.I used to say that my father in law is nor present and then those boys used to visit later on and used to meet my father in law.I entered inside the room and I saw that my father in law was sleeping on the bed and one bedsheet was there on his body.I asked my father in law as to why the TV is on and that to be in such a loud volume.But there was no response of my father in law.I noticed that one bowl having pieces of guava was in turtled position.There was no sign of respiration.I touched the hand of my father in law and I noticed that there was no response from the vein of his hand.Face of my father in law was covered with the bedsheet and I asked as to why he has put the bedsheet on his face.I removed the bedsheet from his face and I noticed that the neck of my father in law was slitted/cut.I was quite perplexed.I along with my daughter came down and I went in front of my house where one lady used to reside to whom I used to call Chachi.I stated about the occurrence to Chachi.Chacha and his son were also present in their house and they both and other neighbours also came at our house and went at the first floor.Some other person informed the police.After some time, police reached at the spot.I was enquired upon by the police official and my statement was recorded.I have seen my statement Ex.PW3/A, which bears my signatures at point A.CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 5 of 11CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 6 of 11During her cross examination she deposed as under:"When I went inside the room of my father-in-law, there was a bedsheet on his body covering his body upto neck.I removed the bedsheet as he was not giving any response to me.Then only I came to know that he was expired.After seeing the dead body of my father-in-law, I became perplexed and I went in front of my house and called the lady whom I used to call my Chachi I also made a call to my husband and Devar regarding the same.When I went inside the room, I saw that my father in law was lying on the bed.Drinks were lying on the table.Accused persons used to visit at our residence to meet my father-in-law but I cannot tell all the dates of their visit per to the occurrence.Accused person even visited on one day prior to the occurrence.Accused persons used to enquire about my father in law.I never asked from the accused persons as to why they were enquiring about my father-in-law and they also did not state anything to me..."As per the case of the prosecution, death had occurred at 4:00 pm and PW-3 (Pooja) had last seen the accused persons at 2-2.30 pm.PW-3 (Pooja) during her examination in chief deposed that 'I heard that one boy was getting down from first floor to bring bread pakoda', but PW-3 (Pooja) has nowhere mentioned that out of the two accused persons who came down from the stairs to bring the bread pakoda.PW-3 (Pooja) further failed to mention the time when she heard that the accused was getting down from the stairs and when the accused came back.The site plan (Ex.PW-26/A) refers to two doors on the ground floor, however, it has not brought on record whether both the doors were CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 7 of 11 locked or not and who bolted the door when the accused person came back after buying the bread pakoda.It also remained unexplained by the prosecution as to whether the entry can be gained from both the doors or from only one door i.e, the door from where the accused persons first met PW-3 (Pooja) at 1:15 pm.CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 7 of 11The conduct of the witness also appears to be unnatural as after seeing the dead body of her father-in-law, she neither informed her husband nor her brother-in-law and instead of informing any public person outside her house, she crossed the gali and informed about the death of her father-in-law to her 'chacha' and 'chachi', which creates a doubt in the version of the prosecution.By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in Session Case No. 56475/16, whereby all the respondents (accused before the Trial Court) were acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 302/120- B/380/411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC')."(i) That DD No. 22-A was registered at Police Station Mundka on 24.09.2011, in receipt of the information that a person has been murdered, the said DD was marked to ASI Balwan Singh and accordingly ASI Balwan Singh along with other police officials arrived at the spot i.e. CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 1 of 11 H.No.464, Near Bhagat Singh Park, Village Mundka, Delhi.The statement of the complainant i.e. daughter-in- law of deceased namely Pooja was recorded wherein she stated that at about 2.30 pm her father-in-law had come along with two boys and one boy had come after sometime with bread pakora, as these were the same boys who were frequently visiting her father-in-law for the last 3-4 days.She further stated that at about 4.00 pm her daughter asked her to take her to her grandfather's room and on arriving in his room she found that the deceased was lying on the bed with his mouth covered with a 'chadar'.On receiving no response from her father-in-law, she removed the chadar and found that his neck was slitted, subsequent to which, she informed her neighbours and someone from them had called 100 number.CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 1 of 11(ii) Based on her statement recorded, FIR No. 177/11 under Sections 302/120-B/380/411 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.Since the borrower was not in the position to return the money, he conjointly conspired with co-accused Mohd. Murtaza, Gulrej @ Gullu and Mohd Saleem in committing the aforesaid crime."(iii) After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges U/s302/ 120-B/380/411 of IPC, were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."To bring home the guilt of the accused persons the prosecution examined 36 witnesses in all out of which the daughter-in-law, PW-3 (Pooja) is the star witness.Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they reiterated their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 2 of 11 the present case and examined one witness in their defence.CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 2 of 11After hearing the counsels for both the sides and on appreciation of entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents for the charged offences.Ms. Radhika Kolluru learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2018 is based on conjectures and surmises.She further contended that the learned Trial Court had not appreciated the fact that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances and has been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned Trial court had failed to acknowledge the testimony of the star witness PW-3 (Pooja) which was relied upon to prove the conspiracy in question and establishing the last seen evidence.Whereas the learned Trial court placed undue weightage on the minor discrepancies in her testimonies, contrary to which her deposition is consistent and corroborative in nature.Learned counsel for the State further contended that the Trial Court erred in disregarding the medical evidence i.e. post mortem report of the deceased, which evidently reveals that the death was caused due to asphyxia haemorrhage with cut throat injury.Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned trial Court failed to take notice of the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the co-accused Mohd. Murtaza which proves the guilt of the accused persons.CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 3 of 11We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of counsel for the State and also perused the material available on record."Last seen CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 4 of 11 theory" should be applied taking into consideration the case of the prosecution in its entirely and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen."CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 4 of 11PW-3 (Pooja) during her examination-in-chief has deposed as under:"I along with my husband and one daughter used to reside at the ground floor on aforesaid residence.At the first floor, my father in law namely Mangal Singh aged about 58 years and my brother in law (Devar) namely Pradeep @ Vicky, aged about 26-27 years used to reside.My father in law was working as ATI in DTC and he also used to give money on interest.My father in law also used to drink in his room.For the purpose of taking money on rent, people used to come to meet my father in law at the first floor.On one occasion, those boys had taken the mobile phone of my father in law.On 24.09.2011 at about 2-2:15 PM, those two boys came and they asked about my father in law.Again said, it was at about 1-1:15 PM, when those two boys came and after asking about my father in law, went away from there and at about 2-2:30 PM, CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 5 of 11 those two boys on the same day came along with my father in law and thereafter all the three went at the first floor in the room of my father in law.My father in law used to eat Bread Pakoda.I heard that one of the boy was getting down from the first floor for bringing Bread Pakoda for my father in law.On 24.09.2011 at about 4 PM, my daughter Ishika asked me to take her to my father in law and I along with my daughter went at the first floor.I noticed that TV kept in the room of my father in law, was on and it was having maximum sound at that time.I knocked the door twice but there was no response from inside the room.Learned APP for the State laid emphasis on the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the co-accused Mohd. Murtaza which was recovered by PW-32 (SI Gulshan Nagpal).PW-32 (SI Gulshan Nagpal) during his cross-examination deposed as under:"A mobile phone got recovered from the pocket of Mohd. Murtja which was seized by the IO.The personal searched of the accused Mohd. Murtja is not remember to me at present.No site plan was prepared of the site from where accused Mohd. Murtja arrested and recovery was affected."CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 8 of 11However, the deposition made by the Investigating Officer with regard to the recovery of mobile phone from Mohd. Murtaza is contrary to record.Samay Pal Atri, S.S.I., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, UP who was examined by the Court as DW-1 deposed as under:-"I have brought the summoned record i.e. DD register (carbon Copy) pertaining to entry made on 05.10.2011 at SI No. 23 at 09:30 am.The Original register has already been destroyed by official order being the document more than five years old.The carbon copy of the said entry is Ex. DW1/A. As per the entry 'Ammad/Rewangi SI Delhi Police, SI Gulshan Kumar, HC Subhash No. 1033, Ct.Yoginder, Ct.Suresh, Murtaza P.S. Mundka Delhi vaste Teftish FIR No. 177/11 U/S 302/34 IPC bataftish rawan kiye gaye.The said arrival and departure entry were made at the same time at SL.NO. 2"The Arrest Memo, (Ex. PW- 8/G) is contrary to the public document (Ex-DW-1/A) produced by Samay Pal Atri, S.S.I., P.S. Kotwali Nagar which proves that the arrest memo of the accused Murtaza from the spot is a fabricated document.There is no iota of doubt that the arrest of accused Murtaza was manipulated and consequently, the recovery of the mobile phone from accused Murtaza at the time of the arrest is also CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 9 of 11 doubtful.Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the Investigating Officer has sought participation of an independent witness at the time of arrest nor any cogent explanation has been rendered by the Investigating Officer with regard to participation of Independent witness at the time of arrest.CRL.L.P. 861/2018 Page 9 of 11In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the evidence on record has been held to be unworthy of acceptance as the same is found to be replete with infirmities and are not supported with testimony of any independent witness.There are considerable inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which consequently creates reasonable doubt on the case of prosecution.No motive has been proved on record by the prosecution to substantiate the involvement of the respondents in the present case.For the reasons which we have already discussed above, we regard it unsafe to act upon the testimony of PW-3 (Pooja) alone for convicting the respondents for the offence punishable U/s 302/120-B/380/411 of IPC.It is a settled law that while deciding a leave to appeal petition filed by the State, in case two views are possible, the High Court must not grant leave, if the trial court has taken one of the plausible views, in contrast there to in an appeal filed against acquittal. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,459,760 | The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of village Pariyanayagipuram, Police Station Perewurni, Distt.Tanjaur, Tamilnadu where he possesses 13 acres of agricultural land and a Pucca House as certified, vide Annexure-1, by the Village Administrative Officer.He came to Ambikapur in 1991 and rented house No. 1, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, for his business.Then, there was to be a draw of names and the first 10 lucky customers of such draw were to get the articles only for the initial payment of one-third whereas the remaining 90 members were to get the articles after 20 days of their payment of one-third advance and were required to pay the balance instalments spread over 20 months.The Articles and their prices were given in the pamphlet.Order forms were required to be filled in and cash receipts were given to the customers.After starting booking on 13-11-1991, the petitioner started making delivery of goods to the customers from.He had in his godown goods worth Rs. 5.50 lakhs at that time.At the instance of the then Superintendent of Police, Shri N. L. Shyam, the Sales Tax Officer examined petitioner's record and submitted report to the effect that the applicant had collected Rs. 2,23,356 from various customers and had assured to supply goods worth Rs. 7 lacs, which appeared impossible for him to do.The report further mentioned that the petitioner has not maintained any account of his business and the amount received by him from the customers was not deposited in any bank.No customer has made any complaint to the police that he has been cheated.He obtained Sales Tax Registration, vide Annexure-5, and started business in the name and style of M/s. Meera Complex in the aforesaid premises.The scheme that he floated was as under :Any customer could take articles of the value of Rs. 100/- after 20 days of depositing Rs. 30/- as advance.He was required to pay the balance in three instalments spread over 20 months for articles of higher value, a group of 100 buyers was required.This report was forwarded by Superintendent of Police to Ambikapur Police Station where the aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner.No one had come forward to complain that he was cheated by the petitioner. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,976,503 | Let the revisionist, Ankit @ Abhishek Mourya through his natural guardian Kripa Shanker be released on bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2019 under Section 452 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(W)(ii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakiya District Chandauli upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli subject to the following conditions:This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2020 passed by Additional District Judge POCSO Act, Chandauli dismissing Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2020 ( Ankit @ Abhishek Mourya versus State of UP and another) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming the order dated 25.2.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.63 of 2019 under Section 452 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(W)(ii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakiya District Chandauli.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR which was lodged by the father of the victim, is that on 25.3.2019 when his daughter namely Km.Nageena was sleeping in a Madai, then suddenly the door was broken by the revisionist with intention to outrage the modesty of the victim and when the victim tried to raise alarm, the son-in-law of the informant came there and the revisionist was caught and upon enquiry he told his name Upendra Pradhan.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.The appeal is disposed of accordingly." | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,459,782 | The brief facts of the case are that on 29-1-1994 deceased Dhulji s/o.Nandram and his son Madanlal and nephew Rameshwar were sleeping in a room in the field situated at Badnawar-Badnagar road, at about 12.15 a.m. in the night respondents/accused Rameshwar Pahalwan, Ramchandra Patel, Badrilal and Shankarlal came there on the motorcycle and started beating to Rameshwar (PW 1).After the incident, injured Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) came to their house at Badnagar and informed about the incident to their brother Mangilal (PW 2).He further opined that deceased Dhulji s/o.JUDGMENT S.S. Dwivedi, J.The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20-1-1997 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No. 305/1994, whereby the respondents together with three other co-accused have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 148, 323, 149, 302 in the alternative 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.On hearing the noise, deceased Dhulji and his son Madanlal came out from the room, then all these four respondents started beating to Dhulji and Madanlal also by means of knife and lathies.Respondent/accused Rameshwar caused injury to deceased Dhulji on his chest by means of knife and Dhulji also sustained grievous injuries on his head by the lathi.Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanal (PW 6) also sustained injuries on their bodies.The remaining three co-accused Prakash, Kailash and Bherulal (who were acquitted and leave to appeal against them has also been rejected by this Court) were asking to kill all these persons.It is also said that this incident took place because Mangilal (PW 2), who is the son of deceased Dhulji, had lodged one report at police station with regard to some theft against one accused Kailash.Annoyed with this report, the respondents came on the field and caused the aforesaid injuries to the complainant party.Then all of them, again went to the field and brought the injured Dhulji, who found to be dead, at police station Badnagar, where Madanlal s/o.Dhulji (PW 6) lodged the first information report Ex. P/ 21 at about 3.00 a.m. in the night, on which basis concerned police has registered the offences under Sections 302, 323, 147, 148 and 149, I. P. C. Injured Madanlal (PW 6) and Rameshwar (PW 1) were sent for medical examination and the dead body of deceased Dhulji was kept in the mortuary room of Civil Hospital, Badnagar.Investigating Officer, after issuing notice Ex. P/l, prepared the inquest panchnama Ex. P/2, prepared the spot map Ex. P/22, seized blood stained and control earth from the spot vide Ex. P/3, recorded the statement of the injured eye witnesses and other witnesses, thereafter arrested the respondents as well as three other co-accused, seized one lathi on the information given by the accused Badrilal vide Ex. P/16 and also seized one knife on the information given by accused Rameshwar.Sent the seized articles for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory.After due investigation, filed the charge sheet before the trial Court.All the accused persons abjured their guilt and their main defence was of false implication in the case.After due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 20-1-1997, acquitted all the seven accused persons from the charges levelled against them.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the State of Madhya Pradesh came up before this Court, after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code.This Court vide order dated 16-1-1998 granted leave to appeal against the four respondents only and rejected the prayer for remaining three acquitted accused.We have heard the learned Government Advocate for the State as well the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate for the State that learned trial Court, while acquitting all the respondents, has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly.Learned trial Court has given much stress upon the minor contradictions and omissions, which were brought into the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, which prima facie did not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses and on the basis of these minor omissions and contradictions, learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and also prayed for imposition of just and proper sentence on the respondents.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the so called eye witness Rameshwar (PW 1), Madanlal (PW 6) and as well as the statement of the concerning medical witness Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7).All these witnesses were stated differently about the involvement of the respondents/accused persons In the incident.6. to bring home the charge against the respondents, firstly we have to consider whether the deceased Dhulji died in this incident and his death is homicidal in nature.With regard to the death of Dhulji is concerned, this fact has been proved by the prosecution on the basis of the statement of Rameshwar (PW 1), Mangilal (PW 2), Madanlal (PW 6).All these witnesses have categorically stated before the trial Court that due to the grievous injuries sustained to the deceased Dhulji, he died immediately on the spot itself.This fact has also been corroborated by the statement of the investigating officer, Chandrapal Singh (PW 9), who prepared the inquest panchnama Ex. P/2 with regard to the dead body of the deceased Dhulji and also made a request for post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Dhulji.The aforesaid statement of the prosecution witnesses has not at all been controverted by the defence.Thus, firstly it is proved that on the date of the incident one Dhulji s/o.Nandram aged about 60 years died in this incident.With regard to the cause of death of the deceased Dhulji is concerned, Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) has performed the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Dhulji s/o.Nandram at the request of police station Baanagar and found the following injuries on his body:(1) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" on the right fronto-parietal bone, anteroposteriorly with depressed fracture of frontal and parietal bones.On exposure area of fracture 4" x 2" with huge amount of haematoma, membranes are torn, brain congested, huge amount of blood In cranial cavity, Ecchymosls of both eyes.(2) Incised wound 1" x 1/3" cavity deep on the lower portion of xiphoid process cutting bone, diaphragm going downward but not injuring the other viscera of abdomen.Direction horizontally.(3) Incised wound 1 1/4" x 1/4 x 1 1/4" on the right side of back vertically medial to the right scapula at the level of 5th intercostals space but no injury to the lung or pleura is seen.(4) Bruise 2" x 1/2 on the dorsal aspect of palm with defused haematoma.Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) further opined that all these aforesaid injuries are ante mortem caused within 24 hours from the time of the post mortem examination.Injury to head is enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Nandram aged about 60 years resident of village Kala Deval Path Badnagar died due to coma as a result of head injuries.The aforesaid statement of the medical witness has also not been very seriously controverted by the defence in cross examination also.He specifically stated that deceased Dhulji died due to head injuries and which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.On the basis of the aforesaid data and the information of the doctor concerned, the prosecution has proved the fact that in this incident Dhulji s/o.Nandaram died and his death is of homicidal in nature.Now the next and important crucial question arises for consideration before us as to whether these four respondents are responsible for the death of deceased Dhulji s/o Nandram and all of them in furtherance with the common intention caused the murder of deceased Dhulji on the date of the incident.To bring home the aforesaid charge against the respondents, injured witness Rameshwar s/o.Mangilal (PW i), who lodged the first information report, stated that respondent Rameshwar Pahalwan s/o Hiralal armed with knife, Badrilal, Rameshchandra and Shankarlal armed with lathies came in the field and immediately started beating to him, whereby he sustained injury on his left hand on the wrist and also on both the knees.When he started crying, his maternal grandfather deceased Dhulji and his maternal uncle Madanlal (PW 6) came out from the room, which is situated in the field.All these respondents Rameshwar, Badrilal, Ramesh and Shankarlal started beating to Dhulji and Madanlal also.Respondent/accused Rameshwar caused injury by knife to Dhulji on his chest and on his back.Respondents/accused Ramesh, Badrilal and Shankarlal also caused injury by means of lathi to Dhulji and all of them also caused injury to his maternal uncle Madanlal (PW 6) and thereafter all these respondents/accused ran away from the spot, after causing injuries to them.He further testified that at the time of the incident, there was light from the moon and on this light; he identified all these respondents in the moonlight.He also narrated the cause of this incident was that before two days 400 feet polythene pipe were stolen from their field and for which Mangilal (PW 2) had lodged report at police station Badnagar and on the basis of this report, police has arrested accused/Kailash s/o Bherulal.Annoyed with this action, the respondents came on the spot and caused the aforesaid injuries to them.The statement of Rameshwar (PW 1) has got further support by the statement of another injured witness Madanlal (PW 6), who also sustained injury in the same incident, who also categorically stated that it was the respondents/accused Rameshwar Pahelwan, Ramesh, Badrilal and Shankarlal came on the spot armed with knife and lathies and caused Injuries to Dhulji.Respondent Rameshwar caused injury by means of knife to Dhulji on his chest and other respondents caused injuries to Dhulji by means of lathi and also caused injuries to him (i.e. Madanlal).After causing the injuries, all the four respondents ran away from the spot and he immediately lodged first information report Ex. P/21 on the same day in the night at about 3.00 a.m., which bears his signature also.Learned trial Court, while assessing the statement of the aforesaid injured eye witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1), Madanlal (PW 6), has taken a penetrating attitude with regard to the certain omissions and contradictions, which were brought in their cross-examination.For example, Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) stated that Madanlal sustained one injury by a knife on his head, which has not been supported by the medical witness Dr. M, K. Pancholi (PW 7), who did not found incised wound on the head of the Injured Madanlal (PW 6) whereas Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) supported that the injured Madanlal (PW 6) has sustained one lacerated wound on his head.It appears to be just and reasonable that this incident took place in the night and both Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) are the injured witnesses.They have also sustained various injuries which has got support by the statement of Dr. M. K. Pancholi (PW 7) who found 4 injuries on the person of Madanlal (PW 6) as per report Ex. P/23 and found 5 injuries on the person of Rameshwar (PW 1) as per report Ex. P/24 and it cannot be expected that they should specifically mention as to which injury was caused to which of the accused and by which object.It is apparent that this incident took place because Mangilal (PW 2) has lodged one theft report against co-accused Kailash, on which basis police arrested accused Kailash.In these circumstances, it becomes immaterial with regard to the details of the so-called theft report.Thus, in our considered opinion, learned trial Court has also taken much technical approach on the contradictions and on the basis of these minor discrepancies, has wrongly disbelieved the statement of the injured prosecution witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6).As stated hereinabove, the incident took place in the night at about 12.30 a.m., four accused persons started beating to complainant party of the three persons namely deceased Dhulji, Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) had sustained various injuries in the incident.Thus, it cannot be expected by the injured witnesses that they should specifically and categorically state as to which of the accused has caused the injury to which of the person and by what means.Both of these witnesses have specifically stated the involvement of the respondents in this incident.Their presence on the spot has been proved by the statement.Thus, if witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) stated falsely against these three accused persons, it will not at all be safe that they have stated truth against the present respondents also.This approach also appears to be technical and baseless.The evidence has to be sifted with care.The prosecution cannot deny its liability to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.On perusal of the statement of the prosecution witnesses Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6), we are of the considered opinion that both these witnesses are the injured witnesses, who also sustained injuries in the same incident, who saw that the respondents were causing grievous injuries to the deceased Dhulji, which resulted his (Dhulji) spontaneous death on the spot.This approach of the learned trial Court also appears to be technical when there are specific statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the incident, then it will not affect the prosecution case, if the seizure of the weapons has not been proved properly or no human blood was found on the weapons seized from the possession of the accused persons.The other prosecution witness Kamlesh (PW 3) is the witness for seizure of the weapons.They appear to be formal witnesses and no detailed discussion is necessary on the statement of these witnesses.They appear to be formal in nature.On overall re-appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the four respondents in furtherance with the common intention caused the intentional murder of one Dhulji s/o Nandram by causing grievous injuries to him by means of knife and lathies and all these four respondents are also liable for causing simple injuries to Rameshwar (PW 1) and Madanlal (PW 6) in furtherance with the common intention of each of them.Thus, learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents for the aforesaid charges under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, we set aside the impugned Judgment of acquittal and we hold; all the four respondents guilty under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on the quantum of sentence.Consequently, this appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh is allowed.The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No. 305/1994 dated 20-1-1997 is set aside and we hold the respondents Badrilal s/o Ratanlal Mali aged about 32 years resident of village Baloda Lakkha at present Badnagar, Rameshwar s/o Hiralal Mali aged 28 years resident of Kachhi Seri, Badnagar, Rameshchandra s/o Pannalal Mali aged 35 years resident of Juna Shahar Badnagar and Shankarlal s/o Jagannath Mali aged 28 years resident of near Harijan Basti, Mali Mohalla Badnagar guilty under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentence each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand).In default of payment of fine, each of the respondents will suffer further imprisonment for 1 (one) year.All the respondents are also found guilty under Section 323/34, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.Both the substantive jail sentences shall run concurrently.The respondents are on bail.Office is directed to send the lower Courts record with a copy of this judgment immediately to the trial Court. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,981,501 | The case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2010, on receiving DD No.44B, dated 21.09.2010, PS Shahbad Dairy, SI Ajay alongwith Ct.Guljari reached at the spot i.e. H.No.118(A), Harijan Basti, Barwala, Delhi, where on the first floor of the house, he found one body of a lady namely Manju wife of Pawan.One nylon rope was found in the neck of Crl.A. 1424/2012 Page 1 of 18 deceased, which was tied from the Khunti from one end and other end of the rope was tied with the iron kada (ring).SI Ajay called the crime team, which inspected the spot and took photographs.He seized the nylon rope after cutting the rope.Father of the deceased was informed and dead body was sent to the BJRM Mortuary.He inquired from the father of the deceased and recorded his statement.The dead body got released to the deceased's family members after postmortem examination.A. 1424/2012 Page 1 of 18In his statement, Shri Jage Ram stated that, he was residing in the village Shikarpur, PS Chawla, Delhi and deceased Manju is his daughter, who was married with Pawan in June 2002 and from the said wedlock they had two sons namely Luv and Kush aged about 7 years and 6 years respectively.He further stated that Pawan used to beat her daughter.Three months prior to the incident also he gave beatings to his wife Manju and thereafter left her to their house and only fifteen days prior to the incident accused Pawan took back Manju after giving assurance that he will keep their daughter well.On 21.09.2010 at 3.30 am Pawan made a call to him that Manju has committed suicide by hanging herself.Therefore, he and his relatives came to the house of Pawan and found his daughter hanged with rope, which was tied with Khunti (iron ring).He further stated that on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2010 her daughter had made a call to her brother in law (Jija) Ved prakash and told him that, Pawan has brutally beaten her and went out of the house by saying that, 'he will kill her'.Therefore, he has suspicion that Pawan has hanged his daughter after killing her.On the basis of statement of Jage Ram (father of the deceased), SI Ajay (PW-18) prepared rukka and got the FIR 203/2010 registered at PS Shahbad Dairy under Sections 302/201 IPC.Further investigation was assigned to the Ins.Rakesh Rawat (PW-19), who reached at the spot with SI Mahender Pratap (PW-6), SI Ajay Singh and Ct.He prepared the site plan and collected the photographs.Appellant was arrested on 27.09.2010 and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that he had brought the deceased back from her parental Crl.A. 1424/2012 Page 2 of 18 house about 15 days before the incident and thereafter, her behaviour had changed causing stress to the appellant.The injury marks are not the cause of the death which were only made with the scale, thus, there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased.The incident of smothering was unintentional.Prosecution witnesses have testified that the deceased had been beaten regularly by the appellant and on the fateful day, throughout the night.Jage Ram (PW-1) deposed that the deceased was his younger daughter and she was married to the appellant in June, 2002 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.After marriage, his daughter Manju started residing at her matrimonial house and out of the said wedlock two sons were born.Since the date of marriage, the appellant used to beat his daughter after confining her in a room.The appellant was Crl.A. 1424/2012 Page 5 of 18 unemployed; however, he was running a shop of shoes.When his daughter Manju tried to object to the beatings, he again used to beat her mercilessly.Three months prior to the incident, appellant had dropped his daughter to his house after beating her.Fifteen days prior to the incident, appellant visited his house and took Manju to her matrimonial home by giving an assurance to him and his family members that he will not beat Manju in future and keep her well.PW- 1 further stated that for the better matrimonial life of Manju, he sent his daughter with the appellant.On 21.09.2010 at about 3:30 PM, he received a phone call from the appellant that his daughter Manju had hanged herself (Manju ne fasi laga li hai).Thereafter, he alongwith his relatives went to the house of the appellant and found his daughter Manju hanging with khunti with the help of a rope at the first floor of the house of accused and she was no more at that time.He also deposed that his daughter Manju used to tell him about the beatings and ill treatment meted by the appellant Pawan, as and when she met him or he and his family members used to meet her.A. 1424/2012 Page 5 of 18PW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the defence before the Trial Court wherein he stated that appellant had informed him telephonically at about 3:30 PM that the Manju hanged herself.He reached at the matrimonial house of Manju at Barwala at about 5:30 PM.PW-1 further stated that he had lastly talked with his daughter 15 days prior to her death when she had come to his house.He had inquired from his daughter why they were living separately and she told him that relations between her husband and his parents are not good (apas mein banti nahin thi).He denied the suggestion that appellant had a shop on the ground floor and he was residing on the first floor.Crl. A. 1424/2012 Page 6 of 18The mother of the deceased (PW-2) deposed on similar lines of her husband (PW-1).She deposed that after marriage, accused started harassing and beating her daughter mercilessly and this fact was told to her by her daughter/deceased, when she used to visit her house.When her daughter Manju tried to object the beatings by the accused, he again used to beat her mercilessly after confining her in a room.Three months prior to the incident, the appellant had dropped her daughter Manju at her house after beating her.She noticed injury marks on the person of the deceased and on their enquiry, Manju told them that, she was beaten by the appellant.About 15 days prior to the incident appellant had visited her house and took her with him to his house by giving assurance to her and her family members that he will not beat Manju in future and will keep her well.She sent her daughter Manju with the appellant as she did not want to ruin her matrimonial life.On 21.09.2010 at about 3.30 PM, her husband received a phone call of appellant that her daughter Manju had hanged herself.Thereafter, she alongwith her husband and other relatives went to the house of the appellant and found her daughter/deceased hanging with khunti with the help of a rope at the first floor of the house of appellant and she was no more at that time.In her cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that before the incident, appellant and Manju were residing separately from the other family members of the appellant and the appellant was also doing the business of shoes from the ground floor of said house where they were residing separately.She stated that the deceased talked with her on phone before two days of her death and further volunteered that she told her that accused give beatings to her daughter and her hands and legs have been broken by the appellant.A. 1424/2012 Page 7 of 18The prime prosecution witness is Ved Prakash (PW-7), who deposed that the deceased was his sister in law (saali).Appellant Pawan was not keeping his wife Manju properly and he used to beat her regularly.The appellant used to come to his house late and whenever she asked about his reason for coming late, appellant used to beat her.Appellant used to forcibly throw out Manju (ghar se bhaga deta tha) from her matrimonial house and thereafter, she used to return to her parental house at Shikarpur.The deceased was residing at her parental house for about three months and 15 days before her death, the appellant had apologized for his acts.At that time, the appellant was accompanied with uncle Ram Kishan and they assured that Manju will be treated properly and she will not be given any beatings.Thereafter, appellant Pawan took Manju to her matrimonial house.On 21.09.2010 at about 3:30-3:45 PM, he received a telephone call from his father in-law Jage Ram that the appellant had called him and informed that Manju had committed suicide by hanging herself.15. PW-7 further deposed that he has a mobile phone number 9215965888 in the name of his sister Sunita and he used this phone, which remained at his house.In the intervening night of 20-21.09.2010 at about 2 AM, his mobile phone number 9215965888 was ringing and when he woke up, he found four/five missed calls from the mobile phone of deceased Manju.Thereafter, he had made a call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of deceased Manju.Manju told him that, she was mercilessly beaten by the appellant with a steel scale, danda and fist and leg blows.She also informed him that the appellant told her that he was going to the house of his parents and he will come alongwith his parents and thereafter, he will kill her and she was Crl.A. 1424/2012 Page 8 of 18 continuously weeping.He had tried to pacify her and told her that he will see her tomorrow.Manju also informed him that, she had not taken any meals since evening time.The testimony of Suresh (PW-16) also similar.A. 1424/2012 Page 8 of 18The postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Bhim Singh (PW-10) who deposed that he had conducted the examination on 22.09.2010 and prepared the report (Ex.PW-10/A).He deposed as under:"On general examination were built adult female.Rigor mortis present.Postmortem staining present over back except at pressure point.Mouth and eyes were partially opened.The inner mucosal surface of the lips may be found lacerated from pressure on the teeth.The nose may be flattened, and its septum may be fractured from pressure of the hand, but these signs are, in Modi's experience, very rare.There may be bruises and abrasions on the cheeks and molar regions or on the lower jaw, if there has been a struggle.All these injuries as mentioned above, in the Modi's book is found by PW10 Dr. Bhim Singh on the dead body of deceased Manju, which he had mentioned in his PM Report Ex.PW10/A at serial number 2,3 & 4 in column of external injuries. ..."(Emphasis Supplied)SI Mahender Pratap (PW-6), SI Ajay Yadav (PW-18) and Ins.Rakesh Rawat (PW-19) have deposed in respect of the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. a steel scale, at the instance of the appellant/accused and its seizure vide Ex.PW-6/E.(i) The deceased and the appellant were married to each other;(ii) The appellant used to beat the deceased which led to her going back to her parental home;(iii) On the intervening night, the deceased had informed PW-7 and PW-16 that she feared for her life;(iv) The time of death was approximately 7:20 AM and the appellant was present at the time;(v) Injury number 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 could have been caused by the weapon of offence, i.e. steel scale, recovered at the instance of the appellant;A. 1424/2012 Page 12 of 18(vi) The cause of death was due to the combined effect of asphyxia due to smothering and coma consequent upon head injury which rules out the possibility of suicide;(vii) The body of the deceased was hanged thereafter, in order to cover up the death; andPresent appeal has been filed under Sections 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 07.09.2012 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the order of sentence dated 25.09.2012 whereby the appellant has been sentenced under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; and under Section 201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for five years and also fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The Trial Court had noticed the case of the prosecution as under:On the date of the incident, he had returned from work in the afternoon to find that the deceased was missing; when she came back an altercation took place in which the appellant hit the deceased with an iron scale.Then both slept in different rooms and after waking up at about 6 AM, he woke up the deceased and asked for tea.The deceased angrily went to the other room.The appellant got angry, went to the room and a scuffle ensued, in which the head of the deceased hit the wall and she started shouting and the appellant kept his hand on the mouth of the deceased and her breath went away.He then became afraid and attempted to make it look like a suicide.In pursuance of the statement, an iron scale was recovered at the instance of accused from the ground floor of his house.Rakesh Rawat (PW-19) collected the call details of the mobile phone of the deceased and witness Ved Prakash, postmortem report and also collected subsequent opinion of the doctor regarding the weapon of offence.After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 302/201 IPC against the appellant and he was put to trial.A. 1424/2012 Page 2 of 18Charges were framed for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 19 witnesses; the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence examined one witness, Smt.Prem (DW-1) (mother of the appellant).After appreciating the evidence before it, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had been able to prove the complete chain of Crl.A. 1424/2012 Page 3 of 18 incriminating circumstances against the accused/appellant and convicted of the appellant as noticed in paragraph 1 aforegoing.A. 1424/2012 Page 3 of 18Mr.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset submits that he does not contest the matter as far as the conviction is concerned.He submits that the appellant is the sole bread earner of the family.There are two minor children who are staying with the old mother, who is unable to look after them.Having regard to the submissions made, counsel for the appellant submits that a case under Section 304 Part II IPC would be made and the appellant has already Crl.A. 1424/2012 Page 4 of 18 undergone for a period of almost 8 years including the remission earned by him.A. 1424/2012 Page 4 of 18Deceased was also threatened by the appellant that he would kill her.It has also come in evidence that the appellant used to continuously maltreat the deceased, being his wife, and used to repeated ly beat her.On a previous occasion, he had dropped her to her parental home after beating her and taken her back only 15 days prior to the incident stating that he will mend his ways.The previous conduct of the appellant and the threats extended clearly establish the intention of the appellant to murder the deceased and thus, the Trial Court was right in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record.Ved Prakash (PW-7) further stated that after 3-3:15 AM mobile phone of Manju was switched off.This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence, but to no avail.Conjunctivae suffused, tongue between teeth, nail blues.On the postmortem I found following injuries.Incomplete obliquely placed patterned ligature marks around the neck., width varies from 3.5 cm to 4 cm, two in numbers, merges each other situated 5 cm below chin, 5 cm from right ear & 4.5 cm from left ear, absent on back side merges with hair line, no ecchymosis seen surrounding the ligature mark, brownish in colour. ? Postmortem [sic].Inner side of upper lip shows abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm, reddish in colourInner side of lower lips show abrasion 3.5 cm x 1 cm reddish in colour.Reddish coloured multiple bruises outer aspect of left arm ranges from 1 cm x 1cm to 2 cm x 1 cm.Multiple bruises, reddish in colour outer aspect of left arm, measuring from 1 cm x 1 cm to 2 cm x 1cm.Contusion, reddish in colour, 2 cm x 0.5 cm outer aspect of right arm.Multiple contused abrasions, reddish in colour in an area of 16 cm x 10 cm back of right side of chest, measuring from 1 cm x 1 cm to 2 cm x 1 cm.A. 1424/2012 Page 9 of 18Multiple contusions merges with each other 6 cm x 5 cm back of left hand.Contusion, reddish in colour 2 cm x 2 cm, back middle portion of right thigh.INTERNAL EXAMINATION Head.Extravasation of blood present over left frontal of temporal area of scalp layer.Congested, shows subarachnoid hemorrhage in left front- temporal area.Both lungs congested, edematous with patchy haemorrhage's at place.Other organs were congested."A. 1424/2012 Page 10 of 18They may be absent if soft material, such as cloth, has been used.The injuries on the inside of the lips from pressure of the teeth, bruising of gums or sometimes from splits in the delicate tissues may be found.They may be missed at autopsy.These injuries are usually produced as a result of struggling and may therefore be absent in infants, young children, the aged and debilitated persons".A. 1424/2012 Page 11 of 18Gaganjit Singh Sidhu (PW-11), Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd.had deposed and proved that mobile number 9215965888 was issued to Sunita Devi (Ex.PW-11/A to 11/C) and 9210373633 was owned by the deceased (Ex.PW-11/E and 11/F).He also produced the call detail records of the two numbers (Ex.PW-11/D and 11/G) as per which the following calls were exchanged between the two numbers on 21/09/10:02:29:36 9215965888 9210373633 302:30:00 9215965888 9210373633 10702:32:00 9215965888 9210373633 30903:07:23 9215965888 9210373633 16103:10:21 9215965888 9210373633 14903:13:16 9215965888 9210373633 438All the contusions and the bruises were red in colour and not blue-black and hence, were less than one day old.Further, it cannot be said that the deceased was beaten all through the night as the call records (Ex.PW-11/D and 11/G) show that the deceased was on call from around 2 AM till 3:30 AM on the fateful day with Ved Prakash (PW-7).In this background, Crl. A. 1424/2012 Page 16 of 18 we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident occurred due to a husband-wife altercation in the spur of the moment.The altercation led to a sudden fight in which the appellant inflicted blows upon the deceased in the heat of passion. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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. |
128,844,446 | (10/10/2017) As per :- Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13/10/2006 passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Betul in ST.No.108/2005, whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)/511, 363 and 366 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively with default stipulation.Brief facts of the case are that on 18/01/05 at 12:00 AM Sugantibai (PW/1) resident of Krishna Nagar, Badora, District Betul lodged the report (Ex.P/14) at Police Station Betul Bazar averring that at 9:00 A.M. she had gone for labour work, leaving her daughters Nisha -:2:- and "Deceased A" (name and identity of the "Deceased A" is not disclosed as imposed by law contained in section 228A of IPC) at home and when she returned in the noon, both of her daughters were at home.After lunch, she went to work again.Thereafter, when she returned home at 6:00 P.M, her elder daughter Nisha was at home and preparing food while "Deceased A" was not at home.On that, she went to the field of Ramdeen Rathore in search of her daughter "Deceased A", but she did not find anyone.Thereafter, she saw the appellant, playing with her daughter "Deceased A".On that she called the prosecutrix, but she did not come.She then returned back home and some time later again went to appellant Sadan's house, but she did not find either "Deceased A" or appellant Sadan there.Then she searched her, but did not find her.She doubted that appellant Sadan would have taken her somewhere.On that report Police Inspector LR.Kohli, (PW/11) registered Crime No.10/05 for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(f), 302 of the IPC and investigated the matter.Next day on 19/01/05 in the morning Nathuram (PW/7) saw the dead body of "Deceased A" lying along the road (NH-69) side at Kishan Malviya's field and informed Sugantibai (PW/1).Then, Sugantibai (PW/1) again informed the police about the same.On that LR.Kohli, (PW/11) went to the spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P/16).He also prepared an inquest report of the dead body of "Deceased A" in the presence of panch witnesses and sent the dead body for postmortem to District Hospital Betul, where Dr. Basant Srivastava (PW/4) conducted autopsy of the dead body of "Deceased A" and gave postmortem report (Ex.P/3) and also prepared the slides of her vaginal swab, took her blood sample and also seized her clothes from her dead body and sent all the items in six separate sealed packets through constable Rajkumar (PW/8) to P.S. Betul Bazar.There Head Constable Dhanraj seized those packets from the possession of Rajkumar (PW/8) and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/11).On the point whether between 6 p.m. of 18/01/05 to 7 a.m. of 19/01/05 "Deceased A" died due to asphyxia by smothering (kill someone by covering their nose and mouth so that they suffocate) and her dead body was found lying along the roadside (NH-69) at Kishan Malviya's field, Sugantibai (PW/1) mother of the deceased deposed that on the date of incident at 6:00 PM when she returned to her house after work, her daughter"Deceased A" was playing.Thereafter, when at 7:30 P.M. she went to take her daughter she saw that her daughter "Deceased A" was not there.On searching, she could not find her.On the very next day at about 6-7:00 am she found dead body of her daughter lying in front of Maida Mill.Blood was oozing out from her nostril.Her statement is also corroborated from the statement of Nathuram (PW/7) who also deposed that in the morning when he was going to answer the call of nature, on the way he saw dead body of a girl lying on the roadside.The girl did not wear frock and underwear and was naked, blood was coming out from the side of her lips.Kohli (PW/11) in his statement deposed that on 18/01/05 he was posted as Inspector at Police Station Betul Bazar, that day Sugantibai lodged the report (Ex.P/14) about missing of her daughter.On the report he registered Crime No.10/05 for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366 of -:6:- the IPC against the appellant.On 19/01/05 Sugantibai again came to the Police Station and informed that the dead body of her daughter is lying near the road.On that he went on the spot i.e. one k.m.away towards East from Badora square, where the dead body of the "Deceased A" was lying in a field.He prepared spot map (Ex.P/16) and also prepared inquest report of the dead body of the "Deceased A" before panch witnesses and found that the prosecutrix died due to asphyxia and before her death somebody tried to rape her.He further deposed that on the examination of genital organ of the "Deceased A" he found that her hymen was ruptured in 5 m.m. diameter.Vagina admits one little finger with strains.(i) Appellant was last seen with the "Deceased A"before her death;Regarding point No.(i) Sugantibai (PW/1) mother of the deceased deposed that on the date of incident when she returned home at 6:00 pm after work, her daughters ("Deceased A" and Ku Nisha) were with the appellant, who was playing with them.Thereafter, when she went to take her daughters at 7:30 pm, she saw that the appellant's house was open and none was present there.On searching, she could not find her.Thereafter, at 11:00 pm when appellant was found at his house she enquired him about "Deceased A" to him.On that appellant told her that he did not know about her.She then lodged the report.In this regard her statement is also supported from the FIR (Ex.P/14) which was also proved by the LR.Kohli (PW/11) and by the statement of her elder daughter Ku Nisa (PW/2) who also deposed that appellant lived near her house and on the date of incident "Deceased A" was playing at appellant's house.At 6:00 pm she came back to her house and "Deceased A" stayed there.Later, when her mother went to appellant's house, both "Deceased A" and appellant were not there.Thereafter, when at 11:00 pm, appellant was found at his house, her mother enquired appellant about "Deceased A", who told that he did not know about her.Kohli (PW/11) deposed that on 19/01/05 he arrested the appellant and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/13) and sent him for medical examination and Dr. Basant Srivastava (PW/4), who examined appellant in the hospital deposed that on 19/01/2005 he examined the appellant and found excreta on his underwear and trouser.So, he seized his underwear and trouser.He also took the sample of nails of appellant's hand, his blood and also prepared slide of his semen and after preserving that samples sent them to P.S. Betul Bazar through Constable Sitaram (PW/3).His statement is fully supported from the MLC report (Ex.P/3) given by him and statement of Sitaram (PW/3), who also deposed that he took appellant Sadan for medical examination and also took his clothes, slide and hand nails sample from hospital in a sealed packet and produced that packet at P.S. Betul Bazar, which was seized by the LR.Kohli (PW/11) from his possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15).Dr. Basant Srivastava (PW/4) also deposed that at the time of autopsy of dead body of "Deceased A" he also seized her clothes and prepared slide of vaginal swab and also took her blood and excreta -:10:- sample and after preserving that samples, handed them over to the concerned Constable in six separate sealed packets.Raj Kumar (PW/8) deposed that on 19/01/2005 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Betul Bazar.On 19/01/05 LR.Kohli, (PW/11) arrested the appellant and -:3:- prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/1) and on the information of appellant seized underwear of the "Deceased A", slippers and shawl of appellant from Ramdeen Rathore's field and prepared information memo (Ex.P/9) and seizure memo (Ex.P/10).Thereafter, he sent appellant to District Hospital, Betul for medical examination where Dr. Basant Srivastava (PW/4) examined appellant and gave the medical report (Ex.P/3).He also took the sample of appellant's hand's nails, his blood sample and prepared slide of his semen and after preservation of that samples sent the same to P.S. Betul Bazar, through Constable Sitaram (PW/3), which was seized by the LR.Kohli (PW/11) from his possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15).He also recorded the case diary statements of Sugantibai (PW/1), Ku.After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the appellant before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Betul, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.On that S.T.No.108/05 was registered.Learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(f), 302 of the IPC.Appellant took the defence that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case.Prosecution produced as many as 11 witnesses to prove his case.However, learned I Additional Sessions Judge after trial found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, 376(2)/511 and 366 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal.State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court has to proceed to examine each of the pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence so as to find out if each one of the circumstantial evidence is proved individually and whether collectively it forges such a chain of incriminating circumstances as would fasten the guilt on the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.None of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating, by the trial court and the High Court, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused.Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis accepting the guilt of the accused."Human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions".Between may be true and must be true there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and -:5:- unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict.His statement is also corroborated from the inquest report (Ex.P/7), also proved by its witness Shivlal (PW/5) and Nathuram (PW/7) and spot map (ExP/16).Dr. Basant Shrivastava (PW/4) deposed that on 19/01/05 he was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Betul.On that day on the application of Constable Rajkumar he conducted postmortem of the dead body of "Deceased A".On examination he found that the dead body is of a female child aged about six-seven years.Rigor mortis was present in all the limbs.Her face, lips and nails ecchymosed, blood mixed froth was coming out from her nostrils, eyes were congested.He further deposed that she found following external injuries on her body.Multiple semi lunar abrasion (nail mark) with blood clots each size 4 m.m. present over right upper and lower lid of eye, nose tip, nasal bridge, left lower jaw and both earlobes.Nail mark abrasion around neck size 4 mm.Abrasion size 1 cm X 1/2 cm with blood clot on left buttock.The injuries Nos. 1 & 2 were caused by nail scratch and injury No.3 was caused by hard and blunt object.Duration of death was between 3-18 hours from the postmortem.In her opinion the deceased died due to asphyxia and mode of death was smothering.In this regard his statement is also supported from the postmortem report (Ex.P/3).There is no significant contradiction in the statements of the said witnesses on that point.So there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of aforesaid witnesses on that point.From the statement of these witnesses it appears that "Deceased A" was missing since 18/01/05 from around 7:00 pm and her dead body was found on next the day i.e. 19/01/05 at around 7:00 am and from the statement of Dr. Basant Shrivastava (PW/4) it is also proved that "Deceased A" died due to asphyxia which was caused by smothering.Although Dr. Basant Shrivastava (PW/4) did not depose that death of the "Deceased A" was homicidal in nature and amounts to murder, but from his statement it is clear that "Deceased A" aged about six to seven years died due to asphyxia and mode of her death was smothering, which shows that somebody had killed her by covering her nose and mouth, so that she suffocates and sexually assaulted her before her death .So from the statement of these witnesses it is clearly proved that "Deceased A" died between 7:00 pm to 7:00 am of 18-19/01/05 due to asphyxia, which was caused by smothering and her death was homicidal in nature which amounts to murder and somebody also tried to commit rape with her before her death.Although there is no direct evidence on record on the point whether the appellant murdered "Deceased A" and also committed sexual assault on her before her murder and the prosecution story is based only on circumstantial evidence, but prosecution produced following circumstantial evidence against the appellant :-(ii) On the information of appellant, Police seized his shawl and underwear of the "Deceased A" stuck with excreta.(iii) At the time of examination of appellant on 19/01/05 smegma was not present on the appellant's penis.(iv) On 19/01/05 at the time of medical examination excreta was also found on appellant's trouser & underwear and blood stains on his nail.Although Sugantibai (PW/1) and Ku.Nisa (PW/2) are relatives of the "Deceased A", but their statements can not be discarded only on that ground.Likewise, the point that at 11:00 pm -:9:- when Sugantibai found appellant at his house and enquired him about "Deceased A", and he told her that he did not know about her is an improvement in her Court statement.On examination he found that smegma was absent on his penis.In his opinion the appellant is capable for intercourse.He took six sealed packets (containing viscera, blood sample, slide of vaginal swab, stool and clothes of the deceased) from the hospital, which were seized by the Head Constable Dhanraj from his possession who prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/11).Kohli, (PW/11) further deposed that on 20/01/05 he again interrogated the appellant and on his information he seized one underwear, slippers of the "Deceased A", and shawl of appellant from Ramdeen Rathore's field and prepared information memo (Ex.P/9) and seizure memo (Ex.P/10), which were also proved by Krishna (PW/6) and Premram @ Pintu (PW/10) panch witnesses of that memos.L.R. Kohli, (PW/11) also deposed that on 26/02/05 he sent seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior alongwith letter (Ex.P/7).Prosecution also produced FSL report (Ex.P/22) of that article wherein it is mentioned that blood stains were found in appellant's nail sample.Learned counsel of the appellant submitted that shawl and underwear has been seized from the open place which was ordinarily visible to others.Therefore, it can not be said that the said objects were only in the knowledge of the accused.Even otherwise from the statement of Sugantibai (PW/1) it is clear that L.R. Kohli, (PW/11) had already seen that article on 19/01/05 at the time of preparing spot map (ExP/16).So Discovery of that article on the information of accused has no meaning and it is also not proved that seized shawl belonged to appellant.So on the basis of seizure, no adverse inference can be drawn against appellant.Likewise, there is no evidence on record that the blood found on the nails of appellant was human blood and that its blood group matched with the blood group of "Deceased A".So on that basis also no adverse inference can be drawn against appellant.But his arguments has no force.L.R. Kohli (PW/11) also deposed that on 19/01/05 Sugantibai again came to the Police Station and informed that the dead body of her daughter was lying near the road.On that he went on the spot i.e. one k.m.away towards East from Badora square, where the dead body of the "Deceased A" was lying in a field.He prepared spot map (Ex.P/16) and this witness recovered shawl slippers and underwear from near the spot which would have caught sight of this witnesses while making the spot map because they were lying near the spot.So it can not be said that the shawl, slippers and underwear were for the first time recovered from the information of the appellant.But appellant did not challenge the statement of Sugantibai (PW/1) on the point that seized shawl belonged to him.So it is proved that appellant's shawl was found near dead body of "Deceased A".Likewise, from the FSL report it is not proved that the blood found on the nails of appellant was human blood and that its blood group matched with the blood group of "Deceased A".Although the evidence of blood stains found in the nails of appellant cannot be recorded as a conclusive piece of evidence.But it is certainly a piece of evidence which goes to support the other evidence about the guilt of accused.As held by the Hon'blie Apex Court in the case of Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and Ors.Dr. Basant Shrivastava (PW/4) also stated that at the time of medical examination of accused no smegma was present on his penis.(i) Appellant was last seen with the "Deceased A" before her death;(iii) At the time of examination of appellant on 19/01/05 no smegma was present on the glance of appellant's penis.(iv) On 19/01/05 at the time of medical examination excreta was also found on appellant's trouser & underwear and blood stains on his nail.Apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144 held that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.Apex court in the case of Sahadevan Alis sagadevan Vs State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai (2003) 1 SCC 534 also held that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company.In the instant case also the prosecution established the fact that "Deceased A" aged about six to seven years died due to asphyxia and mode of her death was smothering, which shows that somebody had killed her by covering her nose and mouth, so that she suffocates and sexually assaulted her before her death.So it is the duty of appellant to give explanation regarding -:13:- whereabouts of the deceased when he parted the company of deceased.But appellant after his arrest did not offer any explanation and even during trial only denied the allegations made against him without offering any explanation for his absence from his house between 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm on the crucial day.In the post mortem multiple semi lunar abrasion (nail mark) with blood clots were found on the face and neck of the deceased and her hymen was also found ruptured in 5 mm diameter.During medical examination of appellant on 19/01/05 blood stains were found on his nail and no smegma was present on the glance of his penis.Appellant's shawl was found near dead body of "Deceased A".Appellant did not offer any explanation regarding these circumstance also and even at the trial only denied the allegations made against him without offering any explanation.These incriminating circumstances collectively in our view form a complete chain and are consistent with no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused/appellant.He did not give any explanation regarding all of these circumstances which clearly proves against appellant that he abducted the "Deceased A" and murdered her and also tried to commit rape with her before murdering her.So we are of the considered opinion that trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences.As far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court convicted appellant for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2) read with Section 511 and 302 of IPC.While the offence under Section 366 of IPC is a graver form of offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.So in the light of Section 71 of IPC appellant should only be convicted for the offence under section 366 of IPC which is graver.Accordingly, appeal is disposed off. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,845,239 | M.C.No.1170/2016 Page 1 of 7Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seek quashing of FIR No.623/2014 registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2/injured initially for the offences punishable under Section 279/337 of the IPC, however during investigation upon obtaining the result on the MLC of injured, Section Crl.M.C.No.1170/2016 Page 1 of 7 338 of the IPC resorted to.The police charge sheeted the petitioner and matter is pending for trial.Meanwhile, respondent No.2 and petitioner settled the matter vide compromise deed dated 06.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation amount.Thus, respondent No.2 on receipt of compensation amount does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner.The parties have amicably settled the matter and the respondent No.2/ complainant does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioner.Consequently, FIR No.623/2014 registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to cost.A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) MARCH 22, 2016 M Crl. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,845,939 | 1/State.Shri Rajneesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has moved the present application for cancellation of bail order dated 19/5/2014 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in crime No. 21/14 registered at police station Kotwali, District Guna for the offences under Section 324 and 323 of IPC.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if accused aged 18 years was released on bail for offence under Section 324 of IPC then it cannot be said that order passed by the concerned Court was beyond its jurisdiction or any illegality has been done in that order.If police has added offence under Section 326 and 307 of IPC, police is entitled to arrest the respondent No. 2 after addition of these offences.The impugned order does not cover the registration of case under Section 326 or 307 of IPC.Under such M.Cr.C. No. 5961/2014 (Ramvilas Kirar Vs.There is no allegation that after releasing on bail, respondent No. 2 has misused the liberty granted to him.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE jps/- | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,288,549 | The facts briefly are as follows :The occurrence giving rise to the prosecution of the applicants took place on 13-8-1949 at about 12 A. M. in village Kani-bojhi, police station Malhipur, district Bahraich.Sardar Karam Singh, Taluqdar of the Jamunaha Estate, is the proprietor of village Kani-bojhi & held 35 bighas of Sir in this village.The Deputy Commissioner of Bahraich issued notices to various zamindars, including Sardar Karan Singh, to let out their parti lands to tenants within a fixed period & intimated that, if this was not done, panchas would be appointed to distribute the land.At about this time the tenants of the village took matters into their own hands & under the leader, ship of appct.l, Kali Prasad Misra, seized possession not only of the parti lands but also of the Sir & distributed it to various persons.The prosecution case was that the land in dispute was included in the 25 bighas allotted to Hamin, Siddiq, Asghar, Bhallar alias Sattar, Sayed, Jan Mohammad, Shaukat, Mewa Lal & Ghafoor who cultivated it jointly.Kali Prasad Misra, according to the prosecution, got the land allotted by the Deputy Commissioner of Bahraich, who had by then assumed charge of the estate on behalf of the Court of Wards, to his own minor son & grandson.When Hamin, Ghafoor & others heard of this trick, they hurriedly collected their bullocks on 13-8-1949 & proceeded to the fields to plough them up so that their continued possession might be established.While Hamin & others, the prosecution story proceeded, were actually ploughing the fields & Ghafoor was sitting on one side of the field.Kali Prasad & other appets.as well as about 15 other persons came op at about 11 A. M. & asked Ghafoor why he was ploughing the field.On Ghaffor's reply that he was ploughing the field because he was in possession, an altercation ensued & Kali Prasad struck Ghaffoor on the head with a lathi.Ghafoor began running away & Hamin Khan & others ran up to intervene.Some other persons from the adjoining village also came & out of them Abad, Chheda Khan & Badal Khan also received injuries at the hands of the assailants.Ghafoor was severely beaten & expired on the spot & his companions ran away; Hamin Khan, his brother left the dead body in charge of the Mukhia, who had arrived in the meanwhile, & lodged the F. I. R. at the police station Malhipur.JUDGMENT Agarwala, J.The appcts. were convicted by the Addl.J., Bahraich, under Section 304(2) read with Section 149 & Section 147, Penal Code & sentenced to 5 years' R. I. & one year's R. I. respectively.Their appeal to this Ct. was dismissed by one of us & their conviction & sentences were upheld.They now pray that the case may be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.The appcts.& 14 others were prosecuted & committed to sessions to stand their trial for having committed offence under Sections 147, 302/149 & 323, Penal Code.All the accused pleaded not guilty.Mohan, Kesai Mohammad Ali & Razzaq pleaded alibi.Brij Bahadur, son of Kali Prasad, stated that the land was in possession of his minor brother, Ram Dhiraj & his son Ram Roop & that he himself was not present at the time of the occurrence.Kali Prasad pleaded that he was in possession of the fields & had sown crops before the occurrence took place, that on hearing that a large number of persons were ploughing his fields, he along with others went to the place & remonstrated with the persons ploughing the fields whereupon he & his party were attacked with lathis by these persons & that in self-defence he also inflicted injuries.The learned Addl.J of Bahraich held that Kali Prasad Misra & his party were in possession & that they had a right of private defence of property against the trespass of Ghafoor & his companions.He, however, held that the right was exceeded inasmuch as Ghafoor was pursued & injured while he was running away.He accordingly convicted the appcts.under Sections 304(2)/149 & 147, Penal Code & sentenced them as stated above.The remaining accused were acquitted.In the appeal which was argued by one counsel on behalf of all the appcts.two points were urged.The post mortem report showed that Ghafoor had only four external injuries, one contused wound scalp deep on top of the head & three contusions--one on the chest below the neck, another on the left cheek & a third on the back.The larynx, trachea, bronchi & both the lungs were congested & the cause of death was stated to be asphyxia.exceeded their right of self-defence. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,861,104 | as per rules.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ar Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN ABDUR RAHMAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d604b5a66b413c436e6af99c6fe547304e1bc26d2b51 0cc133f1b56faa63e77b, cn=ABDUR RAHMAN Date: 2018.11.16 18:05:51 +05'30'The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Sirol District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.138/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 147, 341, 452, 294, 353, 186, 332, 148 and 427 of the IPC.2018 the S.H.O., Police Station Jhanshi Road, Gwalior along with other members reached Phooti Colony to remove illegal constructions in compliance of the direction issued by this court.At that time more than 2,00 persons came there and intervened in discharging official duties and pelted stones at police party whereby S.D.M sustained injuries.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,835,221 | Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.397 of 2017 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Vidisha against him and four other co- accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r.w 34 of the I.P.C.According to the prosecution, co-accused Vikesh wanted to marry Anju.But, she refused to marry him.On 19.6.2015, co-accused Vikesh in the presence of the applicant and other co-accused persons namely Lakhan, Vishal and Sitaram gave her a pouch, saying her to eat its contents and die.Under the fear of him, she ate the contents of the pouch.Thereafter, her health started deteriorating and she died on 20.6.2015 in the course of treatment in a hospital.He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Vidisha city and that he has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE Rks | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,364,074 | The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;2 As per the prosecution case, on 31/12/2015, the SHO alongwith police force went to search Bhaliya S/o Kishan.When the police force reached the water tank, after seeing the police, Sagu started shouting, then he was caught by the police party.Digvijay, Rakesh, Dinesh, Salan, Ida tried to snatch Sagu from the custody of police.They started beating by means of kicks and fists.Accused Kandan pelted stones on the head of Jagdish and accused Ida gave blow by means of Faliya on the shoulder of Jagdish.4 Learned Government Advocate appearing for non- applicant/State has opposed the bail application submitting that as per the medical report of Jagdish, he has received abrasion on head over left parietal region of head and swelling on head over left parietal region and swelling on right shoulder joint and abrasion wound on right palm just above wrist joint and as per x-ray report, Jagdish received fracture on skull.. 5 Perused the case-diary.Taking into consideration the allegations against the present applicants that they beat by means of kicks and fists and change-sheet has already been filed, without going into the merits of the case, this bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicants be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each along with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on all dates as may be fixed in this behalf.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants :-7 A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, present MCRC no. 3418/2016 stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,367,631 | Brief facts of the case are that the victim is working as Angan Wadi Worker in Angan Wadi Centre.On 10.11.2014 when she was returning from 2 village Bordiya Khurd, after attending Angan Wadi Function, the respondent / accused met her and he forced her to sit on his motorcycle.He also caught hold her hand, at the same time, husband of the complainant reached there; and after seeing him, the respondent / accused fled away.Thereafter, complainant reported the incident to the Police; and on the basis of which, offence under Sections 341, 354- D and 354 (A) (1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the respondent / accused at Police Station Neemuch City, District Neemuch (MP).After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.The trial Court, after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by impugned judgment acquitted the accused / respondent from the aforesaid charges.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this petition for grant of leave to appeal.I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh; and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court.From perusal of statement of husband of the victim, it appears that in his absence, the victim used 3 to talk with the respondent / accused.Therefore, he objected to their relationship.He also accepted that he has not reported the incident to the Police on the same day.He has lodged FIR after delay of four days and he has not offered any plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR.It also appears that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim and her husband.Resultantly, no grounds are available for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.Hence, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10263/2017 filed by the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,369,790 | Shri R.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 in both appeals.None for remaining respondents in both appeals.Since both these appeals arise out of the common award dated 23/1/2017, therefore, this order shall govern the disposal of both these appeals.These appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.In these appeals filed by the Insurance Companies they have also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others claimants under the miscellaneous head.Since the question of quantum is yet to be decided in the appeal filed by the claimants, therefore, in order to avoid any conflicting judgments with regard to the amount of compensation, the grounds with regard to the quantum of compensation raised by the Insurance Company in these appeals is kept open and shall be decided while deciding the appeal filed by the claimants.The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the deceased/injured persons were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.On 5/3/2013 at about 8 PM the said jeep collided with a tractor trolley bearing registration No.MP06 AA/5382 from behind, as a result of which, Ku.Priti Parmar, Ku.Ritu Parmar, Gambhir Singh, Bhairosingh, Ramdeen Singh, Sangita Parmar and Bhagirath Singh lost their life, whereas Rajabeti and Smt. Manju Parmar sustained injuries.Accordingly, the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation.The respondents no.3 and 4 (defendants no.1 and 2), who are the driver and owner of the tractor, filed their written statement and conceded that the respondent no.3 was the driver of the tractor and Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others the respondent no.4 was the owner of the tractor and it was pleaded that the said tractor was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company.The owner of the jeep/respondent no.6/defendant no.5 contended that he was the owner of the said jeep and Late Ramkrishna Singh was the driver and it was further pleaded that the jeep was insured by the respondent no.7/defendant no.6/New India Assurance Company Limited.It was the case of the claimants that the tractor was parked in the middle of the road without any sign or obstruction / any warning, as a result of which the offending jeep, which was being driven by Late Ramkrishna Singh @ Kallu (who also lost his life in the said accident), collided with the said tractor, as a result of which, seven persons lost their life and two persons sustained grievous injuries.Accordingly, the police also registered Crime No.41/2013 for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of IPC against the driver of the jeep and since he had also lost his life, therefore, the closure report was filed.Late Smt. Sangeeta Parmar was aged about 28 years and she was earning Rs.6,000/- by performing agricultural activities, Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others household activities etc.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others no.1 and 2 as well as respondent no.7 that the Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence of the witnesses has come to a conclusion that the tractor was parked on the road without any warning, as a result of which, the offending jeep collided from behind and thus, the driver of the tractor was also negligent.It was for the owner and driver of the tractor and Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others trolley to prove that the tractor and trolley were not parked on the road or any precautionary warning in the form of distress light or any other form were put on the spot to give an indication to the oncoming vehicles with regard to the parking of the tractor and trolley on the road.The driver of the jeep also did not take any precaution to avoid accident in such a condition.He should have driven the jeep cautiously.Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that both the drivers and owners of the offending Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others vehicles were equally negligent and their contributory negligence was assessed at 50%.Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.The Dehati Nalish (Ex.D/1) was allegedly lodged by Ajay Singh.The Tribunal, however, observed thus:"... Respondent 3 and RW 1 submitted that the petitioner has invited the alleged unfortunate accident but except the FIR and complaint Ext. P-If really the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries by falling down from the engine of said tractor Respondent 3 insurer could have produced the separate file maintained by it in respect of the accident in Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:55 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.532/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others MA No.420/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Sandeep Parmar and others question and it could have also produced investigator's report in respect of the said accident but admittedly Respondent 3 has not produced the said separate file and investigator's report in respect of the accident in question for the reasons best known to it.On the other hand as already stated above it is clear from the statement of petitioner on oath and eyewitness and from the supplementary statement of petitioner at Ext. P-2 and police statement of witnesses at Ext. P-3 and charge-sheet at Ext. P-6 it is clear that due to rash and negligent driving of said tractor by Respondent 1 the said tractor turtled down and fell over the petitioner who was about to board the tractor and as a result of which the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries.Moreover as already stated above the Investigating Officer concerned after detail investigation has filed the charge-sheet against Respondent 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC..."The High Court has proceeded to reverse the finding of the Tribunal purely on the basis that the FIR which was lodged on the complaint of the appellant contained a version which was at variance with the evidence which emerged before the Tribunal. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,383,055 | The above referred charge-sheet is filed against 18 accused.Theaccused Nos. 1 to 4 are the purchasers, accused No.5 is an advocate,accused No.6 is the proprietor, accused Nos. 7 and 8 are the Sub-Registrars and accused Nos. 9 to 18 are the power of attorney holders ofthe sellers.The case of the prosecution is that during the period between 2007and 2009, the accused No.1(Shri Deepak Dattatray Gadgil)-the authorizedsignatory of accused No.2(Shri Virendra Dattatray Mhaiskar)-ManagingDirector of accused No.3 (M/s.Aryan Infrastructure Investments Pvt.Ltd.)and accused No.4 (M/s.IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd.) along withaccused No.5(Advocate- Ajit Kulkarni); and accused No.6(wife of accusedShubhada S Kadam 5/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docNo.5 - Smt. Jyoti Kulkarni-Prop.Of M/s. Jyo Development Corporation);along with accused No.7(Ashwini Kshirsagar, petitioner in writ petitionNo.4572 of 2018), the then Sub-Registrar of Lonavala, Pune and accusedNo.8 (Anant Pandurang Kale, petitioner in writ petition No.4396 of 2018),the then Sub-Registrar of Maval, Pune, and accused Nos. 9 to 18, thepower of attorney holders entered into criminal conspiracy with eachother and, dishonestly and fraudulently attempted to cheat theGovernment of Maharashtra by way of grabbing the lands in Village -Pimploli, District- Pune.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::The following facts emerge from the record produced before theCourt.In the year 1995 to 1999, the Public Works Department (PDW), onbehalf of Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC)had acquired several parcels of lands in village - Pimploli for the purposeof Mumbai Pune Expressway.In the year 2000, MSRDC completed theconstruction of the Expressway and, in the year 2002, it was made fullyfunctional.Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, thematters are heard finally.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::The petitioners in all the above petitions have approached thisCourt invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaread with the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 for quashing and setting-aside the charge-sheet/criminal proceedings of special case No.52 of 2017 pending on thefile of learned Special Judge, CBI, Pune for the offences punishable underSections 120-B, 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(forshort "the IPC") and Sections 13(2) and 15 read with 13(1)(d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act").So far as the lands in question are concerned, in the year2003, the concerned Talathi record mutation entry Nos.638, 639, 640 and641 as per Kami Jasta Patras (statement showing reduction or increase inthe acquired land) sent by the Land Acquisition Officer stating that theacquired lands and the name of the acquiring body are deleted fromShubhada S Kadam 6/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docthe 7/12 Extract recording the entries in respect of these lands.Theaccused Nos.3 and 4, the two infrastructure companies were desirous ofdeveloping a special township and intended to purchase land for thesaid purpose.The accused No.6 who was carrying the business of realestate development in the name of Jyo Development Corporationrepresented to the accused Nos. 3 and 4 that it had acquired rights invarious parcels of lands in villages of Pimploli and Taje in Pune Districtand offered to transfer about 1000 Acres of land.On 26 th December,2006, the accused No.5- a practising lawyer in Pune engaged for duediligence, issued a public notice in relation to some of the landsproposed to be purchased, out of which, at least 5 parcels of land, wereallegedly already acquired by MSRDC.No objection was received fromMSRDC or any government authority to the public notice.On 9 thJanuary, 2007, the accused Nos.4 and 6 executed an agreement, underwhich, the accused No.6 agreed to transfer the lands to accused No.4free from encumbrance and encroachment and also undertook the workof identifying the lands, due diligence etc. On 22 nd January, 2007, theaccused Nos.3 and 6 respectively executed an agreement on similarterms.Between 2007 and 2009, the accused No.5-Advocate carried outsearch of revenue record for verifying the title of the lands proposed tobe purchased in Pimploli and Taje villages and issued search/title reportfor the same.The saidmutation entries reflected that the acquired areas and the name of theacquiring body has been deleted and, that is how, the name of MSRDCcame to be deleted and it was claimed that the original owners had clearand marketable title.Thereafter, various sale deeds and agreements tosell were executed and registered between the accused Nos.1 to 4 aspurchasers and, accused Nos.7 and 8 as confirming parties and thefarmers have claimed to own the lands in question as sellers eitherdirectly or through their power of attorney holders.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::The petitioners in writ petition Nos. 4396 and 4572 of 2018, intheir capacity as Sub-Registrars, registered the aforeasid sale deeds andagreements to sell and, the petitioners in rest of the petitions are thepower of attorney holders of the owners of the lands in question.In the year 2009, the purchasers became aware that out of 1353Acres of land purchased by them in the villages of Pimploli and Taje,about 105 Acres of land in Pimploli still belonged to MSRDC and,therefore, the sellers did not enjoyed a valid title.Therefore, theyexecuted and registered cancellation/correction deeds with respect toShubhada S Kadam 8/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docthose transactions.The petitioners in writ petition Nos.4396 and 4572 of2018 as Sub-Registrars of their respective jurisdiction also registeredthese cancellation/correction deeds which were presented before them.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::After completion of the investigation, in the year2017, CBI filed a charge-sheet in special CBI Court which is numberedspecial CBI case No.52 of 2017 for the offences punishable underSections 120-B, 420 read with 511 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) and 15read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.At this stage, it is pertinent to note that neither the Talathi whorecorded the mutation entry No.638, 639, 640 and 641 is arrayed as anaccused nor the owners/sellers of the lands in question are madeaccused.It is also pertinent to note that the accused Nos.1 to 4, thepurchasers as well as accused No.5 - Advocate and accused No.6 -Proprietor of M/s. Jyo Development Corporation) were discharged by theTrial court and the order of the Trial Court discharging them has becomefinal inasmuch as the same is not challenged by the CBI in higher Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::petitioners (who were the then Sub-Registrars) in writ petition Nos.4396of 2018 and 4572 of 2018 respectively made following submissions :-a) No case as alleged in charge-sheet is made out against thesepetitioners and though other prime accused have been discharged,continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners isabuse of the process and grave miscarriage of justice.b) The registering officer cannot look into title and the scope ofenquiry by such officer is limited to Section 34 of the Registration Act,1908 and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioners perusing the7/12 Extract and being aware that the lands in question did not have aclear title and that it belonged to MSRDC.c) The law does not confer/jurisdiction upon a Registrar/Sub-Registrar to go into the correctness of the contents of a documentpresented before him for registration.A registering officer is notrequired to and not empowered to look into title or otherwise into thecontents of a document.If the registering officer does not register thedocuments presented before him in accordance with the requirementsof Section 34 of the Act, then, it would be in breach of his duties andobligations under the Act and particularly Section 35 of the Act whichmakes it mandatory in such cases for the registering officer to registerthe document.Therefore, refusal to register despite satisfaction ofShubhada S Kadam 10/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docSection 34 would rather amount to an irregularity on part of theregistering officer.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::deliveredon 17th March, 2017 in writ petition No.9956 of 2016 .In addition tothis, the learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the learned SingleJudge of this Court in criminal application No. 821 of 2010 which wasfiled by the petitioner in writ petition No.4572 of 2018 for grant ofanticipatory bail.Mr. Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the CBI, vehementlyShubhada S Kadam 11/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docopposed the petitions.Mr. Venegaonkar lastly submitted that there is sufficient material onrecord to proceed against these accused and, therefore, the petitionsShubhada S Kadam 12/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docdeserve to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::Having gone through the petitions, the impugned charge-sheet andthe submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties and having given anxious consideration, we find merit in writpetitions filed by the Registrars.At the outset, we will deal with the submission regarding themaintainability of the petitions.The petitioner in writ petition Nos.4396and 4572 of 2018 have approached this Court for larger relief ofquashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that continuation of theimpugned proceedings itself is an abuse of the process and gravemiscarriage of justice.It is true that the petitioners had earlier filedapplications for discharge before the Trial Court and the same wererejected.However, in our considered view, this cannot take away thepetitioners larger right to seek quashing of the impugned proceedingsincluding the charge-sheet on the ground that continuation of the samewould result in abuse of process of law.It is now settled position thatthe petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can beentertained even after filing of the charge-sheet and during thependency of the application for discharge in the Trial Court.Referencecan be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in G. Sagar Suri andanr.versus The State of U.P. and ors (2000) 2 SCC 636 and AnandShubhada S Kadam 13/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docKumar Mohatta and anr.versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Department of Home and anr.(Passed in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of2018 on 15th November, 2018).We, therefore, hold that the petitionsare maintainable and proceed to deal with them on their own merit.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::This takes us to consider whether there is prima facie materialagainst petitioners in writ petition Nos. 4396 and 4572 of 2018 toconnect them with the offences under Section 420 read with 511 of IPC.Sections 420 and 415 of the IPC requires at the very least that arepresentation with a fraudulent intention should have been made to theperson deceived.Admittedly, the MSRDC/Government ofMaharashtra did not sustain any wrongful loss.On the contrary, thedocuments in question (sale deeds) have been cancelled by executantsShubhada S Kadam 23/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docand such cancellation and correction deeds were also registered.Inthese facts and circumstances of the case, mere execution andregistration of the documents by the petitioners and subsequentlycancellation of such documents, does not disclose any cheating or evenan attempt to cheat inasmuch as no title is transfered under thesedocuments, as the sellers themselves did not have title and suchdocuments could not be construed to be the one put to use to cheat anddeceive as they fall short of the ingredients of the offence of 'cheating'.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::The said petitioners are the power of attorney holders of thesellers and they are charged with offences under Sections 120-B and 420read with 511 of the IPC.As observed earlier, the sellers have not beenarraigned as accused, however, the petitioners who are the power ofattorney holders of the sellers have been impleaded as accused for theoffences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 and 120-B of theIPC.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::Mr. Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the CBI, opposed thesepetitions vehemently on the ground that the petitioners viz. ownersand/or their power of attorney holders were aware that the land inquestion was acquired by the MSRDC and despite this, they executedsale deeds thereby entering into conspiracy to cheat theMSRDC/Goverment of Maharashtra.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim(supra),considered the case where the second respondent therein filed acomplaint against the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3) and 2others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, alleging that hewas the owner of Katha No.715, Khasra Nos.1971 and 1973 admeasuring1 bigha, 5 kathas and 18 dhurs; that the first accused who had noconnection with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executedtwo registered sale deeds dated 2-6-2003 in favour of the secondShubhada S Kadam 27/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docaccused in respect of a portion of the said land measuring 8 kathas and13 dhurs; and that the third, fourth and fifth accused being the witness,scribe and stamp vendor respectively in regard to the sale deeds hadconspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents; and thatwhen he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abusedhim and hit him with fists and told him that he can do what he wanted,but they will get possession of the land on the basis of the saiddocuments.The Apex Court in the backdrop of the above said facts heldthat no ingredients of cheating were made out in the charge-sheet andthat in such facts it may be possible for the purchaser to allege that thevendors had cheated them but when there was no false or misleadingrepresentation to the complainant.The relevant observation of the ApexCourt are contained in paragraph Nos.19, 20, 21 and 23 which reads asunder :::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co- accused.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds.The present case as a matter of fact stands on better footing inasmuch asno complaint from the Government or MSRDC was made to the effectthat any inducement/representation was made to them.Thus, in theabsence of any such representation/inducement to the MSRDC and thepurchasers having not filed any complaint, rather they were madeaccused and later on discharged, then, none of the ingredients of theShubhada S Kadam 29/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: wp 4396.18.docoffence of cheating or attempt to cheat are made out.The petitionersare not attributed any independent role and cannot be fastened withliability independent of conspiracy or cheating, more so when the sellerswhom the petitioners represented are not accused, besides this, thebuyers have also been discharged.When all others concerned with thesame transaction viz. the purchasers, the advocate, and the buyers arenot charged with the offence of cheating or attempt to cheat, thepetitioners alone cannot be part of any alleged conspiracy to do so.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 :::Consequently, the criminalproceedings in Spl.All the aforesaid writ petitions stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:45 ::: | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,386,844 | Advocates who appeared in this case:We express our gratitude to Mr V.K Rao for having assisted this Court as an amicus curiae.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 26,2011 kb CRL.CONT. | ['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. |
36,122,723 | (2).They overtook them and stopped their motorcycle.Thereafter one person came and robbed his wrist watch, one mobile phone of Redmi 4-A company, and his mother's gold chain, gold tops, gold ring valued Rs. 61800/-.The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") against the judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat District Alirajgarh in Session Trial No.7/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 (two counts) of I.P.C. and sentence to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each counts with default stipulation.After that they fled away.The complainant lodged FIR at police station Bori District Alirajpur on the same day.On the basis of which crime number 40/2017 for commission of offence under Section 392 of 2 I.P.C. was registered against the unknown persons.(3).On production by the complainant, police seized the bill of mobile Redmi 4-A. Police apprehended the accused persons and on the basis of memorandum of accused Aalam, one gold ring, wrist watch and a motorcycle bearing registration MP-45-MA- 1499 was seized whereas on the instance of the present appellant Manoj one mobile phone, gold chain was recovered.Their test identification parade was also conducted in which complainant Girish Devda identified the accused persons.Identification of seized article was also conducted.After completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet was presented before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Jobat who committed the case to the court of Session Court and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District Alirajpur.(3).Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 392 (two counts) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- for each counts.(5).(8).In view of the aforesaid and on the basis of the material available on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 392 (two counts) of IPC.(9).So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the the appellant is the first offender, was facing the trial for more than 2 years and he has 4 served 2 years 5 months in custody out of his three years jail sentence, therefore,the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him whereas the fine amount of Rs.1,000/-each imposed by the trial court is affirmed.(10).Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part to the extent the impugned judgment and order has been modified.The appellant is in jail.Office is directed make arrangement for issuance of supersession warrant against the appellants so that appellant be released from jail forthwith, if he has deposited the fine amount.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK PRAVEEN DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, KUMAR NAYAK 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454715d6ec cc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.06.01 07:32:07 -12'00' | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
36,123,925 | ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::Deceased Yunubai was sister of the informant PW1- Bhagwan.She had married to the appellant Yuvraj about five years before the incident.As per FIR, dowry of Rs. 4,000/- was paid at the time of marriage.Yunubai lived with her husband at Moykheda Digar, Tq.Jamner, for two and half months.Thereafter, the appellant complained about insufficient dowry and about his dislike of Yunubai and made further demand of Rs. 5,000/-.As the maternal relatives of the Yunubai were unable to meet the demand, Yunubai was constrained to reside at her maternal house for a period of three years.After Diwali in 1994, the maternal relatives of Yunubai took help of some Mediators and reached Yunubai to her matrimonial house.The informant Bhagwan and his mother had visited the matrimonial house of Yunubai on 2-3 occasions and that time Yunubai was complaining about ill-treatment to her and dowry demand of Rs. 5000/- by her husband, parents in-laws and sisters-in- law.In FIR, it is alleged that, on 26.05.1995 at 3:00 PM, Yunubai came to her maternal house at Jamner and informed her brother that her in-laws and husband had demanded dowry of Rs. 5,000/- from her.PW1 Bhagwan persuaded her to resume cohabitation.It is alleged that, her sisters-in-law i.e. Latabai & Anita were visiting her house and were scolding her on account of insufficient dowry and were making dowry demands.On 06.10.1995 at about 4:30 pm when PW1 was in the school, he received message that Yunubai has ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 3 APEAL532.2001 died.When he went to her matrimonial house, he found that Yunubai died due to consumption of poisonous insecticide.Froth was oozing from her nostrils and mouth.PW1 accordingly lodged FIR on the next date i.e. 07.10.1995 at Jamner Police Station and the crime was registered at C.R. No. 280/95 u/s 306, 498A r/w 34 of the IPC.The same was investigated into.The statements of material witensses were recorded.Inquest & spot panchanama was drawn.He has found symptoms of poisoning by insecticide.Since there is no direct evidence, the prosecution has relied on the fact that Yunubai was telling to her maternal relatives about the dowry demands and ill-treatment to her by her husband and in- laws.The prosecution has examined seven witnesses, out of which PW1 Bhagwan is the brother and the informant while PW5 Narmadabai is the mother of the deceased.From the nature of FIR and the evidence on record, one can guess about the financial ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 8 APEAL532.2001 condition of both the families.It is alleged that, dowry of Rs. 4,000/- was demanded at the time of marriage but subsequently it has come on record that this dowry was paid by consent and it included the marriage expenses which were borne by the accused.This fact was expressed by her to her brother and mother.She also used to tell them that she was beaten.PW1 stated that, on 26.09.1995 about 10 days before suicide, at around 3.00 PM, deceased Yunubai had been to his house and told him that her husband and in-laws were demanding dowry of Rs. 5,000/- and if the amount would not be paid, she would not be allowed to stay.1. Vide the Judgment and Order dt. 09.11.2001 passed by the learned IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgoan in Sessions Case No. 10/1996, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").For offence punishable u/s 306 of the IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and for offence u/s 498A of the IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::PM was conducted on the dead body.After conclusion of trial, the charge- sheet was submitted in the court.In due course, the case was committed to the court of Sessions.Charge was framed at Exh. 53 against the appellant Yuvraj, his parents and his sisters for offences u/s 306, 498A r/w 34 of IPC.The prosecution examined 7 witnesses.The accused denied all the allegations and came with the case of accidental death by inhaling the insecticide.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::After considering the evidence on record, the learned IInd Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalgaon convicted accused No. 1 - Yuvraj for the offences punishable u/s 306 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC and awarded sentences as referred to above.Rest of the accused were acquitted.Hence this appeal against conviction.R. S. Shinde, learned counsel for the appellant argued that, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had subjected ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 4 APEAL532.2001 the deceased to cruelty or to dowry demands.The evidence of PW1, 3 & 5 in this regard is not reliable.There are vague allegations.There is no material to show that the act of the appellant amounted to abetment as defined u/s 107 of the IPC.It is also argued that, it was not a case of suicide but it was accidental death by inhaling the insecticide.He argued that the allegations are extremely vague and those cannot be relied upon.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::Per contra, Mr Nerlikar, learned APP strongly supported the Judgment of the trial Court.He argued that there was persistent dowry demand and ill-treatment which built pressure on the deceased and she was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.He pointed out that, deceased was deserted within 2.5 months after the marriage on account of non payment of dowry and she had to reside at her maternal house for three years.Thereafter, due to persuasion of mediators she had resumed cohabitation but even thereafter ill-treatment continued to her.Her mother had visited her house and that time she had narrated the story about ill-treatment being meted out to her at the instance of the appellant and her in- laws.Besides, on 26.09.1995 i.e. 10 days before the incident, the deceased had been to her brother's house at Jamner and again narrated the story about dowry demands and ill-treatment.The accused have taken a false defence of accidental death which is ruled ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 5 APEAL532.2001 out by the evidence of Medical Officer.The deceased has committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage.The appellant has not given satisfactory explanation for her committing suicide.Hence, the evidence of PW1 & PW5 should be believed and the appeal should be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::The points for my consideration with my findings thereon are as follows:As to points No. 1: - There is evidence of brother and mother of deceased that the deceased met with death due to poisonous insecticide.Froth was oozing from her nostrils and mouth.Her dead body was sent for post-mortem and PW2-Dr.Yusuf has ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 6 APEAL532.2001 conducted the Post-mortem.He found 50 ML of semi ductile fluid with mucus mernrance conjested.The viscera was preserved and the stomach contained organophosperous poison.It was argued that, such poisoning is possible by accidentally inhaling the poisonous substance.The Medical Officer has not accepted this position.Point No. 1 is thus answered in the affirmative.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::As to points No. 2 & 3 : As per Section 113(A), the presumption as to abetment of committing suicide by married woman can be drawn when the bride has committed suicide within seven years of the marriage and there is evidence to show that her husband or relatives of her husband had subjected her to cruelty.Section ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 7 APEAL532.2001 113(A) discloses that it is a discretionary presumption and the court has to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case for drawing such presumption.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::PW1 Bhagwan and PW5's evidence show that after the marriage Yunubai cohabited with her husband merely for 2 and ½ months.During this period, she was subjected to further demand of Rs. 5,000/- and she was also subjected to taunting that she was not liked by her husband and in-laws.After 2.5 months, she was brought to her maternal house and the appellant declined to cohabit with her unless the dowry was paid.Therefore, she resided at her maternal house for three years.There is evidence of PW1 & PW5 that, after Diwali in 1994, with the help of Mediator Bhaskar Palve, Daulatrao and Govind Kapse, the appellant and his relatives were persuaded and deceased Yunubai resumed cohabitation.Thereafter she cohabited with the appellant till her death on 06.10.1995 (for a period of one year).PW1 has stated that, during this cohabitation period, he and his mother had visited the matrimonial house of deceased to make inquiry of her well-being.At that time Yunubai told them about the persistent dowry demands and about dislike by her ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 9 APEAL532.2001 husband and in-laws.PW1 stated that, she also told that her two sisters in-law had visited her matrimonial house and had taken away sarees given to her by her brother and they were also complaining about insufficient dowry received by their brother.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::In cross-examination, it is brought on record that, during the period of three years, when his sister was residing with him, no notice was issued by the accused nor any complaint was made to the police.His evidence that, with the help of Mediator i.e. Ramkrushna, he had persuaded the accused in order to resume cohabitation with his sister, is by way of omission.PW5 Narmada has also deposed about her daughter Yunubai returning to her house about 2.5 months after marriage and about dowry demands of Rs. 5,000/- as a condition precedent to resume cohabitation put by the appellant.She stated that, since the amount was not paid, her daughter remained with her for three ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 10 APEAL532.2001 years.Thereafter, efforts were made to resume cohabitation and Yunubai started cohabiting with the appellant.She stated that, once about 2.5 months after the marriage, she had gone to the house of the accused, that time Yunubai had told her that she was being ill- treated, beaten and starved.There was demand of Rs. 5,000/- and there was threat that she would be divorced.Her remaining evidence is regarding the incidents after she received the news of death of Yunubai.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::Apart from deposing facts about spot panchanama, he has also deposed that deceased Yunubai was his maternal sister and he had met her at her maternal house after her marriage and that time she was complaining about ill-treatment to her at the hands of the accused.He had also learnt about dowry demand of Rs. 5,000/- made from her which was disclosed by him to Yunubai's brother.On careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the allegations regarding ill-treatment are vague.The words like abusing, beating are used without date, time and place.Even at many places the names of persons who had beaten her are not disclosed.The material fact is that, as per evidence of PW1, on 26.09.1995, Yunubai had been to the house of her brother and made ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 11 APEAL532.2001 complaint of ill-treatment, dowry demand etc. but her mother is totally silent about the same.It was argued that, her mother was residing at different place.Still in the light of the facts stated earlier, PW1 ought to have given information to his mother and ought to have discussed the further plan.The allegations further disclose that she was taunted on account of her looks.There is also evidence that, there was demand of dowry of Rs.5,000/-.PW5 stated that she had gone to the house of Yunubai and that time Yunubai complained to her about dowry demand & ill-treatment.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::The previous and subsequent conduct of the parties is very much relevant to determine the credibility of the evidence.It is true that, for three years, deceased stayed at her maternal house and thereafter resumed cohabitation.Considering the fact that the dowry of only Rs. 4,000/- was demanded at the time of marriage and that too inclusive of the expenses of the marriage, it is difficult to accept that the appellants were subjecting deceased to ill-treatment on account of not meeting the dowry demands.I find that, the evidence regarding ill-treatment is extremely vague.Such vague evidence does not inspire confidence.The conduct of PW1, PW5 and deceased- Yunubai is not in conformity with the allegations of dowry demand & ill-treatment.Unfortunately Yunubai has committed suicide within 7 years from the date of her marriage but the reason for her suicide ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 12 APEAL532.2001 remains shrouded in the mystery.In this situation, it cannot be said that as the accused has failed to explain the reason of suicide, the reason put forth by the maternal relatives of deceased can be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::If there was persistent dowry demand, there would have been some efforts at least to pay some amount or there could have been some attempt to persuade the appellant and his relatives by expressing inability of PW1 & PW5 to pay dowry, but the subsequent conduct does not disclose any such situation.As far as stay of the deceased at her maternal house for 3 years is concerned, surprisingly PW1 & PW5 did not take any steps for 3 years to resolve the dispute and persuade the appellant to resume cohabitation.Even after the incident dt. 26.09.2015, PW1 did nothing to safeguard the life of his sister.I, therefore, find that the evidence regarding dowry and ill- treatment does not inspire confidence.There was similar evidence against the appellant as well his parents and sisters.The ld. trial Judge for the reasons best known to her discarded the same evidence as against the parents and sisters while accepted the same against the appellant.There is no material to show that the accused created a situation for the deceased Yunubai whereby she was left with no ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: 13 APEAL532.2001 option but to commit suicide.Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.Hence, the points formulated by me are answered in the negative.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::The appeal presented by appellant - Yuvraj S/o Chango Kale is allowed.The Judgment and Order dt. 09.11.2011 passed by the learned IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgoan in Sessions Case No. 10/1996 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.The bail bonds of the appellant stand forfeited.The appellant-accused shall furnish fresh bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount u/s 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.[ A. M. DHAVALE ] JUDGE sgp::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 00:32:47 ::: | ['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. |
36,126,414 | Shri Rajendra Yadav, Advocate for complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This first appeal u/S 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 13.04.2018 passed by Special Judge Distt.Guna, whereby, application preferred by the appellant herein u/S 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.The appellant has been arrested by Police Station Maksudangarh, District Guna in connection with Crime No. 59/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 323, 376, 506/34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(W)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)As per prosecution story, short facts of the case are that on 04/04/2018 at about 4.00 Pm the complainant Dayabai along with her daughter namely Keshavbai were filling straw in the bullock cart in her field.Keshavbai went to take water from the well of the field.At that time, the appellant Devi Singh along with co-accused Prem Singh Ahirwar suddenly came from backside and caught hold the prosecutrix Dayabai from her back and threw her on ground.The co-accused Prem Singh armed with Axe told the prosecutrix that if she screamed then she would be killed by Axe.Thereafter, the applicant Devi Singh 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 3467/2018 committed rape upon the prosecutrix.Thereafter, the daughter of the prosecutrix namely Kesavbai came on the spot and on seeing her, the accused persons ran away from the spot.The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N.DURGEKAR Date: 2018.07.04 15:19:48 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
36,127,133 | When she denied to the aforesaid demand then applicant used to abused and harassed her mentally, therefore, on 04.12.2016, respondent No.2 left the house of the applicant and came back to her parental house at Ratlam.Thereafter, the applicant in absence of the respondent No.2 torned her wedding dresses and created whatsapp group in the name of " Rishto Ki Paribhasha" and circulated pictures of said cloths.When the parents of the respondent No.2 consulted the applicant, he accepted his fault and promised not to harass the respondent No.2 again on which respondent No.2 returned back to her matrimonial house.They lived happily for sometime.Lateron applicant again started demanding dowry and harass the respondent No.2, as a result she returned back to the her parental house.After returned her back the applicant again created whatsapp group in the aforesaid name and circulated the message with intent to defame her.(27/06/2019) The applicant has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the 'CrPC') for seeking quashment of proceedings drawn against him in furtherance to FIR bearing Crime No.133/2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, the 'IPC'), and Section 67 (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ( for brevity, the I.T. Act') registered at Police Station Manakchowk, District Ratlam.(2).The facts leading to filing of instant application are that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and respondent No.2 on 26.02.2016 at Nagpur (Maharashtra) as per Hindu customs and rituals.According to the complaint made by the respondent No.2, at the time of marriage parents of the respondent No.2 as per their economical status gifted various household articles amounting to Rs. 7-8 lacs to the 2 applicant.Sometime of the marriage applicant and respondent No.2 residing peacefully but thereafter applicant forced to respondent No.2 to avail a sum of Rs. 1.5 lack from her father.Then she lodged the report against the applicant and on the basis of which FIR bearing crime No. 133/2017 for the offence under Section 294, 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 67 (D) of I.T. Act was registered at Police Station Manakchowk, District Ratlam.After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was filed.(3).Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record filed along with the instant application.In light of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no ground available for quashment of FIR and the consequential proceedings arises on the FIR bearing Crime No. 133/2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 67 (D) of the I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Manakchowk, District Ratlam.Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK PRAVEEN DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454715d6eccc5 KUMAR NAYAK a350c9111fb019b34dace6d05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.06.28 11:50:29 -07'00' | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
36,127,636 | Submissions were made on I.A. No.831/2020, which is an application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant No.3 - Jubeda W/o Ayyub Mansoori.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandsaur vide its judgement dated 24.07.2019 passed in S. T. No.204/2017 as under :-Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.6773 of 2019 (Mehrun & others vs. State of MP) injuries on the person of deceased were incised wounds whereas, the present appellant had dealt lathi blows on the deceased as per the prosecution story.It has also been stated that present appellant cannot be made liable under Section 149 of IPC as she was not part of the unlawful assembly when attack on the deceased took place.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard who has opposed the application.Considered rival contentions.Original record was perused.On perusal of record, it is found that on 21.07.2017, seven accused in all including the present appellant had attacked Chand Bi and Kudwan Bi resulting in their death.The aforesaid attacks were carried out with sharp edged weapons and sticks were also used by some accused including the present appellant in assaulting the deceased.This aforesaid assault has resulted in death of Chand Bi and Kudwan Bi and injuries to other witnesses namely, Ruksana, Afsana, Shahnaz, Shahrukh etc. It has been stated that all the injuries on the deceased were cased by sharp objects and the injuries found in the post-mortem report reveal that they were incised injuries.The post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/42) of deceased Chand Bi was perused.The deceased Chand Bi has received lacerated injury also apart from incised wounds and such lacerated injury has been found on the lower lip of deceased Chand Bi.The witnesses namely, Shakir (PW-1), Ruksana (PW-2) Afsana (PW-3) and Shahrukh (PW-4) have stated that appellant Jubeda had dealt lathi blows.A stick has been seized from Jubeda and as per FSL report (Exhibit-P/63), the stick seized from Jubeda, Article A-16 was found to contain blood 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.6773 of 2019 (Mehrun & others vs. State of MP) traces.List the matter for final hearing in due course. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,612,905 | On the complaint of Anjali Kapur Gonsalves, FIR No.57/2012 had been registered by Police Station Hauz Khas, and investigation taken up for offences allegedly committed under Sections 420/406/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.M.C. 5021/2015 & 916/2016 Page 1 of 3was submitted before the Metropolitan Magistrate against both the petitioners, who were summoned as accused.The Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter considered the question of charges to be framed on the available material.He found, by order dated 14.10.2014, charge made out for putting the petitioner of the first captioned matter on trial for offences punishable under Section 120- B read with Section 409/420/417 IPC and petitioner of the second captioned petition for offence under Section 409/420/417/120-B IPC.The present petitions were filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) with the prayer for the said orders and the criminal case to be quashed.Both the petitions and the pending applications stand disposed of in above terms. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
361,292 | (2) In order to appreciate the challenge by the petitioner to the impugned order, we must have a quick glance to the relevant facts of this case.In December,1991 while serving as Junior Staff Officer (Water Wing) he was posted to perform the duties as the Personal Officer of the Inspector General, Frontier Head Quarters, B.S.F. at Jammu.At the relevant time the petitioner was placed under Closed Arrest under the orders of the Inspector General, Frontier Head Quarters, B.S.F., Jammu.On 3rd December,1991 he was taken from Jammu to New Delhi under an armed escort and from there on 4th December,1991 to Bangalore.JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) This petitioner was charged with three offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1988').The first charge against him is that he accepted gratification for providing safe passage to one Shri Partap Singh for smuggling of gold.Secondly he agreed to provide safe passage to one Shri Charan Singh for smuggling of weapons from Pakistan, who had a design to purchase Naka to smuggle weapons from Pakistan.Thirdly the petitioner voluntarily omitted to inform about the said design to his superior officer.After affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the proceeding of conviction was submitted.Authority sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and also dismissed from service.This sentence was confirmed by the appropriate authority.Shri L.S.Bisht, Commandant, 33 Battalion, B.S.F.held the proceedings of Recording of Evidence (ROE) under the provisions of Rule'48 of the B.S.F. Rules,1969, at Bangalore.Statements of the witnesses on oath were recorded.Questions were asked from the witnesses for the purpose of clarification.On the basis of the proceedings of the Record of Evidence, the Said Shri L.S.Bisht on 29th January,1992, submitted the proceedings implicating the petitioner.On the basis of Roe charge sheet was prepared.Mr.L.S.Bisht applied to the Inspector General (Head Quarters) B.S.F,, under Rule 52 of the B.S.F. Rules in the prescribed form for issuing a convening order for the assembly of a General Security Force Court for the trial of the petitioner.The convincing order was issued on 3rd February,1992 for the assembly of General Security Force Court at New Delhi.This was issued on 12th February,1992 for the purpose of trying the petitioner.As per the convincing order dated 3rd February,1992 Shri L.S.Bisht, Commandant who had earlier presided over and conducted the proceedings of the recording of evidence at Bangalore was appointed as a prosecutor to prosecute the petitioner during the trial of the case before the General Security Force Court.(3) MR.DINESH Mathur, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner besides assailing the order of conviction and sentence has also challenged the procedure adopted by the respondent in prosecuting the petitioner.Whether on the basis of uncorroborated testimony petitioner could be punished?Even otherwise this objection could have been taken at the relevant time. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
36,130,031 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The deceased Ramnihore sustained four simple injuries on his head, back, left hand and left leg, however no fracture was found to him and therefore, he did not take any treatment and he died after 25 days due to septicemia.Looking to the injuries caused to the deceased Ramnihore, no offence under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the applicants.At the most, the offence under Section 323 of the IPC may constitute, which is bailable.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
361,369 | The brief facts leading to file this petition are detailed as under:The case in Crime No.122 of 2006, on the file of the G3 Kilpauk Police Station has been registered based on the complaint lodged by his son one Mr.K.Vijayakumar.On 25.01.2006, at about 07.00 a.m., six persons posing themselves as Income Tax Officers trespassed in to his house and conducted fake raid and under threat and coercion made the petitioner to part with Rs.35,00,000/- in cash and also jewels worth over Rs.15,00,000/-.The Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station (third respondent herein) has merely registered the case under Section 420 I.P.C., though the offences committed by the parties is a serious one.Soon after the registration of the case, a special team was formed to investigate the crime and during the course of investigation, it came into light that one G.Subramani of Gangaikondam, Tirunelveli, a real estate broker had conspired with his school mate one Ganesan and they had engaged V.Kandaswamy, S.Pulliah, K.Madasamy and R.Prabhakaran to conduct the fake raid.Though the accused had looted Rs.35,00,000/- in cash and shared the booty, the third respondent police was able to recover only Rs.5,96,150/-.Apart from this, they had also recovered one necklace and some of the rings weighing, in all, about 54 grams and those items had alone been handed over to the petitioner and none of the diamond jewellery seems to have been recovered from the accused persons.The petitioner was put to understand that after the initial action, no progress whatsoever has been made in the investigation by the third respondent police.The third respondent police has also not evinced efforts to investigate the case and recover the remaining properties.Despite the fact that material evidence about the accused are available, the third respondent has been investigating the crime leisurely and in a humdrum manner.Even inspite of several reminders from the petitioner personally, requesting the third respondent to gear up the investigation in an effective manner, the third respondent police seems to be totally reluctant to probe the case further.The petitioner was also put to understand that the status of the case is shown to have been detected in the Police Station Statistics Board.The petitioner had also sent a representation dated 21.07.2010 to the Commissioner of Police by speed post on 28.07.2010 to take necessary further action to bring the culprits to books, but the same evoked no response.Hence, it has become necessary for the petitioner to come forward with this petition to withdraw the case in Crime No.122 of 2006 from the file of the third respondent police and transfer to the Crime Branch CID Department functioning under the control of City Commissioner.8. Heard both sides.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the first information report in the case in Crime No.122 of 2006, serious offence of dacoity and robbery has been shown as a case of simple cheating.He has also submitted that the accused persons, who were arrested and gone out on bail and their whereabouts are very well known to the third respondent police and with a little efforts the third respondent could have traced the remaining of the case and jewelleries robbed off from the house of the petitioner and only because of the lethargic attitude of the third respondent police, the properties, both cash and jewellery are not able to be traced by the third respondent police.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that based on the above said complaint, the then Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation and examined as nearly as ten witnesses and recorded their statements and after his transfer his successor in office had taken up the case for further investigation.He had also arrested one G.Subramani and S.Pulliah and recorded their confessional statements and based on their confession he had recovered a cash of Rs.53,640/- and another amount of Rs.21,600/- and apart from this, he had also recovered a Sony Ericsson Cell Phone from their possession and sent them to the Court for being remanded judicial custody.He had also arrested one Ganesan @ Ganesa Iyer, Kandasamy, Praba @ Prabakaran and Madasamy and recorded their confessional statements and from their possession he had also recovered a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- along with a Hero Honda Motorcycle and a sum of Rs.45,300/- from Prabakaran and another sum of Rs.19,500/- and one Nokia Cell phone from Madasamy and besides this he had also recovered a sum of Rs.10,200/- and a cell phone from Kandasamy respectively.Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody by the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Further, the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation of the third respondent.As per the complaint, a huge amount as well as jewelleries are involved in this case.Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first and second respondents to withdraw the investigation of the case in Crime No.122 of 2006, from the file of the G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and transfer to the State CBCID Police Department.He has also added that for the reasons best known to the third respondent police, these guidelines have been flouted down and that the supervisory officer of the Kilpauk Police namely the Deputy Commissioner, the Administrative Controller of the Range namely the Joint Commissioner-Central and over all controller of the city, the Commissioner ought to have been found this lapse and transferred the case to the Central Crime Branch.But, they have also not done so.Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for the withdrawal of the case from the file of third respondent police and transfer to CB CID.Side) has also submitted that all the six accused persons were taken into police custody for a period of five days, enquired and recorded their statements and based on their statements certain Indra Vikas Patras and jewelleries and a two wheeler were also recovered and all the seized properties were sent to Court.He has also further submitted that the investigation has been completed and a draft charge sheet is made ready to be filed for the offences under Sections 451, 392, 395, 170 r/w 120(B) and 109 I.P.C. He would further submit that under these circumstances, there is no need to transfer the case in Crime No.122 of 2006 from the third respondent police station to the CB CID.He would further submit that as per the police report, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is involved in this case and that if at all this Court is inclined to transfer the case from the file of the third respondent police, the case might be entrusted with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk for further investigation.But the investigation of the third respondent police must have been fair and impartial and apart from this, the third respondent should have conducted the investigation by way of service to the society.The third respondent police should have infused confidence in the minds of the petitioner and then only he can repose faith on the functioning of the police department.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.122 of 2006 is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the third respondent viz.the Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station and transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk.Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk is also directed to take up the case and conduct a fair and proper investigation and after the completion of the investigation, he shall file a final report before the appropriate Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu State Police, DGP Office Complex, Mylapore, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 600 104 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,132,440 | The respondent is the eldest son to his parents, namely, Mr.P.Padmanabhan and Dr.R.Krishnakumari Padmanabhan.They died on 08.12.1990 and 04.02.2008 respectively.The petitioners 1 to 3 herein are the sisters of the respondent and the 4th petitioner is his brother.According to the respondent, his mother Mrs.Dr.Krishnakumari Padmanabhan had left behind an unregistered Will in his favour in respect of the property in question.The respondent further claims that the said Will is the last Will of Krishnakumari under which she has bequeathed her property in question absolutely in his favour.He would further state that by taking steps, he got the tenant vacated from the property in question and thereafter, he has been in occupation of the same.He used to beg money from his mother by troubling her and even sometimes, he used to blackmail and coerce her also towards giving money.Thus, the 1st defendant herein always was causing troubles to everyone of the family and the 1st defendant was also not in any position to help in running the family.He never cared for any family problems or for the betterment of family but often put them in corners.The plaintiff's father always used to advise the 1st defendant to lead a life without spoiling the reputation of the family which the 1st defendant did not at all care for.After his debacle at college, he refused to go to work preferring to live of his parents.He whiled away more time pretending to do post graduation (which he never completed) squandering the parents' money again.The parents, when he demanded money for staring a business lent him a huge amount, nevertheless, he caused all sorts of worries to the family.He continued being irresponsible and indisciplined.Till his retirement the father was leading a demanding career.But when he experienced 1st defendants bad behaviour, his heart broke.In utter dismay, father passed away soon after.Finally, his business had to be wound up.Despite plaintiff's mother asking him to return her money, he refused to do so.After marriage circa 1993, the 1st defendant continued harassing his elders more.Unable to tolerate his ill-treatment, his mother's health took a turn for the worse.She ordered him out threatening to go to the police otherwise.From then on, the plaintiffs alone have been looking after the family by serving their mother and grandmothers.However, even after being thrown out of the house, he continued coming to her for money for expenses.Since her health was fragile and wanting to avoid ugly scene, she continued providing for him.Hence, under these circumstances, the plaintiff's mother thought of executing a WILL so that the plaintiff's interest could be safeguarded."that she did not trust 1st defendant, despite being the eldest son"."The main intention of the executants was that if at all any property given certainly the 1st defendant would alienate the same to lead his extravagant life and also he was not in good terms with mother and on several occasion he physically abused her.""She hated the 1st defendant herein due to his malicious and crue attitude.The 1st defendant at no point of time thought of involving himself in doing good job or profession, but always greedy for money and he used to extort money from his parents and thus father and mother disliked the 1st defendant.The plaintiffs submit that their parents did not at all have any faith on 1st defendant and he never cared for the parents.After marriage, he was separated from the family and he was lenient towards his in-laws.Whenever he needed money, he used to beg or threaten his mother and thereby in the habit of collecting money"."it is pertinent to note here that the 1st defendant used to visit the house under the guise of seeing the sick mother and during such times in absence of plaintiffs, the 1st defendant used to collect her signature on blank papers saying he was representing her for usage of domestic affairs i.e. To carry out building repairing work in connection with employment, banking purpose etc. He also used to obtain thumb impression of mother, but the plaintiffs were not serious about it at that time because their priority was the health of elders in the family"."At this juncture, the 1st defendant approached the 2nd plaintiff and thereby sought permission to occupy a portion of 1st item of suit property namely the house property 'Padmam'.The 2nd plaintiff also without knowing the evil intent of the 1st defendant herein permitted him to occupy the front portion of the house property temporarily believing his representation that he would move out as soon as he finds an alternative accommodation".The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.The respondent is the complainant in the case.The respondent has filed the said private complaint alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.Seeking to quash the same, the petitioners have come up before this Court with this petition.The respondent has further alleged that on account of the above unregistered Will dated 04.05.2005, the petitioners herein have got no right whatsoever over the said property.But, on 15.07.2008, according to the respondent, a false complaint was made by one of the petitioners herein upon which a case was registered by the police and the same was finally closed as 'mistake of fact'.Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.610/2009 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore for partition.According to the respondent, in the plaint in O.S.No.610/2009, the petitioners herein have made lot of defamatory imputations making out a clear offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.With these allegations, the respondent has filed the instant private complaint.After having made appearance before the lower court, the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 4 have come up before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings.The imputations as extracted in the complaint, are reproduced below:-"1st defendant being one among the two sons of their parents, has been leading an irresponsible life.He failed in his UG degree due to his truant behaviour.Then on was roaming around uselessly to the dismay of the elders at home.His father chased him out of the house on many occasions.But he always crawled back and forced himself in the house.He never cared for the family and he has been continuing his life as he likes by spending money lavishly"."Whereas, on receipt of those papers, the plaintiffs came to know that the 1st defendant created an unregistered WILL dated 04.05.2005 as if the first item of suit property was bequeathed to him by his mother"."The plaintiff submit that the 1st defendant played fraud on the plaintiffs and thereby the plaintiffs have been put to great loss and hardship.""The plaintiff submit that their mother did not at all execute any power of attorney dated 04.05.2005 and the alleged notary attested power of attorney is either fabricated for the reasons that the 1st defendant used to obtain the thumb impression of the mother Krishnakumari and signatures in blank papers while she was not in conscious mind.The plaintiffs submit that the 1st defendant used to come home in the absence of the plaintiff as if visiting the mother partial to see her and taking advantage of her ill-health and dementia he used to obtain thumb impressions and signatures on blank papers.The plaintiffs also noted pad ink in the LT of mother Krishnakumari but they did not think that the 1st defendant might have misused the same to this extent.The 1st defendant had prepared the alleged WILL using the signature and thumb impression of the mother, obtained while mother was ill.The plaintiffs submit that the 1st defendant had prepared the alleged WILL dated 04.05.2005 which is false and alleged Power of Attorney 04.05.2005 was also fabricated likewise.The plaintiffs submit that the plaintiff's mother did not at all execute the said WILL dated 04.05.2005 and Power of Attorney dated 04.05.2005 of her own volition.It is well known that a person cannot sell the immovable property except by a a registered power of attorney.While so, the 1st defendant and the defendants 4 and 5 hand in glove, created the alleged Sale Deeds which are sham and nominal and created only to defeat the right of plaintiffs in claiming title over the same.The plaintiffs submit that the alleged sale deeds are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 and 5 are not bona-fide purchasers and there were no considerations passed.""The plaintiffs submit that the 1st defendant also threatened the aunty of his mother Dr.Krishnamkumari, namely C.Visalakshi Ammal demanding to settle her property to him.""The 1st defendant used to threaten the said Visalakshi Ammal in person and over phone and thereby causing serious threat to her life.There is police complaint lodged by Visalakshi Ammal dated 13.10.2008 against the 1st defendant, besides filing civil suit.The 3rd plaintiff has also lodged a police complaint against the illegal act of the 1st defendant and thereby on a FIR was lodged against him, the 1st defendant by using his influence made the FIR closed on the ground of RCS".The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these averments have been made in the complaint only out of good faith which would fall squarely under Exception 5 and 9 to Section 499 of IPC.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that these averments are absolutely necessary for proving the issues involved in the civil suit because it is necessary for the petitioners to disprove the execution of the Will sought to be used by the complainant in his favour.The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, as a matter of fact, during her life time, Mrs.Krishnakumari had executed a registered Will and the same has come into force after her demise.Against the respondent/husband. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,143,013 | Consequently, the Detention Order stands vitiated.7.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,146,433 | 7.8.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.He is not the main accused.As per prosecution, it is alleged that the fire was made by co-accused Murli, Kripa, Bhan, Rajesh and Ishwardas.This fact has been specifically stated by injured Prahlad and Ramesh.The deceased died due to the gunshot injuries.Merely due to presence of the applicant on the spot, it cannot be said that he has participated in the aforesaid offence.The charge sheet has been filed.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) Judge PB | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,146,860 | In a nut-shell the case of prosecution is as under:(A).On 10th January 2002 victim Nilesh was brought to the Rural Hospital Georai, Dist-Beed.Doctor at Georai found Nilesh to be dead when he was brought to the hospital in auto rickshaw.In another auto rickshaw, injured PW-3 Anup Mundada was also taken to the same hospital but looking to his injuries, Doctor forwarded him to Government Hospital at Beed.Police Inspector Ramesh Ghorale (PW-21) reached the hospital at Georai and came to ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 ::: cria413.05 5 know about victim Nilesh to be brought dead.He got the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit 15) done and took steps to get Post-mortem done.He came to know that colleague of the dead, in injured condition, had been taken to Government Hospital, Beed.P.I. proceeded to Beed.At Beed, the injured PW-3 Anup was operated upon.In the course of night after the operation, P.I. - Ghorale recorded statement of injured Anup at about 1.10 a.m. after the doctor examined and certified him.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::The said statement was then forwarded to the P.S.O. at Police Station, Georai and in the same night offence came to be registered at 4.30 a.m. (vide Exhibit 28).In the morning of 11th January 2002 P.I. Ghorale recorded Spot Panchanama (Exhibit 24) between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. Inter alia blood stained mud was collected from spot.Before recording the Spot Panchanama, between 5.30 - 6.00 a.m. police seized the blood stained clothes of injured Anup (vide Panchanama Exhibit 51).Statements of witnesses were recorded.(B).The accused came to be arrested on 14 th January 2002 at about 15.15 hours and he was taken in the custody.The blood stained clothes of the accused were also seized (vide Panchanama Exhibit55).When the accused was in custody, on 18th January 2002 he gave discovery of the blood stained knife used at the time of incident.Vide Memorandum Exhibit 57-A the statement of accused was recorded and vide Panchanama Exhibit 57-B, the knife came to be discovered.(C).The post-mortem was done on the dead body of the victim Nilesh on 10th January 2002 itself between 10.30 - 11.30 p.m. He had died due to stab injury.Police collected the post-mortem report (Exhibit 60).When the accused was arrested on 14 th January 2002, he was also got examined for his ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 ::: cria413.05 7 injuries from one Dr. Vinod at Civil Hospital, Beed.It was found that he had injuries which were possible in scuffle.Police also collected medical certificate (Exhibit 69) of injuries of the injured Anup from Civil Hospital, Beed from Dr. Upendra Kulkarni (PW-18).(D).In the course of investigation, police came to know that the accused after the incident which took place near gate of the Shetkari Sahakari Ginning Mill, which also had Cotton Federation in same premises at Georai, had run up to another mill namely Somani Ginning Factory at Padalshingi and taking help from some persons there, had travelled in Jeep to Beed where he also called for his family.Anup resides at Aurangabad.He is a graduate and is a businessman.He and Nilesh used to meet each other whenever Anup used to go Georai or Nilesh used to go to Aurangabad.They had friendly relations.Anup is in business of iron racks.On 10th January 2002 he had gone for this purpose to the place of one Bandu Seth Somani at Georai.He finished his work at that place at about 2.30 - 3.00 p.m. and went to the house of Nilesh.From family, he came to know that Nilesh had gone to the ginning factory.PW-3 Anup also came to the ginning factory which is to the south of Georai.Anup has deposed that he saw that Nilesh was standing at the gate of the ginning factory.They met and talked.As they had not taken meal, they went to Gulmohar Hotel, a Dhaba which was nearby, at about 3.30 p.m. They sat at the hotel till about 6.00 p.m. as the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 21 accused grader Dhanade was not available and was to come by that time.According to PW-3 Anup they were at that hotel for about 2 - 2½ hours and thereafter on motorcycle they came back to the ginning factory which was at about one furlong.It was about 6.30 p.m. by this time.PW-3 Anup states that they saw the accused standing near a heap of cotton.PW-3 Anup identified the accused before the Court.According to him, he and Nilesh went near the accused.The evidence of PW-5 is that when he saw that the quarrel is going on and these persons came outside the gate, he could not bear it and proceeded to STD Booth in order to give ring to the house of Nilesh.When he was ringing on phone at that time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed towards this witness and informed him that the accused had stabbed Nilesh and also his friend.PW-4 has also deposed that when he saw the stabbing, he rushed towards the STD Booth but noticed PW-5 to be there and told him about the incident which was unfolding.At this point of time, PW-6 Kailas Sutar who is labourer and was near Hotel Deepali, got attracted.cria413.05 26 Evidence of PW-5 and 6, both, shows that when PW-4 so rushed towards PW-5 and told about the incident taking place, they noticed the accused running away from near the spot towards Mondha Naka.The evidence of PW's 3 to 6 further makes it clear that after Nilesh was stabbed, he fell to the ground with bleeding injury and PW-3 Anup who had been stabbed in the stomach, sat down holding his wound.The evidence shows that blood was coming out from the injuries of both these persons and their clothes got blood stained.Evidence is that PW-5 Ankush called for rickshaw and Nilesh was put in the auto rickshaw.PW-5 with the help of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban, one Jeevan Dabhade and PW-6 Kailas lifted and put Nilesh in auto rickshaw and proceeded to Rural Hospital at Georai.The cross-examination of PW-5 Ankush brought on record the fact that after admitting Nilesh at the hospital, this witness was there for about half an hour.According to the witness, he had thereafter come home.It was suggested to him that after returning home he came to know that due to the injury on chest, Nilesh has expired.The witness had accepted the suggestion.He was manager of Somani ginning factory at Padalshingi, which is part of same Taluka Georai.The evidence of this witness and PW-8 Ramesh Gholap, the watchman of Somani ginning factory at Padalshingi, shows that when the accused ran from the spot, he reached this Somani ginning factory.The evidence of PW-8 Ramesh Gholap is that on 10th January 2002 at about 8.00 p.m. he was working at Somani ginning factory when the accused reached that factory and went to clerk T.G. Jadhav.The evidence of PW-8 is that Jadhav asked him to bring a jeep on hire as the accused wanted to go to Beed.Jadhav told this witness also that there had been quarrel between accused and Nilesh and so the accused wanted to go to Beed.PW-8 has deposed that at this time when he saw the accused, the accused appeared to be frightened and that there were blood stains on the shirt and pant of the accused.PW-7 and PW-8 have deposed that they both went to the bus stand at Padalshingi and jeep was hired.PW-9 Kachru Chavan was the driver.PW-9 Kachru has deposed that on 10th January 2002 he was at the bus stand of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 70 Padalshingi and PW-7 Vaijnath and PW-8 Gholap came to him and wanted that their officer should be dropped at Beed.The evidence shows that PW's 7 to 9 then came by jeep to Somani ginning factory and the said officer i.e. accused went and sat in the jeep.Merely because PW-1 was friend of Nilesh, does not ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 82 mean that the witness would be giving false evidence.X 2 cms.X 2 cms., edges were sharp.The injury was admeasuring 3 cms.X 3 cms.and had sharp edges.This injury was also caused within 24 hours next before my examination with a sharp object.Nature of the injury was grievous."It is clear that intestinal coil had become visible and PW-3 in the course of incident had suffered serious injury in his abdomen.Oblique in firce, both tail ends present."As per the post-mortem report, the death occurred due to this stab injury on the chest.14 deposed that he had collected blood sample of the deceased for chemical analysis.According to the witness, the injury was possible by knife.In ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 94 the cross-examination of this doctor also, the accused tried to create doubt to suggest that certain words were inserted in Column 17 of the post-mortem report.JUDGMENT [PER A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.:The State has filed the present Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2005 against acquittal of Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Dhanade.Criminal Revision No.97 of 2005 came to be filed by Laxman Karande, the father of deceased Victim Nilesh Karande, while Criminal Revision No.102 of 2005 was filed by injured PW-3 Anup Mundada.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::Case of ProsecutionIn the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 ::: cria413.05 6 afternoon at 12.00 noon, the blood stained clothes of the victim Nilesh were also seized vide Panchanama Exhibit 53 by the Police Inspector.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::Police recorded statements of persons with whose help the accused had gone to Beed and met an Advocate through a friend Ganesh.Police collected evidence from one Madhuban Lodge, Beed where in the concerned night accused went and stayed for some time with his family.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::cria413.05 8 (E).Regarding the actual incident, prosecution found in the investigation that the deceased Nilesh wanted receipt regarding cotton he had supplied and accused, who was working at the Federation as a grader, was not available on the day concerned when Nilesh went to the factory and Nilesh was waiting there.At that time PW-3 Anup, who had acquaintance with the deceased and who lives in Aurangabad, had gone to Georai for his work and went to meet the deceased.As they had to wait for accused, they went and had food at Hotel Gulmohar, which is near the factory.At about 6.00 p.m. when the deceased and PW-3 Anup went back to the factory, the accused was standing near heap of cotton.Deceased Nilesh asked regarding the receipt of cotton.At that time exchange of words started between the deceased and the accused.Accused was saying that he would grade the cotton on lower side and cause loss to the deceased.After the quarrel started, the deceased, the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 ::: cria413.05 9 accused and PW-3 came outside the gate of the factory.Near the gate also the quarrel continued and in the course of the quarrel, accused slapped Nilesh and PW-3 Anup reacted, giving back two slaps to the accused.Then the accused took out a button knife from his pocket and hit Nilesh with the same in his chest.Blood started oozing out.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::When the accused was about to assault the deceased again, PW-3 Anup intervened and in the result, the accused hit knife in the abdomen of victim Anup causing bleeding injury.His intestine came out.Anup tried to catch hold of the accused and at that time the accused gave another knife blow to Anup on his ribs.Thereafter the accused ran away.The incident was seen by the watchman of the gate of the mill, PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe, who ran to nearby STD Booth which was near Gulmohar Hotel, at which place already supervisor of the mill Ankush Mulay (PW-5) was there dialing and told him about the incident.PW-4 Suresh, PW-5 Ankush Mulay and PW-6 Kailas Sutar and others who ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 ::: cria413.05 10 were there near the spot noticed accused running away.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::Charge-sheet filedThe prosecution found sufficient evidence to charge sheet the accused and the charge-sheet was filed and the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.Charge was framed under Section 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief).The accused pleaded not guilty.The defence of the accused, in brief, is that the deceased Nilesh and PW-3 Anup along with two other persons were at the Beer Bar near the mill and they had consumed liquor and quarrel took place between them.They had come out of the Beer Bar and near the factory, the incident took place wherein those two other persons caused the injuries which (according to the defence) are being attributed to the accused.The trial Court recorded evidence of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 11 witnesses.The accused examined one defence witness Naib Tahsildar Ganpat Yedke, who recorded dying declaration of Anup on 11th January 2002 in the morning.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::We have heard counsel for both sides in these matters.The State, injured Anup as well as father of the victim, who have filed these matters, claim that the Judgment of acquittal is not at all maintainable.According to them, the evidence has not been properly appreciated.There was no reason to discard the cogent and reliable evidence brought on record by the prosecution.There was direct evidence available of PW's 3 to 6 regarding incident.PW-4 had witnessed the complete incident while PW's 5 and 6 had partly seen the same.The documentary and medical ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 12 evidence fully supported the prosecution.There was evidence regarding extra judicial confessions made by the accused after he ran away to Padalshingi and hiring a jeep went to Beed where, with the help of a friend, he had contacted an Advocate for advice.There was no reason for so many persons to speak against the accused.PW-3 Anup was grievously injured in the incident and had no axe to grand against the accused and there was no reason to disbelieve him.There was no enmity between the witnesses and the accused for the witnesses to speak against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Presence of PW's 3 to 6 near the spot was natural.The incident suddenly occurred and trial Court wrongly discarded the evidence.People who gathered at the spot after the incident had helped the deceased and injured to take first to the Primary Health Center Georai.Doctor had rushed the injured Anup to Beed and the persons helping the injured, took him to hospital at Beed.The people who helped, did not even know the injured ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 13 at that time.While admitting PW-3 Anup at the hospital at Beed, in the record name of one Praveen Sharma was recorded as a person who brought him.The victim did not even know this Praveen Sharma but defence had been taken as if this Praveen Sharma and one businessmen of cotton at Georai had grievance against the accused and they brought about false case against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution has submitted that the Appeal needs to be allowed and the accused should be convicted of the offences.One Praveen Sharma and other businessmen who were dealing in cotton at Georai, had differences with the accused and after the incident occurred for which two unknown persons were responsible, the blame has been put on the accused.It has been submitted that the FIR ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 14 was not registered in the concerned night between 10th - 11th January 2002 and it was created subsequently because copy of the FIR was sent to the J.M.F.C. only on 14th January 2002 and not within 24 hours as required by Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.").::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the witnesses were not reliable.PW-3 Anup was not knowing the accused and although accused was named in the FIR which was recorded in the night at about 1.00 a.m., he did not name the accused in the dying declaration which was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. Although PW-3 Anup claimed that when victim was stabbed, his shirt got torn, the shirt before the Court did not have such tear.The trial Court rightly discussed the evidence and found that there were various contradictions and omissions and the witnesses were not found to be reliable.The trial Court has discarded the evidence of the witnesses from Somani Ginning factory also.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 15 extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence and should not be relied on.The witness from Madhuban Lodge PW-16 Kishor Kadam had not supported the prosecution and was hostile.The learned counsel supported reasonings recorded by the trial Court to claim that the reasonings recorded by the trial Court are possible view and thus according to the counsel, the Appeal and Revisions deserve to be rejected.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::The counsel for the accused referred to the case of State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2488(1), the case of Peddireddy Subbareddi and others vs. State of A.P., reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 1391, the case of Anok Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 598, the case of Rama Gopal Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 All M.R. (Cri) 2393, and the case of Mukteshwar and another vs. The State, reported in 2004 Cri.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::At the time of arguments, we had asked the counsel for both sides to address the Court in ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 19 the alternative also.We had told the counsel that suppose we come to the conclusion that offence is proved, what would they like to submit regarding the sentence.We gave opportunity to the counsel for both sides to address on the said count also.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Having heard counsel for both sides, we have carefully gone through the whole record of this matter.The Points for Consideration are:(1) Whether prosecution proved that the accused committed murder of Nilesh Karande and also attempted to commit murder of PW-3 Anup Mundada?(2) Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is maintainable and if not what should be the Order?For better appreciation, the evidence of these witnesses needs to be considered together.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Evidence of PW-3 Anup shows that he was knowing deceased Nilesh since 4-5 years.Coolies were working there.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Nilesh had shown the accused who was grader to this witness.He deposed that time was about 6.45 p.m. and there was light in the premises.The evidence is that Nilesh demanded receipt from the accused and the accused told Nilesh that he would grade the cotton at lower level and cause damage to Nilesh.There was exchange of words between the accused and victim Nilesh.This happened when they were near the heap of cotton.This quarrel attracted PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe who was at gate of the ginning mill/factory as well as PW-5 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 22 Ankush Mulay, the supervisor who had come for work at the ginning factory.PW-4 Suresh @ Baban has deposed that at about 6.00 p.m. He put on all the lights of the ginning premises and he was near the gate.He has deposed that at about 6.30 p.m. he noticed Nilesh along with his friend was there and Nilesh was demanding receipt from accused Rajkumar Dhanade, standing near heap of cotton.According to this witness, the accused told Nilesh that he would not give receipts.Then there were abuses and catching and pushing between them.This watchman started proceeding towards the spot where such incident was taking place but then saw that Nilesh along with his friend (PW-3) and accused were proceeding towards the gate and all of them came to the gate and also came out of the gate.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Now if the evidence of PW-5 Ankush is perused, it corroborates, as even this witness says that although on that day ginning mill was not working as machine work was going on, he had come for work.He deposed that he was sitting in his office ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 23 doing work when he heard noise from outside.Time was about 6.00 - 6.30 p.m. The noise of quarrel was going on and he noticed that there were three persons, the victim Nilesh Karande, his friend and accused.Even this witness has stated that while so quarreling these persons came outside the gate.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::The evidence further is that outside the gate of the ginning factory also the quarrel continued.The evidence of PW-3 Anup is that there was exchange of words and abuses were going on and the accused slapped on the cheek of Nilesh and because of which he got angry and in return this witness gave two slaps to the accused.PW-3 has deposed that when this incident occurred, they were at about 30 - 35 ft. from the gate.PW-3 Anup has deposed that after such exchange of slaps, the accused took out the knife from his pocket and assaulted on the right middle side of the chest of Nilesh and then withdrew the knife from the chest where after blood came out and the shirt had got ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 24 cut.This evidence of PW-3 is corroborated by PW-4 Suresh who has deposed that he tried to resolve the quarrel from some distance after these persons had come out of the gate.He has also deposed that accused gave slap to Nilesh and the friend of Nilesh (PW-3) got angry and gave two slaps to accused and accused took out knife from his pocket and gave stab in the chest of Nilesh causing injury to Nilesh.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 further shows that when the accused stabbed Nilesh, PW-3 tried to rescue, at which time the accused gave knife blow to the abdomen of PW-3 causing injury.PW-3 tried to catch hold of the accused and the accused gave another blow by knife on the left rib of PW-3 Anup.Thereafter the accused started running away from the spot.When the incident of stabbing as above was taking place, PW-5 Ankush who had earlier seen ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 25 accused quarreling, had already proceeded to the STD Booth which is nearby.PW-6 has deposed that he was in front of the hotel when PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed from the side of ginning factory and told about the incident to PW-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::5 Ankush who was on the STD Booth, telling him that in the quarrel between Nilesh, his friend and Dhanade (accused), Nilesh was lying on the earth.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that coolies from the federation put PW-3 Anup in another auto rickshaw and proceeded towards Rural Hospital, Georai.Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that he however remained near the spot for discharge of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 27 his duties (being watchman).::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::The witness however, was unable to name the person who told him at his house about the death of Nilesh.The cross-examination of this witness shows that after the incident, many people had gathered at the hospital and they were discussing amongst themselves about the incident.Police reach HospitalIn the evidence of PW-19 Head Constable Bansi Jadhav, defence brought on record Exhibits ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 28 71 to 73, the Station Diary Entries.Exhibit 71 is entry dated 10th January 2002 of 8.15 p.m. recording that the hospital had informed that dead body of Nilesh Karande had been brought at the hospital.There is entry of the time of 9.15 p.m. to arrange for Bandobast at the federation.PW-21 P.I. Ghorale has deposed that Nilesh had been brought to the hospital and was declared as brought dead by the doctor.According to him, consequently he held Inquest Panchanama Exhibit::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::PW-21 Ghorale has deposed that after Inquest Panchanama, the body was sent for post-mortem.He came to know that there was colleague of the deceased who was injured and had been sent to the Government Hospital, Beed.According to him, he consequently proceeded to the hospital at Beed.Now coming back to the evidence of PW-3 Anup, he has deposed that near the spot of incident, there was Deepali Hotel and 10 - 12 persons rushed to the spot.Those persons took ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 29 Nilesh to the hospital in auto rickshaw and some of the persons who gathered, took him to the hospital in another auto rickshaw.He deposed that when he was taken to the hospital, the time was about 7.15 - 7.30 p.m. Anup and Nilesh both had been taken to Rural Hospital, Georai.His evidence is that seeing his injuries, doctor advised that he should be shifted to Beed.He was taken to Civil Hospital, Beed.According to him, he was operated there for his injuries to the abdomen.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::His evidence is that in that night between 1.00 -1.15 a.m., PW-21 P.I. Ghorale came there and recorded his statement.According to him, when the witness came home, he inquired and came to know that Nilesh had died.The evidence of PW-3 is that when P.I. Ghorale recorded his statement, doctor was present in the ward.Anup has deposed that the FIR Exhibit 28 was recorded as per his say and he signed the same.He has also deposed that the doctor has signed the endorsement on the FIR.He did not know the name of the doctor but deposed ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 30 that endorsement was made by doctor in his presence.This evidence is corroborated by P.I.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Even the P.I. has proved the endorsement of the doctor.The endorsement of the doctor even after recording of the statement has been proved by P.I. Ghorale.Discussing Evidence of PW's 3 to 6The learned counsel for the accused referred to the cross-examination of PW's 3 to 6 to argue that there were various contradictions and omissions and the conduct of these witnesses was such that they were not reliable.This argument appears to have weighed with the trial Court.As such, it would be appropriate to discuss the evidence of these witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Re: Hole or not in Shirt Article 9: In the course of evidence, PW-3 deposed that when Nilesh was stabbed, his shirt got cut.The witness identified the clothes of Nilesh as well as himself and the accused in the course of his evidence.The learned counsel for the accused confronted the witness with shirt Article 9 which was stated to be of Nilesh, to bring an admission on record that there was no hole on the right front side of the said shirt.From this, it is argued that when the witness stated that the stab was to the right front side of the chest, the hole was not there.If the evidence of PW-11 Panch Arun Govindrao is perused, which relates to the seizure of clothes of deceased Nilesh and Panchanama Exhibit 53 is seen, the police did seize shirt of Nilesh which had a cut where knife was stabbed on the front side.The shirt concerned did not have any special marks is matter of record.We have seen record of trial Court.Exhibit 2 filed by Police is list of Properties which Police produced ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 32 in trial Court.In it, the description of this shirt clearly records that the shirt has a tear in front due to knife blow and that there is hole.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Property received appears to have been entered in Court records.No objection regarding description was raised.Prosecution evidence on this count cannot be doubted.Re: Unreasonable expectations/wrong appreciation of evidence: Learned counsel for the accused then submitted from cross-examination of PW-3 Anup that in the cross-examination various details were asked to the witness regarding which the witness was unable to say.The counsel ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 33 submitted that the trial Court noticed that in the examination-in -chief the witness posed himself to be very smart person with photographic memory and gave various details of the incident as well as the clothes and knife perfectly, but in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::examination when he was asked further details, he pleaded ignorance.Now when we peruse the evidence of PW-3 Anup, he appears to have been asked in a gruelling cross examination details like, does he have an idea if police officials (as named in the cross-examination) had come to the Rural Hospital; had the persons who were taking him to the hospital asked him about the incident; could he say in which jeep he was carried and who was the owner of the jeep and whether the police had carried him in jeep from Georai to Beed; can he identify the persons who brought him to Beed Hospital; what was asked by the doctor at Beed Hospital etc. etc. ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 34 These type of various details were sought from the witness and when he has stated that he could not tell about those details, the trial Court declared (in Para 19 of the Judgment) that the witness was evasive and although gave minute details of the events from afternoon till the incident, was avoiding details in cross-examination and that had he given the details it would be against prosecution.One has to put himself in the place of the victim.The details regarding before stabbing taking place and when the actual stabbing was taking place could have been registered in the mind of the witness.Details of the main incident can get embossed on the mind.The same thing cannot be said for part of the incident after the witness was stabbed and was in bad condition.It cannot be forgotten that the witness ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 35 had been stabbed in his stomach and rib and had bleeding injury where he was holding his stomach.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::In fact in the cross- examination of PW-3 Anup, he was referred to his MLC papers and an endorsement, where consent was being sought by the doctor that his small intestine had come out and he was willing for the operation.The MLC papers put up to the witness show that by 8.00 p.m. this injured had been reached to the hospital at Beed.Medical Certificate Exhibit 69 and evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra shows that intestine of PW-3 Anup was seen from the injury.With the injuries he had, it is too much to expect that he would remember details of time and persons around him who were not even known to him, when he was being rushed from point to point in injured condition.PW-3 Anup was asked (in Para 21) and he deposed that when 10 - 15 persons gathered, he had told that grader Dhanade had assaulted him.He was then asked if when he was taken to hospital, he felt that FIR should be filed.The witness stated that he did feel that ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 36 FIR should be filed but he volunteered that his condition was not good and so he did not give it.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::It would be inhuman to expect that a person who has received stab injury in his stomach and who has been injured in his rib by knife and who is being rushed to the Rural Hospital Georai and from there being taken to Civil Hospital, Beed at about 32 K.M.s because of the nature of his wound, should first register FIR instead of seeing the doctor.Person in such condition, after he has been so injured, may not have been in a position to note the various details as the accused wanted to know.So observing, the trial court concluded that the witness does not ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 37 deserve any credit.It further observed that although the witness was in full senses, he did not try to lodge complaint in which he himself and his friend Nilesh were "brutally assaulted".Thus, the trial Court was aware that there was brutal assault, but still went on expecting that the complaint should have been first filed.Before referring to what has been branded as "material improvements", it would be appropriate to refer to the contents of the FIR.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Contents of FIR and PW-3If the FIR Exhibit 28 is perused, after the introductory part, it recorded that on 10 th January 2002 at about 3.00 p.m. complainant had come to Georai.He was knowing Nilesh since 4-5 years as they had met in a marriage and were on ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 38 visiting terms.He went to the house of Nilesh and as Nilesh was not at home he inquired as to where he had gone.He came to know that Nilesh is at federation and so he went to the federation, which is near a Beer Bar.Nilesh was standing in front of the gate of the federation.Thereafter he and Nilesh went to the Dhaba which was nearby and they had food there and thereafter on motorcycle came back to the federation, as Nilesh had to get receipts of cotton.When they went there, Nilesh asked Dhanade grader (accused) regarding the weighment of cotton.Accused did not give any value to Nilesh and insulting him he stated that he will grade the cotton on the lower side and started quarreling.There was oral exchange of words between Nilesh and Dhanade grader.Then all three of them came to the gate of the federation.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::At that time when accused was about to give second blow, PW-3 Anup went near and the stab was received in his stomach and when he tried to hold accused, accused gave blow in the left rib by the sharp instrument like knife and Anup was injured and thereafter accused ran away towards Georai.Thereafter 2-3 persons from Deepali Hotel and labourers from federation came there and they brought them to the Government Hospital.The incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. He was taken to Beed Government Hospital.Later on he came to know that Nilesh has died at Georai due to the assault by knife by grader.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Now if the above FIR is kept in view and the evidence of PW-3 Anup, which we have already discussed, is perused, what is tried to be shown by the accused as material contradictions or omissions when considered, it can be seen that these are matters more of details than the actual ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 40 incident.But the accused, however went into hairsplitting in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::examination of PW-3 Anup.Accused claimed that witness had not told the police that they were at Dhaba till 6.00 p.m. as Dhanade was not available till 6.00 p.m. Now if the FIR is read as a whole and the details stated are considered, the time when the victim and PW-3 met the accused would be around 6.00 p.m. Another contradiction is claimed from the evidence that it was not stated that when these persons went near the accused, he was standing near the heap of cotton.We do not think that this is a material contradiction or omission.PW-3 was asked and he claimed that he had told police that there were lights all over the premises.This may be material but looses its significance looking to the other evidence available on record of PW-4, the watchman who deposed that he had put on all the lights of the ginning mill premises at 6.00 p.m. Spot Panchnama shows that the Ginning Factory had wire ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 41 fencing as boundary and incident took place near gate.In the cross- examination of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban, it cannot be said that he has been questioned regarding his evidence that he had put on all lights of the premises.Apart from PW-4, the other evidence has also been lost sight of by the trial Court regarding visibility.It cannot be forgotten that the spot of incident was not an isolated place on any highway away from the city or in a jungle.It was a ginning factory with cotton federation.The Spot Panchanama Exhibit 24 proved by PW-1 and 2, in the description of the actual spot where incident took place, shows that on the northern side there was an electric pole beyond which there was Deepali Beer Bar.The evidence of PW-3 shows that the Hotel Gulmohar is to the south of the ginning factory at about one furlong.Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that near the ginning factory there is Deepali Beer Bar and near the Beer Bar there is STD Booth.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::PW-4 further deposed that these Hotels, Gulmohar ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 ::: cria413.05 42 and Deepali, remain open till 12.00 O'Clock in the night.Thus it was not an isolated place and only because PW-3 has not mentioned in his FIR regarding light, and omission on that count is proved, it cannot be said that it is fatal to the prosecution case.Trial Court (in Para 35 of its Judgment) declared as Judicial Note that on 10th January 2002 there would have been Sun-set "long before" the time of incident of 6.30 - 6.45 p.m. Trial Court forgot that it was not a hit and run case.Evidence showed incident starting some time after 6.00 p.m. and continuing from inside to outside the Ginning Factory.Evidence of witnesses shows that incident must have taken place between 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. As discussed, PW-3 had been reached to Hospital at Beed 32 KMs.away by 8.00 p.m. after a hop at Rural Hospital Georai.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::Available ancient as well as modern technological system of keeping data should have ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 43 been kept in view.Judicial Note should, when possible, be based on science and public data available rather than surmises.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Another portion of evidence of PW-3 which is claimed to be material omission, is that he had not stated that he saw the grader Dhanade running away in the light of electric light.The FIR shows that Anup did state that accused after the incident ran away.He did not tell about electric light would not be that material looking to above factors.There are further details sought from PW-3 if he had told while giving FIR that Nilesh had fallen on the earth and that he had sat down on the ground holding his abdomen.We do not find that this is material.To repeat, FIR is not an encyclopedia.When the FIR mentions that Nilesh was stabbed in the chest and this witness was stabbed in the stomach, these other details are fringe details which are not material.Omission is tried to be shown that PW-3 did not state in the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 44 FIR that he came to know about the death of Nilesh from P.I. Ghorale.When the P.I. (PW-3) himself was recording the FIR, if he had told the fact to PW-3 Anup, it is inappropriate to expect that the complainant would state that - I have learnt this fact from you - the P.I. who is recording my FIR.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::We have already referred to the contents of the FIR which say that at the time of FIR the complainant had been told that Nilesh had died due to stab injury.Re: Materials put up as Omissions though none existed: It is argued for accused that PW-3 did not tell police that when they had gone to the ginning factory some coolies were working there.If the FIR is perused, it does record that when the incident took place some labourers came from the federation to help, taking the injured to the hospital.Inspite of such reference in the FIR, the trial Court recorded the evidence as if there was an omission.Similarly, another omission is ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 45 tried to be shown that PW-3 had not told the police that accused had told Nilesh that he will cause his loss.The FIR shows that the accused had told Nilesh in the argument that he will grade his cotton on the lower side.This led to the quarrel.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::When this is so, to say that there is omission in this regard, must be said to be hairsplitting.Yet another omission was allowed to be brought on record by the trial Court that at the time of giving of FIR, PW-3 had not stated that there was exchange of words.The FIR does record that there was " 'kkCnhd ckpkckph " i.e. oral exchange of words.However, it is not significant as in this regard there is evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban also, where he has deposed that there was catching and pushing between these persons.In the cross-examination, there was no ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 46 denial and PW-4 could not be shattered and there are no contradictions and omissions brought on record in the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban.It has been then argued that in the FIR, like evidence, it was not mentioned that the stab was given to Nilesh on the right side of his chest and that after giving the stab, the knife was taken out (i.e. withdrawn) from the body of Nilesh.The FIR does mention that knife was stabbed in the chest.If at the time of evidence PW-3 stated that it was to the right middle side of the chest, this was a matter of details.When the evidence is that by the same knife after hitting Nilesh, accused stabbed PW-3, it is a simple matter that after stabbing Nilesh the same knife was withdrawn from the body of Nilesh and PW-3 was attacked.It was not necessary to recored in the FIR that after stabbing Nilesh the knife was withdrawn.This by itself cannot be said to be material omission.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::The Supreme Court observed in Para 32 and 38 as under:::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::He was confronted with the contents and accepted that the name as such of the accused was not written in the statement.No doubt the document as Article "D"Rather Article "D" which was recorded in the morning of 11th January 2002 at about 9.00 a.m. ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 49 gives more details of the incident which are now being tried to be shown by the accused as omissions in FIR.The FIR was registered in the night itself in which PW-3 had given name of the accused.No doubt in Article D, name as such of the accused is not mentioned, but if the evidence of DW-1 is perused and Article D is seen, it is clear that DW-1 did not record the said statement in the words of the witness.He admitted in the cross-examination that he went on putting questions to which PW-3 Anup went on giving answers.DW-1 did not keep any record as to what questions he had asked.It is not clear if DW-1 had asked PW-3 regarding name of accused.Thus, only because in Article D name of the accused was not mentioned, does not make the evidence of PW-3 unreliable.Article D is not dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. It is not statement to Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Still, even if it was to be given any value, although PW-3 may not have know earlier, there are witnesses like PW's 4 to 6 who knew the accused from before and who have also identified the accused.Thus, going through the cross-examination of PW-3, although the learned counsel for accused made much efforts to show that PW-3 is unreliable, we are not in agreement with the counsel for the accused.The reasonings recorded by the trial Court to disbelieve the PW-3, we find to be unconvincing.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::cria413.05 51 It was a case relating to communal riots.In that matter (see Paras 9 & 10), some dying declarations were recorded of the injured who survived.The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the evidence regarding dying declarations recorded by Executive Magistrate of PW's 5 and 6 of that matter.In that matter, the witness had not given out names of accused in the dying declaration.The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the evidence and found that the fact that PW-5 therein was under influence of general anesthesia and that he was not coherent were some of the important aspects that were required to be kept in mind.Hon'ble Supreme Court found in the facts of that matter that the Executive Magistrate had not inquired from PW-5 about alleged assailants.In present matter also, the above discussion shows that there is no material to show that DW-1 examined by the accused had inquired from PW-3 if he knew the name of the officer he was referring to.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Discussing PW-4 Suresh @ Baban TonpeWe have referred to the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe, which corroborates PW-3 Anup.This watchman, when he came on duty, put on all lights of the ginning premises.The learned counsel for accused submitted that the witness was not reliable as he had come to the Court in the car of the father of the victim at the time of giving of evidence and his conduct showed that he could not be relied on, which has been discussed by the trial Court.When we peruse the reasonings recorded by the trial ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 53 Court with reference to this witness, the trial Court raised doubts about this witness by expressing that it was not explained as to how this witness could say that the victim Nilesh was accompanied with his "friend'.One look at the persons and the incident could have made the witness assume that they were friends.But trial Court wanted explanation.Trial Court then observed that the witness did not explain as to who he intended to give phone call when he rushed towards the STD Booth; that he did not explain why he did not make the telephone call; that he did not explain why he did not inform the relatives or police on telephone; or that, he did not explain the basis for identifying the knife.The trial Court doubted the evidence of this witness when he did not accept in the cross-examination that he had earlier discussed the matter with the father of the victim although he came in his car.We find that when such incident suddenly takes place, there could be various turmoils in the mind of a ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 54 witness, who may in split second take a step to do something and in another split second get diverted to something else.Here this witness when he saw the incident taking place, rushed towards the STD Booth.May be he wanted to make a call.But then at the STD Booth he saw PW-5 Ankush already trying to make a call and immediately witness told him the incident and PW's 4 to 6 then appeared to have got diverted seeing the accused running away from near the spot.If the veracity of the witness was to be doubted by asking such questions that the witness has not explained this or that conduct of his, it would be raising doubts for the purpose of raising doubts.Had the witness on his own given the explanations, he would have then been criticized for omissions and improvements.The details as were being searched by the trial Court, were apparently not with reference to the main incident.A watchman like PW-4 may not have risen so as to call up the relatives or police.By that itself the witness does not become unreliable.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 55 trial Court questioned that the witness did not explain on what basis he could identify the knife before the Court and it was difficult for anyone to know particulars of a weapon from a distance.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Now if the Spot Panchanama proved by PW's 1 and 2 is perused (which evidence we will discuss later), it can be seen that the spot of incident of stabbing from the gate of ginning mill was hardly at a distance of about 35 ft.PW-4 deposed (in Para 4) that he tried to resolve the quarrel from some distance.Thus he was between these 35 feet.Although the trial Court criticized the witness claiming that he could not have noted the particulars of the weapon, if the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban is perused (in Para 7) when asked, he deposed that he could identify the knife if shown.The knife was shown and the witness accepted that it was the same knife.Thereafter the Court on its own recorded particulars of the knife in bracketed portion.In Judgment, however, the trial Court criticized that the witness could ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 56 not have noted the particulars.The witness never stated about particulars but accepted when the knife was shown to him that it was the same.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Witness may recall the instrument by general impressions also which he may recall.The trial Court declared that the witness was interested recording that the interest of the witness appeared to be flowing from the fact that young deceased was vice president of the Municipal Council of Georai.But then, the evidence of PW-4 nowhere refers that he had any knowledge whether or not the deceased held any such post.The witness is being doubted because he came to the Court in the car of the father of the victim.The evidence of PW-4 shows that he admitted that he come to the Court in the car of the father of the victim.Distance between Georai to Beed is about 32 K.M.s.If this PW-4 who is a mere watchman at the gate of the factory and apparently not a rich person, took a lift, it would be too insulting to brand him as unreliable only because he had taken ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 57 the lift.There is no material that State took care to provide for transport of the witness.It is a matter of common knowledge that people are reluctant to come forward as witnesses.This is something which is cutting through the administration of criminal justice.Although the witness is criticized, we find that if the witness was not honest or had he been tutored, he would not have given any such admission.The admission rather shows that the witness is honest, truthful and reliable.The trial Court further criticized this witness declaring that the witness claimed that on day of incident victim had delivered cotton to the federation but was unable to say what was the quantity and in whose name it was provided.It was forgotten that questions on this count were asked in the cross-examination by the accused and in that course he had stated that cotton of Nilesh was received on that day.The witness was not given opportunity to explain the basis of his knowledge and when asked further ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 58 details, he deposed that he did not know in whose name and how much quantity of cotton was given by Nilesh.We are unable to accept the reasons recorded by the trial Court for discarding the evidence of this witness.The approach on this count, cannot be maintained.The accused was unable to bring on record any contradictions or omissions in the evidence of this witness.The main evidence of this witness regarding putting on lights of the whole premises and seeing the incident from inside the premises till the stabbings taking place at short distance from the gate can hardly be said to be questioned or shattered.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Discussing PW-5 Ankush MulayComing to the evidence of PW-5 Ankush Mulay, the supervisor, we have already referred to his evidence earlier regarding incident.In short, his evidence is that he is supervisor at the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 59 ginning mill and was on duty on the day concerned although the ginning was closed on that day as machine work was going on.The witness has not stated that it was a holiday as such.The witness deposed that at the time of incident, he got attracted due to the noise of quarrel and saw the victim, accused and friend of the victim proceeding towards the gate and that they were quarreling and then outside the gate quarrel continued because of which he went to the STD Booth to give a phone call to the house of victim, at which time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed to him and told about the stabbing and they saw the accused running away from near the spot.The trial Court has disbelieved even this witness.Trial Court observed that this witness did not claim that he had seen the actual stabbing but still deposed that the friend of Nilesh was stabbed with "knife".But then when the evidence is that PW-4 Suresh @ Baban had rushed to this witness and told him that the accused had stabbed the victim with ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 60 knife, there is nothing surprising if the witness accepted this to say that there was injury by knife.In the cross-examination of this witness, trial Court allowed it to be recorded (in Para 3) that he had not stated before the police that on 10th January 2002 he was working in his office.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Trial Court referred to this as an omission for criticizing the evidence of this witness.It is duty of Court to high light while recording, the part or word concerned by putting it in inverted commas and explaining in bracket.When what has been deposed is also appearing in Statement to Police, Courts should not allow asking if it was so stated to police.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::For its own ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 62 remembrance and benefit of appellate Courts factual notes need to be kept by trial Courts in evidence, in interest of justice.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::In present matter, without referring to police statement by Court, or drawing attention of witness, the Advocate for accused was allowed to bring in the evidence of PW-5 something which did not match with the record.After referring to a few examples, it was observed in Para 27 that:The aforesaid examples are not intended to be exhaustive but only illustrative.The same instance may fall under one or more heads.It is for the trial Judge to decide in each case, after comparing the part or parts of the statement recorded by the police with that made in the witness box, to give a ruling, having regard to the aforesaid principles, whether the recital intended to be used for contradiction satisfies the requirement of law."::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::cria413.05 63 .Trial Court criticized PW-5 on the basis that he had deposed that police personnel had come to the hospital but this witness did not explain as to why he did not disclose the incident to police.If the evidence of PW-5 is perused, although he refers to police personnel coming to the hospital, there is no evidence that police personnel came when he was still present.The witness has deposed that after taking the victim to the hospital, he was there for half an hour and then he had returned home.Looking to the time of the incident and Station Diary Entry Exhibit 71, the cross-examination cannot be so read that the police had already reached when the witness was at the hospital.The witness is criticized by the trial Court that he did not disclose the incident to the people who had gathered.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 64 record shows that immediately on 11th January 2002 statement of this witness was recorded by police.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::We do not think that for reasons recorded by the trial Court, the evidence of the witness could be discarded.Discussing PW-6 Kailas SutarThe evidence of PW-6 Kailas Sutar who was at the STD Booth and got attracted to the incident when PW-4 rushed to the STD Booth and informed about the incident to PW-5 Ankush, has deposed that he had seen the accused running away from near the spot.The evidence of this witness also has been ignored by the trial Court observing that it was unnatural that after PW-4 saw the incident and came to PW-5 and told him about the incident and then this witness could have seen the accused running away from near the spot.If the evidence of this witness PW-6 is perused, he has deposed that he was in front of Hotel Deepali.The STD ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 65 Booth was near this Hotel.The witness deposed that at that time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban "rushed"::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::from the ginning and told Ankush about the occurrence and then when they saw towards Mondha Naka, they saw the accused running away.Logically appreciated, when the spot of incident and the STD Booth near Hotel Deepali were at short distance, if PW-4 rushed and told PW-5 Ankush about the incident which was taking place, the time factor for PW's 4 to 6 would be overlapping to some extent and in quick succession to some extent, and there is nothing surprising if in culmination, simultaneously they could notice the accused running away from near the spot.We do not find anything unnatural in the evidence of PW-6 Ankush when he deposed that he saw the accused running away from near the spot.The evidence of this witness PW-6 Kailas has been discarded by the trial Court on the basis that he was not a person who was providing cotton ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 66 to ginning mill and that he does not know any coolies, labourers at that place and he has no concern to visit that place.When the witness, who is labourer and resident of the small place like Georai, there is nothing unnatural if in the evening he comes to a hotel or is near the hotel.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::His presence cannot be questioned merely because he is not supplier of cotton to the nearby ginning mill.His evidence was discarded by the trial Court observing that it was his version before the police in statement that he had come to know that Nilesh was assaulted with knife on his chest and as such he died, later on.When witness accepts he told a fact to police and it has been so recorded, there is no further question of going on to mark and prove portion "A".In the flow of putting up portion which the witness was not even denying, in evidence the witness was further asked and he stated that he had narrated before the police the fact that after sometime he came to know that as Nilesh was assaulted with knife on his chest, so he died.What witness was telling was regarding he getting knowledge about death due to incident and not that he came to know about incident itself later on.The trial Court clearly misread the evidence and came to perverse findings on this count.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::cria413.05 68 Subsequent Conduct of AccusedApart from the direct evidence of PW's 3 to 6, there is other evidence also available like subsequent conduct of the accused.There is evidence of PW-7 Vaijnath Kale.The evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 shows that the accused reached that ginning factory and went and met one clerk Jadhav.PW-7 Vaijnath has deposed that at about 8.00 p.m. of 10th January 2002 he was called by that clerk Jadhav and he saw that the accused was sitting with said T.G. Jadhav.At that time said Jadhav informed PW-7 Vaijnath that the accused had a quarrel with Nilesh Karande (victim) and that the accused wanted to go to Beed and so wanted a jeep ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 69 to be called.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::The evidence shows that these four persons then travelled by Jeep MH-23-C-659 to Shahunagar at Beed and on the way the accused met a friend and told the said friend that there was quarrel between him and Nilesh Karande and to go and bring his family members (i.e. of the accused) to the room of his (another) friend Ganesh.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Accused expressed that he wanted to go to his village and so the family was required to be brought.The evidence of these witnesses shows that PW-7 to PW-9 along with accused then went to the place of one Ganesh.The evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 is that when the accused met Ganesh, he told Ganesh about the occurrence of quarrel between him and Nilesh.Then they met landlord of Ganesh who was Advocate.Advocate advised accused to lodge ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 71 FIR to police station or be prepared for his arrest.It appears that after this, the accused paid the hire charges of the jeep and PW-7 to PW-9 returned.The evidence of PW-7 Vaijnath records that when they went to house of Ganesh, they took tea there and the accused informed entire incident to Ganesh about the occurrence of quarrel between him and Nilesh.Thus, the evidence of these witnesses brought on record by the prosecution discloses that after running away from the spot, the accused took help at Somani ginning factory to go to a friend Ganesh at Beed and consult an Advocate.In the course of such taking of help, he appears to have made extra judicial confession about his quarrel with victim Nilesh.We are aware that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and in this matter the witnesses have not stated specific words used by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::However, what is material is the conduct of accused brought on record by the prosecution which discloses his guilty conscience and also connects ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 72 him to the incident.The accused had reached Somani ginning factory with blood stains still on his clothes.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::The cross-examination of PW-7 Vaijnath brought on record the fact that even before incident there were occasions when this witness had called for and used jeep of PW-9 Kachru for travelling between Georai and Beed.examiner wanted to test the knowledge of this witness and the witness gave him the number of the jeep when asked.The cross-examination of PW-7 further shows that the accused was acquainted with grader Bookwala of Somani ginning factory and so he used to go there and so he was known to the witness.Distance between Beed to Padalshingi appears to be 19 Kilometers.PW-7 was unable to tell the name of the Advocate.examination of PW-7 confirmed that in the presence of this witness, the accused had told the incident to Ganesh, and Ganesh had called the Advocate.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 73 full expanse of the incident however came to be known by this PW-7 only on 11th January 2002 from the newspaper.This can be seen in view of the details brought on record in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Thus the evidence is natural and shows that when accused was seeking help he told broad factors about the incident.Inspite of the cross-examination, the witness could not be shattered regarding the fact that he was involved in the travelling of accused from Padalshingi to Beed and the extra judicial confessions of involvement of the accused.Similarly cross-examination of PW-8 watchman Ramesh Gholap also did not elicit any material on the basis of which the witness could be disbelieved regarding the travel of accused to Beed and the statements made by the accused as well as evidence that the accused appeared to be frightened and there were blood stains on his shirt and pant.PW-9 driver Kachru was also cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::cria413.05 74 examined.The witness could not say.It was suggested to him that he did not know what police wrote in his statement.The witness accepted the suggestion.The witness was referred to his evidence that at the house of Ganesh the accused had told about the quarrel.The omission was brought on record in cross-examination that it was not told to police that such statement was made at the house of Ganesh.Looking to the other evidence available and the fact that PW's 7 to 9 have no reason to depose against the accused, we find the evidence of these witnesses also to be reliable.The trial Court discarded evidence of these witnesses terming the same as unnatural that a friend of accused like Jadhav would inform his subordinate (?) Kale (PW-7) and colleague Gholap (PW-8) that his friend was involved in a quarrel.The evidence of PW's 7 and 8 does not disclose that Jadhav was any fried as such of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::cria413.05 75 Rather the evidence is that accused was acquainted with one grader Bookwala and so he used to come and thus was known.The evidence of PW's 7 to 9 was questioned by the trial Court also on the basis that their evidence did not disclose as to which friend the accused met on the way before going to Ganesh.We are not as such in agreement with trial Court for discarding the evidence of PW's 7 to 9 who have withstood the cross-examination and nothing material has been brought on record to show that they had any special interest against the accused.The accused, after the incident, was in trouble and may have reached Somani ginning ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 76 factory for help and once he was there, he may not have been able to avoid PW-7 and PW-8 from coming to know about the incident.He may have harboured hope that as an officer he would get help at the place concerned.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Stay at Lodge at Latur that nightEvidence of P.I. Ghorale (PW-21) shows that in the investigation he came to know that the accused after running away from the spot, had gone and stayed at a lodge in Latur.Consequently, the witness says that he had sent PW-20 P.S.I.Radhakishan Thakur for search of record.There is evidence of PW-20 Radhakishan Thakur.He has deposed that on directions of PW-21, he on 21st January 2002 took along the accused and went to Latur.They had gone to Madhuban Lodge.PW-20 P.S.I. Thakur deposed that at the said lodge, he found entries in the register regarding staying of four persons under the leadership of name given as ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 77 "Vishvas Patil".PW-20 P.S.I. Thakur says that he got extract of entry of the register xeroxed and also prepared Panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Prosecution examined PW-16 Kishor Kadam, serving at Madhuban Lodge.PW-16 deposed that in the night of 11th January 2002, in the night a man, a woman and a child had come to the lodge at about 2.00 - 2.30 a.m. They were charged Rs.250/-.They however left lodge at 5.00 a.m. in the morning itself.At the time of evidence, this Kishor claimed that he could not identify if the accused before the Court was the same person.The Special Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him.The witness, however, claimed that he does not remember if the person who had come, gave his name as Vishwas Patil and it was the person brought along by Police (i.e. accused).::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::Criticism of FIR - baselessThe learned counsel for the accused argued that the FIR said to be recorded in the night concerned in the matter Exhibit 28 is doubtful as in the dying declaration given to DW-1 in the morning of 11th January 2002 did not record the name as such of the accused, while in the FIR recorded in the middle of the night he had mentioned the name of the accused.The offence was registered vide Exhibit 28 in the night between ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 ::: cria413.05 79 10th and 11th January 2002 at about 4.30 a.m. Section 157 of Cr.P.C. requires sending report to Magistrate forthwith.The investigation shows various urgent steps taken by the Investigating Officer on 11th January 2002 regarding the investigation.PW-3, the complainant Anup could not be shaken in cross-examination regarding his evidence that Exhibit 28 was recorded in the same night.The evidence of PW-3 Anup as well as P.I.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::The endorsement of doctor has been proved by both these witnesses.No doubt, prosecution did not examine the doctor but Exhibit 28 does show endorsement of doctor regarding the condition of the PW-3 at the time of recording of statement which was converted into FIR.There is evidence of PW-19 Head Constable Bansi Jadhav who has also deposed that he was on duty in the night of 10th -Regarding late sending of FIR to the Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence was registered on 11th January 2002, and 12th and 13th January 2002 happened to be second Saturday and Sunday and thus the Court was closed and thus according to the Special Public Prosecutor, the copy of FIR was possible to be submitted to the Court of JMFC only on 14th January 2002, which cannot be said to be delayed as no system of receiving copy of FIR on holidays is shown.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::The evidence of these witnesses shows that PW-21 P.I. Ghorale had called them at the ginning factory for Spot Panchanama on 11th January 2002 between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. Their ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 81 evidence brought on record details of the Spot in Panchanama, which came to be prepared.The Spot Panchanama Exhibit 24 shows that it was recorded on 11th January 2002 between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. The Spot Panchanama contains brief reference to the FIR No.8 of 2002 which had already been registered.There is no reason for PW-1 and PW-2 to depose falsely that they were called early morning of 11th January 2002 for the Spot Panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::The counsel for accused submitted that Panch PW-1 accepted that Nilesh was his friend.PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::examined at length.They gave all the necessary details regarding the spot.It cannot be said that they were shattered as such regarding their evidence in respect of the spot.In the cross-examination, the evidence of these witnesses that Spot Panchanama was recorded between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. of 11th January 2002 - the date and time was not denied.Apart from that, there is evidence of PW-10 Panch Amar Khandagale.He was a student at the concerned time residing at Georai.The evidence of PW-10 Amar shows that at about 4.00 -4.30 a.m. police had come to him and asked him to come along to the Government Hospital.The police took him for Panchanama from Georai to Beed to the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 83 Hospital for seizure of clothes of PW-3 Anup.The accused has questioned as to why the witness was taken from Georai and why Panch was not taken from Beed itself.PW-10 was a student of B.Sc.final and may not have objected to the police.By that itself the witness does not become unreliable.The Panchanama of seizure of clothes of the victim Exhibit 51 shows that it was recorded between 5.30::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::In the matter of Paresh Kalyandas ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 84 Bhavsar, referred supra, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with criticism raised in the facts of that matter (see Para 7) that the FIR dated 8th April 1990 reached the Magistrate after some days i.e. on 17th April 1990 and thus it showed that the same was brought in existence at later stage.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the evidence of PW-4, the complainant in that matter and PW-5 and considering the evidence and contents of the FIR, still found the report to be true and observed that even if it was to be accepted that there was some delay in sending the report to the Magistrate, that is not a ground to doubt the genuineness of the report.Seizure of ClothesThe evidence of PW-10 Amar Khandagale ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 85 shows that police had seized the blood stained clothes, Articles 6 and 7 from the person of victim PW-3 Anup.The witness was unable to give answers to such questions testing his power of observation.That does not make the witness suspect.The counsel for accused tried to create doubt by suggesting to the witness that between the portion of names of Panchas (in Panchanama Exhibit 51) and the body of the Panchanama, there was a gap.The witness denied the suggestion.We have perused the Panchanama.It cannot be said that there is any such gap which should create any suspicion.The witness accepted that the father of the deceased who was an Advocate, was sitting in the Court Hall at the time of evidence.So? The witness denied that he was deposing under any pressure.Going through the cross-examination of the witness, it cannot be said that he is ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 86 shattered.Prosecution established seizure of blood stained clothes of PW-3 Anup.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::The clothes of deceased were seized by the police vide Panchanama Exhibit 53 by bringing on record evidence of PW-11 Arun Govindrao.There is evidence of PW-17 Constable Bhagwan Khade, who has deposed that on 31st January 2002 on the directions of PW-21 P.I. Ghorale, he had taken the articles in this matter to C.A. The evidence is that the articles were in sealed condition.The articles were sent along with letter and PW-17 obtained acknowledgment of C.A. The evidence of PW-21 P.I.Ghorale is that the Muddemal articles which required chemical analysis, were sent to C.A. for ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 87 analysis.He has proved letter Exhibit 84 in this regard.The letter Exhibit 84 read with C.A.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Reports Exhibits 106 to 108 shows that blood group of PW-3 Anup was group "O".Blood group of the deceased Nilesh was also "O", while the blood group of the accused was "B".C.A. Report Exhibit 109 shows that on the clothes of the accused blood stains were of group "O".The present matter contains direct evidence of the incident which can be relied on with or without the support of this forensic evidence.Incidentally, the forensic evidence also supports the prosecution.Discovery of KnifeWhile the accused was in custody, he was interrogated.The evidence of PW-21 Ghorale and evidence of PW-13 Subhash Mule discloses that while the accused was in custody, on 18th January 2002 the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 88 accused stated that he would show where the concerned knife relating to the incident is.In this regard, Memorandum Panchanama Exhibit 57-A was drawn which (after excluding inadmissible portions), shows that the accused informed the police that the knife concerned with the offence he will show where it is hidden at Padalshingi.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::The evidence of PW-13 and PW-21, further discloses that the police along with Panchas and the accused by jeep went to Padalshingi as per the say of the accused and they went near Somani ginning mill.The accused showed a cart track going from near the mill, which cart track was to the east of the said mill.After getting down from the jeep, the accused took the police and Panchas to a distance of about one furlong away from the road.From a spot where there was grass and bushes to the east of the cart track, the accused produced knife Article 15, taking the same out from the grass.Thus the instrument was discovered.Regarding this Panchanama Exhibit 57-B was recorded.This knife ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 89 has been identified in the evidence by PW's 3 and 4 as the instrument by which the deceased was stabbed and PW-3 was injured.As per C.A. Report Exhibit 109, the knife also had stains of blood of group "O".::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::In the cross-examination, PW-13 Subhash Mule accepted that he was knowing the victim since childhood and that he had good relations.In present matter only because PW-13 Subhash had good relations with the victim is no ground to doubt him.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Scuffle Injuries on person of Accused were thereProsecution has proved another circumstance.There is evidence of Dr. Vinod Ostwal, PW-15, which shows that on 14th January 2002 he had examined the accused.The accused had the following injuries:-"(1) Laceration over left side forehead admeasuring 0.5 cm.X 1 cm.(2) Laceration over L/t side of the cheek admeasuring 0.5 cm.X 2 cms.(3) Laceration right side of neck admeasuring 2.5 cms.X 0.5 cm.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::cria413.05 91 .In the opinion of the doctor, the Injury No.1 was possible by nail and Injury Nos. 2 and 3 were possible by nail or pin.The injuries were possible in scuffle.Accordingly, certificate Exhibit 63 was issued.The doctor denied suggestion in the cross-examination that the accused did not give the history as recorded by the doctor.Thus, there is substance in the submission of learned Special Public Prosecutor that the injuries on the person of accused show that he did indulge in a quarrel with the victim and PW-3 in which the incident took place.Injuries of PW-3The evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra Kulkarni from Civil Hospital Beed, brought on record injuries suffered by PW-3 vide medical certificate Exhibit 69 from the Civil Hospital, ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 92 Beed.It also shows that PW-3 was required to be given blood group "O".According to Dr. Upendra Kulkarni, PW-3 Anup had the following injuries:-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Stab wound on chest infra axillary region on left side in 7th intercostol space, admeasuring 2 cms.The wound was caused within 24 hours next before my examination with a sharp object.A stab wound on left ilia fossa interstinal coils were seen.The evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra is that the injuries ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 93 of PW-3 were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.The doctor opined that the injuries of PW-3 were possible by knife which was before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Injuries of VictimAs regards the victim Nilesh, there is evidence of PW-14 Dr. Vijay Sickchi who did post-As per this doctor, Nilesh suffered following injury:-"Stab wound on chest (Rt) side towards the sterinum at the level of 4th ICs of size 3 cm.X 1 and 1/2 cm.deep to lung tissue.The doctor denied.We have seen the post-mortem report and we do not find any force in such cross-examination.The doctor denied that the injuries of the victim were not possible by the knife which was before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Search of Trial Court for Witnesses of PeripheryJudgment of the trial Court shows that it doubted which ever witnesses prosecution examined, while it went on to search for this or that witness who would at the most have given hear-say evidence.Trial Court doubted PW's 4 to 6 (in Para 31 of the Judgment) on the basis that although they claimed to have seen incident they did not show the spot to the Police and one Navnath had pointed out the scene of occurrence.On that basis, the trial Court observed that it could be ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 95 safely concluded that Navnath had knowledge of incident and he has not been examined.Trial Court observed that Praveen Sharma who took PW-3 to hospital was not examined and no explanation is there for the same.Trial Court observed that people who took the injured to the hospital, they should have extracted the information from PW-3 and why they had not lodged complaint.Trial Court observed that such persons had been kept away from the Witness Box.Ignoring the evidence of PW-6 Kailas Sutar who was near hotel near STD Booth, trial Court observed that it had come in evidence that some of the employees of the hotel had rushed to the scene of occurrence.The trial Court observed that prosecution should have collected their evidence and adduced it before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::Similarly, it observed that father and brother of the victim who had reached the hospital after incident, should have been examined and they could have told as to what they came to know after the incident.Thus, the trial Court went on searching ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 96 for people who would have given what would be hear-say evidence.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::There must have been several of such witnesses.For such reasons, if their evidence is discarded, the accused would be most happy persons and the victims who were struggling for life or were already dead, would suffer great injustice.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::What one may notice, another may not.An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.Murder and Attempt to Commit MurderAs regards the culpable homicide of Nilesh, the question now before us is, whether the same could be said to be murder.As per part "2ndly" of Section 300 of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 108 Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide would be murder if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.In this regard, however, the Exception 4 reads as under:-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::As regards sentence to be imposed, we find that the accused was working as a grader and was in Government service.In the moment of heat due to quarrel suddenly the incident took place.Prosecution has not shown any material which would show that the accused had criminal tendencies or that he had any criminal record.In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate not to award imprisonment for life as provided by Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. which is one of the options.It would be appropriate to pass sentence of imprisonment for ten years which would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 110 matter.Similarly, for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. also, the sentence should be of ten years.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::For the above reasons we pass following order:-O R D E R (A) The Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2005 filed by the State is partly allowed.(B) The Judgment of acquittal passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.41 of 2002, dated 30th December 2004 is quashed and set aside.(C) The Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade is held guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).In default of fine, he shall suffer further ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 111 rigorous imprisonment for the period of 6 (six) months.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::(D) The Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).In default of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for the period of 6 (six) months.(H) Criminal Revision Application No.97 of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 112 2005 filed by Petitioner Laxman Karande, father of the victim and Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 2005 filed by PW-3 Anup are allowed in above terms.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/JUL15 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,814,987 | His wife was present at that time.His wife bandaged him with a gamcha and took into JNM hospital with a taxi.He was admitted in a hospital for about a month.Thereafter he was admitted at Apollo Nursing Home at Kalyani.P.W.1, is the victim of the defacto-complainant in the instant case.She deposed that on 17.05.2006 around 1 p.m. while P.W.1, had gone to take a bath in a tube-well in front of their house, she was pumping the tube-well.Thereafter he was admitted at Apollo Nursing Home at Kalyani.The appellant examined three witnesses, DW1, Shamali Sen, is his wife.She deposed that at 1.30 p.m. she was serving meal to her husband and father- in-law.At that time Ratan Sen and Saraswati Sen were plucking coconuts.She asked them not to pluck coconuts.P.W.1 assaulted her.P.W. 2 had a lathi in his hand while Ratan had a vojali.Ratan hit with vojali on her left hand.She sustained injury.around 1 p.m., there was an incident.He came back around that time, and went to the tube-well to have bath.When he was returning from the tube-well the appellant hit with a vojali on the left side of his abdomen.As the victim was returning after bath, the appellant assaulted him with a vojali in his abdomen.He was admitted to the hospital.P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are neighbours who deposed that there was an altercation between family members on that day.P.W. 6, is the doctor who treated the victim at JNM hospital, Kalyani.On 17.05.2006, he found incised injuries on the left lumber region.As per history of assault, the victim had suffered knife injury caused by the appellant.He proved the injury report.He proved the bed-head ticket of the appellant.In course of cross-examination he stated that the injury can occur accidentally.P.W. 7, Dr. Ratanlal Banerjee, deposed that he was posted at JNM hospital Kalyani at that time.The patient was under his treatment during that period.He performed operation on the patient.After discharge from the hospital he rendered treatment to the patient at Apollo Nursing Home.In cross- examination he stated that on 4.6.2006 the patient was discharged from the hospital but he was unwilling to leave the hospital. 4P.W. 9, is the investigating officer.The appellant examined three witnesses, DW1, Shamali Sen, is his wife.She deposed that at 1.30 p.m. she was serving meal to her husband and father- in-law.At that time Ratan Sen and Saraswati Sen were plucking coconuts.She asked them not to pluck coconuts.P.W.1 assaulted her.P.W. 2 had a lathi in his hand while Ratan had a vojali.Ratan hit with vojali on her left hand.She sustained injury.She was taken to JNM hospital.Thereafter, she came back home.P.W.2 tried to take away the vojali from the hand of Ratan and in the melee he sustained injury.DW 2, is the father of the victim.He proved injury report, exhibit- A. DW 4, is the Inspector-in-charge of Mohonpur Investigation centre under Haringhata Police Station.He brought General Diary Registrar containing General Diary No.491 dated 17.05.2006,which was exhibited as Exhibit- B.From the aforesaid evidence it appears that there was a fight amongst family members of the appellant on the one hand and P.W. 2 on the other hand.The appellant and P.W.2 are related to each other.Hence it appears that there was free fight at the place of occurrence and it cannot be said that the injury was caused on P.W.2 with the intention of killing him.However, it cannot be denied that P.W. 2 suffered a grievous injury by a vojali.Explanation given by P.W. 1, that he had 5 suffered accidental injury trying to grab the knife from Ratan does not appear to be convincing.On the other hand, the evidence of the victim,P.W.2, and his wife P.W. 1, show that the appellant had assaulted the victim with a knife causing such injury.Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but not under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.Conviction and sentence of the appellant under 326 of the Indian Penal Code are upheld.Conviction and sentence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside.Period of detention suffered by the appellant for examination of offence punishable under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him for the aforesaid offence.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.The lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Item no. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present :The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi C.R.A. 624 of 2007 Sri Sachin Sen Versus The State of West Bengal 7 For the Appellant (Amicus Curiae) : Zarin N.Khan :Appellant was convicted under section 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more on each count, both the sentences to run concurrently.The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is that on 27th May, 2006, at around 1 p.m. the appellant dealt a grievous blow on the victim.Arun Sen, the P.W. 2, and P.W. 1, Tapasi Sen, the wife of the victim lodged criminal case against the appellant.In the course of trial prosecution examined 9 witnesses whereas the defense examined three witnesses and also exhibited the injury report of Shayamli, his wife, DW1, as exhibit 'A' and certified copy of General Diary entry as Exhibit B.Nobody appears for the appellant.Mrs. Khan, as Amicus Curaie submitted that there was a free fight between the parties and wife of the appellant Shyamali 8 had suffered sharp-cutting injuries by a Vojali.Hence the appellant is liable to be acquitted.On the other hand, Mr. Agarwal submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly that of the injured, P.W.2, shows that the appellant suffered sharp cutting injuries and their versions are supported by the medical evidence.Hence the appellant is liable to be dismissed.P.W. 2, is the injured witness in the instant case.He deposed that on 17.05.2006 around 1 p.m., there was an incident.He came back around that time, and went to the tube-well to have bath.When he was returning from the tube-well the appellant hit with a vojali on the left side of his abdomen.His wife was present at that time.His wife bandaged him with a gamcha and took into JNM hospital with a taxi.He was admitted in a hospital for about a month.She deposed that on 17.05.2006 around 1 p.m. while P.W.1, had gone to take a bath in a tube-well in front of their house, she was pumping the tube-well.As the victim was returning after bath, the appellant assaulted him with a vojali in his abdomen.He was admitted to the hospital.P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are neighbours who deposed that there was an altercation between family members on that day.P.W. 6, is the doctor who treated the victim at JNM hospital, Kalyani.On 17.05.2006, he found incised injuries on the left lumber region.As per history of assault, the victim had suffered knife injury caused by the appellant.He proved the injury report.He proved the bed-head ticket of the appellant.In course of cross-examination he stated that the injury can occur accidentally.P.W. 7, Dr. Ratanlal Banerjee, deposed that he was posted at JNM hospital Kalyani at that time.The patient was under his treatment during that period.He performed operation on the patient.After discharge from the hospital he rendered treatment to the patient at Apollo Nursing Home.In cross- examination he stated that on 4.6.2006 the patient was discharged from the hospital but he was unwilling to leave the hospital.P.W. 9, is the investigating officer.She was taken to JNM hospital.Thereafter, she came back home.P.W.2 tried to take away the vojali from the hand of Ratan and in the 10 melee he sustained injury.DW 2, is the father of the victim.He proved injury report, exhibit- A. DW 4, is the Inspector-in-charge of Mohonpur Investigation centre under Haringhata Police Station.He brought General Diary Registrar containing General Diary No.491 dated 17.05.2006,which was exhibited as Exhibit- B.From the aforesaid evidence it appears that there was a fight amongst family members of the appellant on the one hand and P.W. 2 on the other hand.The appellant and P.W.2 are related to each other.Hence it appears that there was free fight at the place of occurrence and it cannot be said that the injury was caused on P.W.2 with the intention of killing him.However, it cannot be denied that P.W. 2 suffered a grievous injury by a vojali.Explanation given by P.W. 1, that he had suffered accidental injury trying to grab the knife from Ratan does not appear to be convincing.On the other hand, the evidence of the victim,P.W.2, and his wife P.W. 1, show that the appellant had assaulted the victim with a knife causing such injury.Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but not under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.Conviction and sentence of the appellant under 326 of the Indian Penal Code are upheld.Conviction and sentence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside.Period of detention suffered by the appellant for examination of offence punishable under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him for the aforesaid offence.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.The lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 12 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,158,142 | VPH/SC/04840) broke the dead end of the railway track at Old Delhi Railway Station and thereafter hit the boundary wall of the railway station whereupon the boundary wall of the railway station collapsed and three persons sleeping on the pavement outside the boundary wall of the Railway Station were crushed to death under the boundary wall.The police registered FIR No.265/2013 at P.S. Old Delhi Railway Station under Section 304A W.P.(C) 7553/2015 Page 1 of 5 IPC.The police identified Shahnawaj @ Jahanavaj who died due to the aforesaid accident.However, the two other dead bodies could not be identified by the police.The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with upto date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c W.P.(C) 7553/2015 Page 4 of 5 Hajara within 30 days.W.P.(C) 7553/2015 Page 4 of 5The order for disbursement of the compensation amount shall be passed after examining the petitioners who shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with the passbooks of their savings bank accounts near the place of their residence as well as Aadhar cards and PAN cards.Copy of this judgement be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court.W.P.(C) 7553/2015 Page 5 of 5On 26th November, 2013 at about 12:18 a.m., a goods train (Parcel Van No.The police filed the chargesheet against four employees of the Railways in which charges have been framed by the Court and the case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.The Railways conducted an enquiry in which they found Panni Ram, Ashok Kumar, Nafe Singh and Srinivas guilty and the minor punishment was imposed upon them.W.P.(C) 7553/2015 Page 1 of 5W.P.(C) 7553/2015 Page 3 of 5The deceased was a bookseller.However, there is no proof of his income and therefore, the minimum wages of Rs.8,086/- per month in respect of an unskilled person are taken into consideration and 50% is added towards inflation.The deceased has left behind six legal representatives and therefore, 1/4 th is deducted towards his personal expenses. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
281,587 | with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has come in the appeal.By the judgment of the J.M.F.C., the accused/original accused no.2 - Mallikarjun; accused no.5- Laxman and accused no.10 - Shivraj, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 3 -IPC and were directed to suffer R.I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one year.By the said judgment, the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the other accused.3) On hearing both the sides, though learned Sr.Counsel for the accused elaborately read the evidence of eye-witnesses and the injured, at one stage, he was reminded that in a revision, the scope for appreciation is very limited and there are concurrent findings of two courts below against the accused, he should restrict his submissions to the law point only.However, these finding can only be interfered, if such findings are apparently perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from any other legal injury and error of law.With this aspect keeping in mind, the submissions of both the sides are considered.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 4 -4) The learned A.P.P., since wanted enhancement of the sentence recorded by the J.M.F.C., took me to the entire evidence and claimed that, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, there being a grievous hurt as defined under the statute, which grievous hurt is medically established by evidence of the medical officer (P.W.3), the learned J.M.F.C. should have recorded the sentence more than one year, considering the gravity of the matter.5) The learned Sr.Counsel for the accused criticized the F.I.R.of the complainant (P.W.1) claiming that it is silent about the names of the accused and in the evidence he says that Sangram came to the house, while in the F.I.R. he states that while he was at home, employees working in field came.The criticism to the evidence of P.W.1 basically is not to be considered as P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the incident.Whatever report he has given to the police is based on the communication received from his employees, who informed that his brother Hanmant was brutally assaulted and consequently, he rushed to police to put the investigation in motion.In this scenario of the matter, Exhibit-65 or evidence of P.W.1 will have to be read.It cannot be said there are omissions and or contradictions in his evidence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 5 -6) On the incident, there are following witnesses :P.W.4 - Hanmantrao Vithalrao Patil; P.W.5 - Sangram Malhari Waghmare; P.W.8 - Sangram Hullaji Waghmare.7) On assessing evidence of these witnesses, coupled with complainant's evidence, I find that barring few contradictions about the distance to be 50 ft.or less or about who rushed first, there is no variance in their evidence to claim that they are brought up witnesses or that they are interested to falsely implicate the accused.medical evidence of P.W.3 - Dr.Jananrdhan Iranna Bhume and P.W.16 -Dr.N.Parvati, had suffered as many as 15 injuries.Out of them, injury nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature, as these injuries were fractures at lower part of left finger bone (left elbow posterity) - 6 x 1 x 4 cms.with sharp edge and bleeding profusely while injury no.2 was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 6 -compound fracture on right leg medially fracture of right tibia and fibula bone - 4 x 1 x 6 cms.The wound was fresh and having sharp edge and it was bleeding profusely.The medical officer (P.W.3) noticed other incise wounds referred in his evidence and medical certificate at Exhibit-75, which are on other part of body of P.W.4 -He has identified Hanmantrao, apart from identifying and confirming the certificate issued at Exh.accept as it is brought in evidence that the eye-witnesses were performing agricultural work and were barely at the distance of 50 ft., but could not come forward.In the agriculture field, where P.W.4 was watching agricultural activities while labours were working at the material time, it cannot be said that the prosecution should have examined other independent witnesses since there were no such independent witnesses.By the very nature of the employees referred above being eye-witness, their evidence cannot be discarded under the banner of they being ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 7 -interested witnesses.The term "interested witness" has several shades and angularities, coming forward to narrate events is not to be looked with jaundiced eyes.There is nothing to show, these witnesses were demonstrating mere loyalty to P.w.4 than their presence.In the facts and circumstances, where the labours were working and their master was brutally attacked, they cannot be said to be cooked and brought up witnesses to narrate the incident against the accused.the accused - Mallikarjun and another, in which, as Police Patil (P.W.4) became instrumental and at Police Station has raised his voice, the accused got annoyed and in the company they came together with deadly weapons and in the manner as stated by P.W.4 and witnessed by other eye-witnesses, have assaulted P.W.4 causing fifteen injuries to him.10) Section 320 of IPC deals with grievous hurt and clause Seventhly indicates fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.As stated earlier, injuries at Serial Nos.1 and 2 suffered by P.W.4, recorded by P.W.3 will be coming in terms of clause Seventhly of Section 320 of IPC ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 8 -In that case, the matter pertained to the hurt caused on the person of the victim and he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days and Hon'ble Lordships observed that : " Both the ingredients have got to be established by the prosecution and it would not be enough to say that he remained in the hospital for 20 days.The case before hand is within the bracket of Section 320 clause Seventhly and will not be attracting the impediments as envisaged in clause (8) of Section 320 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 9 -12) Learned Sr.Counsel then invited my attention to the judgment reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 1788 in the matter of Narayan Kanu Datavale and Ors.14) Since there are two concurrent findings of the courts below against the accused and on revision or re-appreciating the evidence, no infirmity could be seen at the threshold in the matter, it cannot be said that the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the order of the Additional Sessions Judge smacks with perversity or requires interference.In the result, the criminal revision preferred by the accused/appellant is rejected.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 10 -15) Now comes the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement for the sentence recorded against accused nos.Evidence of P.W.1, as stated earlier, is only to put the prosecution in motion and nothing more.The other evidence of the injured and the eye-witnesses is elaborately discussed hereinbefore.The learned Judge was satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and they were members of that assembly and it has also proved that the prosecution of common object of assembly was to assualt the injured.The learned Judge also recorded, "it has also proved that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object to the said assembly was to assault Hanmantrao Patil and the accused nos. 2, 10 and 5 were armed with deadly weapons and they have voluntarily caused grievous hurt in pursuance of the said common object." In paragraph 22, on the point of awarding the sentence, the learned Judge has referred that when he asked the accused persons, they claimed that they have not committed any offence.The learned Judge observed, taking into consideration the nature of offence and the age, antecedent and character of accused persons, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 11 -punishment to be awarded by him will be sufficient for ends of justice and consequently, as stated earlier, he awarded punishment to accused nos. 2 ; accused no. 5 and accused no. 10, for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-The observation of the learned Judge, and even confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be said, in the set of situation, to be erroneous, as the learned Judge has exercised his discretion in the light of evidence, demeanour of the witnesses and fact situation at the material time.ig The other circumstance in the matter also cannot be ignored.The Criminal Appeal No. 30/1994 was decided on 27.09.2006 and the Criminal Revision and the present Criminal appeal are decided today.The time between all the events also needs consideration.16) The learned Sr.Counsel even urged that the accused and the injured are not evolving in any scores against each other and for all purposes, they have settled the controversies whatever has happened has gone to past.He ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 12 -alternatively urged that the punishment undergone during the period, may be considered and considering the said punishment, the accused/appellants/revision petitioners be released forthwith.Since the State has challenged the very punishment to be inadequate, it will be mockery of justice to reduce the said conviction of one year to the period undergone which will be amounting to rub salt on the injuries suffered by P.W.4 for no fault of him since he was a police patil and was ordinarily required to discharge his duties as such.Hence, order :O R D E R(i) Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2006 moved by the accused/revision petitioners is rejected;(ii) Criminal Appeal moved by the State for enhancement of sentence is rejected;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::- 13 -(K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) bdv/uniplex/cral395.94 Authentic copy (BD VADNERE,PA) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:55:49 ::: | ['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,165,011 | As the petitioner has a remedy of filing a complaint before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,165,823 | It is pertinent to mention here that no medical evidence is available on record because without any opportunity of postmortem, collection of viscera etc. the body of Rampyaribai was cremated by the appellants, though they are charged for it also.Therefore, the Investigation Agency in the course of investigation collected some dry earth suspecting that it might contain traces of Sulphas poison.Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Sudeep Deb, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /StateJudgment reserved on : 16.08.2013 Judgment delivered on : 12.11.2013 (J U D G M E N T) In this appeal, the accused/appellants have called in question the soundness of the judgment dated 20 /11 / 1 996 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh to the Court of Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh (MP) in ST No.57 / 1994, each one of the appellants was convicted and sentenced as under:-The basis of the prosecution case is the Marg Intimation No. 10/94 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. which was lodged by complainant Gorelal at Kotwali Tikamgarh, father of the deceased Rampyaribai who died on 20.03.1994 under the mysterious circumstances which reads as under:-"Qfj;knh mijksDr us gkftj Fkkuk vkdj fjiksVZ fd;k fd esjh cPph jkeI;kjh mez djhcu 20 o"kZ dh xzke guqeku lkxj ds tkye yks/kh dks C;kgh Fkh cPph dh vkt vpkud djhcu pkj cts fnu ekSr gks xbZ ftldh lwpuk eq>s tSls gh feyh rks eSa rRdky vius yM+ds fd'kksjh] f'kon;ky] guqer xkWao ds lksojr xksfoUnkjk vkfn ds guqeku lkxj x;k ogkWa irk pyk fd cPph dks ekSr ds mijkar rRdky fcuk fdlh dh jk; ns[ks tyk fn;k x;k gS tcfd gelc yksxksa dks irk pyk fd cPph us nksigj lc ifjokj okyksa dks [kkuk f[kyk;k o ekSr ds iwoZ vkt 3 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996 og LoLFk Fkh cPph igys ls chekj ugha Fkh tykus okys xkWao ds o muds ?kj ds /kqjds yks/kh] jruyks/kh] dk'kkhjke yks/kh] Hkxokunkl] ckcw] jke yks/kh] yVksjh] HkS;kyky] nmizrki flag] ckcw ukfor vkfn Fks eq>s vius cPph dh ekSr esa lansg gS lks fjiksVZ dks vk;k gwWA"(emphasis supplied)On basis of this report offence was registered; statement of complainant Gorelal and his family members and others were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the course of investigation some dry earth was seized that it contains traces of Sulphas poison.The sari and blouse of the deceased also seized, and sent for chemical examination.On completion of other required formalities, investigating agency filed challan under Sections 498 (A), 306 and 201 of the I.P.C. in the Committal Court which in his turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Tikamgarh and eventually the matter was tried by learned trial Judge.On basis of record, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants who abjured their guilt so they put to trial.During the statements recorded under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. the appellants denied all the facts which were put forth against them and claims to be falsely implicated.Defence was taken that Rampyaribai died due to illness.Pooranlal (DW /1) examined as the defence witness.Learned Trial Court after consideration of the evidence placed before it, found the appellants Jalam, Smt. Gouri Bai, Smt. 4 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996 Lalti Bai and Ghurka (now deceased) guilty of the offence punishable under Sections and imposed the sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove.Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Court has made a wrong judicial approach to the facts and circumstances of the case came to the wrong conclusion which cannot be sustained on a dispassionate scrutiny of the facts and law.The learned trial Court relied on the testimony of the interested witnesses.Rampyaribai committed suicide because of the reasons that she had a sense of frustration that she could not became a mother.The learned trial Court found that dead body of Rampyaribai was cremated in a hurried manner without informing her parents and it is the reason that the appellants are found guilty but, it is not taken under consideration by the learned trial Court that parents of the deceased were living at another village at a considerable distance and massage was also sent to them but, since the body was getting decomposed giving foul smell, therefore it was cremated on the advice of villagers therefore, there was no question of attempting to screen evidence within the meaning of Section 201 of the IPC.Therefore, appeal be accepted and the appellants be acquitted.Shri Amit Kumar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the appeal vehemently contending that the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.5 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996Considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence available on record carefully, this appeal deserves to be allowed.Therefore, Investigation Officer Shri S.J. Jafrin (PW/8) recorded statements of the witnesses, out of them Kishorilal (PW/1) and Sobaran (PW-4) are brothers and Gorelal (PW/2) and Shyambai (PW/3) are parents of Rampyaribai, Gajara Bai (P.W.5) is wife of Hanumat, third brother of Rampyaribai and Balchand (PW/5) and Latori (PW/6) are resident of village of the appellants, i.e. Hanuman Sagar.It is pertinent to mention here that maker of the Marg Intimation Ex.P-1 Gorelal (PW/3) stated that he did not report this Marg Intimation (Ex.P-1) when the contents read over to him, but we will ignore this denial.Kishorilal (PW/1) has stated that the marriage of Rampyari Bai was solemnized with the appellant Jamana about 8- 9 years before the incident and she was issue less.This evidence of Kishorilal (PW/1) has been fully corroborated by Shyam Bai (PW/2), Gorelal (PW/3), Sobaran (PW/4) and Gajara Bai (P.W.5).Nothing has been elicited in their cross examinations to discredit their evidence, therefore, by the evidence of these witnesses, it is established that the marriage between the Rampyri Bai and appellant Jamana was solemnized about 8-9 years ago, but the couple was not blessed with a child.6 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle.But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucial for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements 7 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996 of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier.Appeal 2114 of 1996This doubt is not looked into by the learned Trial Court nor discussed the available evidence on this vital issue.Learned Trial Court was duty bound to find out what was the cause of death of Rampyaribai?21 Therefore, scrutiny is necessary for the evidence available in this regard.Kishorilal (PW/1) stated that when he reached at village Hanuman Sagar it was stated by family members of the appellants that Rampyaribai was died due to fever.It was Ratan, younger brother of the Ghurke (deceased appellant) who informed him that Rampyaribai was died due to fever, but, Ratan is not examined by the prosecution.Gorelal (PW/3) stated first new fact that the intention of appellants was to kill Rampyaribai so the appellant Jalam ceremonised second marriage due to "Banjhpan" of Rampyaribai.9 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996Gorelal (PW/3) stated that when they reached at village Hanuman Sagar they found the Atari of the house of the appellants was locked when he saw the blood in the Atari and asked villagers to see that blood.Shyamabai (PW/2) also stated that when her husband and both son reached at the house of the appellant at village Hanuman Sagar, the appellant went out from Atari which was stained by blood.It is pertinent to mention here that Shyamabai (PW/2) is not the witness of village Hanuman Sagar because she did not went there so whatever in his knowledge or information is hearsay only.Entire statements of Shyamabai (PW/2), mother of the deceased is based on this story that appellants were not offering food to Rampyaribai, hence she died due to starvation.She specifically blamed that all the four appellants conspired and killed her daughter, it goes to show that Shyamabai (PW/2) is not supporting case of dowry demand or abetment of suicide.Kishorilal (PW/1) did not state any fact regarding the starvation which was cause of death of Rampyaribai.He did not utter a single word during his evidence that his sister was died due to starvation.As per prosecution story on 20.03.1994 Rampyaribai swallowed Sulphas tablets, in consequence of which she had badly vomiting and loose motions resulting in her death at about 4 p.m.Kishorilal (PW/1) stated that some villagers informed him that Rampyaribai was vomiting since 3:00 p.m. He specifically stated that Latori and Balchand were informed him that Rampyaribai swallowed sulphas tablets and bad smell was coming 10 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996 from her mouth.It is also stated by him that Balchand and Latori informed this fact in presence of 25 to 50 villagers.Villagers of Hanuman Sagar Balchand (PW/6) and Latori (PW/7) were not supported the case of the prosecution and specifically denied all the facts stated by Kishori (PW/1) and other prosecution witnesses regarding the information given at village Hanuman Sagar about the reason of death of the Rampyaribai by taking Sulphas tablets.The sari and blouse of the Rampyaribai was also seized to prove this fact and all the seized articles were sent to chemical examination at FSL Sagar and vide report Ex.P-11 traces of Sulphas was detected on these articles.Learned trial Judge has given utmost emphasis on the fact that traces of Sulphas were found on the cloths of Rampyaribai and in para 15 of the impugned judgment held as under:"bl lEcU/k esa mijksDr lk{; foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd e`frdk dh e`R;q lYQkl dh xksyh [kkus ls gqbZ Fkh bl rF; dks jklk;fud ijh{k.k iz;ksx 'kkyk lkxj dh fjiksVZ ih011 ds vuqlkj ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd e`frdk dh e`R;q fnukad 20@03@94 dks lYQkl dh xksyh [kkus ds vFkkZr tgjhyh xksyh [kkus ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds fuokl ij gqbZ FkhA"11 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996Above finding of the Learned trial Court is solely based on the statement of Investigation Officer Jafri (PW/8), which is not as per the requirement of law nor law permits that the Court will convict accused person(s) on the statement of the Investigation Officer when the case is related with the offence punishable under Section 498- A, 306 and 201 of IPC.Apart from this, Learned trial Court failed to see that whether the prosecution had proved this fact beyond doubt that these cloths was only and only belongs to Rampyaribai, she was wearing these cloths at the time of incident and these cloths were stained with her vomiting.The clothes of Rampyaribai were seized by the Investigation Officer Shri S.J. Jafrin (PW/8) vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 which was worn by Rampyaribai at the time of incident but, Gorelal (PW/3) stated that one doctor advised to the applicants so they burnt Rampyaribai with her cloths.These statements of prosecution witness's creating doubtful situation.Vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 Shri Jafrin (PW/8) also seized ash and other burnt articles in presence of witnesses.But, against above facts Gorelal (PW/3) stated that appellants were disposed of ash so if report be made, ash cannot be seized.This is also contradictory situation.Appeal 2114 of 1996 traces of Sulphas on the cloths could be a circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which, conclusive inference could be drawn that cause of death of Rampyaribai was the consuming of Sulphas tablets only.The another crucial question for determination:Whether just before the death of Rampyaribai she was subjected to cruelty by the husband appellant Jalam and relative of the husband, his father Ghurke, mother Gouri Bai and sister Lalti Bai for fulfillment of dowry demand?So far as the offence under Section 498- A of the I.P.C. is concerned; it is not every kind of cruelty which constitutes an offence under this section.Explanation given in Section 498- A of the I.P.C. contemplates cruelty of two kinds.The first is that which is detrimental to life, limb or health of woman and second kind of cruelty consists of harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to fulfill the unlawful demand.The case at hand is related with second type of cruelty or harassment.As regards section 498- A of the IPC, the allegations against the applicants are vague, unspecific and indefinite.No time or date of the occurrence is given.13 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996That too, this demand of T.V. as dowry is also doubtful Shyamabai (PW/2) stated that there was demand of T.V. as dowry by Ghurke (deceased appellant).But, during cross examination, she admitted that this fact of demand of T.V. was specifically stated by her during police statement Ex.D- 2, why these facts not mentioned she cannot say anything.Merely because the appellant Jamana is husband and the appellants Smt. Gouribai and Laltibai are mother and sister respectively of the appellant / h usband Jamana unless there is not any cogent and convincing evidence to show that the appellants Smt. Gouribai and Laltibai also harassed and ill- treated the Rampyribai, it can not be held that the appellants Smt. Gouribai and Laltibai are liable with the appellant Jamana for the offense punishable under section 498- A of the IPC, because, there is no evidence on record particularly to show the part played by these three appellants in instigating.Therefore, as discussed in above facts and circumstances, this question related with Section 498- A of IPC is not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution, therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 498- A of IPC.Next question for determination:-Whether the appellants abetted Rampyaribai to commit suicide?Making a person liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide.14 Cri.If he is killed by another with his consent the offence is homicide and not suicide and the person killing is so be liable.Between these two offences the difference may sometimes be very little; but there is difference.According to evidence of the parents and brothers of Rampyaribai it is only evident that Rampyaribai was married to appellant Jalam about 8-9 years ago and because she had no child, therefore, the appellants used to taunt her saying "Banjh" (incapable of being a mother).Above mentioned evidence is no evidence in eyes of law for recording the conviction under Section 306 of IPC of the appellants.Presuming that the appellants harassed the deceased for not begetting the children and caused her mental agony, but certainly there is no evidence that just before her death there was harassment by the appellants to the deceased.In the absence of such an evidence showing that due to that harassment the deceased committed suicide, it cannot be said that the appellants had abetted the death of the deceased.The prosecution evidence consisted of parents and brothers of the deceased, but, there being no legal evidence in eyes of law to establish that any of the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide and suspicion however strong, cannot take place of the truth.15 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996Instances of cruelty in remote past cannot be a ground to drive the deceased to commit suicide.In the present case, there is no direct evidence to the effect that the appellants abetted Rampyari Bai for commission of suicide.16 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996Therefore answer of this question is in negative, hence, the impugned judgment of Learned Trial Court is set aside in light of above discussed facts and circumstances and the appellants are acquitted with regard to the charges punishable under Section 306, IPC.Gorelal (PW/3) stated that villagers of Hanuman Sagar informed him that his daughter is murdered by the appellants.About the massage of death of Rampyaribai, Gorelal (PW/3) also stated new fact that one person from village Hanuman Sagar came to Kotwali Tikamgarh but Kishori was not there therefore, Advocate Hari Kishan of his village informed Head Constable to inform Kishori that his sister is died.It is pertinent to mention here that Kishorilal (PW/1), brother of deceased Rampyaribai admitted this fact that at about 4:30 p.m. Kamlapat informed him about the death of his sister.Kishorilal (PW/1) stated when they reached at Hanuman Sagar they found that the dead body was putting on fire for cremation.As per statements of Gorelal (PW/3) the distance between two villages Madumar and Hanuman Sagar is 6 miles = 10 kms.The defense witness, resident of village Hanuman Sagar, Pooran Lal (DW /1) stated that the family members of Rampyaribai and other villagers including himself brought Rampyaribai for treatment at Tikamgarh, but during the way, she died.It is further evident from the statement of defence witness therefore, they returned to her matrimonial house and also informed to the parents of Rampyaribai.Finally, it is stated by Pooran Lal (DW /1) that after waiting for a long time up to 7 p.m. 17 Cri.Appeal 2114 of 1996 when the parents of Rampyaribai did not come, hence, with advice of the villagers, she was cremated.In the light of above discussed facts and circumstances, it has been found that the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. are not proved against the appellants therefore, their conviction punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. also cannot be sustained, hence the appellants are also acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C.For the reasons aforesaid, I do not agree with the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Court that the offences charged against the appellants punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 201 of I.P.C. are proved.The appeal is therefore, allowed.Appeal allowed. | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,169,215 | Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has pointed out that petitioner himself has relied upon wedding card (translation of which is annexure P5).It reveals as under :"MARRIAGE PROGRAMME Wednesday 5th October, 1994 Kirtan and engagement at 3.00 P.M. at Residence 21/206-207, Kalyan Puri Delhi Reception of Barat 7:00 P.M.Vide instant petition petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 28.01.2006 passed by ld.MM, Karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby the ld.Judge has dismissed the application under Section 177 Cr.P.C.Ld. counsel for petitioners submits, on the complaint being filed by respondent No.2 Lata W/o Sushil Kumar before CAW Cell, East Delhi on 08.04.1997 in which she has alleged that marriage has taken place with the Crl.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 1 of 9 petitioner No.1 at Kanpur and dowry articles also have entrusted by her parents at Kanpur and that her in-laws have tortured her for demand of dowry etc. at Kanpur.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 1 of 93. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, as per the complaint of respondent No.2 the cruelty as alleged by her has taken place at Kanpur and marriage has also taken place at Kanpur.Thereafter, she was brought back from Kanpur to Delhi by her parents, since then, she has been residing at Delhi.The respondent No.2 has filed the reply to this petition and submits that the instant petition is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 178 of Cr.P.C. The relevant provisions of said Section are reproduced hereinafter for ready reference.Place of inquiry or trial.(a) ...................Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent had filed the reply to the application under Section 177, being filed by the petitioners before the ld. trial court.In the reply, it was clearly stated that the cruelty was also committed at Delhi, well within the jurisdiction of ld.Trial court.Further, the petitioners and his sister Rano were also residing at Delhi, where, the complainant/respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also raised the preliminary objection that the instant petition is being filed at a belated stage.Moreso, The prosecution witnesses has already been examined and then after a gap of 4 years i.e. on 11.03.2005, the impugned application under Section 177 Crl.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 3 of 9 Cr.P.C was filed, without disclosing as to how and in what manner petitioner was prejudiced.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 3 of 99. Ld.counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the instant petition is not maintainable because Section 462 Cr.No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub- division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice."Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the nuptial celebrations were started by Shagun' held at Delhi and dowry was entrusted to petitioner no.1 in the marriage at Delhi.These facts have been concealed by the petitioner, whereas, he has wrongly mentioned that "dowry articles were entrusted by her parents at Kanpur".Thus, the entrustment of dowry articles of petitioner No.1 took place at Crl.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 4 of 9 Delhi and not at Kanpur and, therefore, complaint was filed well within the jurisdiction of Delhi.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 4 of 9The ceremony of marriage was initiated at Delhi and completed at Kanpur.The dowry items were entrusted at the above address which establishes cause of action under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860, well within the jurisdiction of the learned trial court at Delhi.(iii) the subject matter jurisdiction.In the present case the issue raised by the petitioners is on the territorial jurisdiction.In criminal law the territorial jurisdiction is not fatal, whereas, the subject matter jurisdiction is always fatal, which is not in issue.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 8 of 9M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 8 of 9After hearing both the counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record before me, I note that the ceremony of Sagai' took place at Delhi and allegations made against the petitioners are of Delhi.Additionally, this case is hanging on in Delhi since 1997, when FIR No.590/1997 was lodged against the petitioners.The case has reached its advance stage before the trial court.Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.Accordingly, Crl.No order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J August 17th, 2011 vld Crl.M.C.2469-72/2006 Page 9 of 9 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,780,437 | C.R.R. 3264 of 2009 Mr. D. Chatterjee ... for the petitioner.Mr. S.S.Ray ... for the State.Chapra Police Station Case No 197 of 1998, dated 25th July, 1998 under Sections 364/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the six accused persons was started and all six of them were charge-sheeted under the aforesaid sections.However, three of them absconded.Accordingly, the case against the absconders was filed for the present and trial of the balance three started and reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is at that stage that one of the absconders namely Rabindra Nath Santra was apprehended and dates were fixed for his trial.On the day fixed for examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. they made an application praying for stay of the further proceeding until the trial as against the co-accused Rabindra Nath Santra was completed.This application was rejected by the learned Trial Court on the following grounds:(a) Two of the absconders are yet to be apprehended.I have also not been impressed by the grounds assigned by the learned Trial Judge.For the aforesaid reasons, this petition succeeds. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,780,913 | (i).Prior to the occurrence, deceased Mariappan run a petty shop.He is residing in a house situated next to his shop.On 18.01.2005 at bout 21 hours, the deceased Mariappan after finishing the daily work, closed the shop and went to his house.At about 21.00 hours, the appellant went there for purchasing the cigarettes, but the deceased had replied that there is no cigarettes for sale.Enraged with the reply and due to the previous enmity, the appellant had scolded the deceased in filthy language as why you have a shop without a cigarettes for selling, bastard. Further, the appellant had dragged the deceased from his house and pushed the deceased on the road, wherein, small stones were spread over for paving thar road.Further, the appellant intimidates the deceased by saying "I will finish you".Due to the assault made by the appellant, the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained head injury.As a result of injury sustained by him, he went to the stage of unconscious.After seeing the occurrence, PW1,PW2, PW3 and PW8 who were the son-in-law, son, daughter and wife of the deceased were taken the deceased to Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Hospital, Porur.(ii).In Government Hospital, Chennai, PW10, Dr.Ramani admitted the deceased for giving further treatment.When at the time of giving admission, she found that there is a head injury on the back side of the injured, for which she issued a A.R copy under Ex.(iii).After receiving the complaint, the case has been registered in Crime No.24 of 2005 under Section 294(b), 324 and 506 (Part II) IPC.P4 is the printed F.I.R. After registering the case, on 09.03.2005 at about 10.40 hours, PW14, the then Inspector of Police, Sunguvar Chatram received the death intimation from the Government Hospital, Chennai.Immediately, he altered the Section of law as Section 294(b), 302 and 506(Part-2) IPC.P11 is the alteration report.Further, he went to the scene of occurrence and drawn the rough sketch under Ex.On 10.03.2006 in Government Hospital, Chennai between 9 to 11.30 hours, he prepared an inquest report under Ex.Further, he recorded the statement from the witnesses.After preparation of an inquest report, he sent a requestion letter to the Hospital authorities for conducting Autopsy of the deceased Mariappan.(iv).A chronic ulcer seen over rt.glutial region measuring 4x4x0.25 cm.A healed abrasion measuring 3x2 cm.The Trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.14.06.2018msvIndex: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-speaking OrderToThe Inspector of Police,C-2, Sunguvarchatram Police Station,(ref: Crime No:24/2005, Dt: 19.01.2005)This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C praying to set aside the Judgment dated 29.06.2012 made in S.C.No.25 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Court No.II at Kanchipuram.The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.25 of 2010 on the file of Sessions Judge, No.II, Kanchipuram.The Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b).Further, he was awarded 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default; he should undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(1) IPC.Now against the conviction and sentence, the appellant approached this Court praying to set aside the said conviction and sentence.After receiving the request from PW12, Dr.Panneerselvan working at Government Hospital, Chennai conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased.During the time of post mortem, he found the following injuries:A healed curvilinear suture wound seen over right fronto perito temporal region measuring 28 cm.with a boggy swelling measuring 19x17 cms.A tracheostomy wound seen over at close site measuring 1.5x1.5cm.cavity deep.A chronic ulcer seen over dorsal aspect of left hand (bed sore).A chronic ulcer over inter glutial region measuring 4x4x.25 cm (bed sore)over mid occipital region.On dissection of head:Scalp contusion over right fronto tempero parietal region measuring 15x9x.25 cm.A cranial vault defect seen over right fronto tempro parietal bone measuring 10x9 cm.with 6 burrholes with gel foam placed in situ.Dural defect seen over rt.fronto tempero parietal region measuring 10x9 cms.Brain--Oedematous.Contusion seen over right temporallobe measuring 5x2x.25cm.Multiple petechial haemorrhage seen all over the white matter of both cerebral hemispheres.Base of skull---Intact."(v).According to PW12, the death could have been caused due to the effects of the head injuries sustained by the deceased.(vi).In continuation of the investigation, PW14 on 11.03.2005 arrested the appellant and recorded the confession statement given by him.In a confession statement, he admitted the guilt.So, P.W.14 made arrangements for sending him to the Judicial Custody.Thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, he filed a final report before the District Munsiff cum District Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.(vii).Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges and the accused denied the same.(viii).PW2, PW3 and PW8 are the son, daughter and wife of the deceased respectively.Further, they are an eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence.(ix).PW1 stated in his evidence that after hearing of noise from his mother-in-law's house, he went there and made arrangements for admitting the deceased in the hospital.PW2, PW3 and PW8 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.According to them, on the day of occurrence, due to the non-giving of cigarette, the appellant scolded and beaten the deceased.Due to which, he fell down and sustained a head injury.PW5 is the attesting witness for the preparation of Observation Mahazar.PW6 is the Doctor in Sunguvar Chathram Hospital gave the evidence with regard to the first aid given to the deceased.(x).PW9 and PW10 are the Doctors stated in their evidences about the first aid given to the deceased.Further, PW10 particularly stated with regard to the injury sustained by the deceased.According to the evidence of PW11, on the date of occurrence, small stones were paved in the occurrence place for putting thar road.PW12 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy and gave opinion as already stated.(xi).PW7 and PW14 are the Police Officers who stated about the receiving of complaint and registration of the case, investigation and about laying of final report.The Trial Court Judge, with reference to the incriminating materials, adduced the prosecution, questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and for which, he pleaded not guilty.Further, he did not chose to examine any witness nor did he mark any documents on his side.On concluding the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo as stated above.Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr.A.Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing Mr.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Ramar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.The first submission made by the counsel appearing for the appellant is in the Trial Court, PW2, PW3 and PW8 are examined as eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence.Factually, they are related with the deceased as son, daughter and wife respectively.Except those witnesses, PW4 was examined as eye witness.He is the only independent witness examined on the side of the prosecution.According to PW4, while he reach the scene of occurrence, the deceased is on the road.So, the said evidence discloses that PW2, PW3 and PW8 were not present at the time of occurrence, they deposed a false evidence, but in the Trial Court, as they are seeing the assault made by the appellant.If really, those relatives were present in the scene of occurrence, immediately, they attempted to shift the deceased from the scene of occurrence and make arrangements for giving treatment, but, in this case, even the wife of the deceased had not made any arrangements till PW4 reaches the occurrence place.Thereby, the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW8 is factually false one.Accordingly, they are not an eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence.Now, on considering the said arguments with the facts of the case, it is an admitted fact that PW2, PW3, PW8 are closely related with the deceased.However, only based on the close relationship, we cannot discarded the entire testimony given by them.The appellant scolded the deceased and pushed him.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.R.PONGIAPPAN,J.476 of 201214.06.2018 | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,810,318 | Though, the crime has been registered as against the petitioner and the investigation is still pending.http://www.judis.nic.in 34. Heard both sides.It is seen that the complaint has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Puducherry and the same was forwarded under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On such direction, the complaint has been registered by the first respondent for the offence under sections 418 and 420 of IPC r/w.34 IPC.The crux of the complaint is that the first petitioner is the Director of M/s. Sharon Solutions Ltd., they engaged in the manufacture and supply of Smart cards such as SIM cards, Banking Cards, ATM Cards, Financial Inclusion cards, Government Driving License and other Smart Card projects.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.14 of 2016 dated 02.02.2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Puducherry, for the offence under Sections 418 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, it is a business transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, in which, a false case has been foisted as against the petitioner.Even as per the allegations averred in the complaint, it is purely civil and contractual nature.Further, he would submit that the entire complaint itself do not contain any essential ingredients for cheating and assuming the allegations is true only in default of payment is not at all maintainable.Further to attract the offence under Section 418 of IPC, there is absolutely no averment in the complaint itself.Therefore, he sought for quash the FIR.Though the notice served to the second and third respondents but no one appeared on behalf of the respondents two and three herein.The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) would submit that there is a business transaction between the petitioner and the respondents two and three, in which, there is a due from the petitioner.They export all the cards to various countries across the globe.During the first quarter of 2013, the third respondent representing Uma Enterprises had approached the petitioner with a proposal to provide cargo/courier services.Based on the assurances, promises and warranties made on timely delivery by the third respondent.There was agreement between the petitioner's and the third respondent for each State.Based on the understanding, the petitioner started to hand over the cards for shipments to the third respondent for delivery to BSNL, MTNL, Aircel, HCL, Idea etc., While, the initial shipments vide the third respondent delivered within a reasonable time and later shipmentshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.mpa/lpp were default delivery belatedly and the petitioner suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.37,08,203/-.There was a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of delivery of goods, the petitioner stopped the payment of courier service done by the third respondent.It is also seen that the entire issue with regard to business transaction of contractual nature.Therefore, the offence alleged by the first respondent not at all made out as against the petitioner.It is purely civil in nature.Therefore, the FIR is nothing but abuse the process of law.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, the FIR in Crime No.14 of 2016 is allowed.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.06.03.2019 Speaking/Non speaking order Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No mpa/lpp1.The Station House Officer, Thirubuvanai, P.S.Puducherry Through Public Prosecutor Puducherry.2.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.O.P.No.8712 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.4551 of 2016http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
278,143 | P. C.under Sees.JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J.The substantial issue in the instant six matters is whether a Magistrate/Court before rejecting a "Final-Report" filed by an Investigating Officer, has to hear the accused on his appearing voluntarily or after notice irrespective of the fact whether or not the informant is proposed to be heard with or without a protest petition challenging the said Final Report.In Ranjeet Singh's matter the order of the 1st ADJ, Aligarh dated 29-3-1994 upholding the summoning order passed against the accused-applicants by the VACJM, Aligarh in case No. 397/92 is under challenge.Opposite party No. 2 Kallu Singh had lodged a cross report giving rise * to case crime No. 285A of 1990 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C. on 28-8-1990 at P. S. Sikandra Rao in which a final report was submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C. by the police upon which Magistrate issued notice to Kallu Singh when he filed a protest petition whereafter the ACJM took cognizance, rejected the final report and summoned the applications vide his order dated 14-9-1992 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, IPC.The Sessions Judge upheld the summoning order.In Mohd. Khalil's referring order dated 21-8-1997, Hon'ble S. K. Phaujdar, J. desired that it be heard along with Ranjeet Singh's matter.It was recorded in the referring order that if the Courts engage themselves for hearing the accused even before issuing summons, it would amount to holding a parallel trial before the actual trial, which is perhaps not the intention of law.G. P. Mathur, J. in Ranjeet Singh's matter.Bhoop Singh filed a protest petition praying rejection of the final report.The applicants Ramadheen Sharma and others voluntarily appeared and sought a hearing in opposition to the protest petition filed by the informant.In criminal Misc.In the writ petition of Yunus and others it has been alleged that similar questions have arisen, whereupon another learned Judge has connected it with the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous applications.In the writ petition of Yunus and others, the Sessions Judge, Moradabad has dismissed the Revision of the petitioners by his order dated 7-9-1992 upholding the order of summoning the petitioners passed on 8-6-1992 by the ACJM, Moradabad in case crime No. 39(A)/92 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307, IPC, P. S. Bhajpur, District, Moradabad.The informant filed his protest before the Magistrate against the said final report and also affidavits of the witnesses.The ACJM rejected the final report and on the material collected by the Police summoned the petitioners vide his order dated 8-6-1992 as stated above.It should be useful to notice here that in none of the Criminal Procedure Codes that is the one now in vogue, Cr. P. C. of 1973 or the repealed Cr. P. C. of 1898 or the earlier Cr. P. Cs. of 1982 or of 1872 or the earliest one that is Cr. P. C. of 1861 is there any provision permitting an informant to file any objection against Final Report filed by an Investigating Officer.The practice of hearing an informant through the mode of protest petition was permitted because it was carrying forward the true spirit behind the very purpose of as investigation undertaken by Police upon a grievance of an informant regarding commission of an alleged offence.It should be relevant to note here that in Smt. Nagawwa, the first information report was lodged by Smt. Nagawwa relating to the murder of her son in which she had named respondents Veramma and another has having abated the offence of murder but the police wrongly left them from being made accused.Though Nagappa and seven others were chargesheeted by the police under Section 302 and allied sections, it was alleged by Smt. Nagawwa that Veranna and other persons, were influential persons and therefore the police had omitted their names in the report as well as in the dying declaration.The Magistrate held an enquiry and recorded some evidence, since the matter related to old Cr. P. C. prosecution witnesses in the committing Court were examined.The case was transferred from that Magistrate's Court to another in the meantime.He directed some further enquiry to be made by the SSP.By subsequent order the documents filled by the two abettors before the High Court, also were directed to be forwarded to the Magistrate.When the matte, went back to the Magistrate Smt. Nagawwa informed him she did not want to produce any further evidence.After hearing Smt. Nagawwa the Magistrate issued process against the two abettors under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The said process was challenged in Revision by the said two abettors and also by application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. (561 A old Cr. P. C).Praying for quashing of the summoning order of the Magistrate.The High Court allowed the Revision of the abettors hence Smt. Nagawwa went in appeal to the Apex Court.Aggrieved, the complainant took the matter up to the Hon.High Court of Kerala and his petition was allowed. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,816,534 | The first accused who is the husband of the defacto complainant, is the revision petitioner.The marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized three months prior to the date of occurrence.First information report came to be registered by the respondent Police based on the complaint given by Nithya (the defacto complainant) alleging that she was subjected to cruelty demanding motor cycle and jewel by her husband.On 08.09.2010, her husband (first accused) and father-in-law (second accused) assaulted her with wooden stick for not getting dowry from her parents.They both abused her in a filthy language.The husband of the defacto complainant (first accused) tried to strangulate her with his hand and by pressing his leg on her neck.2.After investigation, a final report against the first accused - Palanisamy (husband) and the second accused – Rajkumar (father-in-law)http://www.judis.nic.in 3 was laid for offences under sections 498A, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C., against the first accused and under Section 324 I.P.C., against the second accused.Her mother (P.W.3) and father (P.W.4) had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 regarding subsistence of marriage between the first accused and their daughter; dowry demand by the accused and visit to the hospital on hearing their daughter Nithya was admitted in the hospital for treatment.Murugesan (P.W.5) and Appavu (P.W.7) are the prosecution witnesses who have admitted Nithya (P.W.1) in the hospital.They have deposed that, Mani (P.W.2) informed that Nithya (P.W.1) was assaulted by the first accused.So, they went to P.W.2 house and took her to hospital.However, P.W.2 has not supported the above version.Hence, P.W.2 was treated as hostile witness.4.P.W.6 – Murugesan has deposed that as Village leader, the parents of Nithya informed him that the first accused is harassing their daughter, demanding dowry.So, he and other elders in the Village enquired the first accused about it.Nirmala (P.W.9), who treated Nithya (P.W.1) at Salem Government General Hospital had deposed that, P.W.1 was brought to the hospital by Appavu (P.W.7).On physical examination, she noted abrasions on the back and right wrist and a injury on her left earlobe.P.W.9 has issued certificate that, all the three injuries are simple in nature.The trial Court, based on the above evidence, held the first accused guilty of offence under Sections 498 A and 323 I.P.C., and acquitted the second accused of all the charges.6.On appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the evidence and the grounds of appeal, had found no error in the trial Court judgment.Hence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused.7.In this revision petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused submitted that, the Courts below failed to consider the fact that P.W.2 - Mani who lives near the scene of occurrence has not supported the prosecution.He turned hostile to the prosecution case.They are interested witnesses and closely related to the defacto complainant.Further, they are not eye witness to the occurrence.Therefore, the conviction relying upon their evidence not corroborated by independent witness is liable to be set aside.http://www.judis.nic.in 58.The prosecution evidence does not provide cogent and reliable material to hold the first accused demanded dowry or harassed his wife Nithya.The wooden stick alleged to have been used to cause injuries to P.W.1 not recovered.The injuries found on P.W.1 are not likely to be caused by wooden stick.Therefore, the falsity on the complaint is well found.The contradiction in F.I.R., and the evidence of P.W.9 is fatal to the prosecution.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also pointing out the delay in registering the F.I.R., sought for interference on the conviction.Since, the injured victim and the doctor who treated P.W.1 were testified before the Court.11.In this case, the occurrence has taken place on 08.09.2010 at 8.30 am.The victim was taken to the hospital on the same day at 8.20 pm and F.I.R., was registered on 09.09.2010 at 9.30 am, after recording the statement of the victim admitted in the hospital.He was arrested on the next day of the occurrence and later released on bail.Having paid the fine amount and suffered imprisonment for few days, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone.14.The punishment for offence under section 498 A I.P.C., is for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.14.02.2019 jbm Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem (Fast track Court, Salem).2.The Judicial Magistrate 1, Salem.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Crl.R.C.No.58 of 2012 14.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
278,192 | JUDGMENT S.K. Seth, J.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 353/1990, appellant has preferred this appeal.Learned Trial Court has handed down the conviction and sentence of 4 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 19-10-1990 at about 5.30 in the evening, when the resident of Village Sagwal were observing rituals of "Goyari", a local festival celebrated after Dipawali, an altercation took place between appellant and Gangaram.During the altercation when appellant tried to hit Gangaram with lathi, Poona, intervened in the matter, as a result the appellant dealt a lathi blow to deceased Poona and ran away from the spot.Same day, Poona went and lodged FIR at the Police Station, Aamjera.Deceased died on 29-10-1990, as a result investigating machinery swung into action and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused Shankar for their prosecution.The appellant and co-accused Shankar abjured their guilty and submitted that they have, been falsely implicated.The Trial Court on the basis of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to make out any case against co-accused Shankar, therefore, acquitted him.So far as the appellant Govind is concerned, the Trial Court found that no offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was made out but a case for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC is proved.Hence, appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.Against acquittal of co-accused Shankar State has not preferred any appeal.Hence, his acquittal has attained finality.So far as appellant Govind is concerned, State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.So that has also become final.I have heard learned Counsels for parties and perused the record.The Criminal appeal filed by Govind, sole contention which has been advanced at the Bar, is that lenient view might be taken for the reason that incident took place in the year 1991 and the appellant was on bail not only during the trial but also during the pendency of the above appeal.He has not misused the liberty.It is also submitted that a further order for custodial sentence at this distance of time may cause rupture to social harmony in the village life and may only help to rekindle the flames of anger and looking to the age of the appellant, interest of justice would be served by treating the period of sentence already undergone as sufficient custodial punishment and the fine amount may be increased.Learned Counsel appearing for the State has no serious objection to the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel for the appellant.However, learned Counsel appearing for Nathuram has seriously objected to aforesaid submission.As according to him on the basis of the evidence led by prosecution, the appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 or 304, Part II of the IPC.It is also contended that appellant should be ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,000/- as imposed by learned Trial Court.After considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that appellant was arrested on 3-11-1990 and remained in custody till 30-1-1991 during trial.After his conviction, the appellant again remained in custody from 1-12-1992 till 16-12-1992 when he was released pursuant to the order of suspension of execution of sentence passed by the Court.Thus, in all the appellant remained in custody for 105 days approximately.In the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction passed against the appellant under Section 325 of the IPC is maintained but the custodial sentence already undergone by him is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.The appellant shall pay the fine within one month from the date of this order.Order accordingly. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,826,979 | That after the thoughtful discussion and meetings between the parties, the parties decided to settle the dispute.The second party/respondent Sh.That out of the settlement amount, the respondent No.2 undertake to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) by way of two pay order on or before 29.03.2016 to the petitioner and the amount Rs.11,72,585/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Seventy Two Lakhs Five Hundred Eighty Five Only) which is lying in the HUF account with Axis Bank, Shahdara as a settlement amount and in lieu of the said amount the petitioner will give up all the claims and rights in the present will date 12.09.2012 executed by late Sh.Niranjan Lal Aggarwal expect the amount already withdrawn from the bank accounts.The respondents also undertake not to claim the said amount from the petitioner/first party.That the second party/respondents undertakes to complete all responsibility in respect of formalities for claiming the amount of HUF account by the petitioner/first party.That the second party will pay to the first party/petitioner an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) on or before 18.03.2016 and further payment of Rs.25,00,00/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) on or before 25.03.2016 by way of pay order in favour of petitioner/first party.That the second party/respondent No.2 on behalf of his brothers and sister undertakes they will not initiate any legal proceeding against petitioner.That second party/respondents will not claims any rights or title in the properties and assets in the name of the petitioner in future, and the petitioner is free to transfer the same as per her wish and desire.That the first party/petitioner undertakes to give NOC at Municipal Corporation at Haridwar in respect of Flat No.0013, Gayatri Lok, Haridwar, U.K. in favour of Sh.Ram Kumar Aggarwal or any other person as per the request by the second party/respondents.That the petitioner also undertakes to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the property No.1/9730, Bahal Gali, Gali No.6, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32 to second party after receiving the settlement amount as stated above.That it has been agreed between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondents that the property bearing No.1/9664, West Gorakh Park, Gali No.6, Shahdara, Delhi-32 measuring 34 sq. Yards will be transferred in the name of Ms. Ritu Aggarwal w/o Sh.Arvind Aggarwal and both the parties will not claim over the said property.That it has been agreed between first party/petitioner and second party/respondents that the household articles in property bearing No.1/9730, Bahal Gali, Gali No.6, West Gorakh W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 7 of 11 Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32 belongs to first party/petitioner Ms. Deepa Aggarwal and she has full authority to take the articles along with her at the time of vacating the said property.That both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent no.2 have read and understood the above terms and conditions and have signed on this application with their free will, consent and desire and without any threat, pressure or coercion from any corner.That second party/respondents herein undertakes to not to initiate any fresh case, claim, prosecution against petitioner/first party or his any of the family members in future course of action and her entire claim or entitlement comprehensively stands satisfied and settled.Meaning thereby, all the disputes regarding past, present and future has been sorted out between the parties in consonance with the terms and conditions mentioned above.Both the parties undertake to strictly comply with the MOU dated 02.03.2016 and will adhere to its covenants to its true sense and spirits.That the both the parties have agreed that they shall not claim any kind of past, present and/or future charges etc. from each other in any manner whatsoever and they shall abide by this Compromise Deed.That all the parties out of their free will and W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 8 of 11 consent and in their sound state of mind and in the presence of each other and witnesses are executing the present compromise deed after understanding the contents thereof.W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 8 of 11FIRST PARTY/PETITIONER Sd/-2. SECOND PARTY/RESPONDENTS"(iii) Demand Draft No.012257 dated 28.03.2016, in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, drawn on Axis Bank, Shahdara, in favour of Ms. Deepa.The afore-stated three demand drafts have been handed over to Deepa Aggarwal, the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, who acknowledges receipt thereof subject to encashment.Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate and SI Arvind Kumar, PS-Shahdara for R-1 Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for R-2 along with Respondent No.2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.5322/2016 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.89/2016, under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC, W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 1 of 11 registered at Police Station- Shahdara, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 1 of 11The subject FIR came to be registered as a consequence over a dispute relating to the subject property jointly owned by the extended family of the complainant as well as the petitioners herein.Apart from the subject FIR, the dispute between the parties led to the institution of the following proceedings:-(vi) In the court of Shri Jay Thareja, Ld.(suit for declaration).(vii) In the Court of Shri Jay Thareja, Ld. ACJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, case title as Deepa vs. Sandeep Aggarwal (suit for declaration).(viii) In the court of Ms. Savitri, Ld.C.M.M., Karkardooma Court, Delhi, Complaint Case title as Durgesh Aggarwal and Anr.W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 2 of 11(ix) In the Court of Ms. Savitri, Ld.C.M.M., Karkardooma Court, Delhi, State vs. Shyam Aggarwal, FIR No.210/2013, u/s 341 IPC, P.S. Shahdara, Delhi.(x) FIR No.89/2016, under investigation, u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC, P.S. Shahdara, Delhi.(xi) In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi case title as Bina Aggarwal & Anr.vs. Deepa (suit for possession)."The complainant and the petitioners, who are present in person, state that with the intervention of common friends and relatives they have arrived at an amicable resolution of all the disputes including the one that led to the registration of the subject FIR.The salient terms and conditions of the afore- stated settlement dated 02.03.2016 are as follows:-"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING / SETTLEMENT This Compromise Deed is executed at Delhi on this 02st day of March, 2016 between:- DEEPA AGGARWAL W/O LATE SH.NIRANJAN LAL AGGARWAL, R/O 1/9730, BAHAL GALI, WEST GORAKH PARK, SHAHDARA, DELHI, (hereinafter called as the ('FIRST PARTY/PETITIONER');AND W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 3 of 11 DURGESH AGGARWAL S/O LATE SH.W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 3 of 11NIRANJAN LAL AGGARWAL, R/O 1/9608/3, BAHAL GALI, GALI NO.6, WEST GORAKH PARK, SHAHDARA, DELHI-32, ON BEHALF HIMSELF AND RESPONDENTS NO.3,4, & 7 AND SHYAM AGGARWAL RESPONDENT NO.5 & RAM KUMAR AGGARWAL RESPONDENT NO.6 S/O LATE SH.HIMSELF AND RESPONDENTS NO.3,4, & 7NIRANJAN LAL AGGARWAL, R/O 1/9728, BAHAL GALI, GALI NO.6, WEST GORAKH PARK, SHAHDARA, DELHI-32 (hereinafter called as the ('SECOND PARTY/ RESPONDENTS') WHEREAS the First and Second Party are wife and sons of Late Sh.Durgesh Aggarwal will pay a sum of Rs.56,72,585/- (Rupees fifty six lakh seventy W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 4 of 11 thousand five hundred eighty five only) as full and final settlement with the first party/ petitioner.W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 4 of 11That the following cases were pending between the parties:-(i) Demand Draft No.012227 dated 23.03.2016, in the sum of Rs.9,80,000/-, drawn on Axis Bank, Shahdara, in favour of Ms. Deepa.(ii) Demand Draft No.012148 dated 21.03.2016, in the sum of Rs.8,20,000/-, drawn on Axis Bank, Shahdara, in favour of Ms. Deepa.(suit for declaration).(vii) In the Court of Shri Jay Thareja, Ld. ACJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, case title as Deepa vs. Sandeep Aggarwal (suit for declaration).(viii) In the court of Ms. Savitri, Ld.W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 10 of 11(x) FIR No.89/2016, under investigation, u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC, P.S. Shahdara, Delhi.(xi) In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi case title as Bina Aggarwal & Anr.vs. Deepa (suit for possession)."In view of the foregoing, since the dispute between the parties that led to the registration of the subject FIR relating to the joint inheritance of the parties to the present petition and the complete settlement of all those dispute is without any influence, pressure or coercion, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Consequently, FIR No.89/2016, under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Shahdara, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners subject to their depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in aggregate with the Victims' Compensation Fund, Government of NCT of Delhi within a period of four weeks from today.The receipt of the said deposit shall be furnished to the concerned IO.The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 30, 2016 dn W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 11 of 11W.P. (CRL) 1009/2016 Page 11 of 11 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,530,383 | ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::In 2011, when Shankar Shimpikar (PW4) PSI was attached to Police Station, Kurha, received an information from Irwin Hospital Police Chowki about death of a 9 months old girl,::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 ::: 3 apeal279.18.odt Pooja.Accordingly, he took station diary entry vide entry no.4/2011 and went to Irwin Hospital.Accordingly, stick was seized from godown of house of appellant.Clothes of the accused were also seized.DATED :- 31.01.2019 ORAL JUDGMENTBy the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,-3, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.234/2011, convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 304-II and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.His sentence for conviction under Section 304-II is imprisonment for 7 years and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.Insofar as conviction under Section 323 is concerned, sentence is for rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::I have heard Mr. S. G. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ghodeswar, learned A.P.P. for the State.Both the learned counsel vehemently submitted their case and prayed for their respective prayers in their favour.Both the learned counsel took me in detail to the entire paper book as well as record and proceedings.Initially, appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Pooja Yogesh Zimbad, a 9 month old child and for an offence under Section 324 of the IPC for making assault by stick on Ranjana.Charge was denied by the appellant.The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses to substantiate the charge.Dead body was kept in mortuary.Her mother Ranjana (PW1) was sitting in Police Chouki.He made inquiry about incident with her and recorded her statement.Thereafter, he went to Police Station along with statement of mother of the deceased and on the basis of her statement, he registered an offence vide Crime No.91/2011 against the present appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.From the spot, he seized simple as well as blood mixed earth and pieces of broken bangles.During the Police Custody Remand, the appellant shown his willingness to show the place where the weapon i.e. stick was kept.They were sent to Chemical Analyser (CA).After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::Yogesh (PW2) is husband of Ranjana, whose evidence, in my view, is rightly disbelieved by the learned Judge of the Court below in respect of assault on the deceased.Dr. Subhash (PW3) who initially examined the deceased and issued referral letter, referring the deceased from Dhamangaon Rural Hospital to Irwin Hospital, Amravati.Evidence of Ranjana (PW1) would show that appellant is her neighbour and on a very trifle issue, the incident has occurred.Her evidence would show that on the date of incident of assault in the morning, her son was assaulted by the appellant since he was standing near his courtyard.In the evening, this fact was narrated by her son to Yogesh, her husband.Ranjana's evidence would further show that thereafter Yogesh went to the courtyard of the appellant to accost the accused.As per the evidence, appellant started using bad words.Her evidence would show that she followed her husband.Appellant took out stick and assaulted her on her back.It is her evidence that appellant assaulted on her daughter on head over the left eye.However, this particular statement made from the witness box is proved omission.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::As per Exh.-43, spot of incident is the courtyard of the accused.Exh.-45 is post mortem report.It shows that deceased was having contusion over her right temporal region.Internal examination shows that there was fracture on frontal bone.As per opinion of autopsy surgeon, cause of death was head injury.Exh.- 45 was admitted by defence during the course of trial.It appears that therefore autopsy surgeon was not examined by prosecution.There is no dispute that 9 months old girl has lost her life due to head injury.Appellant was charged that he knowingly assaulted on the head.Therefore, he was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.However, the Court below found that prosecution has not proved charge under Section 302 of IPC.However, as per learned Judge of Court below, appellant has authored the stick blow on the head of 9 months old girl resulting into her death.Therefore he was convicted for an offence under Section 304-II of the IPC and also for assault on Ranjana, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::According to Ranjana (PW1), after assault victim girl was taken to the hospital at Anjansingi.At Rural Hospital, Anjansingi, Dr. Subhash (PW3) examined her and referred her to Rural Hospital, Dhamangaon Railway.While examining her, he noticed that she was restless and pblunt blood trauma and puffiness to left eye.The referral letter, by which the injured was referred from Anjansingi to the hospital at Dhamangaon Railway, shows that history of falling is recorded.Dr. Subhash (PW3) has stated that information regarding the patient is to be mentioned in the referral card.In the cross-examination, he has admitted as under:"It is true to say that on 18.09.2011 father of Pooja had brought her to me.I have obtained his signature at Exh.-It is true to say that he had given history of falling."Age of the girl was only 9 months.It is also admitted that there was a scuffle between appellant and husband of Ranjana.Not only that accused also lodged report against husband of Ranjana and on the basis of his oral report, crime No.94/2011 was registered for an offence::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 ::: 7 apeal279.18.odt punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of the IPC against Yogesh.Evidence of Ranjana would show that when fight between appellant and husband of Ranjana was going on that time Ranjana tried to intervene and at that time, the girl was in her lap.In the light of this evidence, evidence of Dr.Subhash (PW3) assumes importance that Yogesh disclosed to him that deceased fell down.Coupled with this, Ranjana's evidence about assault on the head of the deceased by the appellant, is a proved omission.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::In my view, aforesaid facts were not properly considered by the Court below while convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC.In my view, evidence of Ranjana, recitals in Exh.-52 and evidence of Dr.Subhash do not rule out natural falling of girl form the lap of Ranjana when she tried to intervene in the scuffle between her husband Yogesh and appellant.Therefore, the Court below, in my view has committed error in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::Appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.As per Ranjana, she was assaulted on her back by stick.It was admitted by the defence.It shows that she was having a contusion on left lumber region.The injury was simple in nature.In that view of the matter, conviction imposed upon the appellant for assaulting Ranjana, though in the scuffle, is required to be maintained.Even during the course of trial, for six months, he was in jail.Conviction imposed upon the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is six months only.On reappreciation of the entire prosecution case, I pass the following order.20.02.2018 in Sessions Trial No.234/2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Amravati, thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC and sentencing him to::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 ::: 9 apeal279.18.odt suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::He has already undergone the sentence imposed on him.(v) The appellant is in jail.He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2019 00:56:17 ::: | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,539,916 | The wife of the deceased (P.W.-6) was beaten up and the same was questioned by the deceased.Thereafter, A-2, who is the father of A-1, had sent a word to A-1, who was living in Chennai.He came over to his native place and it is stated that there was a conspiracy hatched by A-1 to A-3 to do away with the deceased Anandan.Pursuant to the conspiracy, A-1 is said to have borrowed a new unregistered two wheeler.On 03.06.2011, at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased was drinking tea in the shop belonging to P.W.-1, who is his father-in-law.Thereafter, he took his two wheeler (M.O.-4) at about 7.15 a.m. and within five minutes, the accused persons followed the bike in the unregistered new motorbike.Immediately, the mother-in- law of the deceased (P.W.-2) intimated P.W.-1 that there is a possibility that the accused persons may attack the deceased Anandan.Therefore, P.W.-1 took his motorbike and P.W.-2 accompanied him and they followed the accused persons.Near Vairavankoil, the deceased Anandan saw the accused persons following him and he (deceased) dropped his two wheeler and started running towards the house of one 3/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 Rakkappan (P.W.-3).The accused persons also dropped their bike and started chasing the deceased Anandan.They restrained Anandan and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 started shouting to the accused persons not to commit any harm to the deceased Anandan.However, A-1 is said to have attacked the deceased Anandan with knife (M.O.-1) in his left neck.Hearing the noise, the villagers started coming to the place and the accused persons are said to have ran away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased died on the spot.This incident is said to have taken place at 7.30 a.m.The father-in-law (P.W.-1) gave a complaint (Ex.P-1) to the Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-19) on 03.06.2011 at about 8.30 a.m. and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.259/2011 for an offence under Section 302 IPC.The express FIR (Ex.P-12) was handed over to the Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-15) and he handed over the same to the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram, at about 9.30 a.m. The information was passed on to the Inspector of Police (P.W.-23) and he took up the investigation 4/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 and he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P-5) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.-14) in the presence of witnesses (P.W.-13).He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-15).He handed over the body to the Head Constable (P.W.-17) with a requisition to conduct the postmortem and to hand over the body to the relatives.The Investigating Officer also collected the bloodstained soil (M.O.-6), ordinary sample soil (M.O.-7) and the two motorbikes (M.O.-4 and M.O.-5) under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.-6).He had sent all the material objects to the Court under FormThe Investigating Officer was only the in-charge Inspector of Police and he handed over the investigation to the regular Inspector of Police (P.W.24).He received the information that the accused persons had surrendered separately before the Judicial Magistrate Courts at Rameshwaram, Mudukulathur 5/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 and Madurai respectively.A letter was given to the Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram on 07.06.2011 and an order was passed on 09.06.2011 granting police custody.A-1 voluntarily gave a confession in the presence of witnesses (P.W.-14) and based on his confession, the knife (M.O.-1) was recovered under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.-8).Thereafter, A-1 was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. A-2 and A-3 were taken on police custody on 10.06.2011 and they voluntarily gave a confession in the presence of witnesses and they took the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence and explained the manner in which the incident had taken place.Thereafter the Investigating Officer made a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate to send the material objects to the forensic laboratory.He proceeded to record the statement of the Doctor and other witnesses.The Investigating Officer thereafter collected the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P.-4); Biological Report (Ex.P.-10) and Serological Report (Ex.P.-11).When he was cross-examined by the accused persons, he has clearly reiterated the incident and he did not contradict himself at any place in the cross-examination.It will be 15/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.“,we;J Nghd vdJ kUkfd; vdJ Bf;filapypUe;J nry;Yk;NghJ fhiy 7.15 kzp ,Uf;Fk;.This witness has almost reiterated the same facts as stated by P.W.-1, in the chief-examination.Therefore, it becomes important to see whether she has contradicted herself in the cross-examination.The relevant portion in the cross-examination is extracted hereunder:“vdJ kUkfd; igf; fple;j ,lj;jpypUe;J 10> 20 mb J}uj;jpy; vq;fsJ igf;if Nghl;Nlhk;.NghyPrhh; tUk;NghJk; ehd; mq;Fjhd; ,Ue;Njd;.NghyPrhh; ve;J vq;fs; igf;if ghh;f;ftpy;iy.vdJ kUkfd; igf;> ek;gh; gpNsl; ,y;yhj igf; ,uz;Lk; xd;wpd;xd;wpd;Nky; fple;jJ. mg;gb igf; fple;jJ kl;ilntwpr;rp Xuj;jpy; fple;jJ.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 ......The appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:There was a rivalry in the milk business between A-2 and the 2/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 deceased Anandan.On 01.06.2011, a Cow belonging to A-2 had trespassed into the property of the deceased Anandan resulting in a wordy quarrel.The Investigating Officer (P.W.-24) took up the investigation on 07.06.2011 and he recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He completed the investigation and had 6/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.Thereafter, the case was committed to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.In the meantime, A-3 had died and therefore, the charges abated and only A-1 and A-2 faced the charges before the trial Court.The material documents along with the final report was furnished to A-1 and A-2 under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and charges were framed.The prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W.-24 and marked Ex.P.-1 to x.The appellants (A-1 and A-2) were questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating materials that were collected during the course of trial were put to them and they denied the same as false.The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, came to the categorical conclusion that the prosecution has established the 7/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants in the manner stated supra.The appellants were acquitted from the charge under Section 120(B) read with 302 IPC.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, made the following submissions:● The prosecution had mainly relied upon the version given by the eyewitnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and both these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence, since it took place more than ½ a kilometer from the tea shop.● The evidence of P.W.-3 Rakkappan shows that there were three or four persons, who had attacked the deceased Anandan and they all ran away, after the incident and he did not see the appellants in that crowd.● P.W.-3 also speaks about the presence of Sniffer Dog and that itself shows the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in the scene of 8/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 occurrence to be false and such Sniffer Dogs are engaged only where the identity of the accused is not known.● The motorbike that was driven by the accused persons is said to belong to one Babu and he was not examined in this case.● The prosecution has attempted to connect the motorbike which stood in the name of Babu by virtue of the evidence of P.W.-20, who is the Sales Manager of Subalakshmi Bajaj Company.There was no evidence to connect the vehicle belonging to Babu and the accused persons.● P.W.-2, in her evidence, has stated that several villagers had come to the scene of occurrence after the incident, hearing the cries and not a single independent witness supported the case of the prosecution.● The prosecution has examined P.W.-4 in order to establish the previous dispute between the parties.This witness has not 9/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 stated anything about the fight between the deceased Anandan and A-2 before the Investigating Officer and for the first time, he states before the Court.This witness is an interested witness and he is the maternal uncle of the wife of the deceased.● The wife of the deceased (P.W.-6) speaks about the dispute between one Velmurugan (brother of A-1) and her husband (deceased).She did not state this before the Investigating Officer and Velmurugan was not examined by the prosecution.● The injuries as spoken by the Doctor (P.W.-8) and the postmortem certificate shows that there are only two cut injuries and the same is not capable of being inflicted upon the deceased, who is said to have been stabbed with M.O.-1 knife.● P.W.-13, who was the Mahazar witness, has specifically spoken about the presence of sniffer dog in the place of occurrence from 9.00 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. His evidence also shows that the accused persons were not identified and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have 10/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.● The prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants will have to be acquitted from all charges.● The learned counsel, in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.12/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 ● The previous dispute between the parties has been specifically spoken by P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-6 and the prosecution has clearly established the motive behind the crime.Both of them have spoken about the earlier dispute between the parties.The father-in-law of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.-1, has stated as follows, when he was examined in chief:“mg;NghJ Mde;jd; Bf;filapy; B rhg;gpl;Ltpl;L taputq;Nfhtpy; mUfpy; fUNty kuk; cs;snjd;Wk; mij thq;fpf;nfhz;L tUfpNwd; vd;W nrhy;yptpl;L b.vz;.65-epkplj;jpy; ek;gh; gpNsl; ,y;yhj ,Urf;futhfdj;jpy; Nfrtd; tz;bia Xl;b ngah; Nfl;Lj;njhpe;j jpNd\; vd;gtUk;> ehfuh[d; vd;gtUk; xNu igf;fpy; gpd;njhlh;e;J Nghdhh;fs;.jpNd\; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[hpy; ,y;iy. Mtiu ghh;j;jhy; milahsk; njhpAk;.ehd; vdJ kidtpaplk; Mde;jid gpd;njhlh;e;J ehfuh[d;> jpNd\;> Nfrtd; igf;fpy; nry;fpwhh;fs; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;.mjw;F vd; kidtp Mde;jid mbj;jhYk; mbg;ghh;fs; vd;W nrhy;yp igf; vLq;fs; vd;W nrhd;dhh;.ehd; vdJ ,Urf;fu thfdj;ij vLj;Jf;nfhz;L ehDk; vdJ kidtpAk; nrd;Nwhk;.taputq;Nfhtpy; Cuzpf;fiuahd;tyir mUNf vdJ kUkfd; Mde;jd; mth;fs; tUtij vg;gbNah ghh;j;Jtpl;lhh;.mth; igf;if fPNoNghl;L tpl;L kpuz;LNgha; uhf;fg;gd;http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 tPl;bw;Fs; xopa Xbdhh;.mth; tPl;bd; ,uz;L fjTfs; %l;bapUe;jd.Mde;jd; mjdhy; jpUk;gp te;jhh;.Me;j %d;Wegh;fSk; Mde;jd; igf; mUfpy; mth;fSila igf;if Nghl;Ltpl;L ehfuh[Dk;> jpNd\;FkhUk; ,uhf;fg;gd; tPl;bw;F cs;Ns Nghd Mde;jid kiwj;jhh;fs;.thrw;gbapy; itj;J Mde;jid kiwj;jhh;fs;.ehq;fs; gpd;njhlh;e;J nrd;W xd;Wk; nra;JtplhjPh;fs; vd;W fj;jpNdhk;.Nfrtd; jhNahop ePnay;yhk; vq;fs; tPl;by; te;J rz;ilNghl;Ltpl;L capNuhL ,Ue;JtpLthah vd;W rj;jk;Nghl;L kug;gbNghl;l fj;jpahy; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; Fj;jpdhh; vd;W rhl;rp rhl;rpak; mspj;jhYk; mth; ,lJgf;f fOj;ij fhz;gpj;J Fj;jpajhf nrhd;dhh;.rz;lyhg; ghtpg;gaNy ,g;gb Fj;jptpl;lhNa vd;W ehq;fs; ,UtUk;This witness has clearly spoken about the incident in his chief-examination.mg;nghOJ ehDk;epkplk; fopj;J ek;gh; gpNsl;L ,y;yhj ,Urf;fu thfdk; te;jJ. mjw;fpilapy; NtW igf; vJTk; tutpy;iy.mjw;F Kd; me;j thfdj;ij ghh;j;jpy;iy.mjd;gpwFjhd; ehd; vd; kidtpaplk; tpraj;ij nrhd;Ndd;.me;j ek;gh;9.00 kzp ,Uf;Fk; ehd; nrhy;y nrhy;y Gfhh; vOjg;gl;lJ. Gfhiu cl;fhh;e;Jnfhz;L ghyj;jpy; vOjpdhh;.vdJ kUkfd; ghy; tpahghuk; nra;fpwhh;. mh;r;Rzd; ghy; tpahghuk; nra;atpy;iy. mh;r;Rzd; jhd; ghy;tpahghuk; nra;jhh; vd;Wk; vdJ kUkfd; ghy;tpahghuk; nra;atpy;iynad;W nrhd;dhy; rhpay;y.khl;Lj;jfuhW vdf;F Nehpilahfj; njhpAk;.khL vq;fs; tPl;bw;Fs; te;jjhy; jhd; rz;ilnad;why; rhp. ehd; nrhd;dkhjphp ve;j 16/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.She was the one, who accompanied P.W.-1 in the motorbike and she was the one, who anticipated that the deceased will be attacked by the accused persons, who were following his bike in an unregistered motorbike.vq;fs; tz;b fpof;Nf fple;jJ. 20 mb J}uj;jpy; vdJ kUkfid Fj;jpdhh;fs;.fj;jpia mjw;F Kd; ehd; ghh;j;jjpy;iy.fj;jpapy; kug;gpb Nghl;bUe;jJ vd;gij NghyPrhh; tprhuizapy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd;.me;j fj;jpia rk;gtj;jd;W ghh;j;jJjhd;> ,g;NghJ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhd; ghh;f;fpNwd;.P.W.-3, in his evidence, has spoken about the sound which he heard from the scene of occurrence and three or four persons running away from the scene of occurrence and he found the dead body of the deceased in front of his house lying in a pool of blood.However, this witness has stated that the persons, who ran away from the scene of occurrence, are not the accused persons.The evidence of this witnesses can be taken into account for the purpose of establishing the fact that the dead body was found in front of his house and that three 18/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 or four persons ran away, after the incident.The location at which the incident had taken place is also corroborated by the observation mahazar (Ex.P-5) and the rough sketch (Ex.P-14).A reading of their evidence clearly shows that there were quarrels between the family members of the deceased and A1 and A-2 and previously Velmurugan, who is the brother of A-1, had also slapped the deceased and the matter also went before the police station and it was interfered by the elders and the complaint was dropped in the police station.This has been clearly spoken by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their evidence.Therefore, the prosecution has established the fact that there was a previous dispute between the parties and therefore, there is a motive behind the incident.The recovery of M.O.-1 knife has been spoken by the Investigating Officer P.W.-24, who took A-1 on police custody, after he surrendered before the Court.The confession and recovery has also 19/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.This witness specifically states in his evidence about the recovery of knife (M.O.-1) and he has also withstood the cross-examination that was done on the side of the accused persons.The knife that was recovered was sent to the forensic laboratory and the serological report, which was marked as Ex.P.-11, clearly shows the presence of human blood in the knife and the blood has been identified to belong to 'O' Group, which tallies with the blood group of the deceased.This clearly corroborates the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 with regard to the weapon that was used by A-1 to attack the deceased persons.In this case, the incident had taken place at about 7.30 a.m. and the complaint was given before P.W.-19 at about 8.30 a.m. and the express FIR had reached the Court at about 9.30 a.m. That apart, the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded from the material witnesses had reached the Court on 06.06.2011 itself.Therefore, there is absolutely no delay at any point of time right from the registration of the FIR and therefore, there is no question of any deliberation through which the accused persons have been roped in.Even in the complaint, the name 20/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 of A-1 and A-2 have been specifically stated.Therefore, this Court is not able to see any materials in order to show that the accused persons in this case have been falsely implicated.The evidence of the postmortem Doctor also assumes significance.The postmortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P-4 reveals the following injuries found in the body of the deceased:“1.Temple region near left eye a cut injury 2 x 1 x 1 cm2.A cut injury over left side of neck 4 x 3 x 2 cm retracted ends of large blood vessels seen.Ecchymosis around carotid vessels seen.3.Right side forehead a linear abrasion 5 x ½ cm seen.” The postmortem Doctor has opined that the deceased had died due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to major blood vessels.21/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the weapon that is said to have been used in this case was a knife (M.O.-1) and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have stated that the deceased was stabbed with a knife.Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the injuries that were found in the body of the deceased, particularly, injuries 1 and 2 could not have been caused with a knife and it has been clearly described as cut injuries.22/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018The Sales Manager of Subalakshmi Bajaj Company has specifically stated in his evidence about the finance availed by one Babu for the purpose of purchasing the two wheeler.Thereafter, he preferred a revision petition in Crl.This Court had suspended the sentence and enlarged the appellants on bail by order dated 10.04.2018 and the appellants are, therefore, directed to immediately surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram to serve the sentence.If the appellants do not surrender before the Court below, the respondent police is directed to secure the appellants and produce them before the Court below in order to enable the Court below to send them to 25/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 custody to serve the sentence.1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District.2.The Inspector of Police Kenikarai Police Station Ramanathapuram District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.26/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J RR Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.121 of 2018 15.11.2019 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,544,952 | The charge against the present Appellant was that at 5.30 pm on 24 th July 2012, at H. No. A-47 Kotwali Masjid Basti, Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, he murdered his father Sadruddin (the deceased) by cutting his throat.As far as Maimo is concerned, she was charged for having caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder by wiping blood from the floor in order to screen the present Appellant, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.Information to the policeThe Police Control Room (PCR) received a call from Jairuddin (PW-5) at 5.25 pm to the effect that ek admi ka gala kat rakha hai or sua ghoos rakha hai.The PCR form, which was not marked as an exhibit, recorded in the right hand column that mentioned the name of the deceased and noted jisne churi se apne app khud apni gardan (neck) kaat li hai, mauka par dead hai.The information was noted as DD No.18A at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin and was marked to Sub Inspector Ajay Kumar (PW-21), who at around 5.30 pm, Crl.A.38/2017 Page 2 of 17 accompanied by Constable Shahid (PW-11) and Constable Anand (PW-14) went to the spot.He noticed that several public persons had already collected there.Meanwhile, the Station House Officer (SHO) Inspector Sunil Kumar, Inspector Binay Singh (PW-22) and other police officers had also reached at the spot.A.38/2017 Page 2 of 17After removing the public persons from the spot, they entered to find a person lying on a mat inside the house on the first floor of the building.His right arm was over his abdomen while the left arm was on the floor.Cut marks were observed on his neck while some stab wounds were present on other parts of the body.Blood was scattered on the floor as well as on the walls of the room.One sua (poker) was lying there in two parts i.e. the iron rod and handle separately.The spot appeared to have been washed.PW-21 prepared a rukka (Ex.PW-21/A) and gave it to PW-11 for registration of the FIR.The crime team had already reached there.The crime team report (Ex.P3) shows that the crime team remained at the spot between 6.15 and 7 pm.The exhibits picked up by them were: (i) blood in gauze, (ii) bloodstained floor, (iii) control sample floor, (iv) sua, (v) handle (of the sua), (vi) a blood soaked pocha (cleaning rag) and (vii) bloodstained mat.According to PW-21, there were no eye witnesses at the spot.At that stage, PW-22 took over the investigation.According to PW-22, he interrogated the public persons gathered at the spot before returning to the PS.PW-21, however, stated in his cross-examination that he himself did not examine any public person and that "none came to him there to depose in this regard.He added: "It is true that family members of deceased were Crl.A.38/2017 Page 3 of 17 present at the spot.None from them deposed at that time."The statement of PW-5 (Ex.PW-5/A) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) was to the effect that he was sitting in his meat shop, under the residence of the deceased, on 24th July 2012 and at around 4.30 pm, he heard some screaming sound.He then stepped out of the shop into the street and found that a crowd had gathered in the street.He saw the Appellant coming down the stairs from the first floor.He noticed that blood was coming out from a wound on the right index finger of the Appellant and he was limping on his left foot as he was walking.The Appellant then walked away briskly.10. PW-5 along with some persons then went up to the first floor and noticed his sister-in-law Maimo crying and shouting and using a wiper to wipe the floor.On noticing him, she stated nanhe tere bhai ke saath ye kya ho gaya.He then entered the room and noticed his brother (the deceased) lying dead on a cot with his neck cut.In his statement under Section 161 Cr PC, PW-5 stated that he suspected that it was the Appellant, who along with his mother Maimo, had murdered the deceased.According to PW-22, after recording PW-5s statement, he went to the house of the Appellant but did not find him there.Maimo was present at the residence.PW-22 interrogated her and they left for the PS.On his way to the Crl.A.38/2017 Page 4 of 17 PS, PW-22 got information that the Appellant was present at the Nizamuddin Railway Station and was waiting to escape.PW-22 accompanied by HC Dharambir (PW-9), Constable Satish (PW-12) and Sub Inspector Vinita (PW-17) went there and found the Appellant present at the railway station.He was apprehended and brought to the PS where he was interrogated.A.38/2017 Page 4 of 17Meanwhile, the post-mortem of the deceased was performed at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) by Dr. Adarsh Kumar (PW-13) along with Dr. Sanjay Kumar.The post-mortem report (Ex.PW-13/A) noticed as many as 16 external injuries, of which 15 were incised stab wounds or punctured wounds on various parts of the body.The opinion as to the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock coupled with asphyxia as a result of the multiple injuries.The injuries were ante-mortem.A.38/2017 Page 5 of 17Meanwhile, at the PS, a personal search was undertaken of the Appellant.He also gave a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-9/A).The Appellant then led the police to the spot and brought out one dagger from behind an iron box kept in the same room where the crime was committed.It was seized under seizure memo Ex.PW-9/C. Apparently, the Appellant also disclosed the involvement of his mother Maimo.She was formally arrested, her personal search undertaken and a disclosure statement (Ex.According to PW-22, Maimo handed over to him one shirt from a washing machine and the said shirt was stated to have been worn by the Appellant at the time of the incident.This was seized under seizure memo (Ex.PW-17/C).Accused Maimo is also stated to have produced one wiper from behind the gas cylinder in the kitchen which was apparently used by her to wipe the floor in the aftermath of the incident.The next day i.e. 27th July 2012, PW-22 interrogated both the accused, who again gave disclosure statements.The Appellant is stated to have led the police to a dustbin at Alvi Chowk and got recovered one shirt, stated to belong to his father.The accused persons then led the police to their house, where Maimo produced a vest from a dustbin stated to have been worn by the Appellant at the time of the incident.A.38/2017 Page 6 of 17The exhibits were deposited in the malkhana and then sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini.On 30th August 2012, PW-22 again visited the spot along with SI Mahesh Kumar (PW-6), while the site plan (Ex.PW-22/C) had been prepared by PW-22 on 24th July 2012 itself.The Appellant had been, on 28th July 2012, remanded to judicial custody for 14 days.At that stage, on 25th August 2012, the Appellant filed an application before the criminal Court claiming to be a juvenile.Accordingly, his ossification test was ordered.This was conducted on 30 th August 2012 by the Board in Safdarjung Hospital.The result was obtained on 6th September 2012 with the doctor opining the Appellants age to be more than 22 years.Specific to the Crl.A.38/2017 Page 7 of 17 Appellant, when the incriminating evidence was put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, he denied them.He claimed that PW-22 had obtained his signatures on blank papers.My uncle Zahiruddin and my younger brother Nadeem want to grab the property i.e. H.No. A-47, First Floor, Kot Wali Masjid, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin and therefore, with their ulterior motive, they have falsely implicated me in the present case."She was the younger sister of the Appellant.She pointed out that on 24th July 2012, she along with their mother Maimo and the Appellant had gone to a jeweller shop at Jama Masjid where she had purchased ear rings.She tendered the bill of the said purchase as Ex.DW-1/A. This was around 12 noon.According to her, the Appellant left them at the jewellers shop and departed.She and her mother returned home at Nizamuddin Basti at around 4 pm.On opening the door, DW-1 noticed her father lying on the floor having his face down on the floor.There was no light in the room and blood was on the floor.DW-1 called Maimo upstairs, who raised an alarm upon arriving.DW-1 became unconscious.When she regained consciousness about 10 -15 minutes later, she found several persons gathered in the house, including PW-5 and her brother Nadeem (PW-2).According to DW-1, PW- 5 asked PW-2 to go out.According to her, the police took one sua which was lying near the body.Consequently, this Court is not able to reject, as the trial Court has done, the evidence of DW-1 only because the jeweller from whose shop she is stated to have purchased jewellery had not Crl.Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th February 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.74 of 2012 arising out of FIR No.241 of 2012 registered at Police Station (PS) Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 25th February 2016 whereby for the said offence, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months.A.38/2017 Page 1 of 17It must be mentioned at the outset that the Appellant was sent up for trial along with his mother Maimo, who was convicted by the trial Court by the same impugned judgment for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment to undergo SI for three months.A.38/2017 Page 3 of 17Statement of PW-5According to PW-22, on the next day he called PW-5, the brother of the deceased, to the PS after serving a notice upon him.PW-5 was interrogated and his statement was recorded.Injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were to the neck region; injury Nos. 6 and 11 to the lungs and injury No.15 to the heart were opined to be able to cause death collectively and also individually in the ordinary course of nature.It was opined that injury Nos.1 to 5 were caused by a sharp weapon; injury nos. 6 to 13 by a sharp-edged and pointed weapon, injury Nos. 14 and 15 by a long pointed tip cylindrical weapon; injury no.16 was said to have been caused by blunt force impact by surface or object.21. 22 witnesses were examined for the prosecution.According to him, on 25th July 2012, he had gone to the PS to enquire about his mother and instead was arrested.When asked whether he had anything else to say, he stated as under:A.38/2017 Page 7 of 17"I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.The police also searched the room where she and Crl.A.38/2017 Page 8 of 17 her mother were present.Nothing was picked up from that room.According to DW-1, a washing machine was lying in the room.A.38/2017 Page 8 of 1723. DW-1 disclosed that Maimo was taken to the PS; and on being questioned by DW-1 and her bua as to why this was being done, the police informed them that they would release Maimo after some time.No enquiry was made from PW-2 at this stage.The Appellant was also not at home.According to DW-1, Maimo returned home at around 6 am in the morning.There were 2/3 police officials present with her, but they undertook no search of rooms nor picked up any articles.She also stated that the Appellant had returned to the house and then gone to the police station.(ii) The dagger i.e. weapon of offence (Ex.P1) (used in committing the murder) was recovered at the instance of the Appellant.Given the circumstances, except the Appellant and his mother Maimo, no one else could have told who committed the murder of the deceased.A.38/2017 Page 9 of 17(iii) The trial Court also relied upon the previous statement of the Appellant (Ex.PW-9/A) as a confession of his guilt, whereas pursuant to the statement given by him, the Appellant led the police party on 25th July 2012 to his house at Hazarat Nizamuddin and then brought out one dagger from behind an iron box kept in the room.(iv) The post-mortem report confirmed that the death was homicidal.(v) The bloodstained clothes worn by the Appellant and the deceased at the time of commission of the offence were sent to the FSL for examination.The FSL result (Ex.PW-22/A) shows that as per the report of forensic expert, the DNA profiles generated from the source of exhibits 2 (blood stained cotton) 6 (shirt), 8 (kurta), 9 (knife), 11a (pyjama) and 11b (baniyan) is consistent with each other and consistent with the DNA profile of deceased Sadruddin (source of exhibit 12 : blood stained gauze).Thus, the blood found on the clothes of accused Danish has matched with the blood found on the clothes of deceased Sadruddin.The blood found on knife (dagger) i.e. the weapon of offence Ex.P-1, which was recovered at the instance of accused Danish also matched with the blood of deceased Sadruddin.On the above basis, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had conclusively proved that it was the Danish who had murdered the deceased.According to the trial Court, the conduct of the Appellant after the murder also raised doubts about his involvement in the case.DW-1 was held to be a non reliable witness.There was no proof of purchase of jewellery from a Crl.A.38/2017 Page 10 of 17 shop, as claimed by her.Also, the delay in deposing in the trial made her unreliable.A.38/2017 Page 10 of 17The trial Court further examined the submission on behalf of the Appellant that PW-5 and PW-2 (Nadeem, the other son of Maimo) wanted to grab the property where they were staying and, therefore, with an ulterior motive, the Appellant and Maimo had been falsely implicated in the case.There was an assertion made by the IO that during his investigation, he learned that the deceased used to suspect Maimo of infidelity and used to say that the Appellant was not his son.It was, however, concluded that there was no evidence to show that any dispute existed between PW-5 and the deceased over the property in question and thus the plea raised by the accused persons as regards their false implication was without any basis.The trial Court concluded that since the case had been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the Appellant was guilty of the offence with which he was charged.He was also sentenced in the manner indicated hereinbefore.Discussion and reasonsThis Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Parmod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for the State.The question really was whether it is the Appellant who killed his father (the deceased)?A.38/2017 Page 11 of 17The criminal law process was put in motion by the call made to the PCR room.From the evidence of PW-5, it appears that it was he who called the PCR; whereas the name given in the PCR form is one Mittal, who has not been examined.Secondly, PW-5 does not state that he left the spot after calling the police.According to him "police arrived at the spot.Police took me to the house of the accused again." This is quite contrary to the evidence of PWs 21 and 22 as neither of them stated that they found PW-5 at the spot when they reached there.On the contrary, PW-22 states that he had called PW-5 on the following date i.e. 25th July 2005 to PS for questioning.It is a mystery why the statement of PW-5 was not recorded then and there if he was indeed already present at the spot when the police arrived there.Further, if indeed he had seen the Appellant come down the stairs with an injured right index finger and the limp on the left leg; and if indeed he had a doubt that it was the Appellant who was the murderer, he would have stated so to the police whilst informing them but the information given to the PCR was ek admi ka gala kat rakha hai or sua ghoos rakha hai, without mentioning that the deceased had been murdered.Even when the police reached there, what they were told was that the deceased had killed himself with a sua.What makes PW-5 even more unreliable is his stating in his examination-in-chief that when he went upstairs, Maimo told him "aap ke bhai ne kya kar diya" whereas in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, PW-5 had stated that Maimo asked him "nanhe ye kya ho gaya hai".When he was confronted during his deposition with his previous statement made to Crl.A.38/2017 Page 12 of 17 the police to the above effect by the APP, he denied having made any such statement.This further made PW-5 an unreliable witness.His statement in the examination-in-chief that Maimo told him "aap ke bhai ne kya kar diya" is in fact consistent with the initial information given to the police namely that the deceased had killed himself.A.38/2017 Page 12 of 17According to him, he noticed the Appellant walk down the stairs from the first floor house with a bleeding right index finger and a limp and it was only 15 - 20 minutes later that he had heard a cry from the floor premises which then led to him going up there.This gap of 15 - 20 minutes is crucial, as the only person present during these 15 - 20 minutes with the deceased was Maimo and not the Appellant.If she did not make any noise when the Appellant left the house, but gave out an alarm only after 15 - 20 minutes thereafter, then it cannot be said that at the time of the deceased suffering the injuries, the Appellant was present there.In other words, PW-5 totally weakens the case of the prosecution that the deceased was last seen in the company of the Appellant.Importantly, in his examination-in-chief, PW-5 states that after the police arrived at the spot, they found "one knife lying behind a box (sandook).This meant that the knife was already there in the very first instance and, therefore, the attempt by the prosecution to show the same knife recovered subsequently pursuant to the disclosure of the Appellant is unbelievable.A.38/2017 Page 13 of 17 convincingly proved by the prosecution.The railway station is obviously a busy area.However, there was not a single public witness to the arrest memo (Ex.PW-17/F); indeed both the witnesses are police officers.No attempt appears to have been made by PW-22 to even associate any member of the public to the arrest of the Appellant.In his cross-examination, he does say that he requested some public persons to join but none agreed.A.38/2017 Page 13 of 17The Appellant is stated to have taken the police to a big dustbin near the Alvi Chowk from where he recovered the kurta of the deceased, but the memo of the pointing out and recovery of kurta (Ex.PW-12/B) again is not witnessed by any member of a public.This recovery is, therefore, also not convincing.As regards recovery of the knife, its seizure memo (Ex.PW-9/C), attested only by policemen, states that the Appellant offered to get it recovered from behind the sandook and this took place on 25th July 2012, whereas according to PW-5, the knife was already there on 24th July 2012, when he went to the spot.In fact, it will be recalled that according to PW-5, "police found one knife lying behind the box (sandook)." Therefore, the circumstance concerning the disclosure made by the Appellant leading to the recovery of the knife is unbelievable and deserves to be rejected.One of the incriminating circumstances put forth by the prosecution to link the Appellant to the crime is the bloodstained shirt supposedly worn by Crl.A.38/2017 Page 14 of 17 him.It will be recalled that the bloodstains on his shirt, when sent to the FSL, were found to have matched the blood group of the deceased.However, what is important to note is that the Appellant did not make any disclosure offering to get this shirt recovered.It is possible that when the deceased was lying in a pool of blood, Maimo used the said shirt to wipe the blood from the floor.In other words, the mere recovery of the bloodstained shirt of the Appellant cannot be said to be a clinching circumstance that points to the unmistakable guilt of the Appellant alone.Considering that the Appellant was not the one who got the shirt recovered, the said link in the chain of circumstances to connect him to the crime cannot be said to have been proved.A.38/2017 Page 14 of 17Even the motive for commission of crime has not been proved.In a case where the other circumstances have not been convincingly proved, it becomes imperative for the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime, as explained by the Supreme Court in Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 in the following words:"...mere absence of proof of motive for commission of a crime cannot be a ground to presume the innocence of an accused if the involvement of the accused is otherwise established.But it has to be remembered that in incidents in which the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence then in that event the motive does assume importance if it is established from the evidence on record that the accused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime and the established circumstances along with the explanation of the accused, if any, exclude the reasonable possibility of anybody else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence may be considered to show that within all human probability the crime Crl.A.38/2017 Page 15 of 17The case of the prosecution is that there was a fight over the property with Maimo and the Appellant conniving to get rid of the deceased.The other brother of the deceased was Nadeem (PW-2), but he did not speak of any such dispute inter se the family members concerning the property.He was called only to identify dead body and nothing else.In his cross- examination, he admitted "it is true that my father was addicted to smack."The evidence of DW-1 has been rejected by the trial Court as being unbelievable.However, the Court finds that she being the daughter of the deceased and the sister of the Appellant, stated how the deceased was not doing any work and "was in the habit of taking and drinking drugs." She mentioned how PW-2 and PW-5 were working in the meat shop under the house.She also mentioned how Maimo had also "also lodged complaint regarding bad behaviour of my brother Nadeem and uncle Zahiruddin for giving her house to tenants." She also brought a copy of the petition (suit) filed by PW-5 against Maimo and the deceased regarding the house and how "my uncle always wanted to possess her house and throw us from our house." Apparently that case was dismissed.The cross-examination of DW-1 could not shake her testimony.She denied the suggestion that there was no such dispute between PW-5 on the one hand and her parents on the other.A.38/2017 Page 16 of 17 been examined.A.38/2017 Page 16 of 17The offshoot of the above discussion is that each of the links in the circumstances, as depicted by the prosecution, have not been convincingly proved by it and the circumstances taken collectively do not point unmistakably to the guilt of the Appellant to the exclusion of everybody else.Consequently, the Appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt.As a result, the impugned judgment and consequent order on sentence qua the Appellant, convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 302 IPC are hereby set aside.The Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case. | ['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. |
110,547,916 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this Second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 19.06.2016 by Police Station Jamner, District Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.154/2016 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss 323, 294, 323, 325, 506/34 of I.P.C. & added sections 307 and 302 of IPC.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.This is repeat bail application after rejection of the earlier one which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.09.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9818/2016 with liberty to come again after principal prosecution witnesses are examined or if trial gets further delayed.The new ground raised by bringing charge sheet on record is that finding recorded in the earlier rejection order dated 09.09.2016 that there were three head injuries sustained by the deceased is incorrect in view of the content of the postmortem report and also that the statements of Lakhan and injured witness Komal do not indicate that applicant had assaulted the deceased on the vital part of the body i.e. head.Perusal of the postmortem report indicates that there are three injuries shown on the head i.e. one on the forehead near left eyebrow while the second one again over the lateral angle of left eyebrow and the third one is abrasion over the lateral angle of left eyebrow.Thus, there are apparently three injuries on the head therefore, the contention of the applicant that there is only one injury is incorrect.The statements of deceased and Komal recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C disclosed that entire episode can be categorized into two different episodes closely following each other.The first episode is one in which co-accused had inflicted head injury to the deceased Lakhan and applicant had inflicted Lathi blow on the non-vital part of the deceased while in the second episode it is alleged that when relative of the deceased 2 M.Cr.C. No. 12446/2016 came to his rescue, all the four accused including the applicant have given lathi blows to the injured as well as the deceased. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,549,340 | Since both the petitions arose out of the same charge-sheet, therefore both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.The facts emerging from the charge-sheet which are necessary for disposal of these petitions are as under:-(a) Pursuant to complaint dated 15.12.2007, instituted by Alok Ranjan (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No.456/12), the then Managing Director of NAFED, on 19.12.2007, CBI registered a formal RCEOU-1/2007-E0002, under sections 120-B read with sections 405, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the First Information Report, on the strength of the aforesaid agreement and addendum, 15 Letters of Credit (LCs) were opened by NAFED on behalf of EEL for import of HMS.Out of the 15 LCs import was made against 6 LCs only for 85000/- MTs of HMS.As against these 6 transactions, M/s. EEL had made payments against the first CRL.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 2 of 38 4 LCs whereas payment in respect of remaining 2 LCs was not made by M/s. EEL to NAFED resulting in a loss of Rs. 80 Crores to NAFED.In the FIR the petitioner is also accused of antedated High Sea sale agreements to favour M/s. EEL.With regard to remaining 9 Lcs opened by NAFED on behalf of M/s. EEL, no supplies were effected which resulted in additional loss of Rs. 2,19,87403/- to NAFED towards LCs opening as well as service charges against the said 9 LCs.In the said Complaint, Alok Ranjan has taken specific plea of ignorance about the transactions pursuant whereto disbursements were made to the tie-up associate M/s. EEL.It is worthy to take note of that in the chargesheet, no mala-fide with respect to these has been attributed to the petitioner Homi Rajvansh.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 2 of 38As per the chargesheet, investigation agency has imputed Homi Rajvansh (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No. 3325/12) on following counts:-(i) Even prior to joining NAFED, petitioner entered into a conspiracy with one O.P. Agarwal, the self styled Chairman of M/s. Eeathtech Enterprises Ltd. (EEL) CRL.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 3 of 38 alongwith one Mr. Ajit Singh, Chairman NAFED, and in furtherance of said conspiracy, the primary business of NAFED got diversify in defiance of bye laws of NAFED.It is further the case of the investigating agency that pursuant to the conspiracy one trial run of import of approximately 5000 MTs of SKO was carried out.Further on 01.10.2003, Alok Ranjan, Managing Director of NAFED joined the conspiracy and subsequently on 13.10.2003 approved the terms of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in respect of diversified business entered into between NAFED & M/s. EEL on tie-up basis.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 3 of 38(ii) After approval of the Managing Director, on 16.10.2003, a formal MOU was entered into between NAFED & M/s. EEL.As per the chargesheet submitted by the CBI, the petitioner permitted release of funds to M/s. EEL in defiance of the Office Order HQ/AD/8/276/2003-2004 dated 15.10.2003 whereby the Managing Director had delegated powers to the petitioner to remit upto Rs. 20 Crores at a time to the branches.(iii) In furtherance of conspiracy, petitioner made recommendations in defiance of Business Circular No. 93 of 2003, which was approved by the Alok Ranjan, the then Managing Director NAFED as well as Ajit Kumar Singh, Chairman NAFED.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 4 of 38(iv) In furtherance of the conspiracy, petitioner executed antedated high sea sale agreement without obtaining 100% payment for the value of the material alongwith cost and expenses, bank charges, and NAFEDs service charges.(v) Interests of NAFED were not preserved as the petitioner did not execute Tripartite agreement.(c) Whereas the role assigned to the petitioner Alok Ranjan (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No. 456/12) in the chargesheet may be segregated as under: -(ii) The approval accorded by Alok Ranjan in furtherance of conspiracy was in fact, in defiance of the Bye-laws of NAFED resulting in utilization of borrowing of NAFED for Agricultural products in unapproved diversified business of non-agricultural commodity business.(iii) In capacity of Managing Director, petitioner Alok Ranjan was Chief Executive officer, responsible for day to CRL.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 5 of 38 day business of NAFED and was responsible for safe custody of all money received by NAFED.In furtherance of the conspiracy, Alok Ranjan, did not take adequate steps to protect interest of NAFED.As per MOU, on request of business associate M/s. EEL, NAFED was to open LCs for import of CRL.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 21 of 38 various commodities, sell them on High Seas to the business associate or his nominee on 100% payment either on high seas or goods sold on high seas were to be stored thereafter in bonded warehouses.On payment in full or parts, goods were to be released on receipt of full payment from the associate.Instructions to this effect were issued from Head Office to the concerned branches for strict compliance.Relevant extracts of this communication are as under:-"We have also observed that not a single tripartite agreement has been made by NAFED with the business associate and the Port Authority/ bonded ware house authority before off loading of the vessels/import materials or even thereafter.................The above matter had also come up for discussion in HO on 10.07.2005 in which in addition to Shri.B.P.Singh, Shri B.S.PRemi and Shri Homi Rajvansh and other officers were also present when it was felt to execute the Tripartite Agreement immediately.Before that, business associates may be requested to issue directions to the Port Terminals in charge for delivery of stocks kept with them against NAFED D.O. only.It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that branches were to execute Tripartite Agreement and when the fact about non-execution of CRL.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 22 of 38 Tripartite Agreement surfaced steps were initiated and Managing Director directed the consultant R. P Kesari to get the needful done.Relevant extracts of the minutes of Tie up meetings dated 02.08.2005 & 18.08.2005, are reproduced herein below: -M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 22 of 38Extracts from meeting dated 02.08.2005: -"Sh.S.K. Maggu, Dy. M. (FA & TU) was asked to transfer the vouchers to the immediately and further it was decided that all the relevant case in respect of this party should be handled at HO level and account may also be settled here in consultation with Sh.R.P. Kesari, Consultant(TU).These two petitions have been filed by petitioner, Mr. Alok Ranjan (Crl.M.C. No.456/2012) and petitioner, Homi Rajvansh (Crl. M.C.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 1 of 38No.3325/2015) seeking quashing of the charge-sheet in case FIR No.(b) After concluding investigation in the aforesaid FIR, CBI filed charge sheet under sections 120-B read with sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code eventually arraying Homi Rajvansh (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No. 3325/12) as one of the accused alongwith Alok Ranjan (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No. 456/12) i.e informant himself alongwith beneficiaries of the transactions i.e. M/s. EEL and its self- styled Chairman of M/s. EEL O. P. Aggarwal.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 5 of 38(v) In furtherance of the conspiracy, petitioner Alok Ranjan vide his letter dated 20.06.2005, forwarded misleading and factual incorrect report to the Ministry of Agriculture.Further, despite knowing that the exposure of NAFED with M/s. EEL had exceeded Rs. 1300 crores, he on 14.07.2005, approved opening of fresh L.Cs.worth U.S. $ 20 million for Third Country Export for M/s. EEL.(vii) Petitioner Alok Ranjan has falsely claimed in his complaint dated 15.10.2007 (which culminated in registration of the Impugned FIR), that terms and conditions of MOU dated 16.10.2003 were kept secret from the Managing Director and other key officials.On an application bearing Crl.M.A. No.12730/2014 filed by Mr. Homi Rajvansh, he was impleaded as respondent No.2 in Crl.This issue has been put at rest by the Honble Supreme CRL.In view thereof, petitioners are not entitled to benefit of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such, the plea in this regard is rejected.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 21 of 38Party may be asked to submit their Balance sheet for the past 3 years."Extracts from meeting dated 18.08.2005: -"MD desired that accounts of M/s. Earthtech Enterprises presently being maintained by the different Branches should be consolidated at HO level.This would enable to persuade the party from one place for repayment.Following actions are required to be taken on war footing basis:a) Letter to be issued to party for submission of PDCs/ payment Schedule/B.G./ tripartite agreement/collateral etc. within 3 days by the Consultant (RPR)...."I find force in submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that had there been any negligence on the part of the petitioner, the official noting would have borne some adverse remarks against the petitioner.It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the objective of executing Tripartite Agreement was to protect interest of NAFED by preventing M/s. EEL from selling the commodities without making due payment to the NAFED, which was even otherwise ensured by deputing one person at the warehouse, who used to issue delivery order only once 100% payment was received by NAFED.I find force in this argument of the CRL.M.C. Nos.456/2012 & 3325/2012 Page 23 of 38 petitioner as the same is borne out from the communication of the Branch Manager, dated 13.10.2005, addressed to the then Managing Director.In absence of any specific information from HO/ Instructions to issue delivery order, we are not issuing any delivery order to the party for the past 3-4 months......"I find force in the contentions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that prior to appointment of R.P. Kesari and handing over charge to him by the management, there was no loss either in terms of stocks imported or in terms of receipt of payment by NAFED.Despite specific query, counsel for CBI could not show any irregularity in this regard.In fact, from a perusal of the Stock Valuation, which was carried out pursuant to the directions of the petitioner, till September, 2005, there was no difference between the payment received by NAFED and the goods sold by M/s. EEL.It is apparent that the situation changed after August, 2005, when management of NAFED deputed consultant R.P. Kesari assisted by one S. K. Maggu, for the purposes of recoveries of NAFEDS dues, when M/s. EEL started misappropriating import material.Apparently, if the act has been done in the interest of NAFED to avoid the Federation from additional charges / implications, it cant be used for holding the petitioner criminally liable.It has been argued that between 2003 to 2005, NAFED has entered into 62 Tie Up Agreements and various LCs were opened in all the agreement with same modus.Both the CRL.M.C. No.3325/2012 The applications are dismissed as infructuous. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,551,708 | 19.08.13 Item No. 93 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 93And In the matter of: Arindam Sarkar Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Subhasish Pachhal Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee For the Petitioner Mrs. Pushpita Saha For the State Mr. Rejaul Alam For the complainant The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Shibpur Police Station Case No. 551 of 2010 dated 13.08.2010 under sections 420/468/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties.We have considered the case diary and other materials on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,559,148 | State of M.P.) treatment as per medical norms.If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would send him to the same jail from where he was released.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-Matter is heard through video conferencing.I.A. No.4532/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Consequently, I.A. No.4532/2020 stands disposed of.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 13/05/2020 by Police Station Ambah, Distt.Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.239/2020 registered for offence under Sections 354, 456 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated in this case.It is further submitted that there is previous enmity between the applicant and the complainant.Hence, prays for grant of bail.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16704/2020 (Pradeep Kushwah Vs.Hence, prayed to reject the bail application of the applicant.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16704/2020 (Pradeep Kushwah Vs.State of M.P.) State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."In view of the aforesaid and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for his regular appearance before the Court concerned.In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if it is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if his test is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for his 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16704/2020 (Pradeep Kushwah Vs.1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit any offence punishable under Sections of IPC;THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,561,143 | 13.9.2017 (CL 426) KC C.R.M. 8331 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Srimanta Pal @ Sri Manto Pal.Apprehending arrest in connection with Indus P.S. F.I.R. No. 220 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016 under Sections 341, 498A, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the I.P.C.), the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary.It appears that on completion of investigation police report (charge-sheet) under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been submitted against the petitioners, inter alia, under Sections 341, 176, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C., before the relevant magistrate. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,885,355 | ORDER Dipak Misra, J.In these three appeals from jail, the accused-appellants have called the question the defensibility of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 231/96 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.The accused-Miyanlal and Faggu have been found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C.; for five years under Section 366, IPC; and for a period often years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC and to a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.There is a direction for concurrent running of sentences.The accused-appellant Pyarelal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 363, IPC and five years for the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC with a stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26-6-1996 the accused persons caught hold of the prosecutrix and took her to a 'Nala.' On the way Pyarelal left the other accused persons near a well and his participation in the crime ended there.Thereafter the other two accused persons committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.It is alleged that the act was repeated by each of them.After the matter was reported at the Police Station, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366, IPC against the accused-Pyarelal and under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g), IPC against the other two accused.After completing all other formalities, charge-sheet was placed before the competent Court which, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session.The accused persons abjured their guilt and took the positive plea that they had been falsely implicated.It was further plea of the accused-Faggu that the prosecutrix wanted to marry him and he has showed disinclination, he had been falsely implicated.The plea of alibi was also canvassed.In furtherance of its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in toto.P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix, P.W. 2 is Mendhakobai who had accompanied the prosecutrix; P.W. 3 is Laxman Sahu; P.W. 4 is Allobai; P.W. 5 is Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Shrivastava who had examined the prosecutrix; P.W. 6 is Anakhlal, P.W, 7 is Sewak; P.Ws.8,9,10,11,12,13,17 and 18 are the formal witnesses; P.W. 14 is Y. K. Naik who was the Station House Officer of P. S. Umreth on the date of incident; P.W. 15 is Inderwati, the mother of the prosecutrix; P.W. 16 is Khaddi, the father of the prosecutrix; P.W. 17 is Faggulal and P.W. 18 is R. C. Shabir.Apart from examining these witnesses the prosecution also brought number of documents on record.The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.On consideration of the oral, documentary and medical evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused persons guilty of the offences and sentenced them as has been indicated above.It is canvassed by him that a conjoint appreciation of the oral evidence and the medical testimony would go a long way to show that the allegations of sexual intercourse are adroitly contrived and do not deserve acceptance.It is also submitted that the version of the prosecutrix has not received any corroboration from the medical evidence, and hence her testimony should not have been relied upon.The learned counsel has also contended that the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the F.S.L. report though the same has not been brought on record in accordance with the procedure established in law.Resisting the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. P. D. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate has contended that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge are impregnable inasmuch as he has done a threadbare analysis of the material on record and his scrutiny cannot be found fault with.The learned counsel for the State has proposed that the version of the prosecutrix alone is enough to sustain the order of conviction, and as in the case at hand, she has stood embedded in her version, the impeachability of the same cannot be assailed by the defence to get the benefit of an order of acquittal.9. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the judgment of the learned trial Judge and gone through the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix herself.She has deposed that while she was returning from the market to her house along with Medhkobai at about 6 p.m. the accused persons caught hold of her, dragged her and after reaching near the well Pyarelal left the place and the other two took her to the nearby 'Nala'.She has clearly stated that Miyanlal and Faggu made her to lie down on the sand, threw sand on her face and gagged her mouth with a towel.Her efforts to protest with her hands became futile as Faggu caught hold of her hands.She has further stated that the accused Faggu took off her clothes and ravished her.Thereafter, Miyanlal had sexual intercourse with her.In her examination in chief she has stated that after she came to her village she informed the Sarpanch, Anakhlaj about the incident.She has also stated during investigation her 'sari' and 'petticoat' were seized.She has totally denied any kind of consent on her part.In her cross-examination she has stated that she had shouted when the accused persons caught hold of her and some people came running but as they could not see her or the accused persons, they went back.She has further deposed that she was ravished twice by each of the accused persons.She has stated that she had sustained external injuries.She has also deposed that after the act the two accused persons slept on the sand and she also lay down and after the accused persons slept, she ran to her village and informed Medhkobai.She has admitted that in the night she could not find her way and, therefore, she could not reach the village before the morning.She has disputed any kind of relationship or acquaintance with the accused persons.She has stated that the accused-Faggu had assaulted her with shoes and she being scared had to come back to the village.She has stated that she informed the matter to one Allobai, P.W. 4, and they went in search of Faggu but he was not available at home.She has further deposed that the prosecutrix met her in the morning and narrated the whole incident.She has also stated that the prosecutrix had no acquaintance with any of the accused persons.Allobai has been examined as P. W. 4, who has supported the prosecution version.P.W. 5 is Dr. (Smt.) Pratibha Shrivastava, who had examined the prosecutrix.As per her report, Ex. P/3 there were bloodstains on her leg and around her private part and the hymen was absent.She has also noted that the prosecutrix was in her periods and it was the second day at the time of her examination.She has stated that no final verdict could be given about the fact that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse.It appears from her evidence that on the 'petticoat' and 'sari' of the prosecutrix she had noticed some semen like stains.She has deposed that she had sent the seized articles and the slides for F.S.L. report.In her cross-examination she has stated that without the F.S.L. report she could not opine with certainty that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse P.W. 6, Anakhlal has proved the seizure report.P. W. 7 is the Sarpanch who has deposed that the prosecutrix had intimated her immediately about the incident.He has also stated that in his presence the police seized the 'sari', blouse and 'petticoat' of the victim.He has also stated that the broken bangles were seized from the spot.The learned trial judge on scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence has believed the prosecution version. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,537,125 | (Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,549,797 | Sarika was posted as contractual Assistant Teacher Grade III in a School at Village Dungariya.The deceased Praveen was visiting Dungariya as and when it was required.On 9.7.2006 Sarika had to appear in D.Ed.Examination at School of Excellence, Kevlari and therefore, the deceased Praveen went on his motorcycle to Village 3 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 Dungariya and took his wife Sarika to Village Kevlari on motorcycle.At about 9.00 a.m in the morning Sarika went inside the school for her examination and the deceased Praveen along with his motorcycle remained outside the school.On completion of first paper when Sarika came out of the school, she found that motorcycle of deceased Praveen was lying in front of the school but Praveen was not present.At about 2.00 p.m again Sarika went inside the school for her second examination paper and at about 5.00 p.m she came back, but she found that motorcycle of the deceased Praveen was lying in front of the School, but Praveen was not present.Sarika stayed there up to 6.00 p.m. Thereafter, she informed her father Nathuram Patel (DW1).Nathuram Patel informed Ramaiyalal Patel (PW3), father of the deceased Praveen.On 10.7.2006 Sarika submitted a written missing report Ex.P/1 at Police Station Kevlari (District Seoni).Again on 11.7.2006 Ramaiyalal Patel (PW3) had lodged a complaint Ex.P/7 about his missing son Praveen.On 12.7.2006 the Inspector S. K. Maravi interrogated the appellants Satendra alias Pappu and Deenu alias Dinesh and recorded memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/13 respectively.The appellants Satendra and Dinesh had confessed about the crime and they intimated about their clothes, weapons of offence etc. Such confession was done by the appellants 4 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 before Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7), Shiv Bharti (PW9) and Rajendra alias Raju (PW18).Thereafter, Inspector S. K. Maravi went to the place where the dead body of the deceased Praveen was lying.A memo Ex.P/16 of recovery of the dead body was prepared and the dead body was identified by Ramaiyalal (PW3) and one Kuber Singh on the basis of clothes and other articles found with the dead body.Dr. R. K. Rawat (PW21) who was posted at Community Health Centre, Kevlari was called to the spot to perform the post mortem.Dr. Rawat with the help of sweeper Guddu alias Santlal (PW16) performed post mortem on the body of deceased Praveen and gave his report Ex.The body was highly decomposed and therefore, various injuries could not be ascertained.According to Dr. Rawat the time of death could be anytime within 2-7 days.It is also admitted that body was putrefied and it could not be identified by the face but with articles like clothes of the deceased, a watch, driving license, three passport size photographs, key of the motorcycle and sandal found with the dead body, the deceased Praveen could be identified.None of the party has challenged the identification of the dead body and therefore, it was established that the dead body recovered by Inspector S. K. Maravi was of the deceased Praveen.Dr. R. K. Rawat (PW21) after performing the post mortem on the body gave a report Ex.According to him the deceased would have died due to various injuries caused to him.He found an incised wound on the left neck of the deceased Praveen.Various major blood vessel of that place were found cut.The basis of assumptions by the Police regarding motive are contradictory.On one hand it is alleged that the appellant Satendra was in love with the accused Sarika and on other hand it was alleged that the appellant Satendra took a sum of Rs.5000/- to kill the deceased Praveen.If the appellant Satendra was in a love affair with the deceased Sarika then he could kill the deceased Praveen on his own to marry the accused Sarika thereafter and in that case it was in his own interest to kill the deceased Praveen and there was no need for 12 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 him to take a sum of Rs.5000/- from the accused Sarika and if he was not in a love affair with the accused Sarika then no reason has been shown by the prosecution as to why the accused Sarika selected the appellant Satendra for murder of her own husband Praveen.Ramaiyalal (PW3), father-in-law of the accused, Sarika has accepted that Sarika was already employed in the School of Dungariya prior to her marriage.The appellants Satendra @ Pappu and Dinesh @ Deenu are in custody.They be released without any delay.The Registry is directed to arrange for issuance of their release warrants.(Delivered on the 5th day of October, 2015) Per : N.K. Gupta, J.These three appeals are related to the judgment dated 22.8.2007 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 Seoni in S.T. No.125 of 2006 therefore, they are being decided by the present judgment.Pappu alias Satendra the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 and Deenu alias Dinesh appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 have preferred the present appeals being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment whereby, each of them has been convicted of offence under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of I.P.C and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively and default sentence has also been prescribed in case of non-payment of fine.In Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 the State has preferred the present appeal against the appellants Pappu alias Satendra, Deenu alias Dinesh and the respondent no.3 Sarika Patel against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court relating to offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C.However, one incised wound was found on the left side of the neck and all major blood vessels were found cut.There was a fracture on the right mandible bone.According to Dr. Rawat the deceased died due to injuries caused to him especially due to cut of major blood vessels on the neck and death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.Inspector S.K Maravi thereafter, registered a case and seized various articles from the appellants Satendra and Dinesh including their clothes, weapon of offence etc. and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/15 and P/14 respectively.He recorded evidence of various 5 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 witnesses and sent the seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for their forensic analysis.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Seoni who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to Third Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni.Appellants Satendra , Dinesh and respondent no.3 Sarika Patel have abjured their guilt.Appellants Satyenda and Dinesh did not take any specific plea in the case.However, they have stated that they were falsely implicated.On the other hand Sarika Patel did not take any specific plea, but she examined the witnesses Nathuram Patel (DW1) and Teksingh Rajput (DW2) to show that she had good relations with the deceased and she had no connection with the appellant Satendra .She was interested to get her transfer from Dungariya and she was not at all involved in the crime.The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted all the accused persons from the charge of section 120-B of I.P.C, but convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.Appellant Satendra of Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 has filed an SLP (Criminal) No.21571/2014 for grant of bail and suspension of sentence.Vide order dated 7.11.2014 the Apex Court rejected his application with following observations :"We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.The special leave petition 6 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 is accordingly dismissed.Since the petitioner has already undergone nearly eight years of imprisonment, we request the High Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal at an early date preferably within a period of one year from today."Hence these appeals are finally heard out of turn.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.The first circumstance in the case is that whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature? In this connection Ramaiyalal Patel (PW3) and Nathuram Patel (DW1) have stated that Sarika informed them that after leaving her at the School of Excellence the deceased Praveen disappeared.When Sarika came out after completion of her first examination paper the deceased was not present though his motorcycle was lying in front of the school.Again when she came back at about 5.00 p.m after completion of her second examination paper the deceased Praveen was missing and his motorcycle was lying in front of the school and therefore, on the next day Sarika had lodged a written missing report Ex.Again on the third day Ramaiyalal Patel (PW3), father of the deceased Praveen, had lodged a complaint Ex.P/7 7 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 about missing of Praveen.It is also clear from the evidence of the parties that dead body of the deceased was found near a forest road and it was recovered by Inspector S. K. Maravi with a recovery memo Ex.One fracture was also found on his right mandible bone.According to Dr. Rawat death of the deceased Praveen was homicidal in nature.The deceased would have died within 2-7 days.The information given by Dr. Rawat has not been challenged by any of the party in the case and therefore, it is proved that the death of the deceased Praveen was homicidal in nature.Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008The second circumstance relates to motive of the accused persons.Such motive as alleged by the prosecution falls in two different categories.It is alleged that the accused Sarika was in love with the appellant Satendra and she gave a sum of Rs.5000/- to the appellant Satendra to kill the deceased Praveen and thereafter, the appellant Satendra with the help of appellant Dinesh killed the deceased.This part of motive also relates to accused Sarika for offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C. Second part of motive, allegedly is that Sarika told the deceased Praveen to bring a pass book of some scheme from the appellant Satendra and when the deceased Praveen went to ask for the pass book Satendra denied to deliver the same and ultimately he gave the pass book to the deceased Praveen by throwing the same and therefore, there was enmity between Satendra and the deceased Praveen.So far as the first part of motive is concerned the prosecution has examined so many witnesses.Out of them one Yashwant Kumar (PW4) was examined to show that uncle of the appellant Satendra asked the witness Yashwant Kumar about the residential place of Nathuram Patel (DW1), father of Sarika so that a talk relating to proposed marriage of Sarika and Satendra could be done.However, Yashwant Kumar has accepted that such incident took place one month prior to the marriage of Sarika.According to Ramaiyalal Patel (PW3) the negotiations relating 9 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 to marriage of Praveen and Sarika were going on for last one year and thereafter the marriage was performed peacefully.It was not indicative from the behavior of Sarika that she was in love with someone else or she was not ready to marry the deceased Praveen.When the witness Yashwant Kumar was asked in detail then he could not state the name of that uncle of the appellant Satendra, who came to enquire about the address of Nathuram Patel.Yashwant Kumar is a Pan Shop Vendor and with so many customers and visitors, he could not possibly remember about a particular customer who came to his shop, that too for so many months till the date of his statement.Still if uncle of appellant Satendra went to the house of Sarika for negotiations relating to marriage of Sarika with the appellant Satendra then such a fact does not indicate that Sarika was in love with the appellant Satendra or she was an unwilling party to marry with the deceased Praveen.It was for the prosecution to prove that after her marriage with the deceased Praveen, she was interested in killing her husband because she was in a love affair with the appellant Satendra.In this context the prosecution has examined Sukchain (PW5), Smt. Indira Uikey (PW6), Principal of the School where Sarika was working at Dungariya, Manilal (PW8) and Nemi Rajput (PW14) but the witnesses did not confirm about any relation or meeting of the accused Sarika with the appellant Satendra.Sukchain (PW5) has turned 10 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 hostile whereas, Smt. Indira Uikey did not say anything about the relation of the accused Sarika with the appellant Satendra.Manilal (PW8) has turned hostile whereas, Nemi Rajput (PW14) has stated that Sarika resided in the house of one Gumrao Singh but he had no knowledge that Sarika ever met with the appellant Satendra in that house.Principal Smt. Indira Uikey has denied that the appellant Satendra was meeting with the accused Sarika in the school.It was alleged against the accused Sarika that she had given a sum of Rs.5000/- to the appellant Satendra to kill the deceased Praveen.In this connection the prosecution has proved a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex.P/11 only that part is admissible in which the appellant Satendra has stated that he kept a sum of Rs.4500/- in cash box of his shop.Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7) a witness of memo Ex.P/11 and seizure Memo Ex.P/15 has accepted that a sum of Rs.4500/- was handed over by the appellant Satendra to the Inspector S. K. Maravi from the cash box of his shop.If the evidence of Inspector S. K. Maravi and Umesh Shrivas is accepted as it is then it was proved that the appellant Satendra gave a sum of Rs.4500/- to the Police from the cash box of his shop, but it was for the prosecution to prove that such sum was given by the accused Sarika to the appellant Satendra.She was married with the deceased Praveen without any hesitation or any denial.After her marriage she was visiting Village Mand where Praveen and Ramailyalal were residing.At Dungariya, the place of posting of the accused Sarika, she kept her grand mother with her and Ramaiyalal was readily sending his wife to stay with the accused Sarika at Dungariya so that she could be helped.Ramaiyalal has also accepted that Sarika had told about her problems at Dungariya when she was scared of the place due to some antisocial elements and she was also interested to get her transfer from Village Dungariya.The most important admission was done by witness Ramaiyalal that the accused Sarika did not get her salary for 4-5 months and therefore, he gave a sum of Rs.1000/- to the accused Sarika on credit so that she could prosecute her life at Village Dungariya.In such circumstances, the prosecution could not prove that the accused Sarika was in a position to give a sum of Rs.5000/- to the appellant Satendra for killing of her husband Praveen. 13Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008On the basis of the evidence given by Ramaiyalal (PW3), Manoj Kumar (PW1) and Vishnu Prasad Tekam (PW2) relations of the accused Sarika were good with the deceased Praveen and his family members.No incident of any quarrel took place between them.Ramaiyalal Patel (PW3), father-in- law of accused Sarika, gave some money to Sarika so that she could live comfortably at Village Dungariya.No witness of Village Dungariya has stated that the accused Sarika ever met with Satendra during her posting at Dungariya.Nathuram Patel (DW1) has submitted some documents to show that the accused Sarika was interested to get her transfer away from Village Dungariya.If she was interested in the appellant Satendra then she could be interested to continue with her posting at Dungariya.Hence, neither it is proved that she was interested to get her husband Praveen to be killed nor she had any sum so that she could give a sum of Rs.5000/- to the appellant Satendra for killing of her husband Praveen.The trial Court has rightly acquitted all the accused persons from the charge of Section 120-B of I.P.C.So far as the second part of motive is concerned, it is alleged that Sarika was a Secretary of Parent & Teachers Association of that School and Sannilal was President of that Association.The payments of construction done in that scheme could be made with the joint signature of Sannilal and Sarika.It is alleged that Sarika sent the deceased Praveen to 14 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 get the pass book of the transaction from the appellant Satendra, who denied to give that pass book to the deceased Praveen and thereafter, he threw the pass book upon the deceased Praveen with a threat.However, no witness could be examined by the prosecution to prove such allegation.Ramaiyalal (PW3) has stated that Praveen told him about such facts.However, such statement of Ramaiyalal can not be admitted for proof of these facts because those are not admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Also in the complaint Ex.P/7 Ramaiyalal has narrated the story relating to quarrel between Sannilal and the deceased Praveen.It was not mentioned in the document Ex.P/7 that a quarrel relating to handing over the pass book took place between the appellant Satendra and the deceased Praveen.Sannilal was not examined by the Police to show that he gave the pass book to the appellant Satendra.Similarly, no document has been filed to show that contract of such construction was given to the appellant Satendra and he had received the pass book from Sannilal, the President of Parents Teachers Association.Smt. Indira Uikey was never asked as to whether the pass book was ever handed over to the appellant Satendra.She has accepted that the pass book was not available and when it was demanded from Sannilal he assured that it will be 15 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 given.Smt. Indira Uikey has denied that the work of construction of lavatory was given to the appellant Satendra.She has also stated that at the time of alleged quarrel, construction was not complete and therefore, there was no question of payment of any amount to the Contractor.Under these circumstances, the prosecution could not prove that any quarrel took place between the deceased Praveen and the appellant Satendra.Hence, the prosecution could not prove any motive with the appellants or the accused Sarika to kill the deceased Praveen.Sometimes no one can imagine about the motive to kill the person and therefore, if motive is proved then it can be considered as an additional ingredient in chain of circumstantial evidence, but if chain is not complete then absence of motive shall also give a negative effect while convicting the accused persons.The next circumstance alleged against the appellants Satendra and Dinesh is that the deceased was seen with the appellants soon before the incident.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the facts of last seen together should be proved so as not to leave any time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead.Such time gap should 16 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 be so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.State of Jammu & Kashmir) [(2002) 8 SCC 45] and "Sudhash Chand Vs.Hence, it is possible that the culprit would have taken the deceased Praveen on 9.7.2006 and the deceased would have been killed on the same day.Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008However, it was for the prosecution to prove the fact of last seen by believable witnesses.The prosecution has examined one Sarpanch Vishnu Prasad Tekam (PW2), Ashok (PW10) and Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) to prove the fact of last seen.He did not claim that on 9.7.2006 he was present in front of the Excellence School where the alleged talk between the deceased Praveen and the appellants took place.The case diary statement Ex.D/1 of the witness Vishnu Prasad Tekam was recorded on 9.9.2006 i.e. two months after the incident.When Vishnu Prasad Tekam did not claim that he saw the deceased Praveen and the appellants in a hotel then his hearsay evidence does not give any support to the prosecution's story.Witness Ashok (PW10) has stated that, in month of July at about 9.30 a.m the deceased Praveen went to his shop to take Gutka and a dispute took place for payment of a lesser price.Thereafter, on the second day Ashok identified the person who visited his shop by viewing his photograph shown by the Police.However, in statement of Ashok he did not mention that the deceased Praveen was accompanied by either of the appellants.Hence the evidence given by Ashok does not connect the appellants with the deceased Praveen.Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 Evidence given by Ashok cannot be considered as an evidence of last seen between the deceased Praveen and the accused persons.So far as the statement of Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) is concerned, it suffers with several drawbacks.He has claimed that when he was going to his house from the Police Station he saw the appellants Satendra and Dinesh along with the deceased Praveen.They were present in Ashok Lodhi's hotel and a talk took place between them that Satendra told the deceased Praveen that Dinesh wanted to purchase a motorcycle and if Praveen helps in such purchasing then such purchasing would be done within two hours and they could come back within two hours.Thereafter, the appellants Satendra and Dinesh took the deceased Praveen on the motorcycle driven by Satendra towards Ugli.If case diary statement Ex.D/3 of this witness is examined then he did not claim in his case diary statements that he went inside the hotel of Ashok Lodhi.On the contrary in case diary statement Ex.D/3 he has stated that two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and took one person who was standing near a motorcycle to hotel of one Jain and thereafter, they went to the Pan Shop of Ashok Lodhi and then they went on a Victor Motorcycle towards Ugli.According to the case diary statement of Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) the alleged three persons went inside the hotel of one Jain and it is not claimed 19 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 by him that he went inside the hotel and heard their talk.He has alleged that those three persons went to the Pan Shop of Ashok Lodhi and thereafter, they went on a motorcycle towards Ugli.Hence Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) did not claim in his case diary statement Ex.D/3 that he heard about the talk which took place between those three persons and therefore, his claim before the trial Court that the appellant Satendra told the deceased Praveen to visit him for the purchase of motorcycle is nothing but an after thought explanation given by Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) to establish that the appellants had taken the deceased along with them.The second draw back in the statement of Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) is that neither the deceased Praveen nor the appellants Satendra and Dinesh were known to him.In case diary statement ExD/3 he gave the version relating to one unknown person and other two unknown persons.He has accepted in para 11 of his statement that the deceased Praveen was not known to him but he has claimed in para 7 of his statement that the appellants Satendra and Dinesh were known to him prior to the incident.If the appellant Satendra and Dinesh had taken the deceased Praveen in front of Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) then he would have mentioned the name of Satendra and Dinesh in his case diary statement Ex.D/3 and therefore, according to the statement of Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) the deceased 20 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 Praveen was taken by two unknown persons and not by the appellants who were known to him.Thirdly, he has accepted that while going to his house he has to pass over bus station and school road.He has accepted that Gram Pachayat Complex would not be in his way while going to his house then he could not see the motorcycle of the deceased lying in front of Panchayat Complex.If he would have gone through the road of Panchayat Complex he could not see the culprit and the deceased Praveen who were standing on the school road.Surprisingly upon the story of witness Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) regarding deceased Praveen being taken by the appellants Satendra and Dinesh to Inspector S. K. Maravi (PW15) and Inspector S. K. Maravi did recover the motorcycle of the deceased Praveen which was lying in front of Excellence School on the same very day.Prakashchand Jhangela (PW11) has claimed that motorcycle was collected by Inspector S. K. Maravi on the same day and it was taken to the Police Station.It is accepted by the witness Prakashchand Jhangela that the deceased Praveen was not known to him.The deceased Praveen was not residing at Village Dungariya along with the accused Sarika.The accused Sarika was not resident of Village Kevlari and therefore, when Praveen visited 21 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 along with Sarika to Village Kevlari so that she could appear in the examination then the witness Prakashchand Jhangela has no opportunity to confirm that the motorcycle which was lying in front of the school was of Madam Sarika or her husband.Prakashchand Jhangela did not claim that he was present in front of the school when the deceased Praveen dropped his wife Sarika at the school and therefore, he had no reason to part with the information about motorcycle.Hence, statement given by Prakashchand Jhangela that motorcycle of the deceased Praveen and Sarika was lying in front of the school indicates that he was giving his version on the basis of the facts informed to him by Inspector Maravi.It is pertinent to note that the witness who was a Home Guard Sainik working at Police Station, Kevlari was available at Police Station on 9.7.2006 as well as after 12 th July, 2006 but his case diary statement Ex.Prakashchand Jhangela has given an explanation that he went to Seoni along with the S.D.O.P and he came back on 12.7.2006 and therefore, he was not available for his evidence to be recorded.According to him he told about the fact of last seen to the Inspector S. K. Maravi on 9.7.2006 and he has admitted in the cross examination that Inspector S. K. Maravi called the appellants for interrogation on 9.7.2006 itself.The statement given by Prakashchand Jhangela appears to be a falsehood because such a fact has not been told by him 22 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 in his case diary statement Ex.If Inspector S.K. Maravi would have received an information on 9.7.2006 that the deceased Praveen went with appellant Satendra and Dinesh and he would have called the appellants on the evening of 9.7.2006 then the crime would have been traced at the most on 10.7.2006 but if the conduct of Inspector S. K. Maravi is accepted then on 10.7.2006 he received a missing report Ex.P/1 lodged by the accused Sarika.Again on 11.7.2006 he received a missing report Ex.P/7 given by Ramaiyalal (PW3), father of the deceased.If Inspector S. K. Maravi had knowledge on 9.7.2006 that the deceased Praveen went with the appellant Satendra and Dinesh then he would have informed such a fact to the father of the deceased Ramaiyalal and Ramaiyalal would not have shown his doubt upon Sannilal, the President of Guardian and Teachers Association of the School Durgariya.Under these circumstances, the testimony of Prakashchand Jhangela appears to be false.If he saw the appellants taking the deceased Praveen with them on 9.7.2006 then he would have told about such a fact to the Inspector Maravi on the same day.If he pointed out that motorcycle of the deceased Praveen was lying in front of the school, then it would have been taken to the Police Station on the same very day however, looking to the seizure memo Ex.P/21 motorcycle was seized after filing of missing report Ex.If Inspector 23 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 S.K. Maravi was making an enquiry about missing of the deceased Praveen then statement of Prakashchand Jhangela could be recorded in that missing enquiry at least on 10.7.2006 when he was available at the Police Station.Also if the witness Prakashchand Jhangela would have given a substantial information then it would have been written in his case diary statement Ex.D/3 specifically and also Inspector S.K. Maravi would have acted upon his information on 9.7.2006 itself.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the statement given by Prakashchand Jhangela is not believable.He is a prepared witness prepared by Inspector S.K. Maravi.Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the appellants Satendra and Dinesh abducted the deceased Praveen or they were seen with the deceased Praveen soon before the incident of his murder.Next circumstance which is alleged by the prosecution is recovery of weapons and clothes of the appellants worn by them at the time of incident.In this 24 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 connection the Inspector S. K. Maravi (PW19) has recorded a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the appellants Satendra and Dinesh as Exs.P/11 and P/13 respectively.It is claimed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the basis of memo given by these two appellants.In support of Inspector S. K. Maravi three witnesses Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7), Shiv Bharti (PW9) and Press Correspondent Rajendra @ Raju (PW18) were taken as witness on aforesaid memo.Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7) has stated about the confessions done by the appellants Satendra and Dinesh.However, by bare perusal of memo Ex.P/11 and P/13, it would be apparent that the appellants Satendra and Dinesh gave the description about receiving of Rs.5000/- from the accused Sarika and giving of Rs.500/- to the accused Dinesh and they informed about the fact where they kept their clothes and weapons of the offence but, in the text of entire memo given by the appellants Satendra and Dinesh, it was not mentioned that they will show the place where they killed the deceased or dead body was lying.Hence, the dead body of the deceased cannot be said to be recovered on the information given by appellants Satendra or Dinesh.Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008If the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is examined then it is a proviso to Sections 24 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is provided in Section 27 of the Evidence Act that if in consequence of any information given by the accused in custody if any new fact is discovered then such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, is admissible and it may be proved.Hence, for application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is necessary for the accused to give an information relating to a new fact.By perusal of memo Exs.P/11 and P/13 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellants Satendra and Dinesh respectively, it would be apparent that they did not give any information about the dead body of the deceased Praveen and therefore, it cannot be said that the dead body was recovered on information given by the appellants Satendra and Dinesh.Inspector S. K. Maravi (PW19) has stated that he started his proceedings of enquiry and investigation on 12.7.2006 at about 7.20 a.m when he recorded the memo Ex.P/11 of the appellant Satendra.Inspector S. K. Maravi could not explain as to how he got the information that the deceased Praveen was killed and the appellants Satendra and Dinesh were the culprits.He started his 26 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 proceedings by recording the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellant Satendra.No explanation was given by Inspector S. K. Maravi as to why he started the interrogation of the appellants so confidently so that he had called Ramaiyalal and all his co-villagers present at Kevlari on the day when interrogation was initiated.In this context if evidence of Ramaiyalal Patel is perused then in para 13 of his statement he has stated that he went to take a dip in the river at about 6.00 a.m in the morning and one Constable came to that place with the information that his son has been killed and the Inspector was calling him immediately and thereafter, he along with other co-villagers went to the Police station.The witness Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7) who was also a witness of memo Exs.P/11 and P/13 has accepted that when he was bathing in a river along with Ramaiyalal such intimation was received and they were called to the Police Station.Memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellants were recorded after arrival of Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7).According to the prosecution a memo Ex.P/11 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given by the appellant Satendra on 12.7.2006 at about 7.20 a.m but the information which was sent by Inspector S.K. Maravi to Ramaiyalal and Umesh Kumar Shrivas prior to recording of that memo, that the dead body of the deceased Praveen was traced and those witnesses were immediately called to the 27 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 Police Station.When a missing report was lodged by Ramaiyalal and Inspector S. K. Maravi was making an enquiry in persuance of that missing report then he could know about the dead body of the deceased when an information was given by the accused persons, but, the message which was sent by Inspector S.K. Maravi to Ramaiyalal and Umesh Kumar Shrivas, clearly indicates that Inspector S.K. Maravi got a confirmed news that Praveen was killed and his body was lying at a particular place.Without getting any confirmatory news about the dead body of the deceased Praveen such message could not be sent by Inspector S.K. Maravi to the witnesses that the deceased Praveen was killed.The witness Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7) has accepted in para 19 of his statement that he was taken to the spot in a Police vehicle where the dead body was lying and the vehicle was stopped on the forest road where the dead body was lying only 2-3 ft. away.Hence, when Inspector S. K. Maravi has already received an information about the death of the deceased Praveen and the place where his dead body was lying then by the memo Exs.P/11 and P/13 it cannot be said that the dead body was recovered on information given by the appellants.The prosecution has also given stress on the evidence given by Manoj Kumar, Ramaiyalal, Umesh Kumar Shrivas etc. that the appellants Satendra and Dinesh told them at the spot that they killed the deceased Praveen and the dead body was lying at that place.However, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be considered as an extra judicial confession.The appellants Satendra and Dinesh were in the police custody and if they had told anything in presence of the Police then their statement made before the witnesses other than Police officials cannot be treated as an extra judicial confession.Other circumstances are to be considered by the Court to confirm as to how they received the information about the dead body.In the light of the aforesaid judgments the other circumstances are to be considered to convict the appellants for offence under Sections 364 or 302 of I.P.C, but in the present case, it is not established that the dead body was recovered on information given by the appellant Satendra or Dinesh.Inspector S. K. Maravi (PW15) has stated about a memo Exs.However, the witness Rajendra alias Raju (PW18) a Press Correspondent has turned hostile whereas, no question about the aforesaid documents was asked by the prosecution when the witness Shiv Bharti was examined before the trial court.The witness Umesh Kumar Shrivas (PW7) has confirmed about the documents Exs.P/11, P/13 to P/15, but when he was asked as to whether the house of Dinesh was single storied or double storied, he could not answer the question.The seizure took place in the month of July and at about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m, before sunset and he could not deny about having seen the house, its colour or single or double storey if any.Again when he was asked about the place where the dagger was recovered from Dinesh then he replied that he was standing in the courtyard and the appellant Dinesh and Satendra went inside the house and brought the dagger and clothes.Similarly, he could not give the appropriate description relating to the seizure from the appellant Satendra.He stated in an omnibus manner that Satendra gave a sum of Rs.4500/- from the cash box of his shop, but he did not state 31 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 specifically that for recovery of the clothes of Satendra he went to the house of the appellant Satendra.After considering the evidence of the witness Umesh Kumar Shrivas, who was the neighbor of the deceased Praveen at Village Mand, it appears that Inspector S. K. Maravi completed the procedure of recovery at Police Station Kevlari and therefore, Umesh Kumar Shrivas could not know about the house of the appellants Satendra and Dinesh.Hence, the witnesses Umesh Kumar Shrivas, Shiv Bharti and Rajendra alias Raju created a doubt in the statement of Inspector S. K. Maravi that clothes and weapons were seized from the appellants Satendra or Dinesh.In this context the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.No blood was found on the clothes as well as weapons recovered from the appellants Satendra and Dinesh and therefore, recovery of clothes and weapons recovered from the appellants Satendra and Dinesh loses its evidentiary value.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that prosecution could not prove its case beyond doubt.Chain of circumstantial evidence is broken.The prosecution could not prove that the accused Sarika had any reason to get her husband killed.No motive of the appellants Satendra and Dinesh could be proved to kill the deceased Praveen, fact of last seen together between the appellants Satendra, Dinesh and the deceased Praveen could not be 32 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 proved.No enmity between them is proved.The prosecution could not prove that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from information given by the appellants Satendra and Dinesh.If recovery of clothes and weapons from the appellants Satendra and Dinesh is accepted as it is then no blood stain was found either on clothes of the appellants or weapons recovered from them.Hence the appellants Satendra and Dinesh cannot be convicted of offence under Section 364 or 302 of I.P.C. In this connection the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bakshish Singh (supra) may be referred in which it is held that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence chain of evidence must be such as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.Hence, in the present case the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants Satendra and Dinesh of offence under Section 302, 364 of I.P.C. When the appellants were not connected with the crime then it cannot be said that they destroyed the evidence to save themselves or someone else.Hence, the appellants cannot be convicted of offence under Section 201 of I.P.C.In the light of aforesaid discussion the prosecution could not connect the accused persons of offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C and therefore, acquittal of the accused 33 Criminal Appeal No.1875/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1937/2007 Criminal Appeal No.1397/2008 persons recorded by the trial Court of offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C. cannot be interfered.Hence, the appeal filed by the State against all the accused persons against their acquittal of offence under section 120-B of I.P.C is hereby dismissed.When the prosecution could not connect the appellants Satendra and Dinesh with the crime, it is a case in which their appeals may be accepted.Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants Satendra @ Pappu and Dinesh alias Deenu are hereby allowed.Their conviction as well as the sentence of offence under Section 302, 364 and 201 of I.P.C are hereby set aside.They are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.The appellants Satendra and Dinesh would be entitled to get the fine amount back if they have deposited before the trial Court.The respondent Sarika was on bail. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,885,514 | The petitioner filed O.A.No.4690 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order, dated 31.5.2001, wherein and by which the first respondent Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.The Tribunal admitted the OA and by an order, dated 24.7.2001, granted an interim stay against the operation of the punishment of compulsory retirement.Subsequently, the interim stay came to be extended until further orders.Thanks to the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still continuing in service.though the respondents filed an application under M.A.No.8807 of 2001 for vacating the interim order, for the reasons best known to it, the Tribunal did not take up that MP.3.Brief facts leading to the case are as follows:While the petitioner was attached to B-3 Kattoor Law and Order Police Station on 2.8.1998, he was deputed to picket duty at K.K.Nagar picket point.The Sub Inspector of Police attached to that station went to picket point at 10.00 p.m. and found the applicant in a drunken mood.Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.770 of 1998 under Section 75(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act. The petitioner was also chargesheeted on 5.10.1998 after investigation.He was tried before the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore.4.Even during the pendency of the criminal trial, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 3.8.1998 and a charge memo, dated 5.8.1998 under Rule 3(b) was framed against the petitioner.The petitioner gave his explanation denying the charges.The petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with O.A.No.7028 of 1998 challenging the action of respondents proceeding with the departmental enquiry on the ground that since criminal action is pending, they should not proceed with the enquiry.It is during the pendency of the OA, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and was let out on probation.5.The petitioner gave his explanation, dated 3.4.2001 and brought to the notice of the respondents that since he was let out on probation, they should not impose any punishment on him.It was also stated that even if the petitioner was convicted by the trial court, it would have resulted in a penalty of imposition of fine and not imprisonment.Also he was let on probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.6.However, the first respondent by an order, dated 31.5.2001 compulsorily retired the petitioner.In that order, he had stated as follows:The Hon'ble JM II, Cbe.The appellate authority by an order dated 21.6.2001 rejected his appeal.The appellate authority in paragraph 3 held as follows:"3.I have gone through the appeal petition and the other connected records.It meets end of justice.Hence I decline to interfere.9.On orders from this court, the respondents have produced the original file relating to the enquiry proceedings.However, the respondents proceeded with the enquiry and found that the petitioner was in drunken stage on the day in question.The Enquiry Officer, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Law and Order (West) Coimbatore, found him guilty.On the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was directed to give his explanation.It is not clear as to how the respondents could have proceeded with an enquiry when he had already filed an OA before the Tribunal and got the stay of further proceedings.A copy of the treasury challan supporting that the fine paid was deposited by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the same day has also been produced.The copy of the summary register neither discloses the substance of the allegations put to the appellant, nor the words in which the plea of guilt was entered.We are rather unhappy to note that all the three courts below, even when invited to judge the matter in the said perspective, went on to hold that the act/s involved in conviction under Section 294 IPC per se established moral turpitude.They should have been sensitive to the changing perspectives and concepts of morality to appreciate the effect of Section 294 IPC on todays society and its standards, and its changing views of obscenity.The matter unfortunately was dealt with casually at all levels.Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw the attention of Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining.Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced.The petitioner was in service even after his compulsory retirement for over a decade also cannot be brushed aside.Though the learned Additional Government Pleader stated that they may be allowed to impose a fresh penalty on the basis of the departmental enquiry, this court is not inclined to permit the same.It is because the respondents did not want to conduct a departmental enquiry at the initial stage and took advantage of conviction.Hence no such permission can be granted considering the minor offence committed by the petitioner.No costs.1.Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime & Traffic, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.2.Inspector General & Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,552,833 | (NAFEES KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 16-10-2019 Miss. Shraddha Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioner.Shri M.K. Jha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Case diary is available.This is repeat (Second) bail application filed by the applicant- accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicant is in custody since 30.11.2018 in connection with Crime No.409/2018 registered at Police Station Barghat District Seoni for the offence under Sections 376, 456, 561 and 506 of IPC.First application i.e. M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case, where as he has not committed any offence.FIR of the incident was lodged after a delay of three days.Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take a long time to conclude.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court particularly para 5 of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix.On this ground, she pray to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.He further submits that first bail application was dismissed after considering the merits of the case.Mere statement of the prosecutrix is not sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail.There is no substantial change in the circumstances.Having considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record including the case diary.Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 17/10/2019 04:41:56 2 MCRC-38107-2019 I t is admitted fact that the first application was dismissed after considering the merits of the case.This repeat application was filed along with the copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during trial. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,557,334 | During investigation, various documents relating to the assets acquired by Dr. Sahoo, his wife and family members were seized.For the Applicant : Shri P.R.Bhave, Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Advocate.For the Respondent/C.B.I. : Shri Vikram Singh, Standing Counsel.Date of hearing : 02/03/2012 Date of order : 06/03/2012 (O R D E R ) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J, Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 1.4.2011 passed by Special Judge C.B.I., Bhopal in Special Case No. 1/2011, whereby the application filed by him under Section 300 (1) read with Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 14.3.2011 has been dismissed.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that applicant was posted as Chief Medical Officer in Composite Hospital, BSF Academy, Takenpur, Gwalior (M.P.).On the basis of a complaint dated 9.3.2002 submitted by Mr. Jagir Singh Shran, Commandant, BSF Academy Takenpur, Camp at New Delhi about the recovery of (2) Cr.Rev..No.771/2011 a huge cash by the Board of Officers of BSF, amounting to Rs. 49, 35, 500/- from Quarter no. 383, Sector-VII, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi, kept in two suit cases which were concealed by the applicant, a case was registered by C.B.I./A.C.B/ New Delhi.It is alleged that accused Dr. Sahoo disclosed that he had concealed the ill-gotten money in two suit cases in the residential premises of Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Assistant Commandant, BSF and on the basis of above disclosure at the instance of Dr. Sahoo, it was recovered.On opening of the suit cases by Dr. Sahoo in presence of Board Members and Officers of BSF, an amount of Rs. 49, 35, 500/- was recovered.It was seized and sealed by BSF Officials.On an enquiry by the BSF Authorities Takenpur, it was revealed that Dr. B.K.Sahoo had been taking illegal gratification from various candidates desirous of recruitment in BSF as Constables and that he had concealed the said money in the aforesaid suit cases at the residence of Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Assistant Commandant.In these circumstances, SP/CBI/ACB registered the case and arrested the applicant Dr. Sahoo.Rev..No. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,558,038 | Samnath Kundu @ Somnath Kundu(Dipankar Datta, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
153,648,227 | He submits that all these PW's are planted witnesses and their statements are not at all reliable which can be demonstrated from the records itself.It is further submitted that their statements are highly belated as statement of Smt. Lata Saini, PW-11 was recorded 48 hours after the incident on 19.05.2013, statement of Sonu, PW-17, was recorded on 05.07.2012 i.e. after 50 days of the alleged incident and statement of Karan PW-12 was recorded on 28.05.2012 i.e. 10 days after the alleged incident.It is next submitted by Ld. Counsel that it is alleged that the deceased was stabbed by Gagandeep on the torso and left arm, however, no weapon has been recovered by the police during investigation.Moreover, there is no public witness though the alleged incident of stabbing has taken place during evening hours on 17.05.12 at a thickly populated area of Karawal Nagar, East Delhi.This is a bail application moved on behalf of petitioner Kamal Kishore @ Lalaji filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 162/2012, u/s. 302/201/34 IPC PS Karawal Nagar.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that applicant/ accused is an old man aged 75 years who is in Judicial custody since 19.05.12 i.e. for a period of more than six years and is a disabled person suffering from several serious medical ailments like Asthama and 40% of his left body is paralyzed due to post burn contractions.He further submits that Trial Court failed to give due consideration to the above facts while dealing with the bail BAIL APPLN.1006/2019 Page no. 1 application.It is further submitted that all material witnesses have been examined and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in Judicial Custody.Counsel has further argued that allegations of stabbing the deceased are false and baseless as the deceased and his companions were the actual aggressors who had trespassed into the shop of the co-accused Surinder Kumar and caused severe damage to the property and had inflicted grievous injuries on the body of Surinder Kumar and Gangandeep.On the complaint of Surinder Kumar DD BAIL APPLN.1006/2019 Page no. 2 No.66-B PS: Karawal Nagar was lodged and subsequently FIR bearing no. 163/12 u/s 308/452/34 IPC, PS Karawal Nagar was also registered.He has further submitted that deceased and PW-12 Karan were already booked u/s. 323/452/34 IPC in FIR no. 23/2011 dated 23.01.11, PS Karawal Nagar for attacking the present applicant/ accused back in the year 2011 which shows the criminal conduct of the complainant party.Counsel has further submitted that the co-accused Surinder Kumar was granted bail by the Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma vide order dated 19.12.2013 on the ground of delay in recording the statements of the eye witness and the old age of the accused.However, the bail application of the applicant/ accused was rejected by the Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma vide order dated 06.03.2019 on the ground that offence is grave and serious in nature.According to the testimony of PW-17, Sonu Chaudhary, the quarrel and incident of stabbing has taken place inside the shop of co- accused Surender Kumar whereas PW-11 has stated that the quarrel has happened on the street/road.Further, it is most improbable that the wife of the deceased PW-11 would not have informed anyone or made any police complaint for 48 hours after herself witnessing the alleged stabbing of her husband.Nor did she made any attempt to know the whereabouts of her husband for 2 days after he fled away BAIL APPLN.Counsel has further submitted that after the incident, the co-accused Surender Kumar (brother of applicant/ accused) had immediately called the police to inform about the trespassing and merciless beatings.This information has been recorded in DD no. 66-B at 10.08 p.m., PS Karawal Nagar.He further submits that statements of all the accused persons were recorded immediately and a FIR bearing no. 163/12 u/s 308/452/34 IPC, PS Karawal Nagar was registered which is a cross-case to the present FIR.Counsel for the petitioner has lastly prayed that petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is old man and he be, therefore, released on bail.In support of his argument, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments; i. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, ii.He submits that there are total 29 witnesses in the case and out of these, 18 witnesses have already been examined.Now only 11 witnesses remain to be examined.He further submits that petitioner has been released on interim bail from time to time on medical grounds.He lastly submitted that the in view of the serious nature of allegations, the present bail application be dismissed.BAIL APPLN.1006/2019 Page no. 4Out of 29 witnesses 18 witnesses have already been examined and 11 witnesses remained to be examined.In my opinion no grounds for bail are made out at this stage.This court cannot scrutinize and evaluate the evidence in the present bail application.The submission of Ld. Counsel that no case is made out against the petitioner and there is inconsistency in the statement of witnesses cannot be analyzed and decided at this stage.The same will be analyzed minutely by the Ld.Trial Court at the appropriate stage.However, Ld. Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.The bail application is dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,364,851 | This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.91/2020 registered at police station Malharganj, District Indore for the offence punishable under section 392 of the IPC.As per prosecution story, the complainant who is a jeweller at Gwalior has lodged the FIR alleging that on 1.3.2020 he sent his employees viz. Hemant and Satyendra with Rs.4.00 Lakhs to Indore to purchase some gold and silver ornaments.On 2.3.2020, at 6.00 am they reached Indore and gave information to him that now they were going to the Flat and thereafter their telephones were founds switched off.He inquired from his friend Manish who intimated that Hemant has informed that in the morning near the Flat 3 unknown persons came there and snatched the bags from them.Later on, the police has arrested Hemant and Prahladsingh and recovered Rs.44.00 Lakhs.On their disclosure Rs.9,50,000/- has been recovered from co-accused Trilok; Rs.9,50,000/- has been recovered from co-accused Satyendra; and Rs.2,00,000/- has been recovered from the present applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The investigation has been completed and challan has been filed.The recovered amount is belonging to the applicant.He further submits that it is not a case of loot u/s. 392 of the IPC and at the most, it may be a case u/s. 379 of the IPC as no injury said to have been caused to anyone.He further submitted that co-accused Trilok Singh has already been granted bail by vide order dated 07.08.2020 passed in 2 MCRC-17667-2020 M.Cr.The offence would triable by Magistrate, First Class and the trial may take a long time to conclude as at present the trial is not in progress due to Corona epidemic.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.I have perused the case-diary.There is only recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- from the present applicant and the complaint was lodged about loot of Rs.4.00 Lakhs only and the police has recovered Rs.67.00 Lakhs from the accused persons.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the applicant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with two solvent sureties, out of which one shall be the local, in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.C.c as per rules.(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE jyoti | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
153,652,731 | i)Adverse case:No.1742/2013392 IPC3R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1975/2013392 IPC(ii) Ground Case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1996/2013341, 294[b], 336 and 506[ii][Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.1949/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 15.12.2013, whereby the petitioner, viz., Narayanan, who is the detenu, son of Kanniyappan, aged 51 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".As per the grounds of detention dated 15.12.2013, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1703/2013392 IPC2R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Cr.Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.7.Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz., paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:He has not filed any bail application for R-10 M.G.R.Nagar Police Station Crime No.1996/2013 so far. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,536,548 | 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are totally three accused and the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.Again on 16.11.2013, both went to U.S.A and as such, both lived in India hardly for only twenty days.Insofar as other offence under Section 498 (A) ,108(A),306 IPC and section 3,6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act. There are specifichttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 averments as against the petitioners and as such prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.5.Heard both sides.As submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor proceedings are pending with the Central Government to obtain sanction to prosecute the petitioners and also the proceedings are pending for committal in P.R.C.No.01 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.Therefore, the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage.P.C, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 against the petitioners insofar as the offence under section 498 (A) ,108(A),306 IPC and section 3,6(2) and Dowry Prohibition Act alone.Insofar as offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.01 of 2018 is here by quashed as against the petitioners alone.8.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.04.2019 Index:Yes/no Speaking/Non speaking order vsn/mpa To1.The Inspector of Police W.35 All Women Police Station Tambaram Chennai2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, vsn CRL.O.P.No.19530 of 2018 and Crl.No.1483 of 2018 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
153,656,063 | Prosecution story in brief is that on 25.10.2007, in the evening at about 8 PM, deceased was in his house.He was alone.His brother and mother were present in the adjacent house.Accused persons came there.They had lathies (sticks) in their hands.They abused the deceased and instructed him to come out from the house.As soon as deceased came out from the house, they had beaten him by lathies.The brother and mother of the deceased had witnessed the incident.PW-2 Ramcharan Kol is the brother of the deceased.He lodged the FIR.He deposed that at around 8-9 O'clock in the night, I was in my house.Deceased was alone in his house.Tulai Kol came there.He was abusing deceased Siya Kol.Deceased came out from the house.Tulai Kol had a lathi with him.Accused Shiv Prasad was also present there.He had an axe with him.Both of them had beaten the deceased.Deceased fell down at parchhi.They had dragged him outside of the parchhi and again beaten him.Thereafter, they ran away from the spot.I had witnessed the incident.I reached near my brother.He was alive for half an hour, thereafter, he was died.Subsequently, they ran away from the spot.Deceased was died after one hour from the incident.In para 6 of her cross- examination, she admitted that I told the police that Tulai had a lathi and Shiv Prasad had a farsi with him.I recorded statements of Ramcharan Kol, Kalli Bai and Bishram Kol Ex.D1, Ex.Deputy Government Advocate.Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (J U D G M E N T) Pronounced on : 05.07.2018Hence, these two appeals are decided by the common judgment.The trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment-:- 2 -:-Cr.A. No.414/2009 & Cr.A. No.1194/2009 alongwith fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation RI for six months each.The deceased was died on the spot.Merg was registered.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.During trial appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.The trial Court, after trial, held them guilty as mentioned above.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who are related witnesses.There are contradictions and omissions in their statements.Hence, the trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellants.Learned counsel has further submitted that eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 deposed that appellant Shiv Prasad Kol was armed with axe/farsi and he had inflicted injuries by the aforesaid weapon.-:- 3 -:-Cr.A. No.414/2009 & Cr.A. No.1194/2009 However, the doctor, who performed postmortem of the deceased, deposed that he did not notice any injury on the person of deceased caused by sharp edged weapon.Apart from this, no axe was seized from accused/appellant Shiv Prasad Kol.Hence, the conviction of Shiv Prasad Kol is contrary to law.Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that both the appellants were armed with weapons.Eye witnesses in their 161 statements mentioned that they were armed with lathies.In the FIR, this fact has been mentioned that lathies were seized from the appellants.Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants because both the appellants had participated in the offence.My mother was also present there.-:- 4 -:-Cr.A. No.414/2009 & Cr.A. No.1194/2009 had also witnessed the incident.On the next day, in the morning, I went to police station.Merg was registered, which is Ex.P5 and I put my thumb impression on the same.I lodged the report at the police station.Police prepared panchnama Ex.P2 and I put my thumb impression on the same.Police seized underwear of the deceased, plain earth and red earth from the spot vide Ex.P3 and I put my thumb impression on the same.Police prepared spot map Ex.P7 and I put my thumb impression on the same.In para 11 of his cross-examination, he specifically deposed that I mentioned in my police statement recorded by the police Ex.D1 that Shiv Prasad had beaten the deceased by axe, if this fact has not been mentioned, I cannot say.6. PW-3 Smt. Kalli Kol is another eye witness.She is the mother of the deceased.She deposed the same facts that the deceased was alone at his house.Appellants came there.They were abusing the deceased.When the deceased came out, Tulaiya had inflicted blows by lathi and Shiv Prasad by farsi on the deceased.-:- 5 -:-Cr.A. No.414/2009 & Cr.A. No.1194/2009PW-4 Jhulli Kol turned hostile.PW-6 Parmeshwar Singh deposed that on the information of Ramcharan Kol, a merg was registered vide Ex.P5 and I signed the same.Thereafter, I seized plain earth, red earth and other articles vide seizure memo Ex.P3 and signed the same.I prepared spot map, which is Ex.P7 and signed the same.D2 and Ex.D4 respectively.Viscera of deceased was sent for examination.PW-7 Dr. Amar Singh performed postmortem of the deceased.He deposed that I noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased:"1- flj ds nkfgus Hkkx esa ,d QVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj vk/kkx1 lseh ehVj dk FkkA 2- flj ds ck;sa Hkkx esa QVk gqvk ,d ?kko ftldk vkdkj vk/kkx2 lseh- vkdkj dk FkkA 3- flj ds chpksa chp vk/kk x1 lseh- vkdkj dk QVk gqvk FkkA 4- mlds nkfgus da/ks ij fNyk gqvk ?kko 1x1 lseh- vkdkj dk FkkA 5- nkfgus Hkqtk ds ijh Hkkx ij ,d fNyk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj vk/kkx8 lseh- vkdkj dk FkkA 6- nkfgus Hkqtk ds e/; esa 1x2 lseh- dk fNyk gqvk ?kkoA 7- nkfgus vxz Hkqtk ds e/; esa lwtunkj pksV FkhA tks vfu;fer vkdkj dh FkhA 8& ck;sa da/ksa ds ijh Hkkx esa ,d fNyh gqbZ pksV 1x1 lseh- vkdkj dhA 9- ck;sa Hkqtk ds e/; esa ,d fNyh gqbZ pksVA 10- cka;s Hkqtk ds fupys Hkkx esa fNyunkj pksV vk/kk x1 lseh vkdkj dh FkhA 11- nkfgus Dysfody ds uhps ,d fNyunkj pksV 1x2 lseh vkdkj dh FkhA-:- 6 -:-Cr.A. No.414/2009 & Cr.A. No.1194/2009 12- lhus ds nkfgus Hkkx esa dka[k ds uhps ,d fNyk gqvk pksV 1 lseh-x16 lseh- vkdkj dk FkkA 13- ck;sa i[kksjs ds uhps 1x2 lseh- ds vkdkj dk fNyunkj pksVA 14- ihB esa uhps dh rjQ dkLVy Hkkx ij 1x12 lseh- vkdkj dk fNyk gqvk pksV ck;sa rjQ FkhA 15- ck;sa LdSiqyk ds uhps 1x4 lseh- dh fNyunkj pksVA^^9. PW-1 Vishram Kol is another witness.However, he is not the witness of the incident.10. PW-2 Ramcharan Kol and PW-3 Smt. Kalli Kol are the eye witnesses.They are the brother and the mother of the deceased.Needless to say, a testimony, if after careful scrutiny is found as unreliable and improbable or suspicious it ought to be rejected.That apart, when a witness has a motive or makes false implication, the court before relying upon his testimony should seek corroboration in regard to material particulars.In the instant case, the witnesses who have deposed against the accused persons are close relatives and had suffered injuries in the occurrence.Their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, their version is consistent and nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination to shake their testimony.There are some minor or trivial discrepancies, but they really do not create a dent in their evidence warranting to treat the same as improbable or untrustworthy.-:- 7 -:-Cr.A. No.414/2009 & Cr.A. No.1194/2009In the merg and the FIR, it is mentioned that both the appellants were armed with lathies and they had beaten the deceased with lathies.Lathies were seized from both the appellants.PW-2 deposed that Shiv Prasad was armed with axe.In his cross-examination, he stated that Shiv Prasad was armed with an axe and he told the same facts to the police.PW-3 Smt. Kalli Kol deposed that Shiv Prasad was armed with farsi like weapon.She, in her cross-examination, deposed that I told the police that Shiv Prasad was armed with farsi.Although in the statements of these witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that both the accused persons were armed with lathies.The doctor, who performed postmortem of the deceased, specifically deposed that all the injuries caused to the deceased were lacerated wounds and those injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 has held as under in regard to reliability of evidence if there is contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence:The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.-:- 8 -:-In the present case, PW-2 and PW-3, who are the only eye witnesses, have deposed that Shiv Prasad was armed with an axe or farsi like weapon.No injury was found on the person of the deceased which was incised in nature and could be caused by sharp edged weapon.Hence, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 against appellant Shiv Prasad is not reliable, although they mentioned in their 161 statement that Shiv Prasad was also armed with lathi.The trial Court has made observation that the witnesses are the villagers, hence, they have committed a mistake in mentioning the fact that Shiv Prasad was armed with an axe or farsi like weapon.-:- 9 -:- | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,536,568 | In this revision challenge has been made to the charge framed against therevisionists by the trial court under Section 302, IPC.It appears from the record that the occurrence is said to have taken place on5.4.06 in which one Jawaher Singh received head injury.The charge sheet in this case wassubmitted on 15.7.06 after lapse of about 5 months.At the stage of charge trial courtframed the charges under Section 302 and 504, IPC.At thestage of framing of charge only prima facie evidence has to be seen and fromthat evidence the charge under Section 302, IPC was framed.So far as this argument is concerned that there was no nexus between theinjury sustained on the head and the death and therefore, the charge underSection 302, IPC was unwarranted, in that regard also I would like to say thatit is also a matter of trial as to whether there was any nexus or not between thehead injury and the death and thus, on account of this argument also there isno reason at all to discard the charge. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
153,658,071 | The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall mark his attendance at the concerned trial court once every fortnight.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
153,665,233 | The petitioner claims to have been appointed in 1984, on the basis of a selection process of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) in erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU), at times when it was statedly a department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).Subsequently, DESU was re-established as an entity under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and restyled as Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) in 1997 and the petitioner continued to serve in said department.Pursuant to enactment of Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, notified on 06.03.2001, five power distribution companies having been Crl.M.C. No.3258/2016 & 3298/2016 Page 1 of 6 established by the government, the services of the petitioner were statedly transferred to one of them, named, Central East Delhi Electricity Supply Company Limited, such transfer of services being subject-matter of a tripartite agreement.The power distribution companies were also re-structured over the period and concededly services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the BSES Yamuna Power Company Limited.M.C. No.3258/2016 & 3298/2016 Page 1 of 6During the relevant period, the petitioner was working as Deputy General Manager (DGM) in BSES, wherein the second respondent had been employed (on 01.03.2005) as circle coordinator, the duties entrusted to him being to supervise the replacement of electric meters as against mechanical meters, through electricians engaged by private contractors.On 18.03.2008, the petitioner lodged complaint with Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of North-East Delhi District about certain acts of commission or omission on the part of the second respondent, this becoming subject-matter of a criminal case (FIR), which statedly was decided by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (special court under Electricity Act) on 21.07.2010, discharging the second respondent from the accusations of offences under Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 408 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The second respondent presented a criminal complaint dated 10.02.2011 in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) seeking prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 IPC, primarily on the submission that, by lodging a false Crl.M.C. No.3258/2016 & 3298/2016 Page 2 of 6 complaint, it being with mala fide intention, the petitioner had caused great harassment and financial loss to him, such acts having "ruined" his reputation in the society.M.C. No.3258/2016 & 3298/2016 Page 2 of 6The metropolitan magistrate, after inquiry, found prima facie case to be made out and, thus, by her order dated 10.08.2011 issued summons to the petitioner calling him up to be answerable on the accusations for offence under Section 500 IPC.The said criminal complaint case (later registered as CC No.1175/1/2012) is pending on the file of the metropolitan magistrate.After appearing before the court of metropolitan magistrate, the petitioner made an application seeking discharge on the ground, that his prosecution was impermissible in absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), he being a "public servant" entitled to the protection of law, the acts of commission or omission attributed to him having been undertaken in discharge of his official duties.The application was dismissed by the metropolitan magistrate, by order dated 05.08.2013, rejecting the contention, on the basis of oral submission, that the petitioner (accused) could be treated as a public servant and entitled to the protection of section 197 Cr.P.C. and in this context reliance was placed primarily on a decision of a learned single judge of this court in Ashok Kumar Raswant vs. CBI, Crl.The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the court of sessions by criminal revision petition no.39/2014 which was dismissed Crl.M.C. No.3258/2016 & 3298/2016 Page 3 of 6 by the said court, by its order dated 20.03.2014, affirming the view taken by the magistrate.The said orders dated 05.08.2013 of the metropolitan magistrate and dated 20.03.2014 of the revisional court are assailed by Crl.The last said two orders have been assailed by Crl.M.C.3298/2016, presented under Section 482 Cr.P.C.The contentions raised by the petition essentially give rise to mixed questions of fact and law.With the above directions, the petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,743,868 | Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Bail Application No.4587 of 2019 under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act as case crime no.743 of 2019, Police Station-Soraon, District-Allahabad.Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that for the incident dated 08.08.2019, the FIR was got registered by the prosecutrix herself on 10.08.2019 against four named accused persons including the appellant.The next submission is that in the FIR, prosecutrix submits that on 08.08.2019, around 9:30 p.m, she was ravished by all the named accused persons but in 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has somersaulted by 180 degree and did not support the prosecution case and accordingly, section 376 IPC was dropped from the array of sections.In her majeed bayan which was recorded on 19.08.2019, she declined to support the factum of rape.The next contention is that co-accused/Ram Jatan Patel has been granted bail by this Court.Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that under the pressure and threat, she was compelled to change her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant-Om Prakash Patel @ Guddu Patel, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 05.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Sumit S | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,547,506 | Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orderdated 23-8-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.B. K. L. Iyengar, M. Iyengar and P. R. Ramasesh for theAppellants.The following Orders were delivered:KRISHNA IYER, J. In our constitutional order, fragrantwith social justice, broader considerations of final reliefmust govern the judicial process save where legislativeinterdict plainly forbids that course.The dismissal by theHigh Court, on a little point of procedure, has led to thisotherwise avoidable petition for special leave, at a timewhen torrents of litigation drown this Court with anunmanageable flood of dockets.The negative order underchallenge was made by the High Court refusing to exerciseits inherent power under s. 482 of the Criminal ProcedureCode (the Code, for short) because the subject fell underits revisional power under s. 397 and this latter power wasnot unsheathed because a copy of the short order of thetrial court had not been filed as required, not by the Code,but by a High Court rule, although the original order,together with all the records, had been sent for and wasbefore the court ! A besetting sin1084of our legal system is the tyranny of technicality in thename of financial legality, hospitably entertained sometimesin the halls of justice.Absent orientation, justicingbecomes 'computering' and ceases to be social engineering.The story briefly.Only a woodcut of the profile of thecase will do.A unique pro bono publico prosecution waslaunched by a private complainant, claiming (before us) tobe the President of a Youth Organisation devoted todefending Indian cultural standards, inter alia, against theunceasing waves of celluloid anti-culture, arraigning,together with the theatre owner, the producer, actors andphotographer of a sensationally captioned and loudlypublicised film by name Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram, under Ss.282, 283 and 34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred toas the Penal Code) for alleged punitive prurience, moraldepravity and shocking erosion of public decency.Were there serious merit in the charge, a criminalprosecution would serve to sanitize the polluted celluloid,hand cuff cinemas running erotic and amok, and become acrucial super-censorship of salacious films.We pronounce no, opinion at this stage,on the merits of the rival stances with reference to thepicture Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram.The trial court examined a few witnesses and,thereafter, issued summons to the appellants who, naturally,were scared by this novel process and rushed for refuge tothe High Court.A petition under s. 482 to quash theproceedings was moved.The learned judge held:"a revision under s. 397 lay against an order summoning the accused persons.Once the revision petition lies, the petition cannot be entertained under the inherent powers of this Court.Therefore, the petition has to be treated as a petition for revision under Section 397(1) of the Code.The revision lies only against the order summoning the petitioners.Revision petition against the order of summoning without filing certified copy of the order summoning the petitioners, is not competent.The revision petition is accordingly dismissed for want of certified copy of the impugned orders."It isa phase of human life located in time and space."(1) I reject the extreme contention that a boardcertificate bars the criminal court's jurisdiction to tryfor offences under s. 292/293 I.P.C. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,754,311 | Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 21.12.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, whereby respondent No.2 was granted regular bail in case FIR No.69/14 under Sections 120B/420 IPC registered at Police Station EOW.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.It is second round of litigation.Admittedly, the respondent No.2 was earlier granted regular bail by an order dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure 'B') which was cancelled by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.3063/2015 on 03.09.2015 (Annexure 'E').The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed respondent No.2's SLP challenging the order of this Court on 14.09.2015 observing that the order did not prejudice the rights of the respondent No.2 for bail at an appropriate moment (Annexure 'F').Learned Additional Sessions Judge in its order dated 3.12.2015 did not deem it fit to consider the second bail application due to its cancellation by an earlier order of this Court.This Court vide order dated 9.12.2015 in W.P.(Crl.)2894/2015 (Annexure 'J') directed the court below to decide the bail application without being prejudiced by the fact that earlier an order of bail was cancelled by the High Court or that the present writ petition, challenging the order refusing to grant bail to the petitioner, has been withdrawn.It was disposed of by an order dated 19.01.2016 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders dated 3.9.2015 passed in Crl.M.C.No.3063/2015 before the High Court (Annexure 'M').4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urged that there were no change of circumstances to consider the second bail application of respondent No.2 to grant her bail.The respondent No.2's husband-Girish Chopra is absconding and has since been declared 'Proclaimed Offender'.Allegations against respondent No.2 are grave and serious whereby the Crl.M.C.484/2016 Page 2 of 4 petitioner was deprived of huge amount on the false misrepresentation regarding the status of the properties in question sold to him.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 urged to the contrary.M.C.484/2016 Page 2 of 4The petitioner had previous monetary transactions with respondent No.2 and her husband.The impugned order records that respondent No.2 had remained in custody till the time of consideration of second application for regular bail.It is not disputed that upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already been filed and the investigation qua respondent No.2 is complete.Girish Chopra, her husband, has since been declared 'Proclaimed Offender'.The Trial Court further noted that respondent No.2 cannot be kept in custody till eternity.She being a female deserves leniency as provided in the Chapter dealing with the bail aspect of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It has not been shown as to how her continuous further detention would serve any purpose.Her pass-port has already ordered to be seized.She, on her own, had returned from Malasiya to India when she was apprehended.Record further reveals that parties were acquainted with each other prior to entering into transactions in question.There were financial Crl.M.C.484/2016 Page 3 of 4 dealings between the two.The money has been transferred to the account of petitioner's mother.This fact has been admitted by the petitioner's counsel before the Sessions Court at the time of grant of bail.M.C.484/2016 Page 3 of 4It is further stated in response to the petition that in other cases in which respondent No.2 has been implicated, she has been released on bail.The co-accused persons have also been granted bail.Nothing has come on record to show if after the grant of bail, the respondent has misused the liberty or interfered in the legal proceedings.In the light of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition for cancellation of bail.It is dismissed.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2017 sa Crl.M.C.484/2016 Page 4 of 4M.C.484/2016 Page 4 of 4 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,757,432 | This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, namely, Ashok in connection with Crime No.273/2018 registered at Police Station Banda Sagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D & 506 of IPC.The allegation against the present applicant is that in the eve of 26th March, 2018, he caught the hand of the complainant when she was giving water to the cow at the outside of her house.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further directed that the applicant shall mark his presence on every Sunday between 10 A.M. to 12 A.M. before the concerned Police Station.Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Ashok be released from custody subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.C. stands disposed off. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,759,320 | The present criminal original petition has been filed praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.165 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and quash the same.420, 447, 464, 466, 468, 471 IPC.The allegations made in the complaint are as follows:The defacto complainant is the tenant of the first accused building and doing real estate business.He did not open his real estate office for more than two weeks on the account of Diwali and Moharam festival.Therafter on 7.11.2014, when he opened the office, to his shock and surprise, all the documents and goods were found missing.He preferred a complaint before the B-2 Police Station on the same day.The Sub Inspector of police enquired the matter, wherein, 1st accused admitted that he only committed the theft, but the 3rd accused who is the friend of first accused demanded money and threatened to vacate the office premises without getting advance amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was not accepted by the complainant.Thereafter, as the complaint lodged by the complainant was not registered, he approached this Court by filing Crl.Thereafter, without knowledge of the complainant and on the instigation of 1st and 3rd accused, 2nd accused registered FIR on 20.3.2015 in Crime No.201 of 2015 under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC against the 1st and 3rd accused, showing the complainant as the informant.But the 2nd accused failed to register a case based on the complaint dated 7.11.2014 preferred by the complainant.Hence, the respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate.While he was working in police station, on 20.3.2015, the complainant came to the police station and preferred a complaint against 1st and 3rd accused.The complaint lodged on earlier occasion, i.e. 7.11.2014 by the complainant came to be closed by the then Inspector, Balamurali Sundaram after conducting an enquiry, wherein, he came to the conclusion that there was a owner and tenant dispute.The complainant was full aware of this fact.However, suppressing this fact, he approached the learned Magistrate and filed the present private complaint.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate has entertained the complaint though basic ingredients for the alleged offence were not made out and the petitioner has discharged his official duty and enquired the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with law, however, the petitioner with ill motive, falsely implicated the petitioner as an accused though there was no allegation against him.Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.According to the respondent/defacto complainant, though he lodged the complaint on 7.11.2014, no action was taken on the said complaint by the petitioner being the Inspector of Police, however, a case came to be registered based on the complaint dated 19.3.2015, which according to the petitioner, he had not preferred the same.Therefore, in his complaint, the respondent has specifically made an allegation against the petitioner that he conspired with the other accused and prepared the FIR.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.The petitioner is at liberty to file a petition to dispense with his presence before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, who in turn, is directed to consider the same and pass orders.Consequently, connected Crl. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,764,012 | [Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BDFGISSV No.889/2013 dated 03.09.2013, whereby the petitioner's brother, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".As per the grounds of detention dated 03.09.2013, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:i)Adverse case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station, Cr.No.572/2012379 IPC2K-5 Peravellore Police Station Cr.No.788/2013379 IPC3K-1 Sembium Police Station Cr.No.1396/2013379 IPC4K-1 Sembium Police Station Cr.No.1442/2013 392 IPC(ii) Ground Case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1K-1 Sembium Police Station, Cr.No.1456/2013341, 336, 397 and 506[ii]3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.No.1456/2013 registered by K-1, Sembium Police Station and the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.10895/2013 was pending and the detenu has not moved any bail applications in the 3rd and 4th adverse cases as on the date of the passing of the detention order.6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.7.Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz., paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:Kannan @ Thiruttu Kannan is in remand in K-1 Sembium Police Station Cr.Nos.1396/2013, 1442/2013 and 1456/2013 and he has moved a bail application for K-1 Sembium Police Station, Cr.No.1456/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Cr.He has not moved any bail application for K-1 Sembium Police Station Cr.Nos.1396/2013 and 1442/2013 so far.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.S.RAJESWARAN,J.AND P.N.PRAKASH, J.jbm H.C.P.No.535 of 201406.08.2014 | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 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.