id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
154,765,051 | ...for the Petitioners. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,770,413 | The petitioner gave a complaint dated 28.12.2017 and thereafter, filed Crl.O.P.No.681 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR.This Court passed the order dated 17.01.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.681 of 2018, directing the respondent to register the FIR, if the information discloses the commission of cognizable offence.The petitioner/defacto complainant has filed the present petition seeking transfer of investigation.Heard Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Iyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the investigation in Crime No.77 of 2018 has been completed and a closure report has been filed by the respondent police before the jurisdictional Court and that the petitioner has also filed a protest application.Accepting his submission, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.Sub Inspector of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.ubCRL.O.P.No.11447 of 201806.08.2018 | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,547,818 | JUDGMENT H.H. Kantharia J.The neat question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised banks are "public servants" within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.The brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under :In special Cases Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978, accused No. 1, l. d. Kanchan, who was working as branch manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla branch, Bombay, was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowed them to obtain large amounts of loans on the strength of the said forged documents.At the hearing, the made an application before the special judge that he was not a "public servant" and hence an offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable to him.The learned special judge heard arguments on this point and by his order dated August 14, 1987, held that an employee of a nationalised bank cannot be regarded as a "public servant" within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.He, accordingly, discharged all the accused persons. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,782,130 | Heard on the question of admission.Record of the trial court be called for.Also heard on I.A.No.11273/2018 filed by the appellant under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence dated 27.6.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Mandla District Mandla, in Spl.Sessions Trial No.199/2017 convicting the appellant under section 457 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, under Section 354 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, under Section 354-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation and under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was on bail during trial and he have never misused the liberty granted to him.The appellant has deposited the amount of fine as imposed by the trial court.Appeal is of the year 2018 and, therefore, disposal of the appeal will take considerable time.On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned GA for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything on the merit, this application is allowed.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of appellant Dhanesh Prasad Singrore shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this court on 30.8.2018 & thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard.List the case for final hearing as per its turn.C.C. as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.07.19 06:20:05 -07'00' | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,782,728 | e ad Case Diary is available.This first Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under Pr Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention a of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (in short Act, 1989) against the order dated hy 01.03.2018 passed by Special Judge, Atrocities, Shivpuri, in Bail ad Application No. 34/2018 by which the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail has been rejected.It is mentioned that he has been arrested as case has been found to be proved against him under the provisions of Section 354 D, 341, 294 of IPC read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.As per the report Annexure A-2 age of the prosecutrix has been shown to be 30 years, therefore, it is not comprehendable as to how provisions of POCSO Act have attracted in the matter.Inspector General of Police is directed to cause proper inquiry in the working of SHO Karera, District Shivpuri as to under influence of which of the material he has wrongly mentioned the provisions of POCSO Act whereas in the F.I.R. accused has been charged only under the provisions of Section 354, 456, 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(w)(I) & 3(2)(V)A of Atrocities Act. There is no mention of any section under the Atrocities Act in the report of the SHO.Let inquiry be conducted by the Inspector General of Police either on his own or through an officer not below the rank of DIG and in any case it will not be conducted by S.P. of the same district and report be furnished within 15 days to this Court through Principal Registrar of this Court.This order is being passed because if this is the state of the investigation and SHO/s furnishes such theoretical and sh hypothetical report, then it can be safely inferred that criminal justice e is not in the safe hands and investigation is not been made as per the ad rule book but as per the whims and fancies of the police officers.In the statement of Shri Lali Bai, mother-ad in-law of the prosecutrix, she has admitted that no injury was caused M to prosecutrix and therefore, medical was not conducted.Sister-in-law Smt. Sharda has mentioned that when her brother Dinesh returned of back in the morning, then prosectrix narrated the whole story and thereafter FIR was lodged.No reason has been assigned as to why this rt incident was not narrated to the family members during the night itself ou specially when Sister-in-law Smt. Sharda, who was staying in the C neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, had arrived at the scene of incident.h It is submitted that this is a case of false implication because of ig rivalry.He has been falsely implicated.He is a middle aged person H and his agricultural operation will be adversely affected and therefore prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for grant of bail.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE shanu e sh ad SHANU RAIKWAR 2018.03.19 18:43:30 +05'30' 11.0.8 Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,788,696 | 19.12.13 Item No. 48 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 48And In the matter of: Netai Ghosh & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Mr. Dipankar Paramanick For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No. 235 of 2013 dated 14.10.2013 under Sections 325/326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record including the injury reports.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,789,365 | Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State.This is an application for suspension of substantive sentence and bail.The applicant is convicted for offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.The applicant is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 354-A(2) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has deposited the entire amount of fine in the trial Court.During the pendency of the trial, applicant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty of bail.The learned counsel prays for suspension of substantive sentence and 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:39 :::02.odtenlargement of the accused on bail.Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that the offence committed by the accused is against women.Considering the length of sentence and the fact that the applicant has deposited the entire amount of fine before the trial court, the applicant can be enlarged on bail.Bail to be furnished before the trial court.Criminal application is disposed of.(K. L. WADANE, J.) JPC 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:39 ::: | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,547,942 | They arise out of these facts:Babulal, Suratlal, Gajraj, Ramesh Kumar and Mohanlal Rai, all the five were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in respect of offences under' Sections 302, 302/34, 302/149, 147 and 148, Penal Code.The prosecution story was as under:Ammolal (PW 2) had a cloth shop near Kamania Gate.On account of heavy sales, he called his younger brother Sarmanlal, deceased and cousin, Gulzar (PW 21) to help him in business.In the evening at about 8 p.m. on the day of occurrence, (Nov. 22, 1970) he was sent by Ammolal for recovery of certain dues from one Ramesh near Patni Talkies.The deceased and their servant Jaichand (PW 5) went to Ramesh for this purpose.After about half an hour or so, they were on their way back.When they were neat Kamania Gate, the appellants surrounded them and a scuffle ensued.The appellants started beating the deceased with kicks and fist blows.Jaichand ran to the shop and informed Ammolal how the appellants had encircled Sarmanlal.On receiving this information, Ammolal Jaichand and Gulzar Prasad rushed to' the spot.They found the five appellants beating Sarmanlal.A large crowd had gathered, the shops were open and there was electric light.JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.1.These appeals are directed against a judgment dated August 24, 1974 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.Ramesh Kumar and Mohanlal were charged and tried by the same court in respect of offences under'Sections 302, 302/34, 302/147, 147, Penal Code.By his judgment dated July 26, 1971, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Suratlal, Gajraj, Ramesh Kumar and Mohanlal of the charges under Sections 302, 302/149, and 302/341, Penal Code.Gajraj was, however, convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 324, Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one year to two years with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently.Ramesh Kumar and Mohanlal and Suratlal were convicted under Sections 147 and 323, Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six months to two years, sentences being concurrent.Babulal was convicted under Section 302, Penal Code simpliciter and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.The convicted accused preferred appeals to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.The State also filed a separate appeal for setting aside the acquittal of the accused persons on the murder charge against all the appellants, excepting Babulal.The High Court by "a common judgment, dated August 24, 1974, dismissed the appeals of the accused per sons but allowed the State appeal and set aside the acquittal of the appellants Suratlal, Gajraj, Ramesh Kumar and Mohanlal.All the convicted persons have now come in appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court.When Ammolal tried to intervene, Suratlal appellant caught hold of Ammolal and threw him on the ground.It was further alleged that Babulal and Gajraj took out knives from their pockets and gave one stab blow each to the deceased.On seeing this and after saving himself from Suratlal, Ammolal ran away and concealed himself in a nearby lane from where he is said to have witnessed the incident.The story, as developed at the trial, is that after the initial beating with kicks and fists, the said blows were given to the deceased after he was taken to the nearby side-lane opposite to the shop of Jagan, Barber.After stabbing Sarmanlal there, it is said, all the appellants proceeded to the shop of Ammolal shouting that they had done away with Sarmanlal and would settle with Ammolal.They did not find Ammolal at his shop.Suratlal threw a knife at the board, lying at the shop.The appellant then went away.Sarmanlal died in the Hospital about half an hour after the receipt of the injuries.Ammolal then made the first information report at the police station.Dr. Vaidya found the following injuries on the person of Sarmanlal :(i) Cut wound l/4"x l/4" on left side of epigastrium (abdomen).(ii) Cut wound Vertical l 1/2"x3/4", depth could not be probed, on left side of back.Crepitations were present over the chest wall.(iii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left knee.(iv) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" x on right forearm below wrist joint.The abrasions could be caused due to a fall or by grazing against the ground.The death was due to injury No. 1, which in the opinion of the Doctor, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Injury No. 2 was simple.For this reason, Mr. Mulla has referred to his case only, incidentally.Two of the accused per sons, namely Babulal and Mohanlal Rai, had also injuries, including incised wounds.They were examined by the medical officer at the instance of the police, about seven days after the offence.The first contention of Mr. Mulla is that the prosecution had failed to give any explanation of the injuries on these accused persons.The reluctance on the part of the accused to get themselves, medically examined, it is submitted, is an indication of the fact that these injuries were not fabricated by the accused.The learned Counsel appears to be right in his contention.The prosecution has not explained as to how the two accused sustained the. injuries.We will presently see as to what is the effect of the failure of the prosecution to explain this fact.The second point pressed into argument by Mr. Mulla is that all the eyewitnesses, namely, Ammolal (PW 2), Jaichand (PW 5), Talan Singh (PW 6), Raj-kumar (PW 4) and Rajkumar (CW 1) admit that along with the five appellants, was seen one tall person, wearing a coat and pant.The High Court has observed that all the witnesses say that the tall stranger did not participate in the assault on the deceased and that he was unarmed.PW 5 stated that this tall stranger was having some glittering object in his hand and that he had also joined the quarrel from the side of the accused, with Sarman in front of Verma Pharmacy.PW 6 stated that the tall man must be a companion of the accused because during the scuffle he was moving here and there.The witness could not say definitely whether that man was empty-handed or had any weapon with him.Furthermore circumstances appearing in evidence, suggest that Ammolal (PW 2) was also carrying a knife which was found at the board of his shop.The prosecution suggest that this was the crime weapon of Sarmanlal, but this is negatived by the fact that no blood was found on it.The High Court has found that at the time of the incident in front of Verma Pharmacy, the three accused Surat, Gajraj and Babulal took out their knives and threatened to stab AmmolaL But the independent witness, Talan Singh does not speak of any knife with any body or of the uttering pf any threat to Ammolal in.Similarly, the view of the Additional Sessions Judge, that the evidence of the interested witness to the effect, that Mohanlal and Romesh Kumar had before Jagan Barber's shop exhorted to their companions to kill Sarmanlal with a knife, was not creditworthy, could not be said to be clearly wrong.The trial court after evaluating the evidence on record disbelieved the prosecution story that after the occurrence, all the five accused proceeded in a body to the shop of Ammolal and there suratlal threw a knife at the price-board placed in front of Ammolal's shop.The part of the story came out from the mouth of the interested witnesses, Jai Chand and Anand Kumar who are servants of Ammolal. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,855,682 | Amit Kumar (first respondent in MAC Appeal No. 763/2013) was riding on the pillion of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4S AY 7850 (the motorcycle) driven by Pradeep Kumar on 17.10.2006 moving in the direction of Najafgarh.When the motorcycle had reached near Grain Market at about 6.16 p.m., it came to be involved in a collision with truck bearing registration no. UP 32AW4040 (the truck) driven by the first appellant (Leela Ram Yadav) in these MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 1 of 7 appeals, the vehicle belonging to Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and, therefore, the owner being represented in these appeals by second and third appellants.Due to the collision, the riders of the motorcycle fell down, each suffering injuries Pradeep Kumar dying in the consequence at the spot.The accident came to the notice of the local police station Najafgarh through police control room (PCR) and it was found that a third person Neeraj was also travelling on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, who came up to narrate the sequence of events and as a result FIR No. 991/2006 came to be registered on the basis of his statement, taken up for investigation for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It may be mentioned here that as per the said FIR, and the evidence that came to be gathered during inquiry into the claim case, all the three riders were in the age group of 18, all class-mates studying together in the same educational institution.MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 1 of 7Two accident claim cases, one (MACP 764A/2008) seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by Amit Kumar (first respondent in MAC Appeal No. 763/2013), and the other (MACP 765A/2008), brought by the parents of deceased Pradeep Kumar, they being first and second respondents in MAC Appeal No. 762/2013 (collectively, the claimants), were instituted on 06.11.2006 and clubbed for inquiry before the tribunal.By judgment dated 25.02.2013, the tribunal held the first appellant constable Leela Ram Yadav (driver of the truck) to have been negligent in driving giving rise to the cause of action.The tribunal assessed compensation in both the cases and awarded Rs.MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 2 of 71,73,224/- as compensation to Amit Kumar (injured) and Rs. 8,01,000/ as compensation to the parents of deceased Pradeep Kumar, fastening the liability on the third appellant to pay with interest @ seven and a half per cent (7.5%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.By these appeals, the correctness of the finding on the issue of negligence is questioned on the ground that the motorcycle riders were also responsible in that they had driven the motorcycle in the middle of the road causing the head-on collision, riding unauthorisedly with a third person they not having taken the precaution of wearing helmets, which neglect had resulted in serious injuries being suffered by them.The appellants also questioned the compensation awarded in death case on the ground that the loss of dependency has been worked out on the basis of potential income of Rs. 10,000/- for which there was no basis.During the inquiry, the claimants examined Amit Kumar, the pillion rider (PW-1) to bring on record the version of the sequence of leading to the collision.On the other hand, the first appellant appeared in the evidence (as RW1) to depose facts to the effect that the injured persons were solely responsible for the occurrence.RW1 was categorical in testifying that the riders on the motorcycle were not wearing any helmets and that there were two pillion riders, the motorcycle moving at a high speed.An appraisal of the evidence clearly brings out the element of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcycle rider Pradeep Kumar and also of the injured Amit Kumar who was riding MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 3 of 7 on the pillion.All the three persons on the motorcycle were in the age group of 18 years and the rider (deceased Pradeep Kumar) apparently did not hold a valid or effective driving licence and thus were not supposed to be on the road on the motorcycle on his own.The cross-examination of PW-1 further brought out that the motorcycle was moving in an inner lane virtually in the face of the traffic moving in the opposite direction, i.e. the lane actually meant for the truck driven by the first appellant.PW-1 conceded that the truck could be seen from some distance but there was no opportunity/space for the motorcycle to be taken to the left side because of presence of other vehicles on the road.While this itself indicates that the motorcycle rider and the pillion riders had contributed to the cause of action, it cannot be said from the fact that the truck driver was also not negligent in that, he should have been at controlled speed and in a position to avoid collision, particularly, when he was in a position to notice oncoming traffic including the motorcycle.MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 3 of 7In the foregoing facts and circumstances, while the finding of negligence of the first appellant is affirmed, it is held that the victims, injured Amit Kumar and the motorcycle rider deceased Pradeep Kumar had also contributed to the cause, the extent of their contributory negligence being assessed to the extent of twenty five per cent (25%).Deduction to that extent, thus, would be required to be made from the compensation which is determined.MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 4 of 7The contention of the appellants with regard to the calculation of loss of dependency in the case on account of death of Pradeep Kumar, respecting the basis of notional income being unfounded, is correct.The tribunal opted the multiplier of 14, and rightly so, having regard to the age of the claimant mother.Thus, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as (3760 2 x 12 x14) Rs. 3,15,840/-, rounded off to Rs. 3,16,000/-.It is however, noted that the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal are unduly low, they being in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love & affection and Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.Following the rulings in Rajesh & Ors.v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of love & affection and Rs.25,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expense.Thus, the total compensation in the case of Pradeep MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 5 of 7 Kumar's death is calculated as (3,16,000 + 1,00,000 + 25,000 + 25,000) Rs. 4,66,000/-.MAC Appeal No. 762 & 763 of 2013 Page 5 of 7In view of the finding on the issue of contributory negligence as recorded above, however, the claimants in the case of death of Pradeep Kumar will be entitled to receive from the third appellant, a total sum of Rs. (4,66,000 x 3/4) Rs. 3,49,500/-, rounded off to Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).Similarly Amit Kumar is held entitled to receive from the third appellant an amount of Rs. (1,73,224 x 3/4) Rs. 1,29,918/- rounded off to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only).Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to nine per cent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.By similar orders dated 20.05.2015, in each of these appeals, the appellants had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, within the specified period as a pre-condition to stay against the execution of the award by the tribunal.The statutory deposits shall also be refunded. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,859,989 | C.R.M. 6168 of 2013 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.04.2013 in connection with Azimgange GRPS Case No. 4 of 2013 date 21.2.2013 under Section 302/201/12B/34 of the Indian Penal code.In Re: Sukumar Ghosh .......- Petitioner Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. Somnath Adhikary, ...for the Petitioner.Mr.Pradipta Ganguly, .... for the State.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused/petitioners are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.It has been further submitted that on 11.10.2012 when the dead body was found near the Railway track no allegation was made by the relatives of the deceased against the present accused persons.But after the lapse of 2 months 10 days that very relatives made allegation against the present petitioners and others that they committed murder.It is further submitted that the petitioners are in custody for about 50 days and during this period the investigating agency has not been able to collect anything in support of the allegation of the prosecution.So, if the accused persons/petitioners herein are released on bail it will not affect the investigation adversely.Accordingly the prayer for bail may be allowed.The learned Public prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the allegation is serious in nature and the investigation is in progress and further evidence is likely to be collected.So the investigating Agency should be given further time for making proper investigation of the case.We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties.Now going through the case diary and considering the materials collected during investigation and taking into account the petitioner's period of detention in the custody and when no case has been made out that if the petitioner is released on bail he is likely to abscond.Accordingly, this application for bail stands allowed.The petitioners may find bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each one of whom must be local and on condition to meet the Investigating Officer once a week for three months.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Dipak Saha Ray, J.) | ['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. |
63,861,342 | SI Dinesh along with Ct. reached the house where the mother CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 2 of 12 of the victim met and reported rape by her accused husband with two minor daughters V aged 8 years and M aged 13 years.NGO was called and victims were taken to SGM hospital where they were medically examined and the complainant S gave her statement that she is a house wife and has four daughters and a son and her husband runs a factory.On 11.01.2013, her husband committed wrong act with daughter V after taking her to some other room and also threatened her not to tell anything to anyone or else she will be killed.On 13.01.2013 when she was cleaning the house, she found one blood stained underwear of victim V under the bed.On inquiry, she told that her father lifted her from the bed in the night and lied her on a sofa and gave her some tablet after which she was feeling sleepy and then he inserted his 'shushu wali jagah in her shushu wali jagah' and when she was feeling pain then her father again brought her back to the bed.She was conferring about this incident with her family members and did not report the commission of the offence to the police, but when her elder daughter M who was living with her maternal grandmother came and informed that, her father committed wrong act with her, as well, which the former did not disclose because of fear, the complainant came to Police Station and lodged the FIR.After medical examination of the victim M, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.IO collected the date of birth proof of the victim and sent CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 3 of 12 sample (cotton wool swab on a wooden stick of victim M ) to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'FSL').Mein khud tayarhoti hu Q.Aapke bhai behen ko kaun tayar kerta hai ? Ans.Who bhi khud tayar hote hai.Q.Savere ka khana kaun banata hai ? Ans.Mummy Q.Kya apko ghar ka kaam aata hai ? Ans.PW-15/D victim M stated that her father took her to another room, removed her clothes, touched her here and there and threatened to kill her mother.A 1119/2014; Vishnu (alias) Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2006) 1 SCC 283; State of M.P vs. Dayal Sahu, reported as (2005) 8 SCCCRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 1 of 12122)].However, it is equally well established that, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be creditworthy and inspire confidence.The State has instituted the present petition seeking grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 30.05.2018, in Session Case No.21/2013, arising out of FIR No.19/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject FIR') under sections 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with sections 04 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO') registered at Police Station-Begumpur, Delhi; whereby the respondent Jitender Sharma was acquitted of the aforementioned charges.The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been convicted, is for having committed rape upon his own daughter/the prosecutrix, a girl aged about 13 years, at the time of commission of the offence.The accused was arrested in between and was medically examined and while awaiting FSL result, the present chargesheet was filed.CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 2 of 12CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 3 of 12By way of order dated 20.05.2013, a charge was framed against the appellant for the commission of offences u/s 4 of POCSO Act read with u/s 376IPC and u/s 328 IPC along with section 506 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereafter the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case by his wife, the mother of the child victim M, due to matrimonial dispute.The Appellant chose to examine three witness in his defence including himself.There is no gainsaying the fact that, the star witness of the prosecution is the victim M. The complainant PW-13 (mother of prosecutrix), it is observed, subsequently turned hostile.It would, therefore, be necessary and appropriate to extract the victim's testimony in extenso:Raat ko jab hum so rahe the .Q. Kya galat kaam kiya tha ?Papa ne apni toilet wali jagah meri toilet wali jagah me dal di.Q. Phir kya hua ?Kuch nai.Q. Apko kuch pareshani hui ? Ans.Dard hua Q. Apne kisi ko batay?Mummy ko baad me batay.Q. Mummy ko tab kyu nahi bataya ? Ans.Papa ne dhamkaya tha ki who hume jaan se mar denge..Ha Q. Kya tab bhi apne yeh sab bataya tha ? Ans.Ha [ At this stage, the witness has been shown her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex-PW-2/B andafter reading the same, she states that said statement was given by her .she also identifies her singnatures at point "A" thereupon. ] XXXX By Sh.Ravi Kant Singh, Learned counsel for accused.Q. Aap Kashmiri colony se pehle kaha rehte the ? Ans.Shastri nagar Q. Aapko waha ka pura address pata hai ? Ans.WZ-45, NimriVillage .Q. Who ghar aapka apna tha?Ha Q.Woh ghar kyun bechna pada? Ans.Pata nahi Q.Aapko mummy jyada pyar karti hai yah papa ? Ans .Mummy CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 5 of 12 Q.Aap kiska kehna jyada mante ho papa ka yah mummy ka?CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 5 of 12Mummy Q. kya apke mummy papa me jhgada hota tha ? Ans.Kabhi kabhi hota tha Q. Kisbaat par hota tha ?Pata nahi Q.Jab mummy papa ka jhagda hota tha toh kya who kabhi police station bhi gaye the ? Ans.Nahi Q. Apke papa apke sath kab se galat kam kar rahe hai / Ans.Pichle saal se (2012) Q. Kya aap ko mummy ne kabhi koi dawai dil wayi thi?Jab bimar hote the tab dawai dil wati thi Q.kya aapka kabhi operation hua hai ? Ans.Ha, harniya ka Q. kya Vanshika ka bhi harniya ka operation hua hai ? Ans.Pata nahi Q.Kya apne Vanshika ke paith par operation ka Nishan dekha hai ?Nahi Q. Kya aap sab bhai behein school jate hai ? Ans .Ha Q.Apka school kitne baje shuru hota hai ? Ans.Garmiyo me 7 baje sur sardiyo me 7:30 baje.Q.School jane ke liye apko kaun tyar karta hai.Mummy yah papa ?Uss se pehle( august, 2012 se pehle) Q. Jab papa galat kaam karte the tab mummy ke alawa ghar me kisi aur bade ko apne bataya ? Ans.Gharme mummy ke alawa aur kisi ko bataya nahi tha Q.Kya papa ne shastri nagar ke ghar me bhi galat kam kiya tha?Nahi Q.kya papa apko nashe ki goli khilate the ? Ans.Nahi."(Emphasis supplied )On a conspectus of the material evidence on record, there are two issues that arise for consideration in the present leave petition.Insofar as, the first question is concerned, it is an admitted position that, the IO (PW-15) has proved on record the date of birth certificate issued CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 7 of 12 by Municipal Corporation of Delhi qua victim M [Ex.Pw-15/L].Evidently no cross - examination of the IO on behalf of the accused in respect of the said document.The prosecution has therefore proved that the victim was a minor at the time of commission of the alleged sexual assault, by the accused.In her statement made to the police on 18.01.2012 Ex.However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as, her testimony in Court, the victim M gave an altogether different story.In her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the learned MM she asserted that her father had committed wrong acts with her on numerous occasions, after removing their clothes and that he used to insert his peshab wali jagah in her peshab wali jagah.In her subsequent testimony in Court, she made CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 8 of 12 considerable improvement and contradicted herself by specifically stating in her cross-examination that her father had never given her any intoxicating medicine or tablet, which belies her earlier testimony to the effect that he used to administer some tablets to her.CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 8 of 12Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently urge that, based on the testimony of the victim, the offences for which the accused was charged, by the prosecution had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us through the testimony of the prosecutrix in Court as hereinbefore extracted, as well as, her statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C at the concerned police station on 18.01.2013 [Ex.P.C stated that her father had committed wrong act with her many times after removing his and her clothes and he use to insert "his CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 9 of 12 peshab wali jagah (penis) in her peshab wali jagah (vagina)".Also, victim M categorically denies administration of any soporific tablet/medicine to her by the respondent.CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 9 of 12The learned trial court has taken a holistic view in the matter after carefully considering and analysing the evidence including the testimony of victim M on the record.In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. | ['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. |
63,862,768 | This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner -Mohammad Ayub, who has been arrested by Police on 14/11/2017 in Crime No.589/2017, Police Station Khargone, District Khargone, concerning offence(s) under Section(s) 354, 354D, 294, 509 of IPC read with Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.Allegedly, the petitioner was stalking the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years for about a month.Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the nature of allegations and the quality of evidence in support of the same, so also the fact that investigation of the case is over, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge petitioner on bail.Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condi- tion 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 be- half.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi Sumati Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Jagadeesan 2.5.4.20=c924c30fdbbbe5bd3576e03ddd1b95d94f157 e8aec842e0acdbeed50df87856b, cn=Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2017.12.22 12:03:30 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,862,838 | ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28th January, 2015 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2011, convicting and sentencing the appellant, accused, Sujit Bhurandas Borkar, of offences punishable under Sections:-[a] ig 363, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], [b] 366, Indian Penal Code, [Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], and [c] 376, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months], the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Sujit Borkar.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that record of the case shows that the appellant, accused, was not in a normal mental state for reasons more than one.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::apeal252.15 3 Even the record during trial and thereafter, and various communications made by him show his abnormal behaviour.According to him, since the mental unfitness of the appellant was clearly visible, in that he was not normal, inasmuch as he filed Exhs.7 and 15 before Trial Judge before commencement of trial on his own, stating that he did not want any legal assistance from the Legal Aid Committee, Govt., and the Court, and would himself defend his side, the Trial Court should not have held trial without giving him legal assistance.This has caused a very serious prejudice to the appellant.He did not get a fair trial.According to Mr. Bhangde, the appellant should have been sent by the learned Trial Judge for finding out his mental fitness and then the Trial Court should have decided whether to allow him to defend himself or for giving help of an Advocate.The fact remains that he was never given the help of an Advocate and the trial went ahead till the culmination of trial ultimately resulting into conviction of the appellant for the serious offence of rape.Learned counsel for the appellant then, without prejudice to the above contentions, submitted on merits of the matter that the ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: apeal252.15 4 story of the prosecution since beginning is contradictory, inconsistent and cannot be reconciled.The contradictions inherently seen in the prosecution case are so material that the prosecution case is required to be rejected and the appellant, accused, is required to be acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::The learned counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & others (V) Vs.Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali Vs.In the instant case, according to him, the appellant, accused, himself filed applications [Exhs. 7 and 15], stoutly refusing the help from Legal Aid for defending his case.According to Mr. Jawade, learned APP, there is no procedure for imposing legal aid on somebody who does not want it, nor there is any such legal obligation.He, therefore, prayed for rejection of this plea raised by the appellant, accused.On merits, learned APP contended that there are ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: apeal252.15 5 testimonies of 'P' [PW 2], her sister, Madhuri Ramteke [PW 4], and her father, Ashok Ramteke [PW 3], which are corroborated by the First Information Report and there is no reason why this Court should not, as has been done by the Trial Court, believe the testimony of 'P' [PW 2] on the incident proper.He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same should be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::With the assistance of the learned counsel for the rival parties, I have gone through the entire record, order-sheets, evidence, oral as well as documentary.I have also seen the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, at the outset, I am inclined to reject the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant about the grievance of the accused, appellant, not being sent for medical examination of his mental health and/or for a legal aid.It appears from the record that the appellant in his admancy made applications etc., during the course of trial.But then, he was not insane or mentally unfit to take a decision regarding offer for legal aid.At any rate, at the inception, he submitted Exh.7 on his own volition that he did not want any legal aid or assistance from the Govt., and on the contrary, would like to defend himself.I am, therefore, of the opinion that the contention raised by Mr. Bhangde in this connection has no merit.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::The next question is about the offences for which the appellant was convicted by the Trial Judge.In this connection, the utmost important factor, that was required to be satisfactorily proved by the prosecution, was the age of 'P' [PW 2].In a most casual manner, the prosecution placed on record the certified copy of a Bona fide Certificate from the school showing the date of birth, and was readily accepted by the learned Trial Judge without insisting for the legal proof thereof.By merely tendering or by merely exhibiting a Certificate, the date of birth cannot be said to have been proved according to Evidence Act. It was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the entry from the Register of Date of Birth or in respect of Bona fide Certificate through the concerned Headmaster or the school authorities by summoning the concerned person in the Court.But that was not done.The only inference, therefore, that will have to be drawn, is that the date of birth has not been proved from the documentary evidence.The next question is as to the offences in question.Perusal of the evidence of Ashok Ramteke [PW 3] and the report lodged with ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: apeal252.15 7 the Police Station show that when Ashok Ramteke [PW 3], a rickshaw puller, returned back to his house at about 11.50 p.m., his younger daughter, Madhuri [PW 4], told him that the appellant had taken 'P' [PW 2] on his motorcycle by saying that her father was not well and that was done at about 10.45 p.m. The report then shows that a search was taken by him here and there, but could not locate her and, therefore, the appellant had kidnapped his daughter.As against this, the evidence of 'P' [PW 2] shows that the incident occurred at about 4.00 pm on 8th February, 2011 when she had gone to shop for bringing a cake and the appellant was in front of the shop and he told her that her father was unconscious and, therefore, from that shop, she went on his motorcycle to his house.After reaching his house, he told her that he would marry her, gave her food and thereafter committed the offence of rape.Her mother came to the house of accused and scolded the accused.He threatened her mother in respect of the incident.He did not allow 'P' to go from his house.Her mother came there at the same time.Thus, the time when her mother came to house of the accused appears to be around 5.30 p.m., when the girl is said to have gone at 4.00 p.m., with the accused.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::Similarly, evidence of Madhuri [PW 4], her younger sister, shows that immediately after PW 2 went on the motor cycle of ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: apeal252.15 8 accused, she told her mother and both of them went to the house of the accused and had broken the door of his house by repeatedly hitting the same by kick blows.When they entered his house and tried to take back PW 2, since the accused resisted their attempt, they could not take back PW 2 with them.Immediately thereafter, they went to the Police Station.PW 4 then says that her sister came back to her house on the next day early in the morning.As against this, Ashok Ramteke [PW 3] stated in his evidence that at about 9.30 p.m., he came to the house.On reaching home, he came to know about the incident and he went towards the house of the accused and thereafter lodged the report [Exh.17] with the Police Station and PW 2 was brought to his house by 5.00 a.m., by the police.Sana entry on his report [Exh.17] seems to have been taken at 1.15 a.m., on the next day.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::It is true that the substantive evidence of PW 2 as to the actual offence of rape has gone unchallenged.But then, merely on that basis, the Court would not record conviction if the other entire evidence is fully inconsistent, contradictory and without any corroboration, particularly the medical evidence.The medical evidence shows no signs in the examination of injuries to the private part and reading of the medical evidence, to my mind, clearly shows absolute ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: apeal252.15 9 absence of the signs of rape.Not only this, the evidence of Dr. Kalpana [PW 7] also shows no external injury to the accused too.The scientific evidence is also totally absent about the signs of intercourse.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::In such a situation, it is difficult to believe that the prosecution proved beyond any shred of doubt commission of offence of rape.The incident is of the date 8th February, 2011, i.e., prior to the amendment to the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the old law would govern the case at hand.Since the prosecution failed to prove its case regarding the age of the prosecutrix, so also the sexual intercourse and it is unbelievable having regard to the major contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence that the offence of rape could be said to have been proved, looking to the long stretch of time from 4.00 p.m., to 1.15 a.m., without any evidence of shouting by any of them, or as the case may be, I am of the firm opinion that the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.The next question is about the offences under Section 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code, in respect of which, it clearly appears from the record that PW 2 was below 18 years of age and at any rate, being a girl, was taken from the lawful custody of her parents by the ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: apeal252.15 10 appellant and that evidence is supportable and well proved by the prosecution.Section 361 of Indian Penal Code provides that the offence of kidnapping would be constituted or proved in such an event.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::He then took her away to his house and wrongfully restrained her.That is clearly a foundational evidence for the offence on the strength of the evidence discussed by me above.As earlier stated, on the date of her deposition, PW 2 was married and is living happily with her husband elsewhere.The appellant has already undergone the sentence of twenty-one months and ten days.He has a family with children to maintain.I think, the sentence which he has already undergone should subserve the interest of justice and, therefore, this is a fit case to reduce the sentence to the one already undergone by the appellant.To sum up, I make the following order:-ORDER [a] Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2015 is partly allowed.[b] The Judgment and Order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge of offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, holding him guilty, is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::[d] The appellant shall be released, if not required in any other crime.[e] Since the appeal itself is decided today, Criminal Application [APPA] No. 461 of 2015 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rendered infructuous.-0-0-0-0-|hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:36:51 ::: | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
638,651 | The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur.(Order of this Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Venkatesan, son of Devaraj, who was incarcerated by order dated 17.2.2007 of the second respondent under Section 3(1) 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 Goonda, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to the detention of her husband under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 17.2.2007 on the file of the second respondent in the proceedings B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.2/2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.The order of detention dated 17.2.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 1.2.2007 at about 7 p.m., complaint against which was lodged by one V.Karnan.It is alleged that while Karnan was selling guava and other fruits in a push cart, the detenu came there and demanded mamool and when the complainant questioned "Why I should give mamool?" and "Why, often you are demanding mamool?", the detenu turned down the push cart, resulting in rolling down, scattering and damage of the fruits.The detenu then took two soda bottles in the nearby petty shop and put one bottle and broke it with other and on seeing this the people surrounding scattered in fear and panic.The detenu also tried to stab the complainant with a pen knife, however the complainant prevented the detenu from doing so and during the course he sustained injuries on his left hand and blood poured out.Based on the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Gummidipoondi Police Station in Crime No.21 of 2007 under Sections 341, 294(b), 427 and 307 IPC for investigation, apprehended the detenu and now the detenu is in remand in Central Prison, Puzhal. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,867,796 | 3 It is prosecution's case that complainant - Surekha Ashok Wagh(PW-1) got married to Ashok @ Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh (accused no.1)on 27th June 1990 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Nashik.The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at leastThe report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.17th February 2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fist Class, Shahapur,acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A (Husbandor relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty ), Section 323Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 ::: 2/11 207.Apeal-693-2004.doc(Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult withintent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (Punishment for criminalintimidation), 494 (Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife ) readwith Section 109 (Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed inconsequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment ) ofIndian Penal Code (IPC).::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 :::2 On 21st February 2020 since nobody was present in Courtrepresenting respondents, the Court appointed Ms. Ankita Singhania, anAdvocate, as Amicus Curiae.At the request of Ms. Ankita Singhania, as shewanted to consider the papers, the matter was stood over to today.Before I proceed with the case, I must express myappreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth byMs.After marriage,they lived in the matrimonial home at Vasind and led a very happily marriedlife.There were other family members in the matrimonial home, whichincluded the brother of accused no.1, sister of accused no.1, her husband etc.and all were doing business of selling vegetables.Accused no.5 is alleged tobe the second wife of accused no.1 and accused nos.6 and 7 are her parents.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 :::During her stay with accused no.1, PW-1 gave birth to two children, a boy, whoin the year 2003 was 8 years old and a girl, who in the year 2003 was11 years old.Therefore, the boy would be today 25 years and the girl would be28 years.4 The father of complainant retired from H.A.L. on 28 th February2001 and he was working in H.A.L. as Driver.At the time of retirement,complainant's father, who is PW-2 - Sadashiv Jagannath Pawar, receivedretirement benefits, which accused no.1 came to know about.It is alleged thataccused no.1 was of a greedy nature and also used to suspect PW-1 ofimmorality.According to PW-1, at the time of marriage and thereafter, varioushousehold appliances, gold, cash of Rs.50,000/- were all given to accused no.1within a period of three months of marriage and the other accused, i.e.,accused nos.2 to 4 were instigating accused no.1 against PW-1 and accusednos.1 to 4 were harassing and ill-treating her.5 It seems on 28th February 2001, when PW-2 retired, accused no.1saw the cheque of retirement benefits and accused no.1 demanded PW-1 to getRs.1 lakh from her father.PW-1 was completely helpless because her father(PW-2) had to conduct the marriage of her brother.Therefore, PW-1 decided to lodge this complaint and afterdue investigation, chargesheet was filed.All accused pleaded not guiltyGauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 ::: 4/11 207.Apeal-693-2004.docand claimed to be tried.Statement of all accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure was also recorded and the defence is of totaldenial.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 :::ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;Moreover, complainant left thehouse leaving behind her children, who were on the date she left the house3. 1996 SCC (cri) 972Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 ::: 7/11 207.Apeal-693-2004.docwere 9 years and 6 years, respectively.PW-1 never filed any custody petitionor any petition for divorce.The delay again has not been explained.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 20:48:27 :::That failed.It is thereafter only that the complainant, the widow woman, left all by herself and having no male family member willing to accompany her, proceeded alone to police station.She was lent moral support by Ruldu Ram, the village Panch,Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.13 It is alleged that accused no.1 got married to accused no.5 atSiddhivinayak Temple but in her cross examination, PW-1 says it is her father(PW-2) who informed her. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,872,679 | Shri S.K.P.Verma and Shri Jai Singh Rajput, Advocates for the applicant.Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant.This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 323,376(2)(g),506-B IPC in connection with Crime No.92/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Anuppur.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,566,071 | As per prosecution story, on 06.09.2020, the complainants' who are the police personnels' received an information on their mobile when the incident had occurred at Santushti Dhaba.When they arrived at Dhaba, they were abused by the present applicant and another accused- Kuldeep who abusively asked the complainants' as to why they have arrived so late and thereafter the present applicant started assaulting the complainants and tore off the uniform and when another complainant Dilip tried to intervene, the present applicant picked up a pipe and assaulted Dilip with pipe.It was, later on, revealed that the complainant-Pramod who is a police constable was deputed in the mobile van asked to the answer Dial-100 call who had suffered fracture in his Alna bone.Subsequently, a case was registered 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.38391 OF 2020 (Sumendra Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) against the applicant and other co-accused - Kuldeep and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under the provisions of Sections 353, 332, 333, 294 and 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that facts have been wrongly narrated by the complainants' and the complainants' were in the habit of coming to the aforesaid Dhaba managed by the present applicant and the complainants did not use to pay the bills after taking the meals and on the date of incident also, the complainants' had come to the Dhaba and had asked for meals for free of cost and when refused by the applicant, they indulged in destructing the Dhaba property and also assaulting the present applicant and others.In this matter, the complainants had brought a report lodged by one Kamal supporting the case of the complainants.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Kamal is infact been an employee of aforesaid Dhaba and he was also an aggrieved person at the hands of complainants but the complainants' were exerting pressure upon him as police personnel who had got a false report lodged by Kamal against the present applicant.In support of his averment, an affidavit of Kamal has been filed in which he has stated that on the date of incident, complainants namely; Pramod and Dilip had come to the Dhaba and had asked for free meals and when the same was refused by present applicant, they assaulted the present applicant and also committed 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.38391 OF 2020 (Sumendra Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) destruction of Dhaba property and that deponent - Kamal has been pressurized by the complainants' to lodge a false report against the present applicant.Learned counsel submits that chargesheet has since been filed in the matter.The applicant is in jail since 08.09.2020 and the conclusion of trial would take considerably long time.With these submissions, bail has been sought.Learned counsel for the non-applicant/State was also heard and she submits that deponent Kamal Singh being an employee of present applicant was compelled to file such affidavit.Further, the learned counsel for the State has not been able to explain as to when the complainants' arrived at the spot and whom did they saw fighting with each other.CRIMINAL CASE NO.38391 OF 2020 (Sumendra Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local solvent surety to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court/Committal Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.38391 of 2020 is allowed and stands disposed of.Certified copy as per Rules. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,568,871 | [in all Crl.3.A.Thiruvelavan .. Respondent [in Crl.O.P.Nos.18232 and 18233 of 2013]COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in connectionwith the First Information Report in Crime No.14 of 2013 on the file of thefirst respondent police and to quash the same.Since these three Criminal Original Petitions are arising in a singleCrime No.14 of 2013, this Court is decided to pronounce a common order in allthese Petitions.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.17648 of 2013, 18232 of 2013 and18233 of 2013 are arrayed as accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.14 of 2013 on thefile of the first respondent police.For the sake of convenience, the petitioners, namely, M.Kandasamy,R.Rajkumar and M.Sivasankar, in all these Petitions are referred to herein,as petitioner nos.1 to 3 respectively.It is alleged that the Members of the Rajaraja Cholan Nagar People'sWelfare Association purchased the lands between the year of 1982 - 1990 andthereafter, an order has been passed on 29.05.2001 by the Tahsildar / RevenueAuthority for granting patta in favour of the Members of the saidAssociation.In the meanwhile, without noticing the fact that patta stands inthe name of the Members of the Association, the first petitioner purchasedthe above said land from one Ernest Raj, Julaika Beebi, Noorjahan Begum,Sharbunnissa, Mohammed Esa, Ayisha Gani, Mangaiyarkarasi and P.M.Iqbal, for which, the first petitioner created bogus sale deeds.Due to the non-paymentof the requisite stamp fee, the said sale deeds are forwarded to theauthorities concerned for enquiry under Section 47[A][1] of Indian Stamp Act.Subsequent to that, some of the sale deeds were returned to the firstpetitioner based on the orders passed by this Court.During the course of the above said transaction, the petitioners 2and 3 herein being the surveyors along with other revenue people violated theRules, Board Standing Orders and issued bogus patta in the name of the firstpetitioner.In the course of same transaction, on 02.09.2012 at about11.00a.m., the first petitioner along with other unknown persons stood in thefield, which is now under dispute and threatened the Members of theAssociation by showing a deadly lethal weapons.Further, the first petitionerassaulted the de facto complainant.So, he approached this Court inCrl.O.P.No.3274 of 2013 for a direction to register the First InformationReport.Thereafter, as per the order passed by this Court, the firstrespondent registered a case against these petitioners on 10.06.2013 in CrimeNo.14 of 2013 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,217, 218, 294(b), 420, 465, 468, 467, 471 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 120 (b) IPC.Against the said First Information Report, the petitioners being the accusedapproached this Court to quash the same as erroneous.Before purchasing the said lands,the first petitioner verified the Town Survey Re-settlement Register, inwhich, the name of his vendors are shown as Pattadhars.The copy of the saledeeds enclosed in Serial Nos.8 and 9 at page Nos.34 and 56 shows that theproperty in T.S.No.5 is corresponding to S.Nos.5/25, 5/26 and 5/1B.Similarly, in all sale deeds enclosed in the typed set of papers shows thatthe vendors of the first petitioner are having valid title over the propertywhich was purchased by the first petitioner Kandasamy.The Civil Suit inO.S.No.744 of 2000 has been filed for the relief of specific performanceended in favour of the first petitioner, in which, the title of the disputedproperty confirmed in favour of the vendors of the first petitioner.The order passed by the Tahsildar with regard to the Sub-division ofthe property was questioned by the affected flat owners by way of presentingthe petitions and appeals.Thereafter, on 26.03.2014, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer cancelled the order passed by the Tahsildar in which the patta wasgranted in favour of the first petitioner and directed to sub-divide theproperty in T.S.No.5 measuring to an extent of 23.86 hectares, for grantingpatta in favour of the Members, who are challenged the sub-division.The saidorder being challenged by way of Revision before the District RevenueOfficer.Moreover, various persons had filed a suit against thevendors of the first petitioner in various Courts claiming title over thedisputed property and for the relief of injunction but the said suits endedin favour of the petitioners and thereafter for threatening the petitioners,the de facto complainant filed Crl.O.P.No.3274 of 2013 before this Court andgot an order for direction.Based on the above circumstances, the firstpetitioner prayed this Court to quash the First Information Report.Further,the petitioners 2 and 3 are also required to quash the said First InformationReport by mentioning that they sub-divided the property only as per thedirection given by their Superior Officers.Now, in order to substantiate the claim made by the petitioners, thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a submission that thefirst petitioner has purchased the property between the year of 1962 - 1969from the original Pattadhars and thereafter, in the year 1980, after madesub-division pattas were issued in favour of the first petitioner.Further,he added that the earlier petition filed by the de facto complainant beforethe first respondent for the same allegation now mentioned in the allegedFirst Information Report was closed after proper enquiry, after giving adviseto the parties to work out their remedy in the Civil Court.O.P.[MD]Nos.17648 of 2013 observed various aspects in and around the case and issued a direction to the District Revenue Officer to dispose of theappeal pending with regard to the property within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.In the same way, this Courtpassed an order in M.P.[MD]No.2 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.[MD]Nos.17648 of 2013 filed in the same Original Petition analysing the various aspects and came tothe conclusion that prima facie case has been made out to show the unlawfulactivities of the de facto complainant and issued a direction to the firstrespondent for giving police protection to the first petitioner.In the saidsituation allowing to file a charge sheet in the petition mentioned FirstInformation Report is nothing but abuse of process of law.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent would submit that since for deciding the title so many suits arepending with the Civil Court, the first respondent is not in a position toconfirm the offence committed by the first petitioner.The learned counselappearing for the de facto complainant would submit that even after knowingthe entire facts and circumstances, the first petitioner purchased theproperty from the person, who is not having any title over the property.Further, after made influence over the Revenue Authority and after submittingthe false records, the name of the first petitioner was entered into therevenue records thereby only with the dishonest intention, the firstpetitioner committed the offences as alleged in the First Information Report,for which, the petitioners 2 and 3 after made a conspiracy altered therevenue records.On considering the rival submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on either side, it would be necessary to see the orders passed bythe Civil Court and by the Divisional Revenue Officer.Oneanother vendor of the first petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.2308 of 2004 onthe file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, against one Baskaranand 16 others for declaration of title and permanent injunction.The suit wasdecreed in favour of the vendors of the first petitioner on 01.10.2004.Another suit in O.S.No.1362 of 1995 was filed by the first petitioner'svendor for permanent injunction.Subsequent to the purchase made by the firstpetitioner in the year 2004, one S.Palaniappan filed a suit in O.S.No.677 of2008 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli againstthe first petitioner.After full-fledged trial, the Court came to theconclusion that the plaintiff in the suit is not in possession and that thefirst petitioner herein has proved his title.Further, one another suit in O.S.No.237 of 2011 has been filed by one J.Lathaagainst the first petitioner herein for permanent injunction is pending.Further, the suit in O.S.No.1127 of 2008 has been filed by one Baluand another against the first petitioner is pending.In the same way, anothersuit in O.S.No.168 of 2007 has been filed by one Rakkayee and O.S.No.172 of 2007 was filed by one Renganath against the first petitioner is also pending.Yet, another suit in O.S.No.228 of 2009 has been filed by one DuraisamyGunaseelan and five others for a declaration that the proceedings of DistrictRevenue Officer dated 30.10.1987, culminated in the notification underSection 13 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundary Act, 1923 is null and voidand consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from givingeffect or to endorse the order of the District Revenue Officer.In all three suits, as per the order passed in I.A.Nos.541 to543 of 2012, the first petitioner has been directed not to alienate theproperties.Accordingly, in order to confirm the title with regard to theland in question, the above-mentioned suits are filed and as of now some ofthe suits are pending.After holdingenquiry, a closure report was submitted by the then Inspector, Anti LandGrabbing Cell by directing the parties to approach the Civil Court to agitatetheir rights in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2007 on the file of Principal Sub-Court andto abide by the verdict given by the Civil Court and the orders of DistrictRevenue Officer regarding cancellation of patta.Thereafter, the present defacto complainant has neither filed a protest petition nor any privatecomplaint.Instead the de facto complainant on the same set of facts, onceagain gave another complaint on 10.09.2012 and have approached this Hon'bleCourt and got a direction to register the complaint, suppressing the earliercomplaint.The pending litigations were listed in thisreport earlier.Having regard to the number of litigations and subjectmatters involved in those cases, it can be inferred that apart from the defacto complainant and the accused Thiru.M.Kandasamy, there are other partieswho are claiming title and enjoyment in respect of the same properties forwhich patta had been issued in favour of Thiru.In the abovestated litigations, in certain suits decrees had been passed by the civilcourt, certain suits are pending before the civil court.When those civilsuits are pending without ascertaining the entire details, the then Inspectorof Police while registering the first information report in col.7 instead ofregistering the names of the accused mentioned in the complaint of thecomplainant, had entered the names of Sivasankaran, Kumaresan, Palthurai, Abdul Jaleel and Radhakrishnan.Had the inquiry officer/inspector come toknow that they are the accused certainly there would have been a mentionabout the same in the F.I.R. and in the deposition of witnesses andconfession statements but the same is not mentioned.Further on the complaintof Thiru.The accused M.Kandasamy has purchased the property only from his vendors who are named above.Unless there is any allegation againstthem regarding fabrication of records or fraud or forgery, the subsequentpurchaser M.Kandasamy cannot be complained especially in a case where there is no material or any form of evidence against the accused Kandasamy forcommitting cheating or fraud and forgery.?So, on culminating the entire things particularly on going throughthe number of suits pending against these petitioners / vendors and also onthe strength of the report submitted by the first respondent, which wouldclearly reveals that the first respondent is not in a position to investigatethe matter without conferring the title.Before deciding these Petitions, it is necessary to note down oneanother aspect with regard to the acquisition made by the National HighwaysAuthority.On 01.07.2004, the National Highways Authority issued anotification under Section 3[A][1] of National Highways Act for acquiring theportion of the lands purchased by the first petitioner, for which, thepetitioner gave consent with condition for giving compensation under marketvalue.In the said enquiry, one Jeyachandran and Kalarani alone made a rivalclaim as purchasers of independent plot.They objected in respect of all sub-divisions as they could not identify their lands with regard to the sub-division.Subsequently, the claim made by the first petitioner is referred tothe Civil Court under Section 3[H][4] of National Highways Act to decide theownership and for apportionment of compensation.As of now, the amount ofcompensation to the tune of Rs.4 Crores and odd has been deposited in theaccount of L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2007 before II Additional Sub Court,Tiruchirappalli.Against which, the first petitioner filed W.P.No.9627 of2007 and this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition.Subsequent to that WritPetition, W.A.No.570 of 2008 has been filed, in which, the order wasconfirmed reserving the petitioner's right to approach the Sub Court forwithdrawal of any amount deposited towards compensation.On cursorily looking of all these aspects shows that thede facto complainant after admitting the possession of the first petitioner,they prayed for redemption of the lands as per the submission made by thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it appears that the entireproperty purchased by the first petitioner was fenced on the strength of therevenue records.In the said circumstances, without mentioning the suits withregard to the property and without mentioning the closure of the earliercomplaint given by them, the de facto complainant got a direction from thisCourt and subsequently, a case has been registered against these petitioners.The dispute between the first petitioner and the de factocomplainant can be settled only by way of civil litigation.The petition mentioned First Information Report was registered aftersuppressing the earlier complaint lodged by the de facto complainant for thevery same allegation.The dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioners have tobe settled only by way of civil litigation.There is no prima facie evidence to prove that the petitioners are havingdishonest intention to grab the property in dispute.In the light of the above discussions, I hold that this is a fitcase for quashing the First Information Report.Accordingly, these CriminalOriginal Petitions are allowed and the First Information Report registered inCrime No.14 of 2013 against these three petitioners are quashed. | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,594,423 | In default of payment of fine, the appellant is required to Crl.A 107-02 Page 1 of 28 undergo a further period of incarceration (i.e., simple imprisonment) for a period of two months.The two sentences are to run concurrently.A 107-02 Page 1 of 28The conviction of the appellant has occurred in the background of the following circumstances which are adverted to in the complaint (Ex PW3/F) and the FIR (Ex PW8/A).The circumstances being as follows: The complainant in this case is one Sh Hamid Khan (PW-3) who was at the relevant point in time running a tailoring shop at F- 237, New Seema Puri, Delhi.In connection with the said business, in the year 1994, Hamid Khan (PW-3) had applied for a licence to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short MCD), Health Department, located in Shahadra Zone Delhi.Hamid Khan (PW-3) in response to his application received a letter in April, 1995 from MCD, inter alia, calling upon him to furnish certain documents related with the tailoring shop he ran at the premises, referred to hereinabove.Even though Hamid Khan (PW-3) evidently, had filed the papers sought for, he did not receive any response from MCD for a considerable period of time.It is in this connection that the Hamid Khan (PW-3) visited the appellant, an employee of MCD; upon being informed that the appellant was the concerned person who, he would have to meet in order to process his papers.In this background, the first meeting, between Hamid Khan (PW-3) and the appellant took place on 05.05.1995 at about 3.00 pm in the afternoon in the office of the appellant.At the meeting, Hamid Khan (PW-3) was told by the appellant that, if his papers had to be processed i.e., his work had to be done, some fee would have to be paid and for this purpose he should meet him in his office on 08.05.1995 at about 2.30 pm.On 08.05.1995, Hamid Khan (PW-3) alongwith his friend one Sh Krishan Kumar Godwal met the appellant at the appointed time.The appellant at the meeting demanded a bribe of Rs 1500/- in addition to the official fee for processing his papers.A 107-02 Page 2 of 28On registration of the FIR, the case was entrusted to Sh S. R. Singh (PW-8), Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6) was directed to act as a shadow witness to accompany Hamid Khan (PW-3) so that a first person account could be had of the transaction in respect of which Hamid Khan (PW-3) had made a complaint.As is usual, every member of the trap laying party was asked to wash their hands thoroughly with soap and water whereafter, personal search was taken of each of the members of the trap laying party which included Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6) and Sh A. K. Sanan (PW-7).The officials of the CBI were directed not to carry anything else with them except their identity cards.The trap laying party left the CBI premises alongwith a trap bag consisting inter alia clean glass tumblers, clean glass bottles, spoon, Sodium Crl.A 107-02 Page 3 of 28 Carbonate, CBI seals and other sealing material.The members of the trap team and the independent witnesses were informed of their respective roles.The contents of the bag were shown to the members of the trap team including Hamid Khan (PW-3).The GC notes, which were 15 in number of a denomination of Rs 100 each, were treated with Phenolphthalein powder.A demonstration was given by a CBI officer to the members of the trap team to show to them that when treated notes were handed over to the bribe-taker how the powder would stick to the handlers hands, and upon the handlers hands and fingers being dipped in a colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate it would turn pink in colour.This demonstration was given with the help of A. K. Sanan (PW-7) and in the presence of the other independent witness i.e., Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6).After this demonstration was over, the pink colour solution was discarded and as indicated above, a trap laying bag was prepared carrying clean glass tumblers and other attendant material including Sodium Carbonate solution, in case an eventuality arose to use the same on the conclusion of the operation.A 107-02 Page 3 of 289. To continue with the narrative, at about 3.40 pm the trap laying party reached the office of the MCD at the address noticed hereinabove.Hamid Khan (PW-3) alongwith Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6) the shadow witness, proceeded to the room where the appellant usually was available.All this while the other members of the trap team took suitable positions outside the office of the MCD.The other members of the trap team were required to converge only upon the shadow witness i.e., Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6) giving a pre arranged signal to the said members of the trap laying party.Sh S S Rawat (PW-6) was thus required to signal to the other members of the trap laying party to convene by scratching his head.On reaching office of the appellant, Hamid Khan (PW-3) asked the appellant whether his work had been done; to which the appellant responded by asking whether the money demanded had been brought by him.On receiving affirmation from Hamid Khan (PW-3) in respect of the same, the appellant walked out of his room alongwith Hamid Khan (PW-3) and the shadow witness Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6).He then called out for his Crl.A 107-02 Page 4 of 28 peon, one Sh Chandan Singh.On receiving no response, he walked out of his room where he met Sh Janak Raj, a Class IV employee of the MCD.A 107-02 Page 4 of 2810.1 It is pertinent to note at this stage that Janak Raj was also a co-accused in the case who has been acquitted by the trial court.10.2 The appellant it appears whispered something to Sh Janak Raj, whereafter he directed Janak Raj to accompany Hamid Khan (PW-3) with a direction that the money should be handed over to Janak Raj.Consequently, Hamid Khan (PW-3) alongwith Sh S. S. Rawat (PW-6) came out of the office and crossed the road and entered the adjoining public park.On reaching the park, Janak Raj asked Hamid Khan (PW-3) to hand over the money, which was done; at which point in time Sh S S Rawat gave the pre arranged signal.By this time Janak Raj had received the treated GC notes with his right hand and, evidently after counting the money with both his hands, kept the money in the right side pocket of his trouser.On receiving the signal, other members of the trap team also descended at the spot where transaction was consummated alongwith other independent witness Sh A. K. Sanan (PW-7).The trap team confronted Janak Raj, who was the recipient of the money.Immediately thereafter, the washes of the right hand and the left hand fingers as well as the inner lining of the right side pocket of Janak Rajs trouser was taken.The washes had evidently turned pink in colour.The colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which had turned pink was accordingly transferred into clean containers/bottles which had been brought by the trap team alongwith them.The bottles were wrapped with a cloth and sealed.In so far as the left hand wash was concerned, it was marked as LWH, and similarly the right hand wash of Janak Raj was marked as RWH.In so far as the wash of the right hand side pocket of Crl.A 107-02 Page 5 of 28 Janak Rajs trouser was concerned, a paper with the mark RPW was attached.A site plan (Ex PW6/P) was also prepared wherein, the positions of various persons before and after the trap were indicated.Personal search of Janak Raj was also conducted, and a personal search memo being: Ex PW6/C was prepared.A personal search memo of the appellant was also prepared, being Ex PW6/B. Both search memos bear the signatures of the two independent witnesses S. S. Rawat (PW-6), A. K. Sanan (PW-7) and TLO, S. R. Singh (PW-8) as also the persons whose search had been conducted which is the appellant and Janak Raj.The bottles containing the coloured solution, the GC currency notes which had been handled by Janak Raj as well as the trouser which was worn by Janak Raj was taken into custody.The events as they transpired during the course of the trap operation were recorded in a recovery memo (ExPW3/K).I replied : Haan laya hun.Thereafter, accused Yadav asked me to come out of the room.Thereafter coming out of the room accused R.P.S.Yadav called out the name of his peon Chandan Singh but that peon was not available.At some distance, accused Janak Raj was sitting (witness has correctly identified accused Janak Raj who is present in court).Accused R.P.S.Yadav called accused Janak Raj by waiving his hand and accused Janak Raj reached there.Thereafter accused R.P.S.Yadav directed Janak Raj to accompany me and told him "key yeh kuchh degain, lay aao".Accused Janak Raj came alongwith me outside the office in a park.."A 107-02 Page 11 of 28The complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) testified that he had made an application to the MCD in 1994 for grant of licence to run a tailoring shop; in 1995 he received a communication from the office of the MCD to furnish documents mentioned in the said communication; after receipt of the said communication even though he submitted the said documents, he was not issued a licence; this resulted in his approaching the appellant who was posted as an Inspector in the office of the MCD; he met the appellant in April-May, 1995 when he was told to bring some documents which produced in original alongwith their Photostat copies.The complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) went on to say that the appellant told him that, if he wanted a licence to be issued in his favour he would have to pay him Rs 1500/-.On the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) enquiring whether the said amount was a fee, the appellant told him that the licence fee would be different from the amount of Rs 1500/- demanded by the appellant.To be noted, Hamid Khan (PW-3) in Court identified the appellant as the one who had demanded a sum of Rs 1500/- from him.The complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) also proved his complaint to the CBI (Ex PW3/F) which he testified was in his own handwriting and bore his signatures at point A. Hamid Khan (PW-3), went on to state that on the complaint being made S. R. Singh (PW-8) constituted a trap team comprising of two independent witnesses one of whom was S S Rawat (PW-6).He did not seem to remember the name of the other witness.He further deposed that the serial Crl.A 107-02 Page 12 of 28 numbers of the GC notes were recorded and also the fact that they were treated with Phenolphthalein powder.PW-3 proved his signatures at point A on the Annexure (Ex PW3/G) appended to the handing over memo Ex PW3/H, which set out the numbers of the GC notes.On reaching the MCD office, he entered the MCD office alongwith S S Rawat (PW-6).Since Chandan Singh was not available, and having noticed Janak Raj sitting at some distance, he waived to him and asked him to accompany the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).Janak Raj, according to Hamid Khan (PW-3), was told that "Ke eh kuchh denge lay aao".Thereupon Hamid Khan (PW-3) accompanied Janak Raj to a park adjoining the office with the shadow witness S. S. Rawat (PW-6).After reaching the park Janak Raj exhorted PW-3 to give him whatever he had to hand over by stating "Lao ji" at which point in time the treated GC notes which were wrapped in a paper were handed over to Janak Raj.Janak Raj took the notes wrapped in the paper in his right hand.The paper containing the notes was kept by Janak Raj in his trouser pocket at which point in time the shadow witness S. S. Rawat (PW-6) signaled to the other members of the trap team.The CBI officials reached there swiftly and apprehended the accused Janak Raj.Janak Raj when apprehended said "Kayon pakra hai kaya bat hai".On being caught, CBI officers told Janak Raj that he had accepted Rs 1500 as bribe money, whereupon Janak Raj denied the allegation and started weeping.The CBI officials thereafter directed Janak Raj to remove the package from his pocket, and on Crl.Janak Raj was thereafter asked to count those notes.Janak Raj, as directed, counted the treated GC notes with his hands, at which point, Janak Raj told the CBI officials his Sahib (i.e., the appellant) asked him "Ki yeh jo denge inke saath jakar lay aao".The CBI officials thus directed Janak Raj to hand over those tainted notes to his Sahib i.e., the appellant for whom he had collected the said GC notes.Janak Raj was also told not to indulge in actions which would forewarn the appellant, and also that the notes must be handed over to the person who had asked him to accept the same.23.3 The complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) however testified that after the hand washes of the left and right hand of Janak Raj were taken, the colourless Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink and furthermore the said solution was transferred to separate bottles and sealed.The left hand wash bottle being sealed with the mark LHW.He also testified to the effect that wash of the trouser pocket of Janak Raj was also carried out which turned the colourless Sodium Carbonate solution into pink.He went on to say that the wash was kept in a separate bottle and duly sealed and wrapped with a label put on it.Hamid Khan (PW-3) however went on to testify that hand wash of the appellant was taken.He further deposed that it was the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) who handed over the envelope to Janak Raj which he accepted, and at that point of time, he signaled to the other members of the trap team.He denied the suggestion that Janak Raj had accepted the money with his right hand and had counted the same, with both hands.He also denied the suggestion that he had deliberately referred to an envelope being handed over by the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) to the appellant to derail the case set up by the prosecution.24.6 He accepted the fact that on his signal, the other members of the CBI team converged to the sport where Janak Raj was located and caught hold of him by his right hand wrist.Mr S. S. Rawat (PW-6), however, failed to recollect as to whether one of the members of the CBI team had confronted Janak Raj with an accusation that he had demanded, and thereafter accepted a bribe of Rs.1500/- from the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).A 107-02 Page 17 of 2824.7 Mr S. S. Rawat (PW-6), however, accepted the fact that Janak Raj had admitted to his having accepted an envelope on the directions of his superior i.e., the appellant S.S.Rawat (PW-6), however, denied the suggestion that the appellant had demanded the money and directed the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) to hand over the money to Janak Raj.He denied having confirmed to the CBI team that Janak Raj had kept the money in his right hand side trouser pocket.24.8 Mr S. S. Rawat (PW-6) accepted the fact that Janak Raj was taken to the room of the appellant after he was caught.He did not seem to recollect that A. K. Sanan (PW-7) had been directed to search the right side trouser pocket of Janak Raj and on Crl.A 107-02 Page 18 of 28 doing so, the recovery of the bribe money was made.He also failed to recollect that he and Mr A K Sanan (PW-7) had tallied the numbers of the recovered GC notes with those given in Ex. PW-3/G. He went on to state that no hand wash of Janak Raj was taken in his presence since he had left the place as there was a "melee".24.9 Even though S. S. Rawat (PW-6) denied that the hand wash of the right side trouser pocket was taken in his presence, he accepted the fact that Ex. P-16 to P-18 bore his signatures at point A. He, importantly, went out to say that neither he refused to sign the exhibits nor he was pressurized to sign the exhibits, and that all exhibits had been signed by him at the spot.He also accepted the fact that the Recovery Memo Ex. PW-3/A bore his signatures at point B. He also stated that he had signed the memo without having read its contents.In the context of the above, let me examine the testimony of Mr A K Sanan (PW-7).26.1 PW-7 was at the relevant point of time posted as stenographer in FCI at its Headquarters in New Delhi.Like PW-6, he was also requisitioned by CBI to join the trap laying team in connection with the aforementioned operation.In the cross-examination, he like S S Rawat (PW-6) accepted the fact that the complainant was one Mr Hamid Khan and Mr Hamid Khan had informed him that he was being asked for a bribe of Rs.1500/- from one Mr R P S Yadav i.e., the appellant, who was an Inspector in the MCD at Shahdara Zone; the money was being demanded by the appellant in order to enable the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) to secure the licence for his tailoring shop.26.4 He also accepted the fact that the complainant had produced 15 GC notes of a denomination of Rs.100/- each.Mr A K Sanan (PW-7) went on to state that the numbers of the said GC notes were recorded in a Handing Over Memo, on which he had appended his signatures.He also accepted the fact that the GC notes were treated Crl.A 107-02 Page 20 of 28 with phenolphthalein powder and that he had been asked to touch the said treated notes and, thereafter dip his fingers in the said solution.He further stated that Mr S S Rawat (PW-6) was directed to act as a shadow witness so that he could accompany the complainant and interact with the appellant.He stated that PW-6 was told that once the transaction was complete, he was to signal to the other members of the trap laying team by scratching the hair on the head.I cannot say what is written in those papers as I have not read it.The whole writing in long hand took more than 1 hour.The writing took place in the office of R P S Yadav.Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant : Mr Sunil Mund, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Sonia Mathur, Advocate CORAM :-By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant (i.e., Sh R.P.S. Yadav) has been convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P C Act, 1988).As a result thereof, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of conviction under Section 7 of the P C Act, 1988 with a fine of Rs 3000/-.In default of payment of fine, he is required to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one and a half month.In so far as the appellants conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P C Act is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two and a half years with a fine of Rs 7000/-.Since this modality was not acceptable to Hamid Khan (PW-3), he lodged a complaint (Ex PW3/F) dated 09.05.1995 with the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) at his office located at Lodhi Road, New Delhi.Based on the report, a First Crl.The said recovery memo (ExPW3/K) bears the signatures amongst others of the complainant Hamid Khan (P W-3), TLO S. R. Singh (PW-8) and S. S. Rawat (PW-6).The chemical analysis of all the samples also showed a positive result.A 107-02 Page 5 of 28By an order dated 27.07.1995 the Additional Commissioner, MCD granted sanction (Ex PW2/A) under Section 19(1)(c) of the P C Act for prosecution of both the appellant and Janak Raj for offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.The appellant and Janak Raj were charged under the provisions of Section 120B of the IPC, Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.At the trial, the prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses while, the defence examined the accused and one more witness i.e., one Sh Rampal (DW-1).The trial court on perusal of the evidence on record came to the conclusion in so far as Janak Raj was concerned that no incriminating evidence had been placed on record by the prosecution to prove the constituents of criminal conspiracy.The trial court thus held that charge as against Janak Raj was not proved.Similarly, in so far as the charge against the appellant under Section 120B was concerned, it was dropped, in view of the fact that the prosecution had failed to establish subsistence of any agreement between the Crl.A 107-02 Page 6 of 28 co-accused Janak Raj and the appellant to commit an illegal act including the act of demanding illegal gratification from the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).The rationale being, if the charge is of criminal conspiracy between two persons and one of them is acquitted, and it is not the case of the prosecution of involvement of a third person, the charge against the other will also fail.A 107-02 Page 6 of 28In so far as the remaining charges against the appellant, in respect of the other substantive provisions were concerned, the trial court sustained the same.The learned trial judge concluded that the bribe was accepted as a reward for according a licence to the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) in respect of his tailoring shop.Being aggrieved, as noticed above, the instant appeal has been filed.In support of the appeal, on behalf of the appellant arguments have been addressed by Mr Sunil Mund.The job assigned to the appellant was only to scrutinize the documents filed in that behalf by the applicants, which included the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).A 107-02 Page 7 of 28The complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) not being too happy with the fact that he was told by the appellant that he would have to pay the requisite fee of Rs 1500/- had filed the said complaint with the CBI against him.In support of this submission, the learned counsel drew my attention to the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as Cr.P.C).19.4 In order to establish that there was no demand made, learned counsel drew my attention to the testimony of the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).In particular my attention was drawn to the following portion of the testimony:-".....We both entered into the room of accused R.P.S. Yadav.I wished accused R.P.S.Yadav and I asked:-Sir, Mera kaam ho jaye ga Kya.To which accused Yadav replied : Jo maine kaha tha laya ha.19.5 The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, there was some contradiction between what the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) said transpired at the meeting, between him and the appellant on 09.05.1995 and what emerged from the Crl.A 107-02 Page 8 of 28 testimony of S.S Rawat (PW-6).In this context he relied upon the following part of S. S. Rawats (PW-6s):-A 107-02 Page 8 of 28"...We left for MCD office, Shahdara zone at about 1.30-2 PM and reached near MCD office Shahdara office at about 2.30/2.45 PM.On reaching there I and complainant went in the chamber of accused Yadav and complainant enquired from accused Yadav as to what had happened to his work.Accused Yadav asked the complainant to come day after tomorrow OR KAM HO JAYE GA.Thereafter complainant stayed there for about 2-4 minutes and said "KI MAINE KAM KIYA HUA HAI".In the meanwhile accused Yadav stood up from his seat and called his peon whose name was like that of Chandan.Exact name I do not remember.However that person was not available at that time.Thereafter accused Yadav went to the room of accused Janak Raj after searching for him in 4/5 rooms.Again said accused Yadav went to different rooms KI KOI BHI ADMI MIL JAYE.Accused Janak Raj was sitting in his section on his duty.Accused Yadav called him and pointed towards us by saying to accused Janak Raj that he should go alongwith us.However, accused Yadav did not tell about the purpose of the work.Janak Raj was not willing to go for that work but however he left that work to obey the order of his superiors....."19.6 Based on the said testimony, Mr Mund submitted that not only was there a vast difference in recollection of the events as they transpired on 09.05.1995 when the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3), and shadow witness S. S. Rawat (PW-6) met the appellant, but it also showed that there was in fact no demand of illegal gratification by the appellant.At this juncture, according to DW-1, the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) sought concession of Rs 500 to which the appellant responded by saying that the same had to be paid towards government fee and hence, it could not be waived.DW-1 went on to say that, at this point the gentlemen left the room and threatened the appellant while leaving the room.Based on this, Mr Mund submitted that there was no evidence on record that the appellant had demanded money towards illegal gratification.19.7 As regards acceptance of illegal gratification, Mr Mund sought to demonstrate Crl.A 107-02 Page 9 of 28 from the evidence on record that the bribe money was handed over to Janak Raj, even as per the prosecution and not to the appellant.He further submitted that as a matter of fact A. K. Sanan (PW-7) had denied that he had taken search of the right side trouser pocket of Janak Raj and that on doing so, he had recovered the treated G. C. notes amounting to Rs 1500/-.A specific emphasis was laid on the following part of the testimony of A. K. Sanan (PW-7):-A 107-02 Page 9 of 28"....It is incorrect to suggest that I was directed to take the search of right side pant pocket worn by Janak Raj and on doing so I recovered Rs.1500/- consisting of 15 GC notes of Rs 100 denomination each....."19.8 Mr Mund also attempted to demonstrate contradictions in the prosecutions case by relying upon the testimony of the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).My attention was drawn to that part of the testimony of the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) wherein, he submitted that Janak Raj had handed over the tainted GC notes to the appellant and the said GC notes were recovered from the pocket of the appellant and not from the pocket of Janak Raj."....The money was not recovered from the pocket of accused Janak Raj and the same was recovered from the pocket of accused R.P.S.Yadav...It is wrong to suggest that no handwash of accused R.P.S.Yadav was taken.Volunteered: Pant wash to accused R.P.S.Yadav was taken."The purpose of drawing my attention to the said part of Hamid Khan (PW-3s) testimony was that the payment of Rs 1500/- was being discussed between the appellant and the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) in the context of what was legally payable as fee for grant of licence.Based on the aforesaid, Mr Mund argued that the case against the appellant could not stand; since suspicion could not substitute proof.In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the following judgment of the Supreme Court:- Crl.A 107-02 Page 10 of 28A 107-02 Page 10 of 28Ms Mathur, drew my attention to the testimony of S. S. Rawat (PW-6), A. K. Sanan (PW-7), S. R. Singh (PW-8) and Hamid Khan (PW-3) to establish that not only was there demand but that there was also acceptance of the illegal gratification; though the gratification had been received by Janak Raj on behalf of the appellant.The learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that the case of the prosecution was that treated GC notes had been recovered from the Janak Raj notwithstanding the fact that the complainant had deposed that the tainted money had been recovered from the appellant.The learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the S. S. Rawat (PW-6) and A. K. Sanan (PW-7) had turned hostile it was not as if the entire testimony on that account alone would be discarded by the Court.It was submitted that both A. K. Sanan (PW-7) and S. R. Singh (PW-8) had not only proved their signatures on the pre-trap proceedings i.e., the handing over memo (Ex PW3/H) but had also proved their signatures on the recovery memo (ExPW3/K).It was submitted that the contradictions, if any, in the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7 were minor and did not in any way dilute the case of the prosecution.It was also contended that a reading of the testimony of the TLO S. R. Singh (PW-8) alongwith other circumstantial evidence would (as held by the trial court) prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant.In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the State relied upon the following judgments:-L.J. 2942(SC); and Madan Lal vs State (G.N.C.T of Delhi): Crl.A 67/2005 decided on 22.03.2010I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State and also perused the evidence on record.It is no doubt true that in order to establish the guilt of Crl.He also proved the procedure which was adopted, as noticed by me above, with respect to the pre-trap proceedings.A 107-02 Page 12 of 2823.1 In so far as what transpired on the day the trap was executed, Hamid Khan (PW-3) testified that he alongwith the trap team and the independent witnesses left the CBI office for the MCD office, where the appellant was posted.After this, the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) alongwith other persons including Janak Raj entered the office of the appellant and Janak Raj handed over the GC notes to the appellant.A 107-02 Page 13 of 2823.2 To be noted, since the witness turned hostile he was cross-examined by the prosecutor.In the cross-examination by the prosecutor, the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) stated as follows:-Again said: the money was not recovered from the pocket of accused Janak Raj and the same was recovered from the pocket of accused R.P.S.Yadav...."He further volunteered that trouser wash of the appellant was also taken at which point in time he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) however proved his signatures on the recovery memo Ex PW3/K at point A. He also testified that the GC notes (P-1 to Crl.A 107-02 Page 14 of 28 P-15) were the same which he had produced in the CBI office during the pre-trap proceedings, and it was those GC notes which were recovered, albeit from the appellant.A 107-02 Page 14 of 2823.4 In the cross-examination carried out by the counsel for the accused (i.e., the appellant) as well as Janak Raj Hamid Khan (PW-3) seemed to suggest that he had signed the papers which were handed over to him by CBI officials without going through the contents of the documents as they were drawn in english.He further submitted that none of these documents had been read over and explained to him.In particular, the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) affirmed in his testimony that he was a leader who at times worked on behalf of the others to get their work done at the MCD office, and since he was annoyed with the appellant he had falsely implicated him.He however denied the suggestion that he did not want the appellant to charge assessment fee in the previous years.In his testimony, he stated as follows :-24.1 On 09.05.1995, based on the requisition of CBI, he alongwith Mr A. K. Sanan (PW-7), his colleague reported to the office of CBI.They reached the office around 12.30 p.m. Where they met the complainant, Hamid Khan (PW-3).He deposed that he was told that Hamid Khan (PW-3) had lodged a complaint that a bribe was being demanded of him.He stated that he made an enquiry to that effect from the complainant, who evidently informed him that since his work was not getting done, bribe was demanded of him.He was informed that his job was to see and observe what transpired on their visiting the MCD office at Shahdara Zone.24.2 On reaching the office, Mr Hamid Khan, complainant (PW-3) alongwith Mr S S Rawat (PW-6) entered the room where the appellant was present, whereupon Crl.A 107-02 Page 15 of 28 PW-3 asked the appellant as to what had happened to his work.The appellant responded by saying that Hamid Khan (PW-3) should come back, day after tomorrow, when his work shall get done.After a brief pause, the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-A 107-02 Page 15 of 283) is said to have stated "ki maine kaam kiya hua hai".At this juncture, it appears that the appellant stood up from his seat and called out for his peon Chandan.Since Chandan was not available, the appellant walked out where Janak Raj was present.On seeing Janak Raj, the appellant called out to Janak Raj and asked him to accompany Hamid Khan (PW-3) and S. S Rawat (PW-6).The appellant, however, did not tell Janak Raj, the purpose of their visit.Janak Raj was unwilling to accompany us but he agreed as he did not want to disobey the order of his superior.On the way, Janak Raj enquired about the purpose of the work; since they had been instructed not to disclose the purpose of their work, they did not get into a conversation on this aspect.PW3/G at point B bore his signatures.He also accepted the fact that GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder.It was accepted by Mr S S Rawat (PW-6) that a pre-trap demonstration was given in the office of CBI and that during the course of that demonstration, said A.K Sanan (PW-7) was asked to touch the said treated notes and then dip his fingers in a solution of sodium carbonate and on doing so, the solution Crl.A 107-02 Page 16 of 28 turned pink in colour.He accepted the fact that the said solution after the demonstration was thrown away.He accepted the fact that the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) was handed over the treated notes.He also accepted the fact that the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) was instructed to hand over the powder treated notes to the appellant only on a specific demand by him or whomsoever he was directed to.He accepted the fact that he was instructed to accompany the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) as a shadow witness for purposes of over-hearing the conversation between the appellant and the complainant and to observe the events as they transpired.He also accepted the fact that, once the bribe money was handed over to the appellant, he was to signal to the other members of the trap team by scratching his head with his both hands.He, however, denied the fact that the members of the trap team washed their hands with sodium carbonate water and had mutually searched each other that they were carrying nothing except their identity cards.He, though, admitted the fact that the handing over memo Ex. PW3/H bore his signatures, though he denied having read the contents of the said document.He denied the suggestion that the appellant had said the following to him :-A 107-02 Page 16 of 28"Jo kam ke liye kaha tha veh kiya hai ke nahin and complainant said kiya hai.Yadav asked "Abhi laye ho".Then complainant said :-"Main laya hun".(witness is confronted with portion C to C of statement Ex. PW-6/A where it is so recorded)."24.5 S.S.Rawat (PW-6), however, stated that the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) himself had said "sab kaam ho gaya hai".Mr S S Rawat (PW-6) further stated in his cross-examination stated that since Chandan was not available (who evidently was his peon), he approached Janak Raj and whispered something in his ear which he was unable to hear and that thereafter, the appellant told Janak Raj to accompany the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).He reiterated that Janak Raj did not know the purpose for which he was accompanying the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).Mr S. S. Rawat (PW-6) denied the suggestion that the appellant had said to the complainant Crl.A 107-02 Page 17 of 28 Hamid Khan (PW-3) "aur isko dena".He accepted the fact that Janak Raj had taken them to a park adjoining MCD office.He accepted the fact that he never signed any paper without reading its contents during the ordinary course of discharge of his official duties.He proved his signatures on the personal search memo of the appellant i.e., Ex. PW-6/B and those of Janak Raj i.e., PW-6/C. Mr S. S. Rawat (PW-6) also accepted his signatures at point A on the seizure memo Ex. PW-6/D. He also admitted his signatures on Ex. PW-3/A, PW3/B, Mark B to G, ex.PW-3/C, Mark H to K, and Ex. PW-3/E. He also accepted his signatures on the site plan Ex. PW6/F. 24.10 In the cross-examination carried out by the counsel for the appellant, S.S. Rawat (PW6) was not asked as to whether Janak Raj was asked for or handed over bribe by the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3).Mr S S Rawat (PW-6), however, accepted the fact that Janak Raj was seen by the trap laying party outside the trap room, whereafter they went inside the MCD office to confront the appellant.A 107-02 Page 18 of 2825. PW-6 failed to recollect as to whether his statement was recorded.He, however, accepted the fact that he had signed about ten (10) to twelve (12) sheets of paper in the office of the CBI on returning from the MCD office, though none of the sheets of paper, on which he had signed were typed.He seemed to have shifted his stand on this aspect as well as he, in response to a very next question, went on to state Crl.A 107-02 Page 19 of 28 that he did not know what was typed or written in the papers which he had signed as he had not read them.A 107-02 Page 19 of 2825.1 To a suggestion made as to whether he was a member of the trap team, he stated as follows :-In his testimony, he touched upon the following relevant aspects :-On reaching the MCD office, S S Rawat (PW-6) alongwith the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) entered the MCD office.After the trap was executed, he along with other officials, entered the MCD office.The solution turned pink.It was accepted by Mr A.K. Sanan (PW-7) that thereafter the pink solution was discarded.PW-7 also accepted the fact that the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) was searched and that he was not allowed to carry with him anything except the treated notes which he had kept in the left side shirt pocket.A 107-02 Page 20 of 2826.5 Mr A. K. Sanan (PW-7) testified that the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) was instructed to handover the treated notes to the appellant only on a specific demand being made by him or to any other person on the say so of the appellant.26.6 Mr A K Sanan (PW-7) also accepted the fact that the trap team members were searched and they were allowed to carry only their identity cards.He went on to state that the trap bag containing the articles such as glass tumblers, empty bottles, sodium carbonate powder, sealing material, etc. was prepared.He proved his signatures on the pre-trap proceedings recorded in memo Ex. PW-3/H and the annexure accompanying the said memo i.e., PW-3/G.26.7 He deposed that on reaching the MCD office, the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) and the shadow witness were directed to proceed to the office of the appellant.He went on to state that he saw Mr S S Rawat (PW-6) and the complainant Hamid Khan (PW3) coming out from the MCD office with another person who, he later came to know was Janak Ram @ Janak Raj; a beldar in the MCD office.26.8 Crucially, he accepted the fact that on a signal being received, the members of the trap team converged where the complainant Hamid Khan (PW3), the shadow witness (PW-6), Janak Raj was located.He accepted the fact that the CBI official after disclosing their identity confronted Janak Raj with the accusation that he had demanded Crl.A 107-02 Page 21 of 28 and accepted Rs.1500/- from the complainant (PW-3).Crucially, Mr A. K. Sanan (PW-7) deposed that Janak Raj had admitted to having accepted the bribe amount on the directions of the appellant.The relevant part of his testimony to that effect reads as follows :-A 107-02 Page 21 of 28"It is correct that CBI official disclosed his identity and challenged Janak Raj that he had demanded and accepted Rs.1500/- from Hamid Khan.It is correct that Janak Raj on challenged admitted that he has accepted the bribe amount on the directions of R.P.S. Yadav"26.9 Mr A. K. Sanan (PW-7), however, denied the suggestion that he had searched the right side pocket of Janak Raj and that he had recovered the said 15 GC notes or that he had tallied the numbers of the GC notes alongwith Mr S S Rawat (PW-6).Mr A. K. Sanan (PW-7) went on to state that he did not recollect if the left hand wash of Janak Raj had been taken.He, however, did say that the pink solution was transferred to a bottle in his presence, whereupon it was sealed and labeled.26.10 He also accepted having appended his signatures on the labels.In so far as the right hand wash was concerned, he did not state with clarity as to whether solution had been transferred to a bottle as he had not seen the bottle.A similar stand was taken vis--vis the wash of the trouser pocket.As regards, other aspects of the trap proceedings, which related to his having appended his signatures on following documents, he accepted having done so.These documents being: Personal Search Memos Ex. PW-6/B & PW-6/C, Recovery Memo Ex. PW-3/K, Seizure Memo Ex. PW6/D; site plan Ex. PW6/P. He also accepted that a specimen of the seal bearing No.9/94 Ex. PW7/B was taken in his presence and bore his signatures at point A. PW-7 also accepted that he had seen the file PW-6/E, which bore his signatures alongwith those of Mr S. S. Rawat (PW-6) and the fact that his signatures had been appended during the trap proceedings.He also accepted the fact that they bear the signatures at point B. He also Crl.A 107-02 Page 22 of 28 accepted that fact that he had seen currency notes P1 to P-15, and that he compared their numbers with annexures Ex. PW-3/G, which were found to be correct.30.2 In the cross-examination carried out by the counsel for the appellant, to a question as to how many papers he had signed at the spot and whether he had read the same before signing, Mr A. K. Sanan (PW-7) stated as follows :-A 107-02 Page 22 of 28"I also do not know how many papers I signed at the spot and how many papers were written.I have seen my signatures today, so I identified my signatures.I must have read the statement at that time before signing.Many officers / officials were surrounding.Only Officer signed.No other was called to witness the proceedings."30.3 He seemed to have taken (at a later point in his deposition) a different line with regard to having signed the documents as he has stated to have said as follows :-"We came to the CBI office directly and there writing took place.Signatures were done there.I could not read what was written there.I from the CBI office went to my house at about 7.30 to 8 PM."30.4 Crucially, in the cross-examination carried out by the counsel for Janak Raj, Mr A K Sanan (PW-7) stated as follows :-"It is incorrect to suggest that accused Janak Raj did not admit in my presence that he accepted the money on behalf of accused R.P.S. Yadav.It is correct that the accused Janak Raj has no knowledge about money transaction between the R.P.S. Yadav and the complainant."However, in the cross-examination carried out by the counsel for the appellant, the witness, with regard to the operation stated as follows :-"Complainant and shadow witness were directed to go to the office of R.P.S. Yadav.I cannot tell the distance where I was standing to the office of Yadav, however, I was in the premises and I cannot tell the distance.There were some public persons in the premises.In between me and the office of Yadav.I did not see R.P.S. Yadav coming out of his office, Crl.A 107-02 Page 23 of 28 however, I saw another person whose name I came to know later as Janak Raj.The other park where Janak Raj went alongwith shadow witness, Hamid (complainant) was across the road.I also moved in the park simultaneously.After the trap, Janak Raj told me about R.P.S. Yadav.A 107-02 Page 23 of 28....We made the recovery in the office of R.P.S. Yadav and not in the park."31.1 Similarly, in the cross-examination by the counsel for Janak Raj, with regards to the certain crucial aspects of the operation, he stated as follows :-"It is incorrect to suggest that no pre raid proceedings was conducted." "...I had not prepared personal search of the witnesses and the other trap members.All the signatories of memos went ahead to the MCD office.I had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused Janak Raj.Janak Raj was caught hold after 15 minutes of leaving the office of accused R.P.S. Yadav.Inspector Rajesh Kumar and A.K. Kapoor caught hold Janak Raj with his wrists.Both the Inspectors offered their search to the accused Janak Raj but no memo was prepared in this regard.The money was recovered in the office of accused R.P.S. Yadav so far as I remember none was present except accused Yadav in his office when we reached there.It is wrong to suggest that no money was recovered.It is further wrong to suggest that the official who recovered the money did not offer his search.Hand wash were taken by the subordinate staff and the water was also brought by the subordinate staff.One of our staff member took out the inner lining of the pant whose name I do not remember.The investigation into the case was thereafter carried out by him.He stated that he collected the report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short, CFSL) in respect of the washes.He also deposed that he was responsible for obtaining the sanction Crl.A 107-02 Page 24 of 28 for prosecution of the appellant from the competent authority, and that he had recorded the statements of various witnesses; presented charge-sheet in court against the appellant as well as against the Janak Raj.In the cross-examination carried out by the counsel for the appellant, the witness stated that the case had been transferred to him in the interest of fairness since PW-8 had been involved in laying the trap.He denied the suggestion that Mr S. R. Singh (PW-8) was authorized to conduct the investigation.32.2 On being questioned as to whether he was responsible for sending the bottle containing the washes to the CFSL for the expert opinion, the witness stated as follows :-A 107-02 Page 24 of 28"I sent the bottles and the specimen of CBI seal to the CFSL for expert opinion.Except covering letter and sealed bottles and specimen of seal nothing else was sent.I withdrew the bottles from malkhana CBI.I did not recollect at this point of time whom I had deputed to collect the bottles from malkhana and who signed in the malkhana register, however, I did not sign.I did not record any observation in writing that the bottles were duly intact.However, as far as I remember the bottles were sealed.I do not know which witness was having the seal of the CBI but I did not have the same as the seals after the use are normally being handed over to the witnesses.The seal of the CBI once given to the public independent witness is never taken back.CFSL is situated in the same complex.On my requisition, the bottles were taken from malkhana and then taken to CFSL.S.R. Singh before laying the trap.I did not counter verified the same and I also did not enquire from S.R. Singh from whom he had enquired the general reputation."P.C mentioned that the complaint had been lodged against him by the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) as he was annoyed that his application was not being processed under the old rules seems rather thin.The fact that the appellant had to step out of his office and ask a class-IV employee (i.e., Janak Raj) to accept what the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) had to offer, in the circumstances shows that it could not have been either documents or legal fee as Janak Raj could not have been the recipient of either in the normal course of his duties.A 107-02 Page 25 of 2833.1 As noticed by me above, PW-6 & PW-7 have stated in so many words that Janak Raj did accept (when confronted by the trap team) that he had received the bribe money from the complainant Hamid Khan (PW-3) at the behest of the appellant.The fact that the PW-6 & PW-7 turned hostile or that the PW-7 said recovery not made by him from the pocket of Janak Raj, in my opinion, is not material if the events as they transpired on 09.05.1995 are seen as a complete chain events with various links attached to it.A 107-02 Page 27 of 28The appeal is thus dismissed.The bail bond and the security furnished is cancelled. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,960 | JUDGMENT V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Ashok Kumar son of Rishi Parkash resident of RanaMamurpur, Narela, Delhi, was tried for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code in Fir No. 167/75, Police Station Narela, Delhi, with the allegations that on1.8.75 at about 6.30 p.m. Ashok Kumar inflicted head injury with a sharp pointed weapon to Rajesh son of Hari Chand, complainant, near House No. 1921, Mamurpur, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Narela and also on the head of Kumari Khazani daughter of Hari Chand, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act she had died, he would have been guilty of murder and, thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.(2) Ashok Kumar pleaded not guilty to the charge and claim trial.Statement of the accused Ashok Kumar was recorded on30.6.76 in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a chance was given to him to explain the incriminating evidence produced against him by the prosecution.He has denied all the allegations and claimed that it was a false case and witnesses deposed against him on account of enmity.It was also pleaded by him that on 1.8.75 he was passing by the shop of Hari Chand when after calling him in the shop he was given abuses for having given bearings to Rajesh son of Hari Chand and that he was, thereafter,dragged inside the house by Hari Chand, Kazani, Dhanno and Bhagwat Saroop.He has also claimed that he tried to free himself and in that process Khazani Devi received a push on account of which her head struck against a pillar causing injury.He examined Diwan Singh DW/1 and Ram Nath DW/2 in his defenes.After hearing arguments Ashok Kumar was convicted under Section 307 and sentenced to R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 200.00 or in default to undergo further R.I.for two months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated (3) Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and entence Ashok Kumar filed this appeal which was admitted on 7.12.1976 and he was ordered to be released on bail.(4) The case was registered on the statement of Hari Chand son of Shri DhannaRam, who had inter alia stated that he Along with his family was residing in village Mamurpur and was employed as a conductor.It was also pleaded by him that he was running a vegetable shop on the ground floor of his house and during his absence the said business was being looked after by his wife and children.He went on to state that on that day he had gone to his duty in the morning at about 5.00 am.and on coming back to the house at 4.30 pm.he came to know from his wifeSmt.Chano about a quarrel between their son Rajesh and Ashok Kumar, residing in the neighborhood and about the giving of fist and slap blows by Ashok torajesh.It was also stated by him that on that day in the evening at about 6.30 p.m.Ashok Kumar came to his shop giving abuses to his children and gave threat of killing them.It was further stated by him that he requested Ashok Kumar not to give abuses and in the meantime he went away giving threats and came back with a Datrali with which he inflicted injury on the head of his daughter Khajani Devi,aged about 16 years.(5) The matter was investigated and after recording the statement of the witnesses Ashok Kumar was arrested.Opinion of Doctor was obtained with regard to the injuries of Khajani Devi, which were declared to be grievous, caused by blunt weapon.(6) I have heard Shri O.P. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant and ShriN.K. Handa, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.I have also gone through the record.(7) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned Trial Court with regard to the inflicting of the injury with a datrali on the head of Khajani Devi is not contested.Even otherwise, I have perused the statements of Bhagwat Swaroop, PW/1; Kumari Khajani Devi, PW/2 and HariChand, complainant, PW/4, who have made categorical statement with regard to the inflicting of injury on the head of Khajani Devi, Smt.Chano Devi, PW/3 has made a statement with regard to having seen the injury on the head other daughter when she came out on hearing the alarm.(8) The question now for consideration is as to what offence is proved against the appellant.Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that none of the eyewitnesses, including the injured, has made a statement on oath with regard to the appellant having given any threat of killing and, thus, has submitted that the nature of injury may be considered on the basis of the medical evidence brought on record.I have gone through the statements of the witnesses with the assistance of thelearned Counsel for the parties and find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant.There is no doubt that in his statement, which forms the basis of the Fir, Hari Chand has stated with regard to the giving of threats of being killed to Khajani Devi by Ashok Kumar but the same has not been deposed by any of these witnesses while appearing in the witness box.(9) In order to prove the nature of the injuries sustained by Kumari KhajaniDevi, prosecution had placed reliance on the statements of Renu Behl, PW/8,Khazan Singh, Record Clerk, Irwin Hospital, PW/9; and Dr. S.K. Mathur, PW/IO.Dr.Renu Behl has stated that on 8.8.1975 Khajani Devi daughter of Hari Chand was examined by her in the Irwin Hospital and has proved the Mlc, Exhibit PW/8/Acorrectly prepared by her.She has also stated that the weapon used was blunt and that injured was kept under observation.She had found lacerated wound on the skull which was kept under observation.Khazan Singh, PW/9 has stated that Dr.D.P. Garg was working in the lrwin Hospital and has proved the X Ray reportEx.PW/9/A to be in the hand of Dr. D.P. Garg whom he had seen writing and signing and that Dr. Garg had gone abroad.He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the contents of the report.Dr. S.K. Mathur,PW/IO has stated that on the basis of X Ray Report of Dr. D.P. Garg he made an endorsement at point 'A.' on Mlc Exhibit PW/8/A and declared the injury to begrievous.(10) The short question for consideration is as to what offence would stand proved against the appellant from the aforesaid evidence.Admittedly, Dr. D.P.Garg who had given the opinion about the fracture could not be examined and even the X Ray has not been produced.The prosecution did not examine any other Radiologist so as to get the opinion of the Doctor on the basis of the X Rays.KhazanSingh, Record Clerk, has no knowledge about the contents of the report of Dr. D.P.Garg and PW/IO, Dr. Mathur has also not said anything about the basis on whichDr.Garg gave his opinion. | ['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. |
179,605,631 | Petitioners (In Jail) Mr. Robiul Islam .......... For the Petitioners.This is an application for bail in connection with a case relating to offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended before us that the petitioners are in custody for about one year and two months.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that only three witnesses are still to be examined and as such, the trial will be finished very shortly.Now, considering the facts that the trial is in progress and at a very advance stage, we are not inclined to allow the prayer for bail and the same stands rejected.However, in view of the submissions made by the Learned Advocate of the petitioners that on the failure of the prosecution to produce its witnesses there have been no progress in the trial since May, 2010, we direct that if really the trial has been hauled up due to the failure of the prosecution to tender its witnesses for examination, then in that case the prosecution must take all coercive steps for production of the witnesses before the Trial Court on the next date fixed.It is also directed if it is found the witnesses were still absent on the next date then in that case the Trial Court is directed to take all coercive measures available under the Code to ensure their appearance.The Trial Court shall also be at liberty to impose cost against the State, if no witness is produced on the next date.Let photostat plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be supplied to the learned Counsel for the appearing parties on usual undertakings. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,940,940 | CRL.A.858/2017 & 872/2017 Page 4 of 4HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL CRL.M.A.15881/2017 (Recall) in CRL.A.858/2017An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the State for seeking setting aside/recalling of Order dated 08.09.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRL.A.858/2017 in case FIR No. 42/2002 registered under Section 13(1)(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') and Sections 409/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal CRL.A.858/2017 & 872/2017 Page 1 of 4 Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') whereby the appellant/Shri Agnesh Verma was directed to be released on bail, till the final disposal of the subject appeal.CRL.A.858/2017 & 872/2017 Page 1 of 4Mr. Akshai Mallik, learned APP for the State contended that the appellant obtained bail by concealing the fact that the appellant is also involved in another FIR No.66/2003 under Section13(1)(C), 13(2) of the PC Act, read with Section 420/568/471/120-B of IPC; that the appellant has only undergone 3 months of imprisonment out of the total imprisonment of 7 years awarded to him; that from a perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court only after sufficient evidence came on record against him; that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that in the said circumstances the order dated 08.09.2017 be recalled.On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present application filed on behalf of the State under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the same is barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C. by virtue of which this Court does not have the power to review its own Order; that the existence of the said another case FIR No.66/03 against the appellant was well within the knowledge of the State as the same has arisen out of the FIR No.42/02 which is the subject matter of the present appeal; that in said circumstances the application be dismissed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.CRL.A.858/2017 & 872/2017 Page 2 of 4Therefore the application seeking recall of the said order is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.CRL.M.B.1633/2017 (Suspension of Sentence ) in CRL.A.872/2017The present application has been filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., by the applicant/Tara Chand for seeking suspension of sentence and release of appellant on bail in case FIR No. 42/2002 registered under Section 13(1)(C) of the PC Act, 1988 and Sections 409/420/468/471/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that as the co-accused Shri Agnesh Verma was having role similar to that of the applicant/petitioner in the present case, the applicant/petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.On examination of the present case it transpires that the case of the applicant/petitioner is identical/similar to the co-accused Shri Agnesh Verma, who has already been released on bail until the pendency of the present appeal.Hence the desirability of consistency requires that the present applicant/Tara Chand should CRL.A.858/2017 & 872/2017 Page 3 of 4 also be released on bail.(i) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court;(ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court;The application stands disposed of .The order to be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and record.Copy of this Order be given dasti, under the signatures of the Court Master.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 29, 2017//gr CRL.A.858/2017 & 872/2017 Page 4 of 4 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,941,578 | Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC.Sessions Judge dated 4.4.1998 and the order dated 6.4.1998 by which he was convicted CRL.A. 154/1998 Page 1 for the offence punishable under Section-302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Apparently, the latter had previously established the same business in the market, that of selling chicken.The prosecution alleged that on the night of 11.6.1990, information was received by DD No.13A stating that the appellant had stabbed his elder brother with a knife.On investigation, the police recorded the statement of the deceased's (Mohd. Aslam's and referred to as such) brother Mohd. Shamshad who described the incident.According to PW-14, the two brothers used to open the shop in the morning and the deceased used to get the day's supply from Jama Masjid.The appellant, according to PW-14, was carrying on the similar business in front of their shop and established it a few days prior to the incident.The appellant apparently used to work in his father's meat shop previously.PW-14 alleged that on the fateful day, his shop was opened, the appellant felt that he was losing customers and, therefore, nurtured a grudge.PW-14 alleged that at about 7:00 PM in the evening, the appellant asked the deceased to empty the chicken crates belonging to them where they had kept their birds.The deceased emptied the crates; nevertheless the appellant continued to abuse him for quite some time.At about 10:00 PM when the shop was closed and he (PW-14) along with his brother were leaving the area, the appellant who was standing in front of his shop shouted at Mohd. Aslam saying "SALE RUK JA.KAHAN JA RAHA HAI SALE?".PW-14 stated that suddenly the appellant picked up a knife - that was used to chop the meat and CRL.A. 154/1998 Page 2 stabbed the deceased on the chest, as a result of which, the latter started bleeding.The appellant threw down the knife and fled the spot.PW-14 held his brother and asked the people around to catch the appellant.The deceased - according to PW-14 - could walk a few steps and thereafter collapsed and died.After receipt of information, the police reached the spot and carried on investigation.After conclusion of investigation, the police charged the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section-302 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution, in the course of the trial, relied upon the testimonies of 20 witnesses and also placed on record several exhibits and material objects.This included the postmortem report marked as Ex.PW-18/A, knife and a sketch of the knife Ex.PW- 6/B. After considering all the materials, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt; it, therefore, convicted him as charged and sentenced him in the manner noticed earlier in this judgment.Learned counsel urged that even though the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Dular Chand (PW-1), an alleged eye witness, he did not support the prosecution's case at all and was declared hostile.The witness's clothes were spattered with the deceased's blood.Learned counsel submitted that even in the absence of such proof, the Trial Court proceeded to notice that an endorsement about the information having been received on 12.6.1990 at 8:00 AM was found on a copy of the FIR which was a part of the record.Learned counsel emphasized that this was contrary to the depositions of PW-17 who stated that a special report was delivered by him on 11.6.1990 itself.So far as the submissions regarding applicability of Section-304(2) IPC are CRL.A. 154/1998 Page 7 concerned, we are of the opinion that the appellant's argument in this regard have merit and deserves to be accepted. | ['Section 302 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. |
17,994,689 | In the present case, the prosecutrix has stated that the appellant had called her to the bathroom on the pretext of giving her keys and as she went to the bathroom the appellant took off her underwear and undid the chain of his trousers.She has narrated what happened thereafter and has specifically stated that he had touched her in her urinary portion with his male organ.She has further stated that the appellant had done this act several times.Per contra it shows that the prosecutrix had not tried to conceal any fact and had stated the truth without coming under any pressure or influence.4 PW-4 Ms. Noor Fatima has stated that she was residing in D.D.A. Flats, Inderlok, Delhi with her three children including the prosecutrix.Sohaib Anjum was also residing in the same house along with his family.The appellant is a younger brother of Sohaib Anjum and had started living with them about eight months prior to the incident.She identified the appellant in Court.She has stated that on 31st March, 2007 at about 7.45 PM, the prosecutrix told her that the appellant had called her in the bathroom on the pretext of giving her keys and when the prosecutrix went inside the bathroom, the appellant put his hand on her mouth.She has stated that the prosecutrix told her that thereafter the appellant undid the chain of his trousers and took off the underwear of the prosecutrix.the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2 Relying on the site plan Ex.PW-16/B it is submitted by the amicus curiae appearing for the appellant that there were three families residing in the property consisting of two big rooms and the bathroom in question was visible from outside.It is also submitted that the allegation of rape is motivated and has been deliberately foisted on the appellant and his family members because the complainants family {Crl.Appeal No.601/2009} Page 1 wanted the appellant to vacate the property in their joint possession.She was studying in second standard in M.C. Primary School near her house.She narrated complete Urdu alphabets on being asked by the Court.She stated that her father was a motor mechanic.She has stated that she had come to the adalat'(Court) and knew that she should speak the truth and stated that she would speak the truth before the Court.The appellant had told her not to tell this to anyone.The prosecutrix has stated that she felt pain in her urinary parts, had headaches and developed fever.In the cross-examination the prosecutrix has stated that her mother had brought her to Court and had told her to make statement against the appellant.This statement in the cross- examination does not show infirmity, flaw or create doubt about the {Crl. Appeal No.601/2009} Page 2 earlier statement made by the prosecutrix on examination made by the State.She has further stated that thereafter the appellant had urinated at the urinary portion of the prosecutrix and she felt pain.PW-4 Noor Fatima has stated that on the next day, she called her brother and informed the matter to the police.She has stated that the prosecutrix had told her that earlier also the appellant had done the same act with her several times.On the basis of her statement Ex.PW-4/A, police registered an FIR.The prosecutrix was taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where she was examined.In the cross-examination PW-4 has admitted that the bathroom was visible from outside the house and 14 persons including the prosecutrix were residing there.She has admitted that on the date of offence her husband was not present in the house and he comes back from work at about 8.30 {Crl. Appeal No.601/2009} Page 3 PM.She has stated that after the incident, none of the family members of Sohaib Anjum were residing with them.He told the said fact to his relatives and known persons and thereafter filed a complaint against the appellant.6 PW-4 Ms. Noor Fatima was not cross-examined or questioned whether any other family members were present in the house at the time of incident.However, a specific question was put to PW-8 Mr. Phakrool Hassan in his cross-examination in this regard.He has stated that nobody was present in the house except the accused on the date of incident.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the following portions of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix:-"There were many persons in the house at the day of incident.The second question is a general question whether people sit in the courtyard.As noticed above, the prosecutrix and the appellant were residing in the same house and were obviously well acquainted and known to each other.She was just five years old at that time and was not aware what was happening.Such testimony does not need corroboration; but if there is some doubt about the implicit reliability of the testimony, then the court may look for assurance to the acceptability of the testimony, short of its corroboration.If the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy, then minor contradictions are not enough to throw out the evidence and other issues such as non-examination of an available witness, even the non-examination of a doctor or the non-production of the doctor's report would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution."8 The allegation of rape gets corroborated and full support from the evidence of PW-7 Dr. Preeti Verma, Senior Resident, Hindu Rao Hospital.She had examined the prosecutrix on 2nd April, 2007 and has proved on record MLC No.3077/07 Ex.14 The contention of the appellant is that the appellant and her parents have falsely implicated the appellant and they wanted that the {Crl. Appeal No.601/2009} Page 10 appellant and his family members to leave their house. | ['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. |
1,799,469 | It needs to be mentioned here that, petitioner and Naushaba Anjum were produced before Balasore Court when they were in the custody of Howrah Court In connection with the aforesaid Howrah case.By this application petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.6.99 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Howrah In T.R. No. 8 of 1998 by which learned trial court split up the case of the petitioner and another from the case of other accused and directed separate trial of all the accused except the peUtloner and another.Since then Howrah Court passed several orders Issuing production warrant for production of the petitioner and Naushaba Anjum before Howrah Court from the custody of Balasore Court.Yet, petitioner and Naushaba have not been produced before the Howrah Court.Number of other accused are In custody In connection with the Howrah case.For non production of the petitioner and another, trial of the Howrah Case Is being delayed.Due to continued custody of other accused, they filed and application before this court for ball.While rejecting the said prayer for ball, Division Bench of this court observed that If prosecution files an application for splitting up the case of other accused from the case of the petitioner and Naushaba, same shall be disposed In accordance with law, as expediliously as possible.Soon thereafter prosecution and some of the accused filed applications before the trial court for splitting up their case from that of the accused persons who are detained In the custody of Balasore court.By the impugned order dated 25.6.99, trial court allowed the said prayer for splitting up the case.Petitioner has now challenged the aforesaid order by which case was directed to be split up. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,949,668 | They asked her where she is going.When she told that she is going the market, she accompanied them to Bada, where she purchased some articles.Thereafter, they took her to flat situated at Kampoo, where they forcibly asked to drink liquor and thereafter committed rape on her one by one.They also threatened her that if she lodged the report she will be killed and due to fear she has not lodged the report.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated.The complainant was working in the Beauty Parlor run by the applicant.Heard on the bail application.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.141/2014 registered at Police Station, Vishwavidyalaya, Gwalior, District Gwalior, under Sections 376(Gha), 506-B of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the complainant was going to her house when she reached Patel Nagar Chouraha, Suraj and Shan called her to stop.They were on bike.Trial will take some time.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.2 M.Cr.As per the medical report of the victim no injuries external and internal have been reported.The victim appears to be married and she is aged 21 years.Considering the fact that the complainant has gone with the applicant to the market for shopping and the report has not been lodged on the next day but it was lodged on the third day of the incident at about 15.00 hours, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,951,024 | Case diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is third repeat bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail after rejection of earlier one which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 01.04.2016 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 25.05.2015 by Police Station Kailaras District Morena in connection with Crime No.172/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 307, 450, 34 of IPC further added section 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.The allegation of setting the deceased on fire is alleged against the applicant. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,952,704 | Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on condition that the petitioners shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of two weeks from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) (Sahidullah Munshi, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,995,717 | The petitioner was falsely named in the complaint as accused person and the learned MM Crl.The complainants believing the petitioner invested the money but later on found that the petitioner's sole intention was to grab the money and in order to grab the money, the petitioner indulged into forging of documents of the company.He prepared fake resolutions of the company, fake intimations were given to the complainants to remove them from the Director of the company and a fake list of shareholders and Form No.32 was filed in the office of Registrar of Crl.The bank accounts from which the complainant and several other persons were issued cheques were illegally closed down on the basis of fake document.The petitioner had issued assurance letters dated 3 rd February, 2007, 5th February, 2007 and 14th February, 2007 and a special power of attorney was also executed in the names of complainants, to accept the payment from NPCC and Form No.32 with RoC to appoint complainants as Directors but it was found later on that the petitioner did not regularize the company and rather gave misinformation to the RoC about the shareholders and Directors by creating fake and forged papers.The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,917 | Smt. Sohanbiri, PW-1 is wife of Nepal, another son of Baburam.Injured Mahabir, PW-2 is the son of Ram Swamp, another brother of Baburam.Deceased Puran is the son of said Mahabir, PW-2 Appellant Mahendra is the grand-son of the brother of the grand-father of other appellants.Further case of the prosecution is that on 23-5-1978 Sohanbiri, PW-I had lodged an FIR at police-station Jahangirabad against Bishambhar and others that the said accused appellant Bishambhar had attempted to outrage the modesty of PW-1, Smt. Sohanbiri, in a drunken condition.It was said that the dispute concerning partition of the land had grown between them.On FIR having been lodged by Smt. Sohanbiri, PW-1 regarding the said incident Bishambhar and others felt greatly annoyed.Therefore, at about 9 P.M. the same day (23-5-1978) when PW-I Sohanbiri was feeding she buffalo with the help of a lantern in her hand the appellant Mahendra armed with Pharsa, appellant Rambhajan armed with knife and the other appellants armed with lathis came to the Gher of Sohanbiri, PW-I, gave her beating and Kicks and fists blows along with hurling abuses on her.At this appellant Mahendra instigated saying that Puran be done to death then and there, at which he himself assaulted Puran with Pharsa while appellant Rambhajan inflicted knife injuries on Puran.Mahabir, PW-2 tried to save his son Puran but was also beaten with lathi and Pharsa.Puran fell down in the Rasta adjoining the Gher after which all the appellants ran away.4. Puran.PW-1 Sohanbiri and PW-1, Mahabir were then taken to Jahangirabad hospital where they were medically examined and treated.He further slates that injury No. 3 alone was ordinarily sufficient for causing death and injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could collectively be responsible for causing his death.He further states that Puran Succumbed to his injuries the same night at 2.15 A.M. in the hospital.Stitched wound 1 1/2" over middle inner side left fore arm with blood clot (after removing stitches, wound is 1 1/2" X 1/2" X muscle deep.On internal examination, pericardium was found lacerated, heart partially full, periteneum corresponding to injury No. 2 was found lacerated with the dimension 1 1/4" x through and through.This witness has also proved that on 23-5-1978 at 10.40 A.M. Sohanbiri.He has further said that information about the death of Puran from the hospital was brought by one kripal Singh at 6.10 A.M. who had brought along with blood stained shirt of Puran deceased.This witness Balbir Singh, PW-7 has also proved some defence documents.He has proved the endorsement made by K.P. Singh, Station Officer, Jahangirabad on the said application.Kha 5 and Kha 6 are further entries in the general diary dated 26-5-1978 and 27-5-1978 regarding the movement of K. P. Singh, S. O. Jahangirabad in connection with defence applications.19. PW-8, Mahendra Singh, constable has filed an affidavit regarding taking of the dead-body for post-mortem examination.Chalan lash and photo lash and report to the R.I. report to the C. O. and separate report regarding the clothes of the deceased Puran to the C.M.O. have been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka8, Ka9, Ka10, Ka II and Ka 12 respectively.He inspected the place of occurrence on 24-5-1978, collected blood stained and plain earth including the blood-stained and plain sugar cane leaves the memoranda regarding which have been proved as Ext. Kal3 and Ka 14 respectively.JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J.Criminal Appeal No. 1314 of 1979 has been preferred by (1) Ram Bhajan son of Sheodan Singh, (2) Bishambhar, son of Babu Singh, (3) Sheodan and (4) Ram Charan, both sons of Har Bhajan while Criminal Appeal No. 1382 of 1979 has been preferred by Mahendra.son of Malkhan against the judgment and order dated 16-4-1979 passed by VI Addl.Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 528 of 1978 thereby convicting all the appellants under Section 302/149 I.P.C., and 323/149 I.P.C., and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - on the first count and one year's R. I. on the second count and further convicting and sentencing Bishambhar, Sheodan and Ram Charan under Section 147 I.P.C., to two year's R. I. each and Ram Bhajan and Mahendra under Section 148 I.P.C., to three years R. I. each.The charge against the appellants was that on 23-5-1978 at about 9 P. M. they formed an unlawful assembly in the Gher of Smt. Sohanbiri in village.Doongra Jat, police Station Jahangirabad, Bulandshar and with the common object committed murder of Puran by causing knife and Pharsa injuries.Punishable under Section 302/149 I.P.C. The further charge against the appellants was that at the said date, time and place they voluntarily caused simple hurt to Mahabir Singh, P.W. 2 and Smt. Sohanbiri, PW-I and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 323/149 I.P.C.According to the prosecution case appellants Sheodan and Ram Charan are brothers.Appellant Rambhajan is the son of Sheodan.Bishambhar appellant is the son of Baburam, uncle of Sheodan.Puran, however, died the same night at 2.15 A. M. (24-5-1978).PW-1 Sohanbiri lodged an FIR at police-station Jahangirabad at 3.30 A.M.Dr. R. C. Sharma, PW-4, is the Medical Officer of District Board Hospital, Jahangirabad.He medically examined Puran now dead, in the Hospital at 1 A.M. in the night of 23/24-5-1978 and found the following injuries on his person:-Incised wound 4 cm.x 2 cm.x 2.4 cm.on the left arm upper portion near shoulder.Incised wound 6 cm.x 7 cm.x 2 cm.on the fore-arm left side.Lower half.Incised wound 7 cm.x 4 cm.deep up to rib bone 2 cm.on the chest left side.Injuries are grievous, caused by sharp weapon, alleged duration about three hours is possible.The same night at 1.25 A. M. he medically examined Mahabir Singh, PW-2 and found the following injuries on his persons:-Contusion 7 cm.x 2 cm.on the back-over scapular region right side.Incised would 1.2 cm.x 0.2 cm.on the right hand plain dorsal surface.This witness has also spoken of dying declaration given to him by Puran before his death naming the accused Mahendra and Rambhajan as his assailants.He did not find any external injuries on her person but she was complaining of pain on her back and chest.Dr. G. N. Srivastava, PW-6 conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Puran at 4.30 P.M. on 24-5-1978 as Medical Officer District Hospital, Bulandshahr.Following injuries were the antemortem injuries:1. Stiched wound 1 1/2 over upper part inner side of left arm with blood clot present (after removing) stitches, wound is stabbed wound 1 1/2" x 3/4" muscle deep (2 1/2).Stitched wound 2 1/2 over lower lateral part of left chest region with blood clot present, (after) removing stitches, wound is stabbed 2 1/2" x l 1/2" cavity deep).Two lacerations in the abdomen, one being 2" X 1/4" X through and through and the second being 1/2" X 1/8" through and through, were also found.There was blood and semidigested food in the stomach and the small intestine was full of gases and faecal matter.He is of the view that the death had occurred at about 2-2 1/2 A. M. in the night of 23/24 May 1978 and it was the result of shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid antemortem injuries which ordinarily could collectively be responsible for death and also the injury No. 2 individually could ordinarily prove fatal to life, he is also of the view that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could possibly be the result of knife blows whereas injury No. 3 could be the result of Pharsa blow."Balbir Singh, PW-7 was the Head-Moharriar at police station-Jahangirabad at 3.30 A.M. on the night between 23/24-5-1978 and he registered a case in the general diary, copy of the entry has been proved as Ext. Ka 6 through which S.I. Sukhbir, PW-5 was entrusted with the investigation of the case.He filed a charge-sheet on 19-7-1978 vide Ext. Ka20 after completing the investigation.All the accused-appellants have denied the prosecution case and have attributed false implication due to enmity.However, specific defence plea taken by Rambhajan appellant is that on 23-5-1978 Bishambhar had collected about 5 or 10 persons for some Panchayat.Mahabir, Puran and Rampal were also there.Sheodan had also arrived who advised that all disputes should be settled amicably.At this Mahabir and Puran started blowing lathis on him (Rambhajan).Seeing this Sheodan gave knife blows while Rambhajan managed to flee.He came to Bulandshahr, got himself medically examined on 24-5-1978, got an application prepared and moved the same before the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshar for getting a case registered against Puran and Mahabir, etc. and to get the same investigated.Similarly, appellant Sheodan has repeated the version of Rambhajan appellant and has said that when the prosecution side had started beating Rambhajan, he came to intervene and save the others from beating, he was forcibly attacked and apprehending that Rambhajan may be killed, Sheodan wielded knife injuries in self-defence and in defence of Rambhajan.So far as Dr. H.U.Zuberi, D.W. 1 is concerned he medically examined the accused Rambhajan in the District Hospital Bulandshar at 5.30 P.M. on 24-5-1978 and found following injuries on his person:-Lacerated wound 1/2 cm.x scalp on left side head 11 cm.above the ear (wrongly written as head in the injury report).Scabbed abrasion 3 cm.x cm.on top of head.Multiple scabbed abrasion in area of 4 cm.x 1 1/2" cm.on right side forehead.Scabbed abrasion 3 112 cm.x 112 cm.on left side neck lower part.Contusion double line 11 cm.x 2 cm.on left back lower part.Scabbed abrasion 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.on right scapular region upper part.Scabbed abrasion 2 1/2 cm.x 1 1/4 cm.on back of right elbow joint.Scabbed abrasion 1/2 cm.x 1/2 cm.on tip of the nose left side.Swelling 2 cm.x 1 cm.on upper lip centrally.10. 2 Scabbed abrasions in area 3 cm.x 1 1/2 cm.Multiple scabbed abrasion in area of 11 cm.23 cm.of left knee joint infront.Complaint of pain left thumb.Injuries simple, caused by blunt object.Duration about 3/4 the day.He is of the view that these injuries could be caused at 9 P.M. on 23-5-1978 and could be the result of Lathi, blows.He has denied this suggestion of the prosecution that injuries 3 to 10 may be received by falling faceward and also-that at the time of medical examination abrasions were not present on the body of the accused Rambhahan and they were noted in the injury report with his connivance.He does, however, state that scabbing of the abrasion starts between 10 to 12 hours of the causing of the injury.He also said that the abrasion could be self-suffered.He is a private typist cum-petition writer in the Collectorate, Bulandshar.Placing reliance on the testimony of these eye-witnesses the learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as noted above.Hence this appeal.Sri S. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V. S. Misra, learned A. G. A. for the State have been heard at sufficient length in this appeal and the entire record has been throughly scrutinised.In order to prove the prosecution case three witnesses of fact have been examined and they are PW-1, Smt. Sohanbiri, PW-2, Mahabir and PW-3 Rampal Singh.Reference about formal witnesses has already been made above.The principal argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the prosecution side has not come out with any explanation for the injuries sustained by appellant Rambhajan.Rampal has admitted that he has himself noticed several injuries on appellant Ram Bhajan which he received in the same incident.Translated into English the said statement could read as follows:-"I have seen with my own eyes.I was not blind.The lathi was plied on Rambhajan at about 20 yards from the place where Puran had fallen.He was beaten by lathi towards east of Sohanbiri.PW-l's Gher... 1 could not locate the exact portions of the body of Rambhajan where the lathi landed but he did not fall down as a result of the lathi injuries."Strong reliance was placed on the testimony of this witness and it was argued that he had practically contradicted PW-1 Sohanbiri when he says that she docs not remember whether anyone of the prosecution side had beaten Rambhajan appellant with lathis or not.It was again emphasised that so far as Mahabir, PW-2 is concerned he has made a categorical statement that (translation by Court)."In the incident resulting in the death of Puran neither I nor Puran nor any witness had beaten any accused.I had not seen any injury whatsoever on Rambhajan appellant."It was rightly argued that in the FIR also there is no mention whatsoever about any injuries having been caused to appellant Rambhajan.It is strange that neither Sohanbiri PW-1 nor Mahabir, PW-2 has come out with any explanation about the injuries and the FIR also lodged by PW-1, Sohanbiri is absolutely silent about the injuries sustained by Rambhajan appellant.As noted above, even the statement of Rampal, PW-3 is in fact not an explanation of the injuries of appellant Rambhajan but is in the nature of accepting the truth which was evaded by other witnesses.There are two more circumstances which were emphasised during the course of arguments which may indicate that the prosecution case may not be wholly true.It is said that PW-I, Sohanbiri had lodged the FIR with the allegations that (Translation by Court) "Ram Bhajan, Sheodan, Mahendra Singh.Bishambhar and Ram Charan hurled abuses at her." At no point of time in the FIR.However, she was also medically examined on 24-5-1978 at 9.30 A.M. when the doctor, as noted above, found that she did not have any ostensible injury but was complaining of pain on her back and chest.In the examination-in-chief she was made to stale that (Translation by Court) "The accused pointed out towards me and said-today she will be taught a lesson for lodging report against us.They started hurling abuses on me and they grappled with me.She again says in paragraph No. 17 (Translation by Court)."I was also beaten by slaps, kicks and fists by Bishambhar, Rambhajan, Sheodan, and Rain Charan.She again said these fists and slaps were caused by Bishambhar, Sheodan and Ram Charan.Initially all the five accused grappled with me and in that process they abused me.I did not notice their weapons.I was trying to save myself, that is why I could not notice about their individual weapons and whether they had kept those weapons on the ground at that time or not.The manner of assault as suggested by these two appellants are amply corroborated by the application which was moved by Rambhajan with the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr on the next day of the incident.Under the circumstances the defence theory has also been probabilised.The appeals consequently succeed and are allowed.The conviction of appellants Rambhajan. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,769,176 | ORDER U.S. Tripathi, J.On 25-5-1998 at 4.30 p.m. Smt. Tara Devi opposite party No. 2- lodged a report against the petitioner and two other accused under Sections 498A, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegations that she was married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and her gauna ceremony was performed 5 years ago.Her father had given Rs. 2,500/- cash, golden ring, golden chain and other things in dowry.The petitioner Shiv Prasad Pandey and his father Ram Munnar Pandey and mother Smt. Rajpati Devi started further demand of dowry and they started treating her with cruelty.Prior to three or four days of lodging of report, she was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband.On the basis of above report, a case at crime No. 89 of 1998 under Section 498A, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered.It further appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner alone under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 306, IPC.On receipt of charge-sheet in the Court cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.The petitioner moved an application on 13-5-2002 before the magistrate (Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IV/ Magistrate) Basti for dropping the proceedings under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the complainant Smt. Tara Devi was alive and was living with him.He had also filed compromise and Section 306 IPC was wrongly shown in the charge-sheet.Aggrieved with the order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 269 of 2002 before the Session Judge, Basti.Learned Sessions Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the parties held as below :-He further held that revision was preferred against an interlocutory order and the applicant was at liberty to raise this point before the Sessions Judge.The fact that the complainant Smt. Tara Devi wife of the petitioner is alive, is not disputed, therefore, issuance of notice to Smt. Tara Devi was dispensed with, as the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his contention to the maintainability of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC or 306/511 IPC only.The learned A.G.A. sought and allowed two weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit.But no counter-affidavit was filed.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Smt. Tara Devi is alive and living with him as his wife and therefore there was no question of making out any offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,769,219 | The genesis of this case lies in a macabre incident that took place close to the noon time on 13th December, 2001 in which five heavily armed persons practically stormed the Parliament House complex and inflicted heavy casualties on the security men on duty.This unprecedented event bewildered the entire nation and sent shock waves across the globe.The 4th accused Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru is the wife of Shaukat Hussain.The third accused S.A.R. Gilani is a teacher in Arabic in Delhi University.It is he who officiated the marriage ceremony of Shaukat Hussain Guru and Navjot Sandhu who at the time of marriage converted herself to Islam.(ii) There is practically no dispute in regard to the details of actual incident, the identification of the deceased terrorists and the recoveries and other investigations made at the spot.(iii) Five heavily armed persons entered the Parliament House complex in a white Ambassador Car.The said five persons (hereinafter referred to as the 'slain' or 'deceased terrorists') were heavily armed with automatic assault rifles, pistols, hand and rifle grenades, electronic detonators, spare ammunition, explosives in the form of improvised explosive devices viz., tiffin bombs and a sophisticated bomb in a container in the boot of the car made with enormous quantity of ammonium nitrate.The High Court observed: "The fire power was awesomeenough to engage a battalionand had the attack succeeded, the entire building with all inside would have perished."(iv) It was a fortuitous circumstance that the Vice President's carcade, which was awaiting departure from Gate No.11 was blocking the circular road outside the Parliament building, with the result the deceased terrorists were unable to get free and easy access to the Parliament House building.The attack was foiled due to the immediate reaction of the security personnel present at the spot and complex.There was a fierce gun-battle lasting for nearly 30 minutes.As mentioned earlier, nine persons including eight security personnel and one gardener lost their lives in the attack and 16 persons including 13 security personnel, received injuries.The five assailants were killed.(v) From the evidence of PW5 who was the ASI in-charge of Escort-I vehicle of the Vice-President, we get the details of the origin of the incident.Since the escort vehicle was blocking the way, the car turned towards left.He got suspicious and ordered the vehicle to stop.Then, the driver of the Ambassador car reversed the vehicle and while doing so struck the rear side of the car of the Vice-President.When the car was about to move away, he and the driver of the Vice-President's car ran towards the car and caught hold of the collar of the driver.As he was trying to drive away, PW5 took out his revolver.At that juncture, the five persons in the car got out of it and quickly started laying wires and detonators.Then PW5 fired a shot, which struck on the leg of one of the terrorists.The terrorist also returned the fire as a result of which he received a bullet injury on his right thigh.There was further exchange of fire.The evidence of other witnesses reveal that there was hectic movement of the terrorists from gate to gate within the complex firing at the security men on duty and the latter returning the fire.(vi) The Station House Officer of Parliament Street Police Station, Shri G.L. Mehta (PW1) along with his team of police personnel reached the spot after receiving a wireless message.By that time, the firing spree was over.PW1 cordoned off the area.The Bomb Disposal Squad of NSG, a photographer and a crime team were summoned to the spot.PW1 then deputed three Sub-Inspectors (PWs2 to 4) to conduct investigation at the three gates.PW1 then examined the spot of occurrence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and seized various articles including arms and ammunition, live and empty cartridges and the car and the documents found therein.Blood samples were also lifted from various spots.The photographs of the five slain terrorists were caused to be taken.Then, he sent the dead bodies to the mortuary in the hospital for postmortem.(vii) After the Bomb Disposal Squad had rendered the area safe and his preliminary observations were over, PW1 recorded the statement of S.I. Sham Singh (PW55) who was in the security team of Vice-President.On the basis of this statement, 'Rukka' (Ext.PW1/1) was prepared and PW1 despatched the same to the police station at about 5 p.m. This formed the basis for registration of First Information Report.The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 124, 120-B, 186, 332, 353, 302, 307 IPC, Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act by the Head Constable (PW14) of the Parliament Street Police Station.The copy of FIR was sent to the Court on the same day, as seen from the endorsement on the document (PW 14/1).The further investigation was, taken up by the special cell of Delhi Police.(viii) Investigations conducted by PW1 and his team of officers led to the recovery and seizure of the following articles inter alia:A white ambassador car, DL3CJ1527, with a VIP red light.The car had a sticker of the Home Ministry (subsequently found to be fake) on the windshield (Ex. PW 1/8) containing an inscription at the rear denigrating India and reflecting a resolve to 'destroy' it.Certain papers relating to the car were found inside the car.These identity cards were in the names of Anil Kumar, Raju Lal, Sunil Verma, Sanjay Koul, Rohail Sharma and Rohail Ali Shah (which were subsequently found to be fake names of the deceased terrorists).One fake identity card of Cybertech Computer Hardware Solutions in the name of Ashiq Hussain which was being carried by the deceased terrorist Mohammed.4.(i) So far, about the incident and the preliminary investigations at the scene of occurrence regarding which there is practically no dispute.We shall now narrate briefly the further factual details as unfolded by the prosecution:He had come to the spot after seeing the said car on the television screen.PW20 had brought with him a delivery receipt dated 11.12.2001, photocopy of the identity card of one Ashiq Hussain etc. PW20 identified the deceased terrorist (Mohammad) at Gate No.1 as being the said Ashiq Hussain who had purchased the car.(iii) Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma of special cellPW66 undertook the investigations pertaining to the mobile phones.An analysis of the call records relating to Shaukat's mobile phone further revealed that soon after the attack i.e at 12.12 hours, there was a call from Shaukat's number to the cell phone number 9810081228 (subsequently discovered to be that of SAR Gilani) and there was a call from Gilani's number to Shaukat's number 10 minutes later.Moreover, it was ascertained that Gilani's number was in constant touch with the other two accused namely Shaukat and Afzal.It transpired that Afzal's cell phone bearing number 9811489429 was reactivated on 7.12.2001 and the first call was from Gilani's number.With the recoveries of the cell phones and SIM cards and on an analysis of the details of phone numbers noted on the slips of papers in the light of the call records, the investigation narrowed down to three numbers, namely, 9811489429, 9811573506 and 9810081228 which belonged to Afzal, Shaukat and Gilani respectively.It was also found that the first two numbers were cash cards and hence the details regarding their ownership were not available.However, as regards 9810081228, the information was received from the service provider (AIRTEL) that SAR Gilani with the residential address 535, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi was the regular subscriber.On 14th December, at 12.52 hours, an incoming call to Gilani's No. 9810081228 was intercepted by S.I. Harender Singh (PW70).The call was in Kashmiri language.A Kashmiri knowing person (PW71) was requested to interpret the call recorded on the tape.That was a call from the brother of Gilani which was made from Srinagar.On the same day, at 8.12 P.M. a call was intercepted on the number 9811573506 which disclosed that one woman was talking in a state of panic to a male person whom she addressed as Shaukat.The subsequent forensic analysis revealed that the male voice in the conversation was of the accused Shaukat Hussain and that the female voice was that of his wifeaccused No.4 who was the recipient of the call.The call came from Srinagar.Both the intercepted conversations were analysed and considered by PW 66 (Inspector M.C. Sharma) at about 10 P.M. on 14th December.PW 66 resultantly drew an inference that the persons who were conversing on the two mobile phones were having knowledge about the attack on Parliament and that two persons namely, Shaukat and Chotu who were connected with the case were in Srinagar.The calling No. 0194 492160 was sent to the Central Agency of Srinagar Police for surveillance.(iv) The next move was to arrest Gilani, which according to the prosecution was at about 10 A.M. on December 15th when he was entering his house at Mukherjee Nagar.The disclosure statement implicated himself and the other accused in the conspiracy to attack the Parliament.According to the prosecution, he disclosed the facts on the basis of which further investigation was carried out, certain recoveries were effected and discovery of facts took place.The identity of the deceased terrorist Mohammad and others, the part played by Shaukat and Afzal and other details are said to have been given by him.According to the prosecution, Shri Gilani then led the Investigating Officer to the house of Shaukat which was also located at Mukherjee Nagar.The search of the premises resulted in the recovery of another cell phone 9810446375 which was in operation from 2nd November to 6th December.Accused Navjot, on interrogation, disclosed that Mohammad (deceased terrorist) gave Rs. 10 lac and laptop computer to Shaukat and asked him to go to Sri Nagar in the truck along with Afzal.The truck was registered in her name.The disclosure statement of Navjot is Ex.According to the prosecution, she was arrested at about 10.45 a.m. on 15th December.The truck number given by her was flashed to Srinagar.Srinagar police was successful in apprehending the two accused Afzal and Shaukat while they were in the truck belonging to Navjot.On their pointing out, the laptop computer and an amount of Rs. 10 lac were recovered from the truck by the SDPO, Srinagar (PW61).A mobile handset without any SIM card was also found.It transpired that this hand set was used in the operation i.e. No. 9811489429 which established contacts with deceased terrorists minutes before the attack.Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain, who were arrested by the Srinagar Police at about 11.45 A.M., were brought to Delhi in a special aircraft and were formally arrested in Delhi.The investigation was handed over the PW76 (Inspector Gill of Special Cell) on 16th December.(v) It is the case of the prosecution that on interrogation, they made disclosure statements (Ex.PW 64/1 and PW 64/2) in relation to their role in the conspiracy.On December 16th, Afzal and Shaukat led the investigating team to the various hideouts, viz., Indira Vihar and Gandhi Vihar where the terrorists stayed.On the search of these places, the police recovered chemicals, prepared explosives, detonators, gloves, mixer grinder, motor cyclesone belonging to Shaukat and the other purchased by the deceased terrorist Mohammad from PW29 which was allegedly used for reconnaissance (reccee).On December 17th , the investigating officer took Mohd. Afzal to the mortuary at the L.H. Medical College Hospital where Afzal identified the bodies of the five deceased terrorists as Mohammad (dead body found at Gate No.1), Raja, Rana, Hamza (dead bodies found at Gate No.9) and Haider (dead body found at Gate No.5).From December 17th to December 19th, Afzal led the police to various shops from where the chemicals and other materials required for preparing explosives were purchased and also the shops from where red light found on the seized car, motor cycle, dry fruits, mobile phones etc. were purchased.PW72 submitted a report narrating the results of his examination.The laptop was also sent to BPR&D Office in Hyderabad and another report from PW73 was obtained.The forensic analysis revealed that the documents found at the spot with the deceased terrorists including various identity cards and sticker of the Home Ministry, were found stored in that laptop.(vi) On 19th December, the important development was that the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance were invoked and the offences under the said Ordinance were also included in the relevant columns of crime documents.According to the prosecution, this was done after due consideration of the material collected by then and upon getting definite information about the involvement of a banned terrorist organizationJaishe-Mohammad.This is Ex.Two witnesses were examined to prove the printouts of the computerized record furnished by the cellular service providers namely AIRTEL (Bharti Cellular Limited) and ESSAR Cellphone.The covering letters signed by the Nodal Officer of Sterling Cellular Limited are Ext.P36/6 and P36/7 bearing the dates 13th & 18th December respectively.The call details of mobile No. 9811489429 attributed to Afzal are contained in Ext.The above two phones were obtained on cash card basis.The document is self-explanatory of the error.A perusal of both the call records with reference to the call at 11:19:14 hours exchanged between 9811489429 (Shaukat's) and 9811573506 (Afzal's) shows that the said call was recorded twice in the call records.(iii) ConfessionFirst, we shall advert to the confession.It is in the evidence of PW80Rajbir Singh (ACP), Special Cell that he took over investigation on 19.12.2001 on which date the offences under POTA were added.The DCP(PW60) handed over a sealed envelope containing the confessional statements to PW80the I.O. who produced the accused Afzal and two others before the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi on 22.12.2001 together with an applicationExt.The ACMM stated that he opened the sealed envelope containing Exts.PW60/9 & PW60/6 which are the confessional statements of Afzal and Shaukat, and Ext.PW60/3 which is the statement of Gilani and perused them.The accused signed the statements confirming the confession made to the DCP.The statement of Mohd. Afzal and his signature are marked as Exts.PW63 stated that he made enquiries from the accused persons and none of them made any complaint of use of force or threat at the time of recording confession.He also deposed that he gave a warning that they were not bound to make the statement before him.A suggestion that Mohd. Afzal did not appear before him nor did he make the statement, was denied.The ACMM, after drawing up the proceedings, sent the accused Afzal to police custody for a week at the instance of I.O.PW80 for the reason that he was required to be taken to certain places in Kashmir for further investigation.First, he mentions about joining JKLF, a militant outfit during the year 1989-90, receiving training in Pak Occupied Kashmir in insurgent activities and coming back to India with arms, his arrival in Delhi with his cousin Shaukat for studies, coming into contact with SAR GilaniA3 while studying in Delhi University, surrendering before BSF in 1993 on the advice of his family members, returning back to his native place Sopore and doing commission agency business, coming into contact with one Tariq of Anantanag at that time, who motivated him to join 'Jihad' for liberation of Kashmir and assured him of financial assistance, Tariq introducing him to one Ghazibaba (proclaimed offender) in Kashmir who further exhorted him to join the movement and apprised him of the mission to carry out attacks on important institutions in India like Parliament and Embassies and asked him to find a safe hideout for the 'Fidayeens' in Delhi.During that meeting, he was introduced to Mohammed and Haider, Pak nationals and militants.In the month of October, 2001, he rang up to Shaukat and asked him to rent out accommodation for himself and Mohammed.In the first week of November, he and Mohammed came to Delhi.Shaukat took them to the pre-arranged accommodation in Christian Colony Boys' Hostel.He revealed to Shaukat that Mohammed was a Pak militant of Jaish-E-Mohammed and came to Delhi to carry out a Fidayen attack.After a week, he arranged another safe hideout at A-97, Gandhi Vihar.Mohammed collected money through 'hawala' and gave Rs.5 lakhs to be handed over to Tariq in Srinagar.Accordingly, he went to Srinagar and gave the money to Tariq.At the instance of Tariq, he brought two other militants Raja and Hyder to Delhi and both were accommodated at the hideout in Gandhi Vihar.In order to complete the task assigned by Ghazibaba, he along with Mohammed went to the shops in old Delhi area and purchased 60 KGs of Ammonium Nitrate, 10 KGs of Aluminum powder, 5 KGs of Sulpher and other items in order to facilitate preparation of explosives by Mohammed.After a week or so, Mohammed gave another 5 lakhs of rupees to be handed over to Tariq.Tariq asked him to take along with him two other militants, Rana and Hamza.They were carrying two holdalls which contained rifles with loaded magazines, grenade launcher, pistols, hand grenades and shells, electric detonators and other explosives.They also stayed in Gandhi Nagar hideout initially.After reaching Delhi, he arranged for another accommodation at 281, Indira Vihar.Mohammed purchased mobile phones and SIM cards from the markets and received directions from Ghazibaba from a satellite phone.He used to meet Shaukat and Gilani and motivate them for Jihad.Shaukat provided his motorcycle for conducting 'recce'.Meetings were also arranged in the house of Shaukat for deciding future course of action.In those meetings, Gilani and Shaukat's wife Afsan also used to be present.At the meetings, various targets such as Delhi Assembly, Parliament, UK & US Embassy and Airport were discussed.Then, after conducting survey of all the targets, Mohammed informed Ghazibaba that they should strike at the Indian Parliament.A final meeting was held in the house of Shaukat in which all were present and plans for attack on Parliament House were finalized.As per the plan, he along with Mohammed went to Karolbagh and bought a second hand Ambassador car on 11th December.They also purchased a magnetic VIP red light.Mohammed got prepared a sticker of MHA and identity cards through his laptop.Mohammed and other militants prepared IEDs with the use of chemicals.This IED was fitted in the car for causing explosion.On the night of 12.12.2001, he along with Shaukat and Gilani went to the hideout in Gandhi Vihar, where all the five Pak militants were present.Mohammed gave him the laptop and Rs.10 lakhs.He asked him to reach the laptop to Ghazibaba and also told him that Rs.10 lakhs was meant for him and his friends Shaukat and Gilani.He then called Shaukat and told him that the mission had started.Shaukat then came and met him at Azadpur mandi and both went to Gilani's house and gave him Rs.2 lakhs.Gilani in turn asked him to give the money at his house in Kashmir.Then he and Shaukat left for Srinagar in Shaukat's truck.The SIM Cards related to the mobile phones bearing Nos. 9810693456 and 9810565284 were recovered from the purse of the deceased terrorist Mohammed.It shows that these two phones were activated by Mohammed in the third week of November, 2001 when he was in Delhi.It is established from the call records that the second call from the Bombay number to Mohammed was received when the said mobile number (9810565284) was being used in the handset having IMEI No. 449269219639010(2).P83) on 21.11.2001 wherein an identity card in the name of Sanjay Sharma is found and it contains the address No.10, Christian Colony, where Mohammed was staying and the phone No. 9811489429 (belonging to Afzal).Thus, together with the activation of phones, simultaneous activity on the laptop to create bogus I.Cards was going on at the same time i.e. 21.11.2001 onwards.On 5th December, 2001, Mohammed called two Dubai numbers from his mobile phone No. 9810565284 and the call recordExt.PW49, who identified Afzal in the Court, testified to the fact that Afzal had purchased Motorola mobile phone of model 180 from his shop on 4.12.2001 which tallies with the description of the phone bearing the IMEI number referred to above.The next point to be noted is that the said phone instrument bearing IMEI No. 39010 was finally recovered from the deceased terrorist Raja as per the seizure memo (Ext.PW2/2).It shows that such interchange of phones would not have been possible, but for the meeting of the Afzal with the slain terrorists on 12th December.There were calls to the mobile number 9810693456 the SIM Card of which was recovered from the body of Mohammed vide Ext.PW4/8 and which was being operated from the instrument IMEI No. 449269405808650 (Ext.PW35/5).On 7th & 8th December, Afzal called Mohammed seven times from his phone No. 9811489429 to Mohammed's No. 9810693456 and the said mobile of Mohammed was being used in IMEI No. 808650 (Ext.PW35/5).Thus Mohammed used the same Motorola phone (Ext.P28) which was finally recovered from the deceased Raja vide seizure memo (Ext.PW2/2) on the SIM card (described as 'Magic Card') for the No. 9810693456 and the said card was recovered from Mohammed vide Ext.As per the testimony of PW49, the said Ext.P28 was purchased by Afzal.It is pertinent to note that the said instrument was never used by Afzal though it was purchased by him but it was being used by Mohammed and it ultimately reached Raja.The deposition of PW44 discloses that Afzal, who was identified by him in the Court, came to his shop on 7th or 8th December and purchased a mobile phone of J70 model of Sony make which he identified as Ext.P-37 seized under Ext.This is borne out by call records at volume VI.The phone number of Raja was 9810510816 as discovered from the phone instrument recovered from his body.Mohammed called Afzal thrice at 10.43, 11.08 and 11.25 a.m., i.e. just before the attack on the Parliament.This is borne out by the call records of 9810693456 and 9811489429 (phones traceable to Mohammed and Afzal, respectively).The call record would further show that its user was discontinued on 29th November till 7th December, when, again, it was put to use on 12th December.PW76I.O. deposed that the two accused persons, namely, Afzal / Shaukat led him to the following places:(i) Hideout at 2nd floor, A-97, Gandhi Vihar (PW34)(ii) Hideout at 2nd floor, 281, Indira Vihar (PW31 & PW32)(iii) Shop of PW40Anil Kumar from where Ammonium Nitrate was purchased.(iv) Shop of PW42Ramesh Advani from where Silver powder was purchased.(v) Shop of PW41Ajay KumarSawan Dry Fruits from where dry fruits were purchased.(x) Shop of PW20Harpal Singh at Karol Bagh from where Ambassador Car bearing DL 3CJ 1527 was purchased.(xi) Shop of PW49Kamal Kishore from where Motorola cell phone and a SIM card were purchased.Now, we shall refer to the specific details of evidence in this regard.PW76I.O. deposed to the fact that Afzal and Shaukat pointed out the 2nd floor of A97, GANDHI VIHAR as the place where the deceased terrorists stayed.This is recorded by PW76 in the memo marked as Ext.The various articles recovered and seized consequent upon the search of the premises are recorded in Ext.They are: (a) 3 electronic detonators (Ext.P60/1, 60/2 & 60/3).(b) two packets of silver powder bearing the address 'Tola Ram & Sons, 141, Tilak Bazar, Delhi' (Ext.P61).(c) A bucket (Ext.P62) of prepared explosive material.Sample of explosive material is Ext.(d) two boxes containing Sulphur (Ext.P64 & P65).(e) two cardboard cartons (Ext.P66 & P67) containing 20 jars each of Ammonium Nitrate of 500 grams each (Ext.P68/1 to Ext.P68/38) (one jar was taken out from each carton as a sample).(f) Yamaha motorcycle bearing No.DL-1S-K-3122 (Ext.P76) found at the gate of the house and seized as per Ext.(g) Maps of Delhi city and Chanakyapuri area found in the room vide Ext.(h) Police uniforms and police beret caps (P73 series).(i) Sujata Mixer Grinder with three jars (Ext.P72) seized as per Ext.PW34/4.PW34 confirmed this fact in his deposition.That Shaukat and three or four boys used to visit Afzal at that premises quite often and on the crucial day i.e. 13.12.2001, at 10 am, Afzal, Shaukat and four more persons left in an Ambassador car and Afzal had returned a shortwhile later and then left the premises subsequently.That the deceased terrorist Mohammed, whose photograph he identified, was also residing with Afzal sometime after the premises was taken on rent.He could not identify the remaining four terrorists.Next, we come to the evidence in regard to the premises at INDIRA VIHAR and the recoveries therefrom.Mohd. Afzal, while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that the house at 281, Indira Vihar was taken on rent by him after his return to Delhi after Eed.PW76 deposed to the fact that Afzal and Shaukat led him and the police party to the premises at 281, Indira Vihar as the place where Afzal and the five slain terrorists stayed.The memo of pointing out is Ext.PW32, who is the landlord, stated that on 16th December, 2001, the accused Afzal and Shaukat whom he identified correctly, were brought to his house by the police and Afzal told the police that he was the landlord.Thereafter, the police took him and the two accused to the 2nd floor which was found locked and as there was no key, the police broke the lock.PW32 then stated that on a search of the premises, a number of articles as recorded in the memo of seizureExt.PW32/1 were found.The articles recovered as a result of search were, (i) three electric detonators attached with a wire kept in a box, (ii) six pressure detonators fitted in a plastic box, (iii) two silver powder packets of thousand grams each with the slips containing the name of 'Tolaram and Sons, Tilak Bazar', (iv) two boxes of sulphur, (v) a motorcycle of Yamaha make parked near the gate of the house, (vi) household articles etc. PW 32 attested the seizure memo.The motorcycle was seized as per the seizure memoExt.It transpires from the evidenc eof PW53 who is an official of the Road Transport Department read with Ext.PW53/1 that the said motorcycle was registered in the name of Shaukat Hussain.In connection with the renting of the house at Indira Vihar, PW31 who is a property dealer, was examined.He stated that Mohd. Afzal approached him and on 9.12.2001 he fixed up the house of PW32 at Indira Vihar on a rent of Rs.4000 p.m. He identified Mohd. Afzal.He further stated that he imposed a condition that the tenant should reside with his family only.Having found some five or six other persons on 11.12.2001, he questioned Afzal on which he replied that they were his friends and they would leave soon and thereafter he would be bringing his family.On 12.12.2001, Afzal left the premises locking the door informing him that he would bring his family and children after Eed.Then he speaks to the details of search and seizure.He was a signatory to the seizure memos Exts.Though PW32 is supposed to have identified the persons found with Afzal by the photographs of dead bodies of terrorists, we do not attach any weight to this part of the evidence because the police showed the photos and told him that they were the photographs of deceased terrorists.At this stage, we may refer to the evidence of the experts of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.From his reportExt.PW21/1 and PW21/2, it is evident that Ammonium Nitrate, Aluminum/Silver powder and Sulphur was found in the explosives.The testimony of PW24 establishes that the samples of chemicals (collected from the hideouts) were Aluminum Nitrate, Sulphur and Silver powder.PW62the Head Constable, corroborates what PW61 stated.The laptop is Ext.Then it was the job of PW80ACP, who took over investigation on 19th December, to have the laptop examined by experts.The experts, namely, PW72a computer engineer and PW73Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Bureau of Police Research, Hyderabad submitted their reports which are Exts.PW79, who was associated with PW73, was also examined by the prosecution.The laptop contained files relating to identity cards recovered from the deceased terrorists wherein the address was mentioned as Christian Colony or Gandhi Vihar.PW72 testified that he took printouts from the laptop which are Exts.PW59/1 to PW59/7 and PW72/2 to PW72/13 and these documents were compared to the original identity cards and the MHA sticker (Ext.The forensic expertPW59 submitted a report according to which the laptop (PW83) was in fact used for the creation of I.Cards and the MHA sticker found at the spot.Thus, two different sets of experts have come to the same conclusion about the contents of the laptop.PW72 gave a detailed account of various softwares that were found installed in the laptop and he gave a chronological account.It was found that from November 2001 onwards, certain files were copied on to the system.The system was used for crating, editing and viewing .tmp files (most of which are identity cards) and viewing files stored in geo microchip.Editing of various identity cards took place close to the date of occurrence.Some records were edited as late as 12th December.The summary of important documents found on the laptop contains identity cards which were similar to those recovered from the deceased terrorists, ASF video files containing clippings of political leaders with Parliament in background shot from TV news channels and another file containing scanned images of front and rear view of I. Card and a .tmp file containing design of MHA sticker.The report also reveals that the game 'wolf pack' (sun) had registration details on the laptop which showed the user name as 'Ashiq'a name which was found in one of the identity cards shown to PW20 at the time of purchase of the car and to the landlord of the Christian Colony Hostel.The documents found in the laptop were the identity cards in the name of Ashiq Hussain Khan similar to Ext.4/3, the front side scanned image of Cybertech Computer Hardware Solution identity card in the name of Ashiq Hussain KhanSimilar to the one found at the spot of occurrence, the identity cards of Xansa Websity of Riyad Ahmad which contains the address of Gandhi Vihar and the phone number of Afzal, the identity card of Cybertech Computer Education of Ashif Mustafa, two identity cards of Xansa Websity of Neeraj Bakshi and Anil Kumar which were similar to the identity cards found at the spot, two identity cards of Xansa Websity with the name Sunil Verma and Raju Lal which were similar to the cards found at the spot, designed sticker of Ministry of Home Affairs found and the relative file containing the same text as was found on the sticker.The accused was seen in a crowd of people which attacked the police and military forces with deadly weapons, when the forces under the supervision of the District Magistrate started searching for war-knives.19. CASE OF SHAUKAT (A2) As in the case of Mohd. Afzal, the evidence against Shaukat Hussain consists of confessional statement made to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the circumstantial evidence.As per Ext.PW60/11, the DCP administered the statutory warning and obtained an endorsement from Shaukat that he was not under any duress and he was ready to give the statement.We shall briefly refer to the contents of the confessional statement.Shaukat spoke about his graduation in 1992 in Delhi, his acquaintance with SAR Gilani of Baramulla who was doing his post-graduation in Arabic language, starting fruit business in 1997 and disbanding the same, his marriage with a Sikh girl named Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (A4) in the year 2000, purchase of truck in her name in June, 2000 and starting transport business, his cousin Afzal of Sopore studying in Delhi University in 1990 and his friendship with Gilani at that time.Then he stated about Afzal motivating him to join the jihad in Kashmir and in October, 2001, Afzal calling him from Kashmir and asking him to arrange a rented house for himself and another militant, accordingly arranging rented accommodation in Boys' Hostel at Christian Colony and Afzal accompanied by the militant Mohammed coming to Delhi and meeting him at his house in Mukherji Nagar and Afzal disclosing to him that he was a Pak national of Jaish-e-Mohammad militant outfit and had come to Delhi for carrying out a 'fidayeen' attack.He then stated that during that period, he discussed about jihad with SAR Gilani who also offered help in carrying out the attack and Afzal thereafter going to Srinagar and bringing some other militants who were Pak nationals and who brought with them arms and explosives and they being accommodated at A-97, Gandhi Vihar and Afzal and Mohammed making preparations for the attacks.Both PWs 37 & 38 identified Shaukat apart from Afzal.The more important piece of evidence is the fact revealed by PW37 that he saw one Ruhail Ali Shah staying in the room who showed his I.Card to him on enquiries.The identity card (Ext.PW4/4) which was shown to PW38 was identified when the two accused led the police to the hostel on 19.12.2001 itself.He also identified the accused Afzal and Shaukat, both before the police as well as in the Court.The fact that Shaukat and Afzal were coming to see Ruhail Ali Shah, who was no other than Mohammed, was also spoken to by him.(v) Circumstance No.4 & 6 (Shaukat's visits to Gandhi Vihar hideout) The evidence of PW34 who let out the 2nd Floor of his house at A-97, Gandhi Vihar to the accused Afzal through PW33the property dealer, reveals that Shaukat used to come to meet Afzal who was staying there under a false name of Maqsood and that Shaukat used to meet Afzal at that place.PW34 identified Afzal and Shaukat.He stated that he could only identify the photograph of Mohammed but not rest of them when the police showed him the photographs.His evidence on the point of identification of Mohammed's photograph inspires confidence as Mohammed stayed in the premises for a few days.The witness also deposed to the fact that on 13th December, 2001, Afzal, Shaukat and four more persons left the premises around 10 a.m. and all excepting Afzal got into an Ambassador car and Afzal came back to the premises.However, he did not mention that one of the accompanying persons was Mohammed.His evidence establishes that Shaukat was a frequent visitor to Gandhi Vihar hideout and he was with Afzal and some others even on the crucial day.(vi) Circumstance Nos. 7 & 8That after the attack on 13th December, Afzal and Shaukat left for Srinagar in the truck owned by the wife of Shaukat and that the laptop, mobile phone and cash of Rs. 10 lacs was recovered, is established by unimpeachable evidence.PWs 64 and 65, the police officers of Delhi also testified that Afzal and Shaukat were handed over to them along with the seized articles on 15th December at 1 P.M. as they reached Srinagar by a special aircraft.The stand taken by Shaukat was that he was arrested in Delhi from his house on 14th December which is obviously false in view of the plethora of evidence referred to supra.As regards the truck, he stated in the course of Section 313 examination that the truck loaded with bananas was sent to Srinagar on the night of 13th December.The falsity of Shaukat's version of arrest in Delhi on 14th is established by the fact that on the night of 14th, Shaukat did call up from Srinagar and spoke to his wife Afsan, the receiving number being 73506 which was later recovered from the house of Shaukat.Receiver: Are you fine?JUDGMENTWITHCRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 376-378 OF 2004STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) APPELLANTVERSUSSYED ABDUL REHMAN GILANI RESPONDENTCRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 379-380 OF 2004SHAUKAT HUSSAIN GURU APPELLANTVERSUSSTATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) RESPONDENTCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2004MOHD.AFZAL APPELLANTVERSUSSTATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.In the gun battle that lasted for 30 minutes or so, these five terrorists who tried to gain entry into the Parliament when it was in session, were killed.Nine persons including eight security personnel and one gardener succumbed to the bullets of the terrorists and 16 persons including 13 security men received injuries.The five terrorists were ultimately killed and their abortive attempt to lay a seize of the Parliament House thus came to an end, triggering off extensive and effective investigations spread over a short span of 17 days which revealed the possible involvement of the four accused persons who are either appellants or respondents herein and some other proclaimed offenders said to be the leaders of the banned militant organization known as "Jaish-E-Mohammed".Charges were framed under various sections of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'POTA') and the Explosive Substances Act by the designated Court.The designated Special Court presided over by Shri S.N. Dhingra tried the accused on the charges and the trial concluded within a record period of about six months.80 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused S.A.R. Gilani.Plethora of documents (about 330 in number) were exhibited.The three accused, namely, Mohd. Afzal, Shaukat Hussain Guru and S.A.R. Gilani were convicted for the offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, Section 120B read with Sections 302 & 307 read with Section 120-B IPC, sub-Sections (2), (3) & (5) of Section 3 and Section 4(b) of POTA and Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act. The accused 1 & 2 were also convicted under Section 3(4) of POTA.Accused No.4 namely Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru was acquitted of all the charges except the one under Section 123 IPC for which she was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine.Death sentences were imposed on the other three accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC (it would be more appropriate to say Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC) and Section 3(2) of POTA.They were also sentenced to life imprisonment on as many as eight counts under the provisions of IPC, POTA and Explosive Substances Act in addition to varying amounts of fine.The amount of Rs.10 lakhs, which was recovered from the possession of two of the accused, namely, Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain, was forfeited to the State under Section 6 of the POTA.In conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C. the designated Judge submitted the record of the case to the High Court of Delhi for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the three accused.Each of the four accused filed appeals against the verdict of the learned designated Judge.The State also filed an appeal against the judgment of the designated Judge of the Special Court seeking enhancement of life sentence to the sentence of death in relation to their convictions under Sections 121, 121A and 302 IPC.In addition, the State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the 4th accused on all the charges other than the one under Section 123 IPC.The Division Bench of High Court, speaking through Pradeep Nandrajog, J. by a well considered judgment pronounced on 29.10.2003 dismissed the appeals of Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain Guru and confirmed the death sentence imposed on them.The High Court allowed the appeal of the State in regard to sentence under Section 121 IPC and awarded them death sentence under that Section also.The High Court allowed the appeals of S.A.R. Gilani and Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru and acquitted them of all charges.This judgment of the High Court has given rise to these seven appealstwo appeals preferred by Shaukat Hussain Guru and one appeal preferred by Mohd. Afzal and four appeals preferred by the State/Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the acquittal of S.A.R. Gilani and Navjot Sandhu.It may be mentioned that the accused Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain Guru are related, being cousins.Two slips of paper bearing five domestic mobile phone numbers, which were related to the instruments found on the deceased terrorists and two UAE numbers.Three SIM cards corresponding to the mobile phone numbers noted on the slips were found inside the aforementioned three instrumentsExt.One sheet of paper on which the topographical details regarding the Parliament House building and the compound were handwritten.Phone call details were obtained and analysed from the respective cellular mobile service providers.Analysis of the call records indicated that the number 9811489429 which was found on the I.D. cards, (subsequently discovered to be that of the accused Afzal) appeared to be integrally connected with the deceased terrorists and this number had been in frequent contact with the cell phone No. 9810693456 (recovered from the deceased terrorist Mohammad at Gate No.1) continuously from 28.11.2001 till the date of the attack.It was further revealed that this number of Afzal, namely, 9811489429 was in contact with the above cell phone of Mohammad, just before the incident i.e. at 10.40 a.m., 11.04 a.m. and 11.22 a.m. It was also ascertained that the said number of Afzal was activated only on 6.11.2001 close to the attack.Further analysis of the cell phone call records showed that another cell phone number i.e. 9811573506 (subsequently discovered to be that of Shaukat and recovered from the 4th accused Afsan Guru) appeared to be in close contact with Afzal's number namely 9811489429 and these numbers were in contact with each other a few minutes before the attack on the Parliament commenced.It was also found that the said number of Shaukat was activated only on 7.12.2001 just a week prior to the attack.The investigation was then taken over by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Rajbir Singh (PW80).(vii) On the same day i.e. 19th December, there was another crucial development.According to the prosecution, the three accusedAfzal, Shaukat and Gilani expressed their desire to make confessional statements before the authorized officer.On 20th December, PW80 made an application before the DCP (Special Cell) (PW60) for recording the confessional statements of these three accused.PW60 gave directions to PW18 to produce the three accused at the Officers Mess, Alipur Road, Delhi.On the next day i.e. 21st December, the accused Gilani was first produced before PW60 at the Mess building.However, Shri Gilani refused to make a statement before PW60 and the same was recorded by him.Thereafter, Shaukat Hussain was produced before PW60 at 3.30 P.M. Shaukat Hussain expressed his desire to make the confessional statement and the same was recorded by PW60 in his own handwriting which according to him was to the dictation of Shaukat.The other accused Afzal was also produced before PW60 at 7.10 P.M. on 21st December.After he expressed the desire to make the confession, his statement was recorded by PW60 in his own handwriting allegedly as per the dictation of the said accused.PW80 obtained copies of the confessional statements in sealed envelopes.In substance, both Afzal and Shaukat confessed having been parties to the conspiracy to launch an attack on the Parliament House.The details of the confessions will be adverted to later.On 22nd December PW80 produced the accused persons before the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (PW63) in compliance with Section 32 of POTA.The learned Magistrate conducted the proceedings in respect of each of the accused persons in order to satisfy himself that the statements recorded by PW60 were not the result of any inducements or threats.Shaukat Hussain and SAR Gilani were remanded to judicial custody on 22nd December itself.However, the police custody of Mohd.(viii) On 4.5.2002 sanction was accorded by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in view of the requirements of Section 50 POTA and Section 196 Cr.P.C. Sanction was also accorded by the Commissioner of Police on 12th April for prosecution under Explosives Substances Act. On conclusion of the investigations, the Investigating Agency filed the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the four accused.By the same Act, the Prevention of Terrorism (2nd) Ordinance, 2001 was repealed subject to a saving provision.The charges were framed on 4th June, 2002 and the trial before the designated Judge commenced on 4th July.An Advocate was nominated by the court at State's expense for providing legal assistance to the accused Afzal as he did not engage any counsel on his own.Subsequently, the counsel was changed.Before the trial started, an order was passed by the learned designated Judge that certain documents viz. post-mortem reports and documents relating to recoveries of arms, explosives etc. from the scene of occurrence shall be treated as undisputed evidence in view of the consent given by the accused persons and there was no need for formal proof of those documents.After the trial commenced, an application was moved on behalf of Gilani, Shaukat and Navjot challenging the admissibility of the intercepted conversations in evidence.Assailing this order, the accused moved the High Court.The High Court set-aside the order of the designated court and allowed the applications of the accused.The SLP filed against that order was disposed of by this Court on 9.5.2003 during the pendency of the appeals in the High Court holding inter alia that the order passed by designated Judge was in the nature of an interlocutory order against which appeal or revision was barred under Section 34 POTA.Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the parties were permitted to urge the point at issue before the Division Bench of the High Court.The details of conviction and sentences have already been referred to.As noticed earlier, the High Court allowed the appeals of A3 and A4 and dismissed the appeals of A1 and A2 and their death sentences were confirmed.PW3 deposed that four accused persons whom he identified in the Court came to his shop and they sold the ring for Rs.325/- and some days later, the Police Inspector accompanied by accused 1, 2 and 3 came to his shop and the said accused asked PW3 to produce the ring which they had sold.Then, he took out the ring from the showcase and it was seized by the Police Inspector.Although necessary suggestions were not put forward to the witnesses so as to discredit the correctness/genuineness of the call records produced, we would prefer to examine the points made out by the learned counsel for the accused independently.We feel that an innocuous error in the computer recording is being magnified to discredit the entire document containing the details without any warrant.As explained by the learned counsel for the State, the computer, at the first instance, instead of recording the IMEI number of the mobile instrument, had recorded the IMEI and cell ID (location) of the person calling/called by the subscriber.At the same time, the question of admissibility of evidence illegally obtained was discussed.The criticism against the counsel seems to be an after thought raised at the appellate stage.It was rightly negatived by the High Court.On 14.5.2002, the charge sheet was filed in the Court.On 17.5.2002, the trial Judge appointed Ms. Seema Gulati who agreed to defend Afzal.She filed Vakalatnama along with her junior Mr. Neeraj Bansal on the same day on behalf of the accused Afzal.On 3.6.2002, the arguments on charges were heard.On that date, all the counsel appearing for the accused agreed that postmortem reports, MLCs, documents related to recovery of guns and explosive substances at the spot should be considered as undisputed evidence without formal proof which resulted in dropping of considerable number of witnesses for the prosecution.Coming to the next phase of development, on 1.7.2002, Ms. Seema Gulati filed an application praying for her discharge from the case citing a curious reason that she had been engaged by another accused Gilani to appear on his behalf.An order was passed on 2.7.2002 releasing her from the case.Mr. Neeraj Bansal who filed Vakalat along with Ms. Seema Gulati was then nominated as amicus to defend Afzal and the brief was handed over to him.On 8.7.2002, the accused Afzal filed a petition stating therein that he was not satisfied with the counsel appointed by the Court and that he needed the services of a senior advocate.He named four advocates in the petition and requested the Court to appoint one of them.Afzal was also given the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in addition to the amicus.In fact, he did avail of that opportunity now and then.On several occasions, there was common cross-examination on behalf of all the accused.Then, he further interrogated the accused Afzal on 20.12.2001 and recorded his supplementary disclosure statementExt.According to him, the three accusedAfzal, Shaukat and Gilani, expressed their desire to make confessional statements before the Deputy Commissioner of Police.Accordingly, he apprised the DCP, Special Cell (PW60) of this fact.They were in touch with each other on mobile phones.He was asked to watch the TV and inform him about the presence of various VVIPs in Parliament House.As there was no electricity, he could not watch TV and therefore he contacted Shaukat and asked him to watch TV and convey the information.Then Mohammed called him (Afzal) and told him that he was going ahead with the attack on the Parliament.They were apprehended by the Srinagar police on 15th.The police recovered from them laptop with the accessories and Rs.10 lakhs.They were then brought to Delhi and at Delhi he got recovered explosives and other materials from the hideouts.The crucial question that remains to be considered is whether the confessional statement of Mohd. Afzal recorded by the DCP (PW 80) could be safely acted upon.Certain common contentions applicable to the confessions of both Afzal and Shaukat were raised in an attempt to demonstrate that the confession would not have been true and voluntary.Firstly, it is pointed out that the alleged confession was substantially the same as the alleged disclosure statements (Exts. 64/1 & 64/2) which were recorded on the 16th December itself.Even their signatures were obtained on these disclosure statements.Shri Jethmalani contended that Afzal in the course of his interview with the TV and other media representatives, a day prior to recording of a confession before the DCP, while confessing to the crime, absolved Gilani of his complicity in the conspiracy.A cassette (Ext.DW4/A) was produced as the evidence of his talk.The presumption should be otherwise.The lawyer's presence and advice, apart from providing psychological support to the arrestee, would help him understand the implications of making a confessional statement before the Police Officer and also enable him to become aware of other rights such as the right to remain in judicial custody after being produced before the Magistrate.The very fact that he will not be under the fetters of police custody after he is produced before the CJM pursuant to Section 32(4) would make him feel free to represent to the CJM about the police conduct or the treatment meted out to him.The haunting fear of again landing himself into police custody soon after appearance before the CJM, would be an inhibiting factor against speaking anything adverse to the police.The same objective seems to be at the back of sub-Section (3) of Section 164 of Cr.P.C., though the situation contemplated therein is somewhat different.It is the prosecution case that Afzal's relative by name Mohd. Ghulam Bohra of Baramulla was informed through phone.No witness had spoken to this effect.A perusal of the arrest memo indicates that the name of Ghulam Bohra and his phone number are noted as against the column 'relatives to be informed'.Afzal's arrest memo seems to have been attested by Gilani's brother who according to the prosecution, was present at the police cell.We are pointing out this lapse for the reason that if the relations had been informed, there was every possibility of those persons arranging a meeting with the lawyer or otherwise seeking legal advice.The learned senior counsel for the State has laid considerable stress on the fact that the appellants did not lodge any protest or complaint; on the other hand, they reaffirmed the factum of making confession when they were produced before the ACMM on the next day.It is further pointed out that as far as Afzal is concerned, it took nearly seven months for him to refute and retract the confession.After giving anxious consideration, we are unable to uphold this contention.The omission to challenge the confessional statement at the earliest before the Magistrate shall be viewed in the light of violation of procedural safeguards which we have discussed in detail earlier.As regards the delay in retracting, the first fact to be taken note of is that the appellant Afzal was evidently not aware of the contents of the confessional statement on the day on which he was produced before the ACMM because the learned Magistrate did not make it available to him for perusal nor the gist of which was made known to him.Whereas Afzal stated in the petition dated 2.7.2002 as above, in the course of his examination under Section 313, Afzal stated that he signed on blank papers.We do not think that this so-called discrepancy will give rise to an inference that the confessional statement was true and voluntary.We have to look to the substance of what the accused said while refuting the statement rather than building up a case on the basis of some inconsistencies in the defence plea.(v) Circumstances against Afzal We shall now consider the circumstantial evidence against Afzal independent of and irrespective of the confession.Accordingly, PW76 prepared an identification memoExt.PW76/1 which was signed by Afzal.In the postmortem reports pertaining to each of the deceased terrorists, Afzal signed against the column 'identified by'.On this aspect, the evidence of PW76 remained un-shattered.In the course of his examination under Section 313, Afzal merely stated that he was forced to identify by the police.The IMEI number found on the phone was sent to trace the number of the cell phone.One more point has to be clarified.He stated, while giving various details of the 15 digits, that the last one digit is a spare digit and the last digit, according to GSM specification should be transmitted by the mobile phone as '0'.The witness was not cross-examined.This mobile number ..89429 was also used in the instrument No. IMEI 449269219639010 recovered from the deceased terrorist Raja and was then used in the handset having number 350102209452430(2) i.e. the instrument recovered from the truck at Srinagar, as pointed out by the High Court at paragraph 325 of the judgment.The mobile instrument recovered from Rana (IMEI 449269405808650) (Cell phone No.9810302438) was used by Mohammed who in turn was using the phone of Afzal also.This was the phone that was purchased by Afzal from PW49Kamal Kishore.Now, we shall proceed to give further details of the phone calls and the instruments used, more or less in a chronological order insofar as they throw light on the close association of Afzal with the deceased terrorists.PW4/14 from the body of Mohammed.This fact would only lead to the inference that contemporaneous to the crucial incident of 13th December, Afzal met Mohammed and supplied the handset of the mobile phone.That apart, we find the exchange of calls between them.From the call records in Parts VI & IX, it is evident that Afzal was in touch with Mohammed over phone on seven occasions on 7th and 8th December and they were using the two phones with the Cell numbers referred to supra, though, two or three calls of them were of very short duration.It may also be noticed that a satellite phone contacted Afzal for a short-while on his number 9811489429 and the same satellite phone contacted Mohammed on his phone No. 9810693456 on 10th December for five minutes.On 12th December, Mohammed contacted Raja for 83 seconds and thereafter a satellite phone contacted Mohammed for 11 minutes and the same satellite phone contacted Raja twice for about 3= minutes.The last call was at 12 noon.Thereafter, the SIM Card pertaining to this number (i.e. .89429) was used in the handset No. 350102209452430, which is the instrument (Ext.P84) recovered from the truck at Srinagar, on being pointed out by Afzal.The picture that emerges is this: The fact that an instrument used by Afzal (with the phone number 9811489429) till 12.12.2001 was recovered from one of the deceased terrorists on the date of incident, reveals that Afzal would have necessarily met the deceased terrorist between the afternoon of 12th December and the morning of 13th December.No question was put to the witnesses on this point.(vi) Shop of PW43Sunil Kumar Gupta at Fatehpuri where Sujata Mixer was purchased.(vii) Shop at Hamilton Road from where red light was purchased.(viii) Shop of PW29Gupta Auto Deals from where motorcycle HR51E5768 was purchased.(ix) Shop of PW44Sandeep Chaudhary at Ghaffar Market from where Sony cellphone was purchased.The same were found in the unused explosives.Amongst the hideouts furnishing the links of association between the accused Afzal and the deceased terrorist Mohammed is the one in the Boys' hostel, Christian Colony.It is in the evidence of PW38 who was running an STD booth at Christian Colony that Afzal and Shaukat met him and made enquiries about the availability of rented accommodation.Then on 6.11.2001 he took him to PW37 who was running a hostel at B-41, Christian Colony.PW38 identified Afzal and Shaukat.PW37 deposed that he let out a room on the Ground Floor and when he went to the hostel on 26th November, he found one Kashmiri boy in the room who disclosed his name as Ruhail Ali Shah.It may be noted that the witness identified the said Ruhail Ali Shah as the deceased terrorist Mohammed by reference to his photograph (Ext.PW29/5) in the presence of police and in the Court.The identity card of Ruhail Ali Shah (Ext.PW4/4) shown to him was also identified and it is the card that was found at the spot of offence.PW37 also stated that he had seen Afzal and Shaukat visiting the so called Ruhail Ali Shah.It may be noted that the said room in Christian Colony was taken on rent at about the same time when the premises at Gandhi Vihar was hired.The testimony of this witness was found to be reliable by the High Court.We see no good reason to discard his evidence on the ground that he did not produce the record of their stay.Now we turn our attention to the evidence given by the shopkeepers in regard to the purchase of various things by the accused Afzal himself or in the company of others.(vii) Purchases from shops The next circumstance which provides important links in the chain of circumstantial evidence is that the accused Afzal led the Investigating Officer to various places from where the incriminatory articles found in the premises at Gandhi Vihar and Indira Vihar and at the scene of offence were purchased.Now we shall briefly refer to the evidence in regard to the purchase of chemicals used in explosives and the Mixture-Grinder utilized for preparing the explosive substance.PW-76 recorded in Ex. 40/1 dated 17.12.01 that Afzal furnished information that he had visited the shop of PW-40 along with deceased accomplice Hamza at Tilak Bazar and purchased 50kg of ammonium nitrate packed in = kg.boxes and that he would show the shop.Accordingly, Afzal led the Police to the shop of PW-40 and identified the proprietor which fact is relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. PW-40 identified the accused Afzal, in the Court and stated that he came to his shop on 6.12.01 to purchase ammonium nitrate and that he placed an order for 50kg, paid an advance of Rs. 800/- and came the next day to take delivery of the same.On 7.12.01, he came with one more person, paid the balance and took the delivery of 50kg ammonium nitrate which was packed in = kg plastic bags.We have already seen that ammonium nitrate was one of the chemicals recovered from the premises at Gandhi Vihar.According to PW-40, it is he who accompanied Afzal the next day.However, in the memo of pointing out which is Ext.40/1, it was recorded that Afzal disclosed that he visited the shop with Haider.It may be stated that on the packets of silver powder (Ex.P/51), the name and address 'Tolaram & Sons, 141, Tilak Bazar' was written.Thus, the name and address of the shop was already known to the Police.The witness identified the seized samples as having been sold by him.He also identified Afzal.He specifically stated that the quantity purchased by him being large, Afzal's presence was very much there in his memory.It may be recalled that silver powder was recovered from the premises at Indira Vihar.It is to be noted that Aluminium powder was one of the ingredients used in the IEDs found in the possession of the deceased terrorists at the Parliament complex.Another item of purchase was dry fruits.Three polythene packets of dry fruits bearing the name of 'Sawan Dry Fruits' (Ex. P/10) and having the address 6507, Fatehpuri Chowk were recovered at the scene of offence near the bodies of the deceased.PW-76 stated that Afzal led them to the shop of Sawan Dry Fruits.He identified the accused Afzal as the person who had purchased the dry fruits.The witness also identified the photograph of Rana even as that of the person who accompanied Afzal.PW41 also stated that Afzal was in the shop for nearly half an hour.The High Court, while observing that there was nothing to discredit the evidence of PW-41, it, however, ignored his testimony on a tenuous ground that the Police were already aware of the source of purchase of the dry fruits.Though there was no discovery within the meaning of Section 27, there is no reason why the evidence of PW-41 should be eschewed on that account.However, in regard to the identification of the pfotograph of deceased terrorist, his evidence does not inspire confidence, in view of the time lag of 8 months and the manner in which the answer was sought to be elicited from him.Then, we have the evidence of purchase of Sujata Mixer-Grinder (Ext.P72) which was found in the hideout at Gandhi Vihar.PW-76 deposed that Afzal took the investigating team to an electrical shop at Fatehpuri from where the Mixer-Grinder was purchased.The relevant cash memo was filed by him.The witness identified Afzal in the Court and also the Mixer-Grinder.The High Court has accepted the testimony of this witness.Thus, the nexus between the Mixer-Grinder which was recovered from the premises at Gandhi Vihar and the one purchased by Afzal from the shop of PW-43 stands established by the evidence on record.The evidence of the report of the experts, namely PWs 22 & 24 establish, as held by the High Court, that the composition of chemicals found sticking to the jar of the mixer grinder and the chemicals in the bucket were of the same composition as was the composition of the chemicals in the explosives seized from the deceased terrorists at Parliament House.Another item of purchase was a motorcycle of the Yamaha make bearing registration No.The memo of pointing out is Ext.This conduct of Afzal is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. PW29 deposed that four persons including a lady came to his shop in the noon time to see the motorcycle.After taking trial run, they went away and in the evening two persons came and purchased the motorcycle for Rs.20,000/-.The witness identified Afzal and Shaukat in the Court and the deceased terrorist Mohammed from the photograph (Ext.29/5).He was however unable to identify the lady in view of the fact that she was at a distance.The High Court rightly took the view that in view of what was narrated by the witness, the identification of the accused and the deceased terrorist was quite probable.This apparent contradiction was not pointed out to the witness and no question was asked about it.The fact that the said car was used by the slain terrorists for entering the Parliament with arms and explosives, is not in dispute.PW20 after hearing the news that the car with the said number was used by the terrorists, he straight went to the Parliament Street Police Station along with the copies of documents.Having learned that his SHO was at the Parliament House, he went there and met the SHO at the gate and passed on information to him that the car was sold by him on 11.12.2001 to one Ashiq Hussain Khan.He identified the car, which was lying at gate No.11, then he handed over the documents pertaining to the car which were seized under the memoExt.The documents were later filed in the Court.PW20 correctly identified the accused Afzal as the person who had come with Ashiq Hussain Khan for the purchase of car.The delivery receipt of the car issued by Ashiq Hussain Khan is Ext.The delivery receipt was signed by Afzal as a witness.In the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Afzal admitted that on 11.12.2001 he accompanied Mohammed to the shop of PW20 for purchasing a secondhand car but later he denied it.PW20 deposed that he had taken photocopy of the I.Card and a coloured photo of Ashiq Hussain Khan, which are Exts.PW20 further deposed that the dead body lying at Gate No.1 was of the same person who had introduced himself as Ashiq Hussain Khan while purchasing the car.When he was shown Ext.PW4/3 which is the I.Card in the name of Ashiq Hussain Khan recovered from the deceased terrorist Mohammed, PW20 confirmed that it was the same I.Card that was shown to him.The High Court held that the evidence of PW20, who was an independent witness, was in no manner tainted and held that Afzal was involved in the purchase of the car used by the terrorists to enter the Parliament House.This conclusion was reached by the High Court even after excluding the evidence of PW23, Principal Scientific Officer who confirmed that the signatures on the delivery receiptExt.PW1/6 tallied with his specimen signatures.As already noticed, these mobile instruments found their way to one or the other deceased terrorists and they were being interchangeably used by Afzal, Mohammed and Rana.The evidence of PW76 coupled with Ext.PW44/1 (pointing out memo) reveals that the accused Afzal took the police party to shop No.26, Gaffar Market and pointed it out as the shop from which he purchased the mobile phone handset of Sony make.The conduct of the accused in pointing out the shop and identifying the shop owner is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.PW44 - the shop owner identified Afzal and the mobile phone (Ext.The said instrument (Ext.P37) was recovered from the body of the deceased terrorist Mohammed vide Ext.He was confronted with some discrepancy as to the exact date of purchase, which does not appear to us to be very material.The fact that the transaction was unaccounted is also not a ground to eschew his evidence especially when the High Court found that his evidence was trustworthy.There is no warrant for the further observation of the High Court that independent corroboration of his testimony was lacking and therefore the evidence was liable to be ignored.Regarding the purchase of Motorola mobile phone (Ext.P28), PW76 deposed that on 19.12.2001, the accused Afzal led the investigating officials to the shop of PW49 at B-10, Model Town from where the said mobile phone was purchased.The memo of pointing out is Ext.The conduct of the accused in leading the I.O. to the shop of PW49 and identifying him as the shop owner becomes relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. PW49, while identifying Afzal and Shaukat in the Court deposed about the sale of the phone and one SIM Card to the said persons.The said phone which was sold by PW49 to the accused was recovered from the deceased terrorist Rana vide Ext.The High Court refuted this criticism by observing thus:"The conclusion to which the defence has jumped is, in our opinion, based on an assumption that when PW49 said that he sold a SIM card to Mohd. Afzal on 4.12.2001, this was the SIM card.It could be any card.In the very next sentence, the High Court however observed that in the absence of independent corroboration of the testimony of PW49, his evidence ought not to be taken into account.The documents referred to above establish that various identity cards which were similar to those recovered at the scene of offence were found in the laptop.The I. Cards that were not used were also detected.Documents found at the spot ('Q' series) were sent for forensic examination in order to report the results of comparison of these documents with those found inside the laptop.Besides, the sample originals of the MHA sticker and the sample identity cards of Xansa Websity ('S' series) were sent for comparison and report.The analysis was done by PW59Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL.He reported that the MHA sticker image and the images of identity cards found in the laptop match with those found at the spot in general size, design and arrangement of characters.As regards 'S' series (genuine sample documents), the finding was that they differed with the identity cards etc., found at the spot.It may be stated that the franchisees of Xansa Websity were examined as PWs 25 and 50 and they produced the genuine samples and also testified to the fake names and addresses printed on the identity cards.We agree with the High Court that the testimony of PWs 59, 72, 73 & 79 establish beyond doubt that fake documents were created from the laptop which was evidently in the possession of the deceased terrorists and eventually recovered from Afzal/Shaukat in Srinagar.We find that the evidence of these witnesses could not in any way be shattered in the cross examination.There was no cross examination of the witnessPW59 by Afzal.The limited cross examination on behalf of Shaukat did not yield anything favourable to the accused.As regards PW72, most of the cross examination was in the nature of hypothetical questions.Though there was no suggestion of any tampering to this witness, the witness stated that there was no evidence of replacement of the hard disk upon a perusal of the reg file.There was no suggestion to PW72 that the documents (printouts) taken from the laptop were not the real ones.Two different experts recorded same conclusions without knowing the report of each other.One point of criticism levelled by the defence counsel is that in spite of the fact that the laptop was deposited in the malkhana on 16.1.2002, (after it was received back from PW72), the analysis by PW73 revealed that two of the files were last written on 21.1.2001 and one file was last accessed and last written on the same day.It is clarified by the learned counsel for the State and as found by the High Court, the said files being self-generating and self-written, they reflected the date of writing as 21.1.2002, as the laptop would have been switched on by the investigating agencies on that date.While cross examining PW73, a question was put as to how a file could be written without it being accessed.The testimony of this witness was not with reference to any of the files on which certain doubts were raised.The mob retreated after the police opened fire and the accused who was arrested told the mob to disperse.The accused earlier exhorted the people who attended a meeting to subvert the British Raj and establish the Khilafat Govt. and to destroy the Govt. properties.He then stated about the change of his mobile number as a precautionary measure and about his talks with Ghazibaba, Mohammed and Afzal from his previous number and lending his motorcycle.Then he stated that meetings were also held at his house for discussion and execution of the plans and his wife was also in the knowledge of their plans.Then he stated about the purchase of a second hand Ambassador car by Afzal and Mohammed, taking another rented accommodation in Indira Vihar.He then stated that on the night of 12.12.2001, he along with Afzal and Gilani met Mohammed and other militants at their Gandhi Vihar hideout and Mohammed gave Laptop computer and Rs.10 lakhs to Afzal with a direction to handover the Laptop to Ghazibaba and the money to be distributed among Afzal, Gilani and himself.Mohammed told them that the next day i.e. 13.12.2001, they were going to carry out 'fidayeen' attack on the Parliament House.He then stated that Afzal called him from his mobile phone number .89429 and asked him to watch TV and report about the latest position of the movement of VIPs in Parliament.By the time he switched on the TV, he received another call from Afzal that the mission was on.Thereafter, he met Afzal at Azadpur Mandi and both of them went to Gilani's house to give him Rs.2 lakhs.However Gilani wanted them to hand it over at his house in Kashmir.Finally, he stated that he along with Afzal left for Srinagar in his truck on the same day and they were apprehended at Srinagar on 15th December, 2001 and the Laptop and cash recovered by the police and later they were brought to Delhi.Shaukat was produced before the ACMM by PW80 the next day along with the other accused and the ACMM recorded his statement.The first date on which Shaukat retracted the confession was on 19.1.2002 when he filed an application before the Designated Court expressing certain doubts about the 'verbal confession made before Special Cell'.He expressed that the Delhi Police would have twisted the confession 'in a different way and different formation'.He maintained that he was forced to sign some blank papers.The other point of difference is that Shaukat was sent to judicial custody unlike Afzal who was sent to police custody after they were produced before the ACMM.He along with Afzal took on rent room No.5, Boys' Hostel, B-41, Christian Colony on 7.11.2001 in which room the deceased terrorist Mohammed had stayed.This conincides with the period when Afzal acquired a mobile phone and the first hideout was procured.He had also accompanied him when the room at the Boys' Hostel at Christian Colony was taken on rent.Shaukat was present in Delhi till the forenoon of 13.12.2001 when Parliament was under attack and he absconded along with Afzal when both of them were arrested at Srinagar.The laptop recovered from the truck belonging to wife of Shaukat was the one which was used by the terrorists to create the identity cards of Xansa Websity and the fake Home Ministry stickers.The High Court then commented at paragraph 402"Shaukat's role in the conspiracy was clearly that of an active participant.There is clear and cogent evidence of informed and interested co-operation, simulation and instigation against accused Shaukat.Evidence qua Shaukat clearly establishes the steps from knowledge to intent and finally agreement".Taking into account the confessional statement which stands corroborated by various circumstances proved, the High Court reached the inevitable conclusion that Shaukat was a party to the agreement constituting conspiracy.There was no occasion on which Shaukat contacted Mohammed or any other terrorist.The photographExt.PW29/5 of Ruhail Ali Shah, whose real name was Mohammed, was also identified by him.The fact that PW37 did not produce the register expected to be maintained by him, does not also discredit his testimony which has been believed by both the Courts.(iii) Circumstance Nos.2 & 5 (phone contacts) The evidence of the investigating officerPW 66 and PW67 reveals that two mobile phone instruments were recovered on 15th December, 2001 from the house of Shaukat.One of them, namely, Ext.PW36/1 with the phone No.9811573506 was recovered from the hand of Afsan Guru.This was after the telephonic conversation over this number at 20.09 hours was intercepted on the night of 14th December.It transpired that the said conversation was between her and her husband Shaukat speaking from Srinagar.On 12th December, 2001 Afzal left the premises after putting the lock which was broken open by the police on 16th December.Six detonators in a plastic container were also found.In her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Afsan admitted that her husband left Delhi in the truck to Srinagar on 13th December though she expressed her ignorance about Afzal going with him.There is the evidence of PW 61, DSP at Srinagar that they stopped the truck near the police station at Parampura and on the pointing out of Afzal and Shaukat they recovered the laptop, mobile phone and Rs. 10 lacs from the truck and the two accused were arrested at 11.45 a.m. on 15th December.Evidence of PW 61 was corroborated by PW 62, another police officer.There is a controversy on the question as to when the Srinagar police received the information, i.e., whether at 10.30 or so on 15th December or in the early morning hours of 15th December.But the fact cannot be denied that Srinagar police acted on the information received from Delhi about the truck number which was conveyed by Afsan (A4).The Conversation was taped and PW48the Senior Scientific Officer in CFSL, Delhi compared the voice samples of Shaukat and Afsan Guru sent to him with the voice on the cassette which recorded intercepted conversation.He made auditory and spectrographic analysis of voice samples.PW 48 testified that on comparison the voice was found to be the same.The High Court doubted the authenticity of the intercepted conversation on the ground that duration noted by the expert in his report was two minutes and 16 seconds was at variance with the duration of 49 seconds noted in the call records.The High Court laboured under the mistaken impression that the duration was 2 minutes and 16 seconds which was the duration of conversation between Gilani and his brother.Even then there is some discrepancy (between 49 and 74 seconds which according to PW48 was approximate) but no question was put to PW 48 in this regard nor any suggestion was put to PW 48 that the voice was not the same.If any such challenge was made the trial Court would have heard the conversation from the tape and noted the duration.We are, therefore, of the view that the finding as regards interception of truck, recovery of laptop etc. from the truck and the arrest of Shaukat along with Afzal on 15th December at about 11.45 A.M. at Srinagar cannot be doubted.As already discussed, the laptop computer stored highly incriminating material relating to the identity cards found with the deceased and the Home Ministry stickers pasted on the car used by them.In addition to the above circumstances, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW45 who is the landlord of Shaukat to prove that not only Afzal but also the deceased terrorists used to come to Shaukat's residence on the first floor a few days before the incident.In addition, PW45 stated that he had seen the persons, whose photographs he identified going to Shaukat's residence often two or three days prior to 13th December.The photographs were those of the deceased terrorists.He stated that he was running a printing press in the ground floor from where he could see the people going to the first floor.He also stated that he was called by police in the Special Cell at Lodi Road on 17th December and he was shown some photographs which he identified as those relating to the persons visiting Shaukat and Navjot.But, we find no evidence of his identification before he was examined in the Court.It is difficult to believe that he would be in a position to identify (in the Court) after a lapse of eight months the casual visitors going to the first floor of Shaukat by identifying their photographs.In fact, in some of the photographs, the face is found so much disfigured on account of injuries that it would be difficult to make out the identity on seeing such photographs.Yet, he claimed to have identified the photographs of all the five deceased terrorists as those visiting Shaukat's residence.He stated that he could not identify Gilani as the person who was visiting Shaukat's residence at that crucial time but after a leading question was put, he identified Gilani in the Court.The High Court did not attach any weight to his evidence regarding identification of the deceased terrorists.Though the trial Court referred to his evidence inextenso, no view was expressed by the trial Court on the point of reliability of his evidence regarding identification.Even according to the prosecution case, by that time, the deceased terrorists had settled down at their respective hide-outs with the help of Afzal.In the normal course, the terrorists would not have ventured to go out frequently and if necessary they would call Shaukat for a meeting at their place of stay instead of the whole gang going to Shaukat's place frequently.For all these reasons we have to discard the evidence of PW 45 insofar as he testified that the deceased terrorists were the frequent visitors of Shaukat's residence before the incident.In addition to the above circumstances, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW45 who is the landlord of Shaukat to prove that not only Afzal but also the deceased terrorists used to come to Shaukat's residence on the first floor a few days before the incident.The prosecution also relied on another circumstance, namely, that Shaukat had accompanied Afzal to the shop of PW49 on 4th December, 2001 to purchase a Motorola make mobile phone which was ultimately recovered from the deceased terrorist Rana at the spot.No doubt PW49 stated that when Afzal came to purchase telephone from the shop, the accused Shaukat present in the Court was also with him.We are not inclined to place reliance on the testimony of PW41 regarding Shaukat's presence.It would be difficult for any one to remember the face of an accompanying person after a considerable lapse of time.The High Court did not place reliance on this circumstance.There are, however, two circumstances which can be put against the accused Shaukat.The secondhand motorcycle No. HR 51E-5768 was sold to Mohd. Afzal on 8th December.He identified Afzal and Shaukat in the Court as the persons who came to his shop on that day in the company of two others including a lady.He also identified them at the Special Cell on 19th December.He could not identify the lady as Afsan.However, he identified the photograph of the deceased terrorist Mohammed at the Special Cell on 19th December and also in the Court.This motorcycle of Afzal was recovered from the hideout at A-97, Gandhi Vihar which Shaukat used to visit frequently.His presence at the shop with Mohammed apart from Afzal would show that he had acquaintance with Mohammed also.The evidence of this witness has been criticized on the ground that test identification parade could have been held and that there was discrepancy in regard to the date of seizure memo of the bill book.The High Court was inclined to place reliance on this witness in regard to the identification of the deceased terrorist having regard to the fact that they would have been in the shop for taking trial etc., and that the witness would have had enough opportunity to observe the buyer's party for quite some time.Another circumstance that ought to be taken into account against Shaukat is the telephonic conversation between him and his wife Afsan on the night of 14th December.We have already held that the intercepted conversation recorded on the tape is reliable and the High Court should not have discounted it.The conversation shows that Shaukat was with another person at Srinagar, by name Chotu (the alias name of Afzal, according to the prosecution) and that panic and anxiety were writ large on the face of it.In the light of the above discussion, can it be said that the circumstances established by satisfactory evidence are so clinching and unerring so as to lead to a conclusion, unaffected by reasonable doubt, that the appellant Shaukat was a party to the conspiracy along with his cousin Afzal? We find that there is no sufficient evidence to hold him guilty of criminal conspiracy to attack the Parliament.To recapitulate, the important circumstances against him are:Taking a room on rent along with Afzal at Christian Colony hostel into which Afzal inducted the terrorist Mohammed about a month prior to the incident.Shaukat used to go there.His frequent calls to Afzal especially on the date of attack,His leaving Delhi to Srinagar on the date of attack itself in his truck with Afzal who carried a mobile phone, laptop used by terrorists and cash of Rs.10 lakhs.The fear and anxiety with which he and his wife conversed over phone on the night of following day.Shaukat was not shown to be moving with the deceased terrorists at any time excepting that he used to go with Afzal to the Boys' hostel where Mohammed was staying initially and he once accompanied Afzal and Mohammed to the mobile phone shop.He did not accompany Afzal at the time of purchases of chemicals etc. used for preparation of explosives and motor car used by terrorists to go to Parliament House.In the absence of any evidence as regards the identity of satellite phone numbers, the Court cannot presume that the calls were received from a militant leader who is said to be the kingpin behind the operations.The frequent calls and meetings between Shaukat and Afzal should be viewed in the context of the fact that they were cousins.Though his inclination and willingness to lend a helping hand to Afzal even to the extent of facilitating him to flee away from Delhi to a safer place soon after the incident is evident from his various acts and conduct, they are not sufficient to establish his complicity in the conspiracy as such.His close association with Afzal during the crucial period, his visits to the hideouts to meet Afzal, which implies awareness of the activities of Afzal, the last minute contacts between him and Afzal and their immediate departure to Srinagar in Shaukat's truck with the incriminating laptop and phone held by Afzal would certainly give rise to a high degree of probability of knowledge on the part of Shaukat that his cousin had conspired with others to attack the Parliament and to indulge in the terrorist acts.He was aware of what was going on and he used to extend help to Afzal whenever necessary.Having known about the plans of Afzal in collaborating with terrorists, he refrained from informing the police or Magistrate intending thereby or knowing it to be likely that such concealment on his part will facilitate the waging of war.In this context, it is relevant to refer to Section 39 Cr.P.C.:In the face of the stand he had taken and his conduct even after the attack, he could not have pleaded reasonable excuse for not passing on the information.Viewed from any angle, the evidence on record justifies his conviction under Section 123 IPC.In the result, we find Shaukat Hussain Guru guilty under Section 123 IPC and sentence him to the maximum period of imprisonment of 10 years (rigorous) specified therein.He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25000/- failing which he shall suffer R.I. for a further period of one year.His appeal is allowed to this extent.There is only the evidence of PW 45, the landlord of Shaukat, that he had seen the deceased terrorists and Gilani visiting the house of Shaukat two or three days prior to 13th December.We have already discussed his evidence.It is noted in the deposition that initially the witness stated that he had not said so to the police about Gilani.In this state of evidence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 45 in regard to the alleged visits of Gilani to the house of Shaukat a few days prior to 13th December.We, therefore, conclude that the prosecution has failed to bring on record evidence which cumulatively forms a chain, so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probabilities accused S.A.R. Gilani was involved in the conspiracy."The High Court concluded that "the evidence on record does not bring out a high level of consciousness qua S.A.R. Gilani in the conspiracy.Gilani in turn called him up and spoke for 13 seconds.Thereafter, there was exchange of calls between Shaukat and Gilani on seven occasions in the month of November.In the month of November, there was a call from Shaukat through his phone No. 9811573506 to Gilani on 7th December, 2001 and on the 9th December, 2001, Gilani spoke to Shaukat for 38 seconds.There was a call on the midnight of 13th December for 146 seconds from Gilani's number to Shaukat.There is a controversy about this call which we shall refer to in the next para.Then, soon after the attack on Parliament on 13th December, 2001, there was a call from Shaukat to Gilani and thereafter from Gilani to Shaukat.It is pointed out that on the reactivation of the telephone of Afzal i.e. 89429 on 7.12.2001, Gilani spoke to Afzal on the same day.The High Court observed that on the basis of these calls, it is not possible to connect Gilani to the conspiracy, especially having regard to the fact that Gilani was known to Shaukat and his cousin Afzal.Shaukat and Gilani lived in the same locality i.e. Mukherjee Nagar.It is also not in dispute that they hail from the same District and were the students of Delhi University.The calls between them do not give a definite pointer of Gilani's involvement in the conspiracy to attack the Parliament.As far as the calls between Afzal and Gilani are concerned, there was no call too close to the date of incident.On the date of incident, there was exchange of calls between Shaukat and Gilani twice about half-an-hour after the incident.Not much of importance can be attached to this, as it is not unusual for friends talking about this extraordinary event.The phone calls between these three persons, if at all, would assume some importance if there is other reliable and relevant evidence pointing out the accusing finger against Gilani.Gilani had invited problem for himself by disowning the friendship with Shaukat and the contacts with Afzal.When asked questions about the telephonic contacts giving the numbers thereof, Gilani feigned ignorance of the telephone numbers of Shaukat and Afzal by giving evasive answers - 'I do not remember'.Of course, a wrong question was also put with reference to the calls at 11.19 and 11.32 hours on 13th which were between Afzal and Shaukat as if Gilani had called them up at that time.Still, the fact remains that he did give false answers probably in his over anxiety to wriggle out of the situation.That does not make an otherwise innocuous factor on incriminating circumstance.There was a debate on the question whether the call from Gilani's number to Shaukat's number at 00.41 hours on 12th December i.e. just on the eve of the Parliament attack was made by Gilani.The call lasted for 146 seconds.The defence of Gilani was that Gilani's brother called Shaukat to wish him on that night which happened to be shab-e-qadr festival night and that it was not unusual for the friends to exchange the greetings on that night.It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the testimony of DW5Gilani's wife, exposes the falsity of this defence.She stated that no one in the family used cell phone that night.She stated that namaz was performed on the night of 12th December, by all the family members together from 9.30 p.m. onwards.It was closed at 7.00 a.m. on 13th December, 2001 and then they slept.She further stated that during namaz, her husband did not move out of the room nor talked to anybody.She also stated that the cell phone was switched off and kept aside.It was contended before us that Gilani was not questioned on this point in his Section 313 examination.If a question was put, a clarification would have been given that in fact, the brother of Gilani had contacted Shaukat to convey good wishes.Even if there was such a call on the 13th midnight between Shaukat and Gilani, undue importance ought not to be attached to this fact, having regard to the state of other circumstantial evidence on record.Then, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW39 who is the landlord of Gilani.He merely stated in general terms that he had seen Shaukat and Afzal visiting the house of Gilani two or three times during the period Gilani stayed in his house i.e. during a period of more than two years.One more important aspect that deserves mention is that there is nothing to show that the information furnished by Gilani led to the discovery of facts such as identification of the deceased terrorists, recovery of chemicals, police uniforms etc., at the hideouts.That was all done on the basis of informations furnished by other accused.There is no inextricable link between the alleged informations furnished by Gilani and the facts discovered.None of the investigating officers deposed to the effect that on the basis of information furnished by Gilani, any incriminating articles were recovered or hideouts were discovered.On the other hand, the evidence discloses the supervening informations which led the I.Os.to discover the things.The last circumstance which needs to be discussed is about the telephonic conversation between Gilani and his brother Shah Faizal on the 14th December 2001 at 12.22 hours.His brother Shah Faizal examined as D.W. 6, spoke from Baramullah/Srinagar, which was intercepted and recorded on tape, Ex. P.W. 66/1, which conversation was admitted.As against this translation, the defense version of translation was given by D.Ws.The relevant portion of the speech as translated by P.W. 71 is as follows:Caller: (Bother of Gilani) What have you done in Delhi?Receiver: (Gilani) It is necessary to do (while laughing) ( Eh che zururi).Caller: Just maintain calm now.Benefit of doubt must go to the defence."However the trial Court took the view that the translation by PW 71 appeared to be correct.The learned Counsel for the State submits that the High Court should not have discarded this piece of evidence on the ground of inaudibility, when two of the defence witnesses could hear and translate it.Moreover, there are different versions of translation.The defence version having been translated by persons proficient in Kashmiri and Hindi, the view taken by the High Court seems to us to be reasonable.At any rate, there is room for doubt.No doubt, as per the deposition of DW 6, the brother of Gilani and the version of Gilani in his statement under Section 313, the relevant query and answer was in the context of quarrel between him and his wife with regard to the Kashmir trip during Eid appears to be false in view of the tenor of the conversation.The High Court acquitted her of the charge.The articles in the truck were recovered at the instance of Afzal and Shaukat when it was intercepted at Srinagar.The call was received by Afsan on the Phone No. 9811573506 and the caller was her husband.Caller: From where?Receiver: I don't know they are with the lady of ground floor.Caller: O.K.Receiver: I don't know.I did not speak anything.Caller: O.K. Alright.Receiver: Tell more, don't speak anything now and tell me.Caller: Yes, Yes.Receiver: Reached safely?Caller: Yes, Yes.Caller: Yes, Yes.Receiver: Do you know?Caller: Yes, Yes alright you may make a call.Receiver: When?Caller: In the night right now.I am calling from outsideReceiver: Alright I will call up tomorrow (while weeping)Caller: O.K.As rightly observed by the High Court it shows that "Shaukat and Afsan were talking between the lines.Afsan was scared." An inference can be drawn that she was concerned about the safety of Shaukat and that she was aware that Shaukat and Afzal did something that attracted police surveillance.But from this circumstance alone, no inference can be drawn with a reasonable degree of certainty that she was having knowledge of the plan to attack the Parliament before it happened.The scanty evidence on record does not justify her conviction either on the charges framed against her or under Section 123 IPC for which she was held guilty by the trial Court.The High Court's view is unexceptionable.IN THE RESULT, we dismiss the appeal filed by Mohd. Afzal and the death sentence imposed upon him is hereby confirmed.The appeal of Shaukat is allowed partly.He stands convicted under Section 123 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer RI for a further period of one year.His conviction on other charges is hereby set aside.The appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru are hereby dismissed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,921,921 | Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the first respondent respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.1650/BDFGISSSV/2014 dated 30.10.2014, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Appu @ Prakash @ Ettaiah, Son of Subramani, aged 26 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".4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.6534/2013 for the offence under sections 341, 336, 392, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.643/2013 on the file of F-2, Egmore Police Station and the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.1863/2013 for the offence u/s.341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.95/2013 on the file of N-4, Fishing Harbour Police Station. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,929,617 | The present criminal revision case has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1374 of 2018 in S.C.No.177 of 2018 on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, dated 12.10.2018, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to discharge him from the offences alleged against him.Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case against the revision petitioner and others for offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C.. It was subsequently altered to 306 IPC.During the pendency of the Sessions Case, the revision petitioner and other accused viz., A3, A4 and A5 have filed petitions in CMP.Nos.912, 1373 and 1374 of 2018 seeking to discharge them from the above offence.All the three petitions were jointly considered and a common order was passed.The learned Sessions Judge, after adverting to various materials, had come to definite conclusion that there was prima facie material to proceed against all the accused including this petitioner, and dismissed the petitions.As against the common order dated 12.10.2018, the revision petitioner(A5) alone has filed the present revision case before this Court.The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that there is no instigation and mere uttering of word would not amount to commission of offense and the vital ingredient to commit a crime viz., mens rea is absent in this case.There is no money transaction between the petitioner and the deceased and no document was seized by the respondent regarding the loan transaction with the petitioner.The common allegation against the accused is found in the letter which was seized by the respondent from the daughter of the deceased.However, in that letter, the deceased has neither borrowed loan from the petitioner nor he paid interest to him.The prosecution has not produced any sufficient evidence to prove the allegation against this petitioner.A.No.56 of 2012 in the matter of V.Venkataraman versus the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ayanavaram Range, Chennai and referred to another judgment that mere uttering the word is not enough to instigate the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and dismissed the petitions, which warrants interference.The deceased Selvaraj obtained loan from the revision petitioner/accused.During the transactions, there was a dispute between them.The accused abused him with filthy language in public place.Due to that the deceased and his wife committed suicide, leaving a suicide note.The Commissioner of Police, Salem recovered a suicide note from the daughter of the deceased.It shows that there is a prima facie material to frame the charge and proceed the case against the petitioner.The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed in his order while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and other accused.There is no merit in the revision and no reason is made out to interfere with the order.Therefore, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.Heard the rival submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) and perused the materials placed on record.From the above, it could be seen that it is not in dispute that the respondent registered a case against the petitioner and otherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 accused for offense under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently it was altered to 306 IPC and the allegation is that the victim borrowed money from the petitioner and other accused.Due to that, the petitioner has continuously tortured the deceased and abused him with filthy language in public place.The respondent police have recovered a letter written by the deceased from his daughter, wherein it was clearly stated that he had got loan from the petitioner and other accused and they have harassed him by demanding exorbitant interest and therefore, he could not pay the interest also.Due to that, the deceased and his wife committed suicide.The same could be determined only after elaborate trial, subjecting witnesses to examination and cross-examination.The records would disclose the involvement of the petitioner.Upon consideration of the submission made and the documents submitted, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner that he shall not entitled to discharge from the offence.On the whole, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the common order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in C.M.P.Nos.912, 1373 and 1374 of 2018 in S.C.No.177 of 2018, hence the present criminal revision case deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P. VELMURUGAN.J., rli Crl.R.C.No.6 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.38 of 2019 14.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,932,209 | At the time of commission of crimei.e., as on 30.04.2009, he was aged about 28 years.His wife was having a malechild in her arm.An ordinary man of prudence can differentiate between rightand wrong.Knowing fully well that he was doing wrong, the appellant/accusedhas now been trapped into, because of his lustful desire, that too on a 16 yearsold girl, who is the deceased herein, he has got stuck into a stigmai.e."murderer".The deceased Rajeswari was aged about only 16 years, when she was cut todeath by the appellant/accused as she had not yielded to quench his lust.That on 25.05.2009, P.W.16 Inspector of Police, attached to PeriyakulamCircle had laid a final report against the appellant/accused before the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Periyakulam alleging that he had committed the offencespunishable under Sections 354 and 302 I.P.C.,The deceased Rajeswari is the daughter of P.W1 Nagalakshmi and P.W.2Sangili. P.W.3 Karuppiah and P.W.4 Paramasivam are brothers.Their sisterPappathi has been given in marriage to the appellant/accused and as such P.Ws.1to 4 and the appellant/accused are closely related with each other.At the time of occurrence, P.W.2 Sangili, who is none other than thehusband of P.W.1 was undergoing treatment in Periyakulam Government Hospital ashe had sustained injury in a road traffic accident.The first incident was taken place on 16.09.2007, at about 05.30 p.m.,when the deceased Rajeswari was studying in 4th standard at KannakaraiResidential Tribal School.On that date, the appellant/accused had been to herschool, pulled her hand and compelled her to yield his lustful desire.Onhearing her screaming noise, one Chinnaponnu and Sahadevan had rushed there forher rescue, beaten up and driven him out.10.4. P.W.1 to 4 are the residents of Kuravankuzhi Village, whereas theappellant/accused is the resident of Kadapparaikuzhi Village situated atVellakeni Panchayat, Kodaikanal Taluk.That on 30.04.2009, at about 05.30 p.m., P.W.1 Nagalakshmi was present inher house and cooling milk in order to feed her one year old male child.Atthat time, the appellant/accused came there and sat on the pyol.Whileso P.W.4Paramasivam came there and asked him as to why he was sitting there, for whichthe appellant/accused had answered that he came there to leave the horse.After half an hour, the deceased Rajeswari, who is the elder daughter ofP.W.1 Nagalakshmi came there from outside.On seeing her, theappellant/accused, with a criminal intention of committing sexual assault onher, was trying to give a 500 rupee currency note.But, she abruptly refused toreceive the money and was proceeding towards the entrance of her house.Whenshe was about to enter her house, the appellant/accused had declared that "Vz;ogy jlit Tg;gpl;L vdJ Mirf;F nzA;f kWf;fpwha; ndpBky; eP capBuhL nUf;ff;TlhJ" bysaying so, he had taken out an Aruval M.O.1, which was hidden in his hip and cuton her right neck from behind.When the deceased Rajeswari had warded of thatcut, the appellant/accused came in front of her and again cut on her left neck.That cut had also fallen over her left cheek and inflicted injury.On seeing this, P.W.1 Nagalakshmi had raised hue and cry and on hearingher sound, P.W.4 Paramasivam and P.W.3 Karuppiah came running there.Afternoticing, the appellant/accused had fled away from the scene of occurrence.Despite their strenuous effort, they were not able to catch him.P.W.6 Vellaian and P.W.7 Balan, who are the neighbours of P.W.1 and P.W.2had also rushed to the place of occurrence, wherein the injured girl Rajeswariwas found lying on P.W.1's lap with cut injuries on her neck.On enquiry, P.W.1 had informed them that the appellant/accused had cut herdaughter and run away from that place.Since there was profuse bleeding, P.W.6Vellaian had taken out a towel M.O.2, which was found lying there and used thesame as a bandage around her neck.When they were about to come down from the hill, in order to take herupto the hospital, P.W.6 had informed P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1 aboutthe incident through P.W.7's mobile phone.Thereafter, P.W.1 with theassistance of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 had lifted the deceased the girl ina Doli.While P.W.1 Nagalakshmi was on the way to hospital, she had informed herhusband P.W.2 Sangili and one Sasikumar about the incident.They had told herthat they would be waiting at Sothuparai and therefore asked her to bring theinjured girl there.While they were proceeding towards Sothuparai carrying theinjured girl in the Dholi, she was murmuring.When they were nearingSothuparai, the injured had stopped the murmuring and lost her breath.At about 08.15 p.m., when they were reaching Southuparai, anambulance was readily stationed there and from there the injured girl was takento Periyakulam Government Hospital.At about 08.45 p.m., the injured girl wasadmitted in hospital and thereafter P.W.1 Nagalakshmi and P.W.2 Sangili had beento Thenkarai Police Station, where P.W.1 had lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) beforeP.W.14 Special Sub-Inspector of Police.On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P1), P.W.14 had registered a case inThenkarai Police Station in Crime No.174 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. Theprinted first information report (Ex.P11) was sent along with Ex.P1 Complaint tothe learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam through P.W.9 Head Constable.Accordingly, he had handed over Exs.Then P.W.16 Inspector of Police attached to Thenkarai Police Station hadtaken up the case for investigation.Since the place of occurrence was locatedat hill station, P.W.16 was not able to go there immediately and therefore hehad examined P.W.1 to P.W.5, who were present in front of the hospital andrecorded their respective statements.He had also examined some of thewitnesses and recorded their statements.On the next day at about 07.00 a.m., he had been to the place ofoccurrence, inspected the same in the presence of P.W.8 Mariappan and one Kuppanand prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P12) in thepresence of above said witnesses.At about 08.30 a.m., he had collected some blood stained earth (M.O.5),some unblood stained earth (M.O.6), a blood stained stone (M.O.3) and anotherunblood stained stone (M.O.4) under a seizure mahazar Ex.P3, in the presence ofthe above said witnesses.Besides this, P.W.16 had also seized one bloodstained boy's shirt (M.O.7) and one saffron colour dothi (M.O.8) under the coverof a seizure mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence of the above said witnesses.Thereafter, at about 12.00 noon, he came to Periyakulam GovernmentHospital and conducted an inquest on the dead body of the deceased Rajeswari,which was kept in the mortuary, in the presence of the Panchayatars.After thecompletion of the inquest, he had also prepared an inquest report under Ex.P13.Subsequently, he had sent the dead body for postmortem examination throughP.W.15 Head Constable along with a requisition under Ex.In pursuant to the requisition under Ex.P7, P.W.11 Dr.Whileso, he was foundfacing western side.The arrest and recovery of M.O.1 Aruval have clearly been spoken to bythem.P15 seizure mahazar, with regard to the crime weapon Aruval, clearlydescribe the identity of the weapon.It says that the length of wooden handleof Aruval measures 15 c.m.The iron portion of the Aruval measures 34 c.m.,whereas the tip of the Aruval measures only 2 c.m.,It is revealed further that the Aruval has beenshown as 13th Item.In the above said report, it is stated that blood wasdetected on each of items 1, 3 and 5 to 12, but not on any of items 2, 4 and 13.Item No.2 is earth mixed with stones and vegetable matter.Item No.4 is anirregular stone weighing about 2.5 kg., and Item No.13 is a rusty metal billhookcontinuous with a hollow rusty metal handle into which a wooden stick isinserted and measuring about 48.5 c.m., in length.It is also revealed from Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by T.MATHIVANAN, J.)The Judgment and the order of conviction, dated 29.12.2010, sentencing theappellant/accused to suffer the imprisonment of life and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default to suffer the rigorous imprisonment for a further periodof six months and made in S.C.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam are under challenge inthis appeal.The appellant/accused had been facing two charges viz., 354 and 302 I.P.C.,He was acquitted of the charge under Section 354 I.P.C., and found guilty underSection 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced as aforestated.The appellant/accused is a married man.The learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences andafter the completion of preliminary enquiry, the records were committed to Courtof Sessions i.e., the Principal Sessions Court, Theni Sessions Division andthereafter, it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court), Periyakulam, for trial.After the appearance of the appellant/accused and on hearing the learnedcounsel appearing for the defence as well as the learned Public Prosecutorappearing for the State, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed twocharges under Sections 354 and 302 I.P.C., as against the appellant/accused.When the ingredients of the charges were explained and questioned, theappellant/accused had pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried.Therefore, hewas put on trial.The prosecution, in order to substantiate it's case, has totally examined asnearly as 16 witnesses.During the course of their examination Exs.P1 to P15and the material objects in M.Os.1 to 8 were marked.K.Easwaran,Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Head Quarters Hospital at Periyakulamhad started conducting of postmortem examination on the dead body at 1.25 p.m.During the course of his examination, the following injuries were found on theperson of the dead body:i. A cut injury on the left side of neck 3 c.m., below left mastaid process 3c.m., length, 1 c.m., breadth and 1 c.m., depth; another cut injury on the sameline of previous one, on the left mandible 2 c.m., length, 1 c.m., breadth and0.5 c.m., depth;A cut injury on the right side of neck below right mastoid process 3 c.m.,below extending to 3 c.m., below right angle of mandible 5 c.m., length, 3 c.m.,breadth and 5 c.m., depth;Fracture of cervical bone present on the right side of cut injury andmajor vessels like carotid and jugular were cut through.Tongue within the mouth 7/7/7/7 teeth, Ribs normal, Heart empty 300 g.m.,Hyoid bone normal, lungs right 500 g.m., Lt 400 g.m., pale, Stomach undigestedfood 500 g.m., present, Liver 1500 g.m., pale, Spleen 200 g.m., pale, Kidney 150g.m., each, Uterus pale empty, Brain 1300 g.m., pale.After the completion of postmortem examination, P.W.11 Dr.K.Easwaran hadgiven his opinion saying that the deceased would appear to have died of shockand haemorrahage due to the cut of major vessels like caratid and Jugular 20 to24 hours prior to autopsy.No sooner than the completion of the postmortem examination, P.W.16 hadseized the wearing apparels, which were found on the dead body, under a cover ofthe seizure mahazar Ex.P14 in the presence of the witnesses and he had alsoexamined some of the witnesses including P.W.11 Dr.K.Easwaran and recorded theirrespective statements.That on 02.05.2009, at about 12.30 p.m., P.W.16 had arrested theappellant near Lakshmipuram Bo Tree Bus Stop in the presence of P.W.10 Ravikumarand one Mayan.On interrogation, he had voluntarily come forward and given aconfessional statement, which was reduced into writing by him in the presence ofthe above said witnesses.Based on his disclosure statement under Ex.P5, the appellant/accused hadtaken the witnesses to the Tamil Nadu Government Drinking Water and PurifierPlant situated at Sathya Nagar, Sothuparai-Periyakulam Road and he hadidentified the crime weapon Aruval (M.O.1), which was placed near a cementelectricity post, located on the western side of the above said water purifierplant and produced the same before P.W.16 Mr.Justin Prabhakaran, at 04.45 p.m.,which was recovered by him in the presence of the above said witnesses under thecover of a seizure mahazar Ex.Thereafter, the appellant/accused, alongwith the material objects, was sent to the Court for being remanded to judicialcustody.After the completion of his investigation,P.W.16 investigating officer had laid a final report against theappellant/accused on 25.05.2009, under Section 354 and 302 I.P.C., before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.When the incriminating circumstances, arising out of the testimonies ofthe prosecution witnesses, were put to the appellant/accused to explain ascontemplated under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C., he had replied that this case wasfoisted against him and he had also stated that he was having no witness to beexamined.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentPolice.Mrs.G.Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel, has advanced her arguments on thefollowing grounds:On a harmonious reading of Ex.P2 rough sketch with the testimonies ofP.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.16, a suspicion is prevailing over the place ofoccurrence;The stab injuries said to have been inflicted on both side neck of thedeceased girl might have been inflicted by some other person as M.O.6 saffroncolour Dhothi was not worn by the accused/appellant at the alleged time ofoccurrence as evident from the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.3;IV. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are brothers and they are closely related to P.W.1Nagalakshmi.The wife of the appellant/accused is the sister of P.W.3 and P.W.4and since the appellant is residing separately from his wife, on account ofmatrimonial tiff, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have wantonly and deliberately spoken toagainst the appellant/accused in order to wreak vengeance, as they are havinganimosity against him.Therefore, their testimonies have to be discarded;V. The prosecution has fortunately failed to prove the first incident, whichis said to have been taken place 1 + years back prior to the date of occurrenceat her school when she was studying in 4th standard.The alleged witnesses forthe said occurrence one Chinnaponnu and one Sahadevan were not examined tosubstantiate this factum for the reasons best known to the prosecuting agency;As per the evidence of P.W.16 investigating officer, at the time ofarrest, the appellant/accused was found to have sustained injuries over his lefthand and his shirt was also stained with blood.However, the injury sustainedby the appellant/accused was not satisfactorily explained by P.W.16 and he hadalso miserably failed to seize the blood stained shirt of the appellant/accusedand send it to chemical analysis;M.O.1 Aruval was not sent to chemical analysis.Moreover, the said Aruvaldid not contain any blood stain and therefore the non-sending of crime weaponAruval to the Forensic Science Laboratory as well as the non-finding of bloodstain over the said weapon would go to the very root and create a gloomy shadowover the case of the prosecution;VIII.The Trial Court ought to have given equal importance to the case of defenceas well as to the case of the prosecution.When the Trial Court had believedthe testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.4 with regard to the presence of the appellantin the place of occurrence, why it had not given equal importance with regard tothe non-examination of the witnesses to prove the first incident, which was saidto have been taken place 1 + years prior to the date of occurrence; andIX.There was a money dispute between P.W.2, who is the father of the deceasedand the appellant/accused and on account of this reason, P.W.1 and P.W.2 andother witnesses have spoken to as against the appellant/accused.In sofar as Ground No.I is concerned, it would be discussed in the laterparagraphs at the appropriate place.Ground No.It has become imperative on our part to reiterate that according to P.W.4Paramasivam, at about 05.00 p.m., on the fateful day, when he was returning homefrom the work spot, the appellant/accused was found sitting on the left sidepyol of P.W.1 Nagalakshmi's house.When he had asked him as to why he wassitting there, the appellant/accused had replied that he came there to leave hishorse.It may also be relevant to note that P.W.4 Paramasivam has supported theevidence of P.W.1 Nagalakshmi with regard to the presence of theappellant/accused in the house of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence.17. P.W.3 Karuppiah has also spoken to in his chief-examination that at about05.30 p.m., when his brother Paramasivam P.W.4 came to his house, their sister-in-law Nagalakshmi (P.W.1) had screamed as "ma;Bah mk;kh".Whileso, theappellant/accused was found running with the crime weapon Aruval M.O.1, fromwhich blood was oozing.On seeing this, he along with P.W.4 Paramasivam had chased him.However,they were not able to catch him.When enquired, P.W.1 Nagalakshmi had narratedthe incident.19. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the circumstantial witnesses.Immediately, both hadrushed there, wherein the deceased girl was found lying on the lap of her motherP.W.1 Nagalakshmi with cut injuries on her neck.The same fact has been spokento by P.W.6 Vellaiyan.20. P.W.1 Nagalakshmi has stated in her evidence that the appellant/accused cameto her house and sat on the pyol.When the deceased girl was returning to herhouse, just in the frontage of their house, the appellant/accused had shown a500 rupee currency note to the deceased girl and was also trying to give it toher.But, she had refused to receive the same and proceeded further to enterinto her house.Whileso, the appellant/accused had declared "Vz;o gy jlitTg;gpl;L vdJ Mirf;F nzA;f kWf;fpwha; ndpBky; eP capBuhL nUf;ff;TlhJ" by sayingso, he had taken out an Aruval M.O.1, which was hidden in his hip and cut on herright neck from behind.According to P.W.1 Nagalakshmi, when the deceased Rajeswari had warded ofthat cut, the appellant/accused came in front of her and inflicted another cutinjury over her left neck.In this connection, Mrs.G.Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel, has argued thatinfact the house of P.W.1 Nagalakshmi was situated nearly 25 feet away from thesolar light as it was shown in Ex.P12 site plan.But, P.W.1 in her cross-examination, had spoken that the deceased had refused to receive the currencynote of Rs.500/- and went inside the house.But, in her chief-examination,P.W.1 had spoken to that the appellant/accused had given the amount to thedeceased at the door step of the house and when the deceased was about to enterthe house, the appellant had caused the injuries by M.O.1 Aruval.While advancing the arguments, she had also drawn our attention to theevidence of P.W.6 Vellaian.P.W.6 Vellaian, in his cross-examination, hasdeposed that two pyols on either side of the house were there proximity to theentrance of P.W.1's house.He has also spoken to that supposing if any personis sitting on the pyol or standing outside the house, he cannot be visualizedfrom inside the house.This stray version uttered by P.W.6 cannot in anywayshift the place of occurrence to the solar light, which according to Ex.P.W.16, investigating officer, in his cross-examination has stated that oneither side of the house of P.W.1, pyols were there proximity to the entrance.On appreciation of his evidence, we find that no question was put to him duringthe course of his cross-examination with regard to the shifting of the place ofoccurrence, particularly the distance between the house of P.W.1 Nagalakshmi andthe solar light.Moreover neither Ex.P2 Rough Sketch nor Ex.P12 Site Plan wereconfronted with him while he was standing in the box.Keeping in view of the above fact, we are of the considered view that theargument with regard to the shifting of place of occurrence is not discernibleand also assume no importance.Ground No.With regard to this ground, the defence theory of involvement of some otherperson instead of the appellant/accused in the criminality, does not find anyforce.It is obvious to note here that it is common parlance that it is theduty of the defence to create confusion in the story of prosecution.But, whenthe overt-act of the appellant/accused has been clinchingly spoken to by P.W.1and supported by the testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.7, we find thatthe above said defence theory has become pale into insignificance.Having been come forward with such theory of defence, it is to be pointedout that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant shall have to form astrong basis.But, in this case, without any foundation or without any sourceof information the theory of defence i.e., some other person could haveinflicted the cut injuries on the neck of the deceased Rajeswari isunbelievable.The learned counselappearing for the appellant/accused cannot imagine herself and project such kindof argument without any supportive evidence.Ground No.Infact, P.W.2, being the father of thedeceased girl and husband of P.W.1, did not see the occurrence.At the time ofthe occurrence, as per the case of prosecution, he was undergoing treatment inPeriyakulam Government Hospital. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are brothers.Therefore, the appellant'spresence in the place of occurrence has been unambiguously proved and apart fromthis, on hearing the hue and cry, P.W.3 and P.W.4 came running towards the placeof occurrence.Whileso, the appellant/accused was found running with the crimeweapon, from which the blood was oozing.This fact has added additionalstrength to the case of the prosecution.Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 4 are relatedwith each other.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has failed toestablish the alleged animosity, which was said to have been prevailing betweenthe appellant/accused on the one part and the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 onthe other part, because on account of matrimonial tiff, their sister has beenresiding separately from the appellant/accused.In the absence of any materialevidence, it cannot be heard to say that P.W.3 and P.W.4 have deposed in orderto wreak vengeance as against the appellant/accused.Ground No.In sofar as this ground is concerned, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional PublicProsecutor, has argued that in the first information i.e., complaint (Ex.P1),P.W.1 has categorically stated that two years prior to the occurrence atKannakarai Residential Tribal School, when the deceased Rajeswari was studyingthere, with the criminal intention of committing sexual assault on her, theappellant/accused had pulled her hand and compelled her to yield his lustfuldesire.On hearing her screaming noise, one Chinnaponnu and Sahadevan hadrushed there for her rescue, beaten up and driven him out.Got frustrated withthis, the appellant/accused was trying to commit suicide.However, he wasrescued by the said Sahadevan.Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also argued that P.W.1in her complaint (Ex.P1) had also stated that even after the first incident theappellant, under the guise of seeing her mother-in-law Chinnathai, used to visither house and misbehave with her daughter (deceased) and that they would drivehim away.He has also argued that infact, the said witness Sahadevan and anotherwitness one Chinnaponnu were not examined by the prosecution with regard to thefirst incident.Ground No.In his chief-examination, he would state that at about12.30 p.m., on 02.05.2009 at Lakshmipuram Bo Tree Bus Stand, on seeing thepolice party the appellant/accused was trying to escape.However, he and hispolice party had managed to surround him, subsequently he was arrested in thepresence of P.W.10 Ravikumar and one Mayan.P.W.10 Ravikumar alone wasexamined, but Mayan was not examined.With regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant/accused on his handand head, according to P.W.16, in his confessional statement, he has stated thatwhen he was running, fearing arrest at the hands of the Police party, he hadfallen down and sustained those injuries.In this connection, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has fairlyadmitted that P.W.16 investigating officer had not seized the shirt of theappellant/accused and sent the same to chemical examination.Ground No.In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accusedhas argued that P.W.13 Vijayendran, Scientific Officer, attached to RegionalForensic Science Laboratory, Madurai had deposed that there was no blood stainin M.O.1 Aruval.P.W.12 Head Clerk attached to the learned JudicialMagistrate's Court, Periyakulam had deposed that M.O.1 Aruval was not sent tochemical analysis and therefore the contradiction between the testimonies ofP.W.13, P.W.16 and P.W.12 creates suspicion over the employment of the crimeweapon M.O.1 in the crime.He has also maintained that on 07.05.2009, as per the evidenceof P.W.16, the material objects including the crime weapon Aruval were sent tothe Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai.46. P.W.13 Vijayendran, Scientific Assistant had examined the material objectsand in this connection he had issued Ex.P8 Biological Report, dated 18.05.2009and Ex.P8 Biology Report reveals thatthirteen items including the Aruval M.O.1 were sent to the Regional ForensicScience Laboratory, Madurai.P8 that the blood stained samples of the aboveitems were forwarded to the Serology Division, Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory, Madurai for the purpose of grouping.In the Serology Report Ex.P9, it is stated that the blood stain detected onthe Item Nos.1 to 12 was found human origin and grouped as 'A'.In this connection, we find that the non-finding of the blood stain on thecrime weapon M.O.1 Aruval is not a prime ground to say that the weapon could nothave been used in the commission of crime and that the non-finding of the bloodon M.O.1 Aruval will not exonerate the appellant/accused from the clutches oflaw or paralyze the case of prosecution.The evidences adduced by P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.10 and P.W.16 shall haveto be read harmoniously.P.W.1 Nagalakshmi, without any hesitation, has spokento in her evidence that she knew the identity of the crime weapon.When M.O.1Aruval was shown to her, she had identified the same saying that this was theweapon used to cut her daughter Rajeswari.51. P.W.3 Karuppiah has also identified the crime weapon, when he was standingin the box to give evidence.P.W.4 has also spoken to that when he along withhis brother Karuppiah P.W.3 came running to the house of P.W.1, after hearingher screaming sound, the appellant/accused was found running along with theAruval, from which blood was oozing.On coming to the evidence of P.W.16, he would say that on the basis of thedisclosure statement under Ex.P5, the appellant/accused had taken them to theTamil Nadu Drinking Water and Purifier Plant situated at Sathya Nagar inPeriyakulam-Sothuparai Main Road, where he had identified the weapon, which washidden near a cement electricity post and from there he had taken out andproduced M.O.1 Aruval.It is significant to note here that the occurrence is said to have beentaken place on 30.04.2009, at about 05.30 p.m., The crime weapon M.O.1 Aruvalis said to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant/accused at 04.45p.m., on 02.05.2009 i.e., two days after the occurrence.It is common knowledge that no man would carry the crime weapon withoutwiping out the blood stain after the commission of occurrence.They will knowhow to screen the evidence and it is a specialized talent for the investigatingofficer to detect and recover the incriminating articles.Since the crimeweapon was discovered after two days of the occurrence, we cannot expect thatthe blood stain would stick on to the weapon.It would have been washed out bythe appellant.By observing this, it cannot be construed that the Judgment iswritten merely on surmise and guisture, but we make it clear that it is madepurely on the basis of the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.16, whichhave been duly corroborated by P.W.10, who is a responsible person being thePanchayat Union President.In a similar case viz., Ramadoss vs. The Inspector of Police (DB), reportedin 2010 (3) MWN (Cr.) 45 (DB), wherein one of us were sitting in the DivisionBench of this Court, the material objects were not sent for analysis.Under thiscircumstance, the Division Bench has observed that it is purely an irregularitycommitted by the Investigating Officer.When the eye-witnesses are available andthey have spoken about the occurrence that much weight could not be attachedover this aspect.Insofar as the recovery of weapons are concerned, theprosecution claimed that following the confessional statements, they have beenrecovered.Thecrime weapon Aruval M.O.1 was infact sent to the Forensic Science Departmentalong with other incriminating articles for chemical analysis.However, asspoken to by P.W.13 Scientific Assistant, after examination of the incriminatingarticles, as stated in Exs.P8 Biology Report and Ex.P9 Serology Report no bloodwas detected on M.O.1 Aruval.When P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.10 and P.W.16 have clearlyidentified the weapon, the non-finding of blood stain on M.O.1 Aruval has becamepale into insignificance and it cannot be the reason to brush aside the case ofthe prosecution.But, the other prosecution witnesseshave clearly spoken to about the probabilities of the occurrence.The over zealousness of some of nearrelations to ensure that every one even remotely connected with the crime bealso convicted.Everyone's different way of narration for same facts.Bearing in mind, thesebroad principles, the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out whatpart of evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs.It is forthe Courts to separate the grain from the chaff".70 (a).Inthis regard Ex.P6 Postmortem Report assumes more importance.Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel appearing for theappellant/accused, it cannot be heard to say that the charge under Section 302I.P.C., is not maintainable.The atrocious and gruesome act of theappellant/accused comes under the purview of Section 302 I.P.C., and thereforewe are of considered view that the learned Trial Judge has perfectly found theappellant/accused guilty under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to sufferthe life imprisonment and therefore we do not find any infirmity or discrepancyin the Judgment of the Trial Court.In the result, we dismiss the criminal appeal and confirm the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant/accused.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.G.Dhanalakshmi, who has been nominated by the High Court Legal ServicesCommittee to defend the appellant/accused, has done her job excellently and wealso place our appreciation on record.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam2.The Inspector of Police Thenkarai Police Station Periyakulam Theni District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,932,716 | (Delivered on the 11th day of March, 2014) The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 20.5.1997 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.1026/1994,whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 6.4.1994, the deceased/victim Vimla Bai @ Juju had committed suicide by setting her on fire.Before her death, she alleged that the appellant Ramlal had committed rape upon her and therefore, she committed suicide.Thereafter, the appellants Ramlal and Baijnath went to the spot and directed the complainant Girwar Prasad (P.W.1) to place a utensil on Chulah (Villagers' stove) and thereafter they threatened the complainant Girwar Prasad and forced him to misinform the police that she died due to an accident while she was making tea on Chulah.During merg enquiry, the postmortem of the deceased Vimla Bai was done and her vaginal swab was also prepared.Semen slide of the appellant Ramlal was also taken and sent for analysis.The Forensic Science Laboratory in its report Ex.He has accepted that he went to search Kotwar who after receiving the information went to the spot.Merg intimation Ex.P/6 was recorded by the police on 6.4.1994, at about 9 p.m., which was given by Girwar Prasad.In that merg intimation, it was mentioned that Vimla Bai died due to burn injuries.No reason was shown as to how the burn injuries were caused to the deceased Vimla Bai.In the document, Ex.P/6, Girwar Prasad has stated that the appellants threatened him not to inform the police about the actual reason for death of the deceased Vimla Bai but, such explanation is not satisfactory for lodging the FIR with delay of 9 days.If the deceased-:- 7 -:-Ramwati (P.W.3), a child witness of 8 years has stated about the incident that the deceased and Ramwati were going to the house of the complainant situated at the field.In the way, the appellant Ramlal met them.He took Vimla Bai on his bicycle and threw her in a ditch.Thereafter, Vimla Bai tried to assault him by Chappal but, ultimately, he committed rape upon her.Ramlal had shown a thing like a gun and told that he would kill them by fire from that gun.On the other hand, Girwar Prasad has stated that Ramwati has a substance in his hand by which he gave a threat to blow the entire family of the deceased Vimla Bai.If the rape was committed by the appellant Ramlal upon Vimla Bai then, certainly, she would have informed about that rape to her family members because she felt ashamed due to that incident because it is alleged that she committed suicide due to that incident.If she felt otherwise due to that offence that she committed suicide after 4 days then, certainly she would have told the story of rape to all of her superior family members.P/18 found no poison in the viscera of the deceased and no sperm or semen particles were found in the vaginal swab of the deceased.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Patan, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Jabalpur and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but, they have stated that they were-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 falsely implicated in the matter.In defence, Head constable Hiralal (D.W.1) was examined to prove the contents of Rojnamacha Sanha No.285 dated 6.4.1994 to show that the FIR was highly belated and a story was cooked against the appellants.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellant Ramlal from the charge of Section 306 of IPC but, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.However, the FIR was lodged by Girwar Prasad with delay of 9 days.No acceptable explanation was given by him and therefore, a story was cooked against the appellants.The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Sudhakar and another Vs.State of Maharashtra", [AIR 2000 SC 2602] to show that neither offence under Sections 376, nor 306 of IPC is made out against the appellants.At present the matter is an appeal and therefore, re-appreciation of evidence can be done by this Court.The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 Ramlal from the charges of offence under Section 306 of IPC and therefore, it would be apparent that he disbelieved some of the witnesses in the case.Girwar Prasad (P.W.1) and Kisna Bai (P.W.2) have stated that the deceased Vimla Bai @ Juju set her on fire and thereafter, one witness Lokram Yadav (P.W.14) also came to the spot.At that time, Vimla Bai told that the appellant Ramlal committed rape upon her and therefore, she committed suicide.However, Lokram (P.W.14) has accepted that Vimla Bai told that "She committed suicide due to the appellant Ramlal".He did not corroborate the testimony of Girwar Prasad that the deceased told about rape committed by the appellant Ramlal upon her.The witness Lokram was declared hostile but, he did not confirm the remaining story of the prosecution.The prosecution examined Kotwar Sukrata Bai (P.W.6) and Patel Laxmi Prasad (P.W.7) to prove the dying declaration given by the deceased Vimla Bai @ Juju but, both the witnesses turned hostile.They have stated that when they reached to the spot, the deceased Vimla Bai had already expired.It was found that the appellant Baijnath is brother of the witness Laxmi Prasad but, nothing could be brought in the evidence of Kotwar Sukrata Bai as to why she turned hostile.The evidence given by Sukrata Bai appears to be correct.She has stated that she went to the spot at about 8-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 p.m. and she found that the deceased was dead.Therefore, she intimated about the incident to the police and thereafter, she remained with the dead body for the entire night.Head constable Hiralal (D.W.1) has accepted that on 6.4.1994, at about 3.40 a.m. in the night, an intimation was received that the deceased Vimla was found burnt and dead, therefore, the police went to the spot at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning for merg enquiry.Head Constable Hiralal who proved the contents of Rojnamacha 285 has corroborated the story given by Kotwar Sukrata Bai.There was no reason with Sukrata Bai to tell a falsehood and therefore, due to evidence of Sukrata Bai, the story told by Girwar Prasad and Kishna Bai is adversely affected.Girwar Prasad and Kishna Bai have stated about the dying declaration given by the deceased Vimla that the appellant Ramlal committed rape upon her.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the appellant Ramlal was acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 306 of IPC, therefore, the statements given by the deceased Vimla Bai about the rape could not be accepted as dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. However, in case of "Deepak Raghunathrao Shohle Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh", [(1993) M.P.L.J. 729], it was laid that if the deceased states before her death that the accused persons outraged her modesty andRojnamacha 285 was written on the intimation given by the Kotwar.Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 Vimla Bai had told all the persons present at the spot including the Kotwar, Patel and others that she committed suicide due to rape committed by Ramlal then, Kotwar and others would have known and there was no reason for Kotwar and Patel to keep silence for so many days.When Kotwar intimated the police about the death and when police came on the next day morning, then Kotwar and Patel could inform the police about the cause of suicide by deceased Vimla Bai.There was no fear to the complainant Girwar Prasad in the presence of Kotwar and Patel and he could refrain from telling the truth before the police.If he was so threatened by the appellants then, there was no reason for removal of the fear of Girwar Prasad when he could lodge the FIR, Ex.P/1 after 7 days.Under such circumstances, the story of fear appears to be a cooked story.Girwar Prasad had lodged the FIR, Ex.P/1 with delay of 9 days.The FIR is a typed FIR and it appears that it was prepared by some law knowing person.In FIR, Ex.P/1, it was mentioned that after 3-4 days of the death of the deceased, Ramwati informed about the story but, it is no where mentioned that what was the story told by Ramwati in the FIR.In the FIR, it was stated that the deceased Vimla Bai told about the rape committed by Ramlal before Gram Kotwar Sukrata Bai, Gram Patel Laxmi Prasad, Baijnath and-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 daughter-in-law Kishna Bai.In the FIR, it is no where mentioned that the witness Lokram was present at the time of dying declaration given by the deceased.Lokram was a resident of another village and there was no reason for him to visit the spot on the date of incident.He has stated that he went to that village to do the job of labourer but, in the cross-examination, he has accepted that after hearing the dying declaration given by the deceased Vimla Bai, he went to graze the cattle.It is unnatural that Lokram went to the village of the complainant in search of a job of labourer.He did not say that he got job in a particular house or he went to graze the cattle of a particular person.Name of Lokram was nowhere mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/1 and therefore, it appears that he is a created witness whose name was not mentioned in the FIR.He was prepared after lodging the FIR, Ex.P/1 and therefore, the testimony of Lokram has no value in the eye of law.Girwar Prasad has stated that the dying declaration given by the deceased before Kotwar Sukrata Bai, Patel Laxmi Prasad, Baijnath and Kishna Bai.Out of them, Kishna Bai was daughter-in-law of the complainant, whereas Baijnath was made an accused.Sukrata Bai and Laxmi Prasad did not support the story told by the complainant.Under such circumstances, the testimony of-:- 9 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 Girwar Prasad and Kishna Bai is required to be examined on the basis of the circumstances.Girwar Prasad introduced the story of rape that the appellant Ramlal had committed rape upon the deceased Vimla Bai and Ramwati was the eye witness of that rape.The statement given by Girwar Prasad indicates that he gave the description of that thing to be a bomb, whereas Ramwati told about a gun.Thereafter, Ramwati told that after 3 days of the incident, she went to the house of her maternal uncle to attend a marriage and thereafter, she was taken by Raju-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 Chacha, 2 days after the death of Vimla Bai.Under such circumstances, the story of alleged rape was brought in the knowledge of Girwar Prasad within 4-5 days of the death of the deceased but, no FIR was lodged within 5 days.To corroborate the story of Ramwati, two witnesses were also created that after the incident of rape, the deceased Vimla Bai went to the well of such witnesses and told the story to such witnesses.However, such witnesses Suresh Kumar (P.W.8) and Gama (P.W.13) have turned hostile.They did not support the prosecution's story that after the incident of rape, Vimla Bai visited their well or Vimla Bai told anything about the rape.Suresh Kumar has stated that on the request of Vimla Bai, he had sent one Ramashray to drop Vimla to her house but, he has accepted that after 8-10 days of that incident, Vimla expired.It would be apparent that according to Ramwati, Vimla died within 4 days of the incident of rape and therefore, Suresh Kumar's story about Vimla dates back to the day of rape.Ramwati is a child witness and she could be tutored by her superior family members and therefore, her statement should be examined with care.Initially, Ramwati told that she chased Ramlal who took Vimla Bai on bicycle and she saw that Ramlal committed rape upon Vimla Bai in a ditch.In the cross-examination, Ramwati has accepted-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 that Vimla went with the appellant Ramlal at 9 a.m. in the morning on bicycle and thereafter, she came back to the field of Raju Chacha after 4-5 hours.It was the appellant Ramlal who dropped her by bicycle near the field of Raju Chacha and thereafter Ramwati met Vimla.Looking to the cross- examination of this witness, it would be apparent that Vimla went with the appellant Ramlal, witness Ramwati did not chase her but, she went to the field of Raju Chacha and thereafter she went to her house.Vimla Bai was not left by the appellant Ramlal after the rape.She did not visit to the field or well of anyone.On the contrary, she was dropped by Ramlal near the field of Raju Chacha.If the cross-examination of Ramwati is considered with the remaining evidence then, it would be apparent that Ramwati did not make any hue and cry when the appellant Ramlal took her on the bicycle.She was missing for 4-5 hours but, Ramwati did not inform anyone about it.The appellant Ramlal himself dropped the deceased Vimla Bai near the field of Raju Chacha on bicycle and she was not crying at that time.There was no problem to Vimla Bai or Ramwati to tell about the incident of rape to the police and family members soon after the incident but, neither Vimla Bai, nor Ramwati told anyone about rape for 4-5 days.Vimla Bai expired after 4 days and therefore, it would be-:- 12 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 apparent that she did not complain about the alleged rape to anyone for 4 days.S.P.Singh (P.W.5) who did the postmortem on the body of the deceased Vimla Bai, found that vaginal secretion was present and therefore, the liquid of the body was not evaporated due to fire.He could prepare the vaginal swab of the deceased according to the FSL report, Ex.If Vimla Bai was in agony due to act of rape then, she would have committed suicide on the same day or the next day.No reason has been given as to why she had waited for 4 days after the rape was committed.Looking to the description given by Ramwati in the cross-examination, it appears that Vimla Bai did not make any hue and cry when the appellant Ramlal took her on bicycle.She kept silence for that period.If the appellant Ramlal had committed rape upon the deceased Vimla Bai then, after the incident, she would have returned within one or two hours because for incident of rape, no such time was-:- 13 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 required for the accused to keep the prosecutrix with him for a period of 4-5 hours.Moreover if rape was committed upon Vimla Bai then, she would have been left by the appellant at the spot.There was no need to the appellant Ramlal to take the deceased Vimla Bai back to the field of Raju Chacha to facilitate her in her return visit.Under such circumstances, the story told by Ramwati indicates that either the deceased Vimla Bai was the consenting party or the appellant did not commit any offence of rape.If the deceased Vimla Bai was a consenting party then, there was no need to her to commit suicide due to that alleged rape.Under such circumstances, where the witnesses Sukrata Bai and Laxmi Prasad did not corroborate the dying declaration given by the deceased then, it would be apparent that no rape was committed upon the deceased Vimla Bai by the appellant Ramlal.Girwar Prasad and Kishna Bai created a story with the help of child witness Ramwati about the incident of rape against the appellant Ramlal, who was Sarpanch at that time.There was no reason to the deceased Vimla to commit suicide on the basis of intercourse done by the appellant Ramlal and therefore, there was no possibility of giving such a dying declaration before the witnesses.If such dying declaration was given by the deceased to the witnesses then, there was no reason with Girwar Prasad to lodge the FIR with delay of-:- 14 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 at least 9 days.Under such circumstances, the story of rape committed by the appellant Ramlal upon the deceased Vimla Bai appears to be a cooked story.The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant Ramlal committed rape upon the deceased Vimla Bai.Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law and fact in convicting the appellant Ramlal for the offence of rape.In the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sudhakar (supra), it was laid that if FIR is lodged with delay then, it cannot be accepted then, such rape was committed and the deceased committed suicide due to that act of rape.In the similar circumstances, as laid by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the appellant Ramlal cannot be convicted for offence under Section 376 of IPC.The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC due to the fact that the appellant Baijnath directed Girwar Prasad to place a utensil on Chulah and to create a story that the deceased got burnt due to an accident while making the tea.As discussed above that no rape was committed by the appellant Ramlal upon the deceased Vimla Bai or she was a consenting party then, there was no possibility for the deceased Vimla Bai to commit suicide due to that reason.-:- 15 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 possible that the complainant Girwar Prasad and family members scolded the deceased Vimla Bai that she went with the appellant Ramlal for 4-5 hours and therefore, she committed suicide.When there was no intimation to anyone that Vimla Bai told anything against the appellant Ramlal then, there was no need to either the appellant Ramlal or to the appellant Baijnath to go to the spot and to create such a scene as stated by the complainant Girwar Prasad.Under such circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that at the time of the incident, when the deceased Vimla Bai sustained the burn injuries, the Chulah was ignited and she was preparing tea for his family members and therefore, if a utensil was found on Chulah having some tea then, it cannot be said that such type of act was done by the appellants and therefore, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants destroyed the evidence to save the appellant Ramlal from the conviction of offence punishable under Section 376 or 306 of IPC and therefore, the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that offence under Section 201 of IPC was made out against the appellants.The appellants are convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC without any basis.Similarly, so far as the offence under Section 506- B of IPC is concerned, the appellant Baijnath visited at the-:- 16 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 spot as a Patwari.It is no where mentioned that Ramlal visited to the spot when the victim Vimla Bai committed suicide and therefore, there was no possibility for the appellant Ramlal to give a threat to Girwar Prasad or anyone.Hence, the conviction for offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC directed against the appellant Ramlal appears to be erroneous and without basis.Similarly, Sukrata Bai and Laxmi Prasad etc. have stated that they and the appellant Baijnath went to the spot when Vimla Bai had already expired and she told nothing about rape before them and therefore, there was no need to the appellant Baijnath to give any threat to Girwar Prasad not to lodge any FIR.As discussed above, if threat was given by the appellant Baijnath then, as to how the complainant Girwar Prasad came out of the fear of that threat to lodge an FIR against Ramlal and Baijnath.Under such circumstances, the testimony of Kishna Bai and Girwar Prasad cannot be accepted to the fact that the appellant Baijnath gave no threat to Girwar Prasad and therefore, the appellant Baijnath cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506-B of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the complainant Girwar Prasad belatedly cooked a case against the appellants and no alleged rape was-:- 17 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1997 committed by the appellant Ramlal.Consequently, there was no need to the appellant to disappear any evidence or to give any threat to the complainant Girwar Prasad.The appellants could not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 or 201 or 506-B of IPC.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.The conviction and sentence directed against the appellant Ramlal for offence punishable under Sections 376, 201, 506-B of IPC and conviction and sentence directed against the appellant Baijnath for offence punishable under Sections 201, 506-B of IPC are hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges.At present, the appellants are on bail.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 11/3/2014 Pushpendra | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,935,469 | 1. Heard Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionists no. 1 and 2, Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.This court vide order dated 05.01.2019 for securing presence of the revisionists has issued the bailable warrant against them.The case belongs to the year 1989 and also considering that presently the revisionists-accued persons are about 65 years in age, hence, they may be released on probation.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the alleged incident, grievous injuries were caused and on the basis of evidence on record, the accused persons have been sentenced appropriately.Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was also preferred by the revisionists-accused persons numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2000 and the appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court dated 10.03.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, the judgment of the trial court was upheld.The prayer made on behalf of the accused seems to be reasonable.Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh & others Vs.State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 3622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the benefit of probation while upholding the conviction of accused persons under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has released the accused persons on executing a bond before the Magistrate for maintaining good behaviour and peace for the period of six months. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
176,938,238 | Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.By means of present criminal appeal the appellant has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Gonda, in Bail Application No.2460 of 2019, moved by the appellant in Case Crime No.222 of 2019, under sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 307, 436 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to Police Station - Kotwali Colonelganj, District - Gonda, allowing the instant criminal appeal.It has also been prayed to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that co-accused Meraj has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1514 of 2019 and on the ground of parity other co-accused persons have also been granted bail, their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure -7 to the criminal appeal.On the ground of parity, the criminal appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer.In view of above, the order impugned passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.Order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Gonda, in Bail Application No.2460 of 2019, moved by the appellant in Case Crime No.222 of 2019, under sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 307, 436 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to Police Station - Kotwali Colonelganj, District - Gonda, is set aside. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
12,774,337 | The case is listed today for admission.Heard on the bail application.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.474/2014 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P), for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 294 and 506-B/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, complainant lodged a report that when she was coming back with her children at that time accused Deva caught her hand and outraged her modesty.On the next day again accused and applicant caught the complainant when Awdesh and his wife came to save her then present applicant slapped Awdesh.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated.He has not committed any offence.On these grounds learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail.The application is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge bj/- | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,746,995 | 2.The brief facts leading to this revision is as follows: On 29.04.2008 at about 22.15 hours opposite to Ashok Residency Hotel, Poonamalee Road, Iyappanthangal, a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-20-AQ-7164 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner hit the bicycle driven by one Mathappan and Murugan on pillion.Due to the said impact, Mathappan fell down on the mud road and Murugan fell down on the metal road.While Mathappan sustained bruises in his hand, Murugan sustained head injury.He was immediately taken to S.R.M.C Hospital.Then the Doctor examined him and advised to get admitted as inpatient.He left S.R.M.C hospital and went to the Government Hospital, Chennai and got admitted as in- patient.On 07.05.2008, he died.Later, on getting intimation from the Government Hospital, Chennai that Murugan succumbed due to the injuries, the charge was altered to Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.11 exhibits were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.Mathappan the defacto complainant and the injured person in the accident was examined as PW.1. Sivakumar and Karthikeyan, who saw the accident were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively.They both saw the accident while coming behind Mathappan at the time of occurrence.Anandan(PW-4) attached to Sri Ramachandra Medical College (SRMC) Hospital treated Murugan for his head injury and advised him to get admitted as in-patient.The witnesses to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 observation mahazer Kamalahasan [PW-5] and Vijayarajan [PW-6] turned hostile.The respondent-police registered First Information Report on 30.04.2008 at about 11.30 hours for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, based on the complaint given by Mathappan.Motor Vehicle Inspector Mr.Senthurvel was examined as PW-8, who has deposed about his report dated 08.05.2008 about the two wheeler bearing Reg.P.W.9 to P.W.11 are the Police Officials, who assisted the Investigating Officer Mr.Muniandi (PW-12) during the investigation.They have deposed about their respective role in the investigation.The trial Court, after considering the evidence acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, Convicted him for the offence under Sections 279 of IPC and 304 (A) of IPC, Imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC.The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 trial Court, the accused has preferred appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee in Crl.Before the lower Appellate Court the accused has contended that the eye witnesses are all interested witnesses and their presence at the time of accident is highly doubtful.While the witnesses to the observation mahazar have turned hostile, the case of the prosecution regarding the manner in which the accident took place gets doubtful.Submitting that even before the death of the injured victim, the observation mahazar has mentioned that case has been registered under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C which clearly establishes that the prosecution has created the document later to suit their convenience without adverting to the true facts collected during the course of investigation.The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and on considering the grounds put forth by the accused/appellant, negatived the plea and dismissed the appeal.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court washttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 confirmed.Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of fact, the present revision petition is preferred.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner has caused the accident.Though the vehicle number is mentioned in the First Information Report, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the name of the person, who has drivenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 the vehicle at the time of occurrence, find place in the First Information Report.The alleged eye witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 in their testimonies before the Courts have categorically stated that they did not remember the vehicle number.In such circumstances, when the investigation could not link the accused with the offending vehicle and the witnesses could not identify the vehicle number, the petitioner herein could not be held guilty.The Courts below have miserably failed to consider this missing link and erroneously convicted the petitioner.In contradiction, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the accident which took place on 29.04.2008 at about 10.15 hours is an undisputed fact.Ex.P-2 Accident Register maintained by Sri Ramachandra Hospital clearly indicates that Murugan was brought by his friend Bharathiraja for treatment.Thereafter, injured victim was admitted in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Government Hospital, Chennai and treated for head injury.PW-1 to PW-3, who are all employees in S.R.M.C Hospital.Their presence in the occurrence place cannot be doubted, since the accident spot was near S.R.M.C. Hospital gate.The failure to these witnesses to mention the vehicle number will not exonerate the accused.Since after knowing that the accident victim succumbed to the injury, he himself came to the police station, handed over the offending vehicle and surrendered.The failure of the prosecution to secure the details about the ownership of the vehicle will noway cause doubt about the culpability of the accused, since the witnesses to the accident have identified the accused before the Court in the course of trial.The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the offending vehicle was inspected by the motor vehicle inspector [PW-8], who has certified that there was no mechanical fault in the vehicle and the two wheeler bearing registration No. TN-20-AQ-7164 was damaged on the front portion.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 submitted that the Courts below have come to the right conclusion after proper appreciation of the evidence before it and therefore, it requires no interference.The points to be answered in this revision petition are primarily, wheher the prosecution evidence is sufficient to fix the revision petitioner as the person, who drove the offending vehicle.In this regard, no doubt, the prosecution has not collected any evidence regarding the ownership of the vehicle or adequate particulars about the accused.The rider of the two wheeler PW-1 fell on the mud road and sustained only minor injury in his hand.PW-1 has also not deposed anything notable about the injury he sustained.Whereas, Murugan who was on the pillion had sustained head injury since he has fallen on the metal road.So, one can be very sure that it was not the direct impact of the two wheeler and bicycle which has caused the head injury but fall of the victim on the metal road and it impact caused fatal injury.The rash and negligence which is now attributed to the petitioner is on the face of it was not the likelihood of causing the death.It was the impact on the metal road that has caused the death.Further factors, as Dr.Anandan(PW-4) has deposed that the accident victim left the hospital against the medical advise.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 Case sheet for his treatment at Government Hospital, is not available.The Government Hospital Doctor, who was shown as LW-7, expected to depose about the treatment given to the victim at Government Hospital not examined and dispensed by the prosecution.In the said circumstances, when there is no convincing evidence that the rash and negligent act of the accused was the cause for the death, this Court finds that the offence made out against the accused falls under Section 337 and not under Section 304(A) of IPC.While considering the sentence for the proven offence, this Court holds that the Simple Imprisonment for a term of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- will be suffice for the altered offence of Section 337 of IPC.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today, to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed by this Court.The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is ordered to behttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, shall be cancelled.15.02.2019 ari Index : Yes Internet: Yes/No To1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District.3.The Inspector of Police, S.R.M.C. Police Station, Thiruvallur District (Crime No.230/2008).4.Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.ari Crl.R.C.No.467 of 2012 15.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,753,721 | In fact, applicant and victim are having love and affair and by her own will, she eloped with applicant to Bhopal.The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has clearly stated that she is having love and affair with applicant and by her own will she went to Bhopal alongwith applicant and soleminzed their marriage on 24.3.2020 at Arya Samaj Temple.Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that till date whereabout of the victim is not known.In fact, victim is handed over to the real sister of applicant, who is residing at Rajasthan.He next submitted that he has also filed Habeas corpus writ petition for producing the victim, which is still pending.This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,757 | Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has beenfiled by the petitioners for quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered asCase Crime No.541 of 2010 under Sections 498A,323,506,354 IPC and3/4 D.P.Act IPC, Police Station Gazipur district Lucknow and also fordirection to the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in pursuanceto the said impugned F.I.R.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Smt.Thereafter on 27.06.2010Smt.Sushma Singh the wife of one of the accused namely R.P.Singhhas lodged the impugned first information report with false allegationby way of counter blast.The petitioners, therefore, deserve to beprotection during the investigation.We have gone through the contents of the FIR which disclosecommission of cognizable offence and as such it cannot be quashed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,760,749 | Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.625/2018 registered by P.S. Gotegaon District Narsinghpur (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307/34 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/10/2018 at about 10.00 pm, near Jhansighat Teela which comes under the jurisdiction of Police Station Gotegaon, complainant Santkresh Burman was going to see the program of Durga Visarjan.When he was passing from Jhansighat, applicant Sadhuram Burman and other co-accused persons armed with sword, iron rod, and wooden sticks etc. reached there and assaulted complainant Santkresh Burman and injured him seriously.Complainant Santkresh Barman has lodged the report, on that basis, Crime under the above mentioned sections have been registered against the applicant.In view of the aforesaid, prayed for bail to the applicant.On going through the case diary, it seems that Santkresh Burman has sustained six injuries, out of which one incised injury was found on his head and other injuries found on his person were seems to be sustained by hard and blunt object.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14/11/2018 and it will take time to decide the case, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) 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 manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 08/01/2019 02:28:44 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,277,647 | The Investigating Officer made an application praying for his police custody remand for ten days, on the grounds that other persons involved in the racket were yet to be arrested; the other godowns where the accused used to store the medicines are to be located and searched; the printers where he used to get the labels printed and the manufacturers of spurious medicines are yet to be traced and interrogated.J.P. Narain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing application of the Investigating Officer, for police custody remand of Divya Gupta, the accused (respondent No. 2) and ordering his release on bail, in the case FIR No. 225/2001, P.S. Geeta Colony; Delhi under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, Section 78/79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, Section 27 of the Drugs And Cosmetics Act (for short "DAC Act") and Sections 420/468/571 of the IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.On 17th August, 2001, respondent No. 2 Divya Gupta was arrested by the police; huge quantity of spurious drugs were recovered from his car and from his residence at Rohini.On 18th August, 2001, he was produced before the Court.I am unable to agree. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,770,222 | Through: Ms.Aasha Tiwari, APP.Mukesh Antil, P.S.Anand Parbat.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J:Arun Kumar @ Bihari challenges his conviction vide judgment dated 5.9.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), NDPS-West Delhi in Sessions Case No.48/2010 (reference FIR No.21/2010, P.S.Anand Parbat) under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) for committing the murder of one Bunty and throwing his dead body in the tank with the help of his associates.The appellant by order on sentence dated 28.10.2014 has been directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life, pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC.The appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for CRL.A.372/2015 Page 1 of 13 three years, a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201/34 of the IPC; the sentences however, have been ordered to run concurrently.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 1 of 13There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case hinges on certain circumstances namely the discovery of the dead body of Bunty in the dried up water tank of the Jal Board, arrest and disclosure of two of the associates of the appellant (both of whom were Juveniles in conflict with law, 'JCL' for short) on the basis of which the appellant was arrested, subsequent disclosure of the appellant, leading to the recovery of blood stained danda, handkerchief, blood stained twigs and blood stained stones from near and around the place of occurrence.The recoveries as per the prosecution case were effected by the appellant and the two associates (JCLs).Kallu Ram (PW.15) had lodged a missing report on 29.3.2010 vide DD No.63B (Ex.In the aforesaid report no suspicion was raised against anybody.On 30.3.2010 Constable Satish Kumar (PW.2) was informed by some children who were playing cricket near the water tank that bad smell was emanating from the said water tank.On this information, Constable Satish Kumar (PW.2) went to the roof of the water tank and thereafter he went inside the tank through the stairs.He saw that a dead body was lying there.He gave this information to the police station, (DD CRL.A.372/2015 Page 2 of 13 No.16A; Ex.PW.1/A).Immediately thereafter, other police officers namely Sub Inspector Padam Singh (PW.22), Constable Virender (PW.4), Constable Sandeep (PW.20) came to the spot.The dead body was decomposed and maggot eaten.The crime team and the photographer were called.Inside the tank, blood stained stones were found.A human tooth and some hair also were found near the dead body.The wall of the tank was found to be blood-smeared.The blood stains suggested that the dead body was dragged from some distance and was thrown in the tank.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 2 of 13Since Kallu Ram (PW.15) had lodged the missing report about his son Bunty on 29.3.2010 (DD No.63B Ex.PW.3/A), he was called to the place where the dead body was found.He identified the dead body to be that of his son on the basis of clothes, bandage, footwear, photograph in the wallet which was found in the pocket of the trouser of the deceased.The incriminating items including the purse and blood control were seized.Pursuant to the recovery of the dead body and identification by Kallu Ram (PW.15) as that of his son Bunty, FIR No.21/2010, Police Station Anand Parbat (Ex.PW.10/A) was registered.A site plan (Ex.PW.23/A) was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem.Amit Sharma (PW.12) conducted the post mortem and opined that the death was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon multiple blunt force impacts to the head and face region by some hard and blunt object, which injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.PW.12 opined that injuries Nos.1 to 8 were CRL.A.372/2015 Page 3 of 13 caused by a blunt object and injury Nos.9 and 10 were caused by sharp object, all of which were ante-mortem.The time of death was about six days prior to the post mortem.The fact that maggots were crawling over the body of the deceased is also a proof of the fact that death had taken place sometime back.Thus Bunty, the deceased, had died a homicidal death is proved and established beyond doubt from the incriminating evidence and material found in and around the water tank.The post mortem report is Ex.PW.12/A.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 3 of 13During the course of investigation it was learnt by the police that the deceased had teased one Sonia, daughter of one Satbir and sister of one of the co-accused persons named S (name withheld), juvenile in conflict with law.The arrest memos (Ex.PW.19/A and Ex.The aforesaid two juveniles in conflict with law made disclosure statements, confessing their guilt and the involvement of the appellant as well.The appellant was thereafter arrested at 1.55 P.M on the same day i.e. 3.4.2010 and thereupon made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW.9/B).He has deposed that on 3.4.2010 while he was crossing through Street No.8 of Nehru Nagar, he saw a huge crowd.He learnt from the members of the public that three persons were involved in the murder of Bunty.Shyam Sunder has stated that he accompanied the police officers, M, one of the CRL.A.372/2015 Page 4 of 13 JCL, his mother and Roshan Lal (uncle of S, another JCL).The appellant was brought near the water tank by another police man.The prosecution sought to rely upon Dinesh (PW.13) who had seen the perpetrators at his tea/coffee shop in front of a mosque under the Zakhira flyover.Dinesh (PW.13) has stated that in the month of March, 2010 two boys came to his shop.One of them had purchased water along with the glasses and thereafter they went towards the Railway line.Kallu Ram (PW.15), father of the deceased has deposed that his son Bunty (deceased) did not return to the house on 25.3.2010, after he CRL.A.372/2015 Page 9 of 13 had gone out.After about 3-4 days of search, a report was lodged on 29.3.2010 vide DD No.63B (Ex.PW.3/A) at Police Station Anand Parbat.On 30.3.2010, PW.15 was called to the place where a dead body was found.The dead body was identified by him as that of his son Bunty.The identification was made through the jeans, sandals and one old bandage in the hand of the deceased.One shirt belonging to the deceased was found to be lying at some distance from the dead body.Kallu Ram (PW.15) has asserted that when he was told by the police that his son had committed suicide, he had objected and insisted that it was a case of murder.Dragging marks and blood stains on the stones were seen by him at the spot.In the wallet of his son, PW.15 recalled, there was a photograph of the deceased.Three-four twigs also were seized by the police in his presence.PW.15 expressed suspicion over nobody, but had told the police that Raju was a close friend of deceased.PW.9 testified that the two JCL and the appellant had pointed out towards blood stained pipe and dandas having blood stains which allegedly were used for beating the deceased.On such pointing out, the blood stains on the pipe was scratched and dandas were seized.Some blood stained twigs were also pointed out by the appellant and JCL.A handkerchief with blood was found lying near the water tank.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 4 of 139. PW.9 has signed the arrest memo and the personal search memo (Ex.He has denied the suggestion that the disclosure statement of the appellant was not recorded in his presence or that he was falsely deposing at the instance of the Investigating Officer.The testimony of PW.9, a public person joining the investigation in this case has to be read with care and caution.Noticeably the dead body was found on 30.3.2010 in a decomposed state by the police officers.Before the FIR was registered, crime team and photographer had reached the place of occurrence.Blood stained articles from near the dead body were recovered.It does not stand to reason as to why blood stained dandas and handkerchief shown to the police party in presence of PW.9 by the accused persons were not spotted on CRL.A.372/2015 Page 5 of 13 30.3.2010, when the dead body was first seen.The place from where the recovery is said to have been made, apart from the same having been fully inspected and searched on 30.3.2010, was open and accessible.Thus the recoveries of danda and handkerchief at the instance of the appellant does not appear to be trustworthy.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 5 of 13Relevant would it be in this context to state that on the basis of the disclosure made by the two JCL certain recoveries were made.Such recoveries pursuant to joint disclosures are admissible but admissibility and credibility of a piece of evidence being two different and distinct facets, recovery in cases of joint disclosure has lesser probative value.As per the prosecution version, the two JCLs, had disclosed their and the appellant's involvement.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 8 of 13PW.15 has stated that Raju, when called by the police, disclosed that the deceased was taken by M, one of the JCLs.PW.15 claimed that he could identify M. Raju, the friend of the deceased, had expired a month before the deposition of PW.15 in the Court.The testimony of PW.15 therefore does not throw any light on the participation/involvement of the appellant in the crime.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 9 of 13Bimla Devi (PW.16), mother of the deceased, had identified the appellant but has not stated anything so as to ascribe that the appellant had participated in the occurrence or had played any role.Bimla Devi (PW.16) has deposed that her daughter Kajal told her on 3.4.2010 that CRL.A.372/2015 Page 10 of 13 Raju (not examined) had informed her that the deceased was called by M, one of the JCL.She had learnt from a neighbour that a quarrel had taken place on 22.3.2010 between the appellant and others and her son.However, her son did not tell her about any such quarrel.Thus, her identification of the appellant is of no help to the prosecution in establishing and proving the case against him.A suggestion was given to PW.13 that she has taken the name of the appellant on the insistence of the police, which she denied.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 10 of 13We do not wish to list the cases wherein the law with respect to circumstantial evidence has been crystallized.It is no longer res-nova that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be so complete so as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused alone.There are many missing links in the present case.In the absence of any evidence that the appellant and the other two accused persons are closely associated with each other, we cannot presume that in order to assist S in avenging the act of teasing of his sister, the appellant had participated in the crime in question.The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C has categorically denied to have any truck or alliance with the two JCL.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 11 of 13He has stated that he never studied with them or had friendship with them.While responding to the incriminating materials which were put to him, the appellant had stated that the two JCL have since been acquitted.This appears to be factually incorrect.However, in the present case, apart from the belated discovery of a blood stained handkerchief and dandas pursuant to the disclosure first made by the JCLs, there is no other material to fix the guilt on the appellant.Under such circumstances this erroneous statement regarding the verdict in the proceeding against the JCL ought not to have been read CRL.A.372/2015 Page 12 of 13 against him.No adverse inference could have been drawn by the Trial Court under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Any such adverse inference on that ground tantamounts to breaching the right to silence of an accused.CRL.A.372/2015 Page 12 of 13The appeal is allowed.Trial Court records will be sent back forthwith.(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Judge (SANJIV KHANNA) Judge MAY 29, 2015 k CRL.A.372/2015 Page 13 of 13CRL.A.372/2015 Page 13 of 13 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,005,737 | As per the averments in the petition, the petitioner was running a Beauty Parlour-cum-Embroidery shop from her house.On 29th April, 2014 at night, when the petitioner was alone in her house at about 11.00 p.m., Manju Devi, respondent No.5 knocked on her door and got the door opened.The accused persons entered her house, gave beatings to the petitioner, committed rape and looted articles, including cash, Rs.10,000/.The petitioner/victim approached the Station House Officer of police station concerned on 30.4.2014 for registration of First Information Report, however, the Station House Officer refused to entertain the complaint of the petitioner.The Magistrate passed orders on 7.7.2014 (Annexure-2) directing registration of case and to proceed with investigation.The date on which application under Section 156(3) CrPC was made has not been given in the petition.Be that as it may, First Information Report (supra) was registered and investigation undertaken.It has been pleaded that the petitioner/victim was medically examined and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC.In her statement, the petitioner has reiterated the allegations made in the First Information Report. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,300,610 | A common order is being passed in this petition and the connected writ petition (W. P. No. 1820/97, Sukhdeo Singh Kainth v. Managing Director, F.C.I.) as the points raised in these petitions and the reliefs claimed by them are similar.That was a trap case against one M. H. Thaokar, Health Inspector employed with Central Railway.A trap was laid by the C.B.I, against the above-named employee of the Central Railway while he was offered currency note of Rs. 50/- by the complainant Santosh as bribe which was alleged to have been accepted by the above-named employee and witnessed by the two petitioners.The statement of the two petitioners as witnesses were recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code.Thereafter, they appeared as witnesses in the criminal case.They were examined by the prosecution.In their cross-examination, they stated that they could not clearly see the handing over of currency note by the complainant Santosh Kumar to the railway employee Thaokar and they could not hear the talk that took place between them because by that time the train had arrived and there was commotion.The complainant Santosh Kumar also did not support fully the prosecution case.The Special Judge, therefore, by judgment passed on 28-9-1995 acquitted the railway employee Thaokar.Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel appearing for the two petitioners, by these petitions, seeks quashing of the charge-sheets and proposed disciplinary action against the petitioners.The contention advanced by him is that the petitioners' conduct as witnesses in the criminal case has no direct or remote connection with their service. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
130,061,657 | It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants Autar Singh and Jagat Singh shall be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of arresting officer.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.Heard finally. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
130,068,244 | Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. & Ms.Mr.Shubhendu Kumar, Adv.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 1 of 11CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. ...Respondent Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.Utkarsha Kohli, Adv. for CBI.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. & Ms.Utkarsha Kohli, Adv. for CBI.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 2 of 11Aggrieved by the order dated 9th April, 2013 passed by the learned CMM on the basis of the order dated 12th March, 2013 of learned Special Judge, CBI, the present petitions under Section 482 & 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed for quashing of the above mentioned both the orders.As all the petitions mentioned above are against the same order, so are being taken together.The factual matrix is that the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "accused persons") in the present cases were proceeded in pursuance of the FIR bearing RC No.1(S)/2010/CBI/SC-III/ND under Sections 420, 120-B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and thereafter, the investigation proceeded.On the completion of the investigation, the investigating agency i.e. CBI filed a charge sheet under Sections 420, 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, before the learned Judge, designated Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Crl.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 3 of 11 despite refusal of the competent authority to accord sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, essential for taking cognizance under the PC Act.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 3 of 11Since no sanction for prosecution of the petitioners namely Devender Kumar Bajaj and Sheela Ahuja along with one Ashok Kumar was accorded, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 12 th March, 2013 sent the matter to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while observing that prima facie case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the accused persons.The learned CMM vide order dated 9th April, 2013 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and summoned the accused persons.The matter came up for hearing before the learned Special Judge, CBI and while passing the detailed order dated 12 th March, 2013, the Court was of the view as under:-I am, therefore, of the opinion that prima facie case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC is made out against all the accused persons i.e. accused no.1 M/s.Nehru Place Hotels Limited, accused no.2 Amit Rai Sood, accused no.3 Yoginder Dhawan, accused no.4 Rohit Kumar, accused no.5 Devender Kumar Bajaj, accused no.6 Sheela Ahuja and accused no.7 Ashok Kumar.However, no culpability of the Office of Minister of Transport and Power, NCT, Delhi could be made out, since in the fancy number allotment slip itself, it was mentioned that the said Crl.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 4 of 11 allotment is meant only for non transport/non commercial category and not for commercial vehicles.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 4 of 11Since this Court is a Special Court to deal with cases pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act, let the file be sent to the Court of Ld. CMM, New Delhi along with all the documents for proceeding further as per law."The learned Special Judge, CBI sent the matter to the Court of learned CMM.The learned CMM on receipt of the matter, proceeded with the mater and passed the order dated 9th April, 2013 which reads as under:-"Heard and perused.Vide the order dated 12.03.2013 Ms.Swaran Kanta Sharma, ld.Special Judge, CBI-05, PHC, New Delhi has held that there is a prima facie case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC against all the accused persons.In view of the record and the above said order, cognizance of the offences u/s 420/120-B IPC is taken.SPP for CBI has stated that the accused persons were not arrested during investigation.The accused persons be summoned through IO Inspector Shehnaz Khan and put up for report on 17.07.2013."The grievance of the petitioner is of two fold.The learned Special Judge was competent and has discretion either to return the charge sheet to the investigating agency or send it to the competent court to deal with the matter, in view of Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 10 of 11 influenced by the order dated 12th March, 2013 of learned Special Judge, CBI, shall pass the order afresh for taking cognizance and issuance of the summons to the accused persons, as per the observations made above.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 10 of 11 | ['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. |
1,300,689 | ORDER S.S. Nijjar, J.Admitted facts for the purpose of the decision of this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was working with Canara Bank at Bangalore and petitioner No. 2 was working with Canara Bank at Mumbai.The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra.The second respondent is the original complainant who had filed complaint under sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, of I.P.C. against the petitioners and five other accused.He has also been an agent for Life Insurance Corporation.It was stated that since 1989, respondent No. 2 had maintained an account with New Bank of India, Mandvi Branch, Bombay.In April, 1991, accused Nos. 2 to 4 represented to respondent No. 2 that they were facing financial difficulties.This was also supported by a post dated cheque dated 27th November, 1991, in the sum of Rs. 1,11,440/- Upon the cheque having been dishonoured, respondent No. 2 prosecuted the accused Nos. 2 to 4 for offences under sections 138 to 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act").On 20th March, 1992 respondent No. 2 received a letter dated 18th March, 1992, from Canara Bank, Lavello Road, Bangalore calling upon him to arrange for the clearance of the dues amounting to Rs. 5,36,250/-.This amount was demanded as one Shri Pankaj Joshi, accused No. 4, had not made any arrangement for payment of the bills which were dishonoured.In reply to the query made by respondent No. 2, Canara Bank sent a number of documents purported to have been executed by him.On coming to know that the Bank had filed the civil suit on the basis of forged document, respondent No. 2 filed the complaint on the basis of which the two impugned orders have been passed.On pursuing the complaint as well as the documents, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process, inter alia, against the petitioners.Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others.The submission made before the learned Magistrate that it was only the Courts in which the civil suit was filed at Bangalore had the jurisdiction, if any, was summarily rejected by the learned Magistrate.Before the learned Addition Sessions Judge, three authorities were specifically cited i.e. .The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, relied on a judgement and dismissed the revision petition.The respondent therein had laid the complaint for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B I.P.C. with the allegations that the appellants had conspired and fabricated an agreement dated July 26, 1978 and forged the signature of Smt. Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of the possession of the remaining part of the house.It would appear that the appellants filed civil suit for an injunction to restrain Dalip Kaur from interfering with the possession of appellants 1 to 3 and he produced the agreement dated 21-2-1984 which was said to have been executed and signed by Dalip Kaur.Thereafter, the appellants filed an application to quash the complaint on the ground of bar under section 195 of the Code.The Magistrate and on revision the Sessions Judge dismissed the same.When the revision was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on a question of law ultimately the matter was referred to Full Bench which had answered the question against the appellants and remitted the matter to the referring Judge.The learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated August 4, 1986 has dismissed the revision.On the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court examined the question as to "Whether the Magistrate, First Class at Amritsar is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence".The High Court has the power under Article 227 to quash the proceedings pending in the lower courts when the said courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the said proceedings.Petition allowed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
130,071,744 | Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.Criminal Application Nos. 6/2020 and 23/2020 arise out of Crime No. 1150/2019 registered at Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati relating to offence punishable under Sections 377, 376, 511, 354, 354-A, 506, 504, 323 of Indian Penal Code, whilst Criminal Application No. 46/2020 arise out of Crime No. 1159/2019 registered at Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati relating to offence punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: Order 1108aba6.20 2 Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::In Crime No. 1150/2019 applicants - Rajendra and Ravi are involved, whilst in Crime No.1159/2019 only applicant Ravi is involved.Though there are separate crimes registered at the instance of two different informants, however, as they have nexus with each other, as well as the applicants are also same, hence, for the sake of brevity, the matters are heard and decided together.Precisely it is alleged that the victims husband Rajendra time and again had un-natural sex with her against her consent.She has also alleged that her brother-in-law i.e. applicant Ravi used to outrage her modesty and was demanding sexual favour.Another crime was registered at the instance of a young girl aged 18 years, who is daughter of informant of Crime No.1150/2019, meaning thereby, is also daughter of applicant Rajendra.The girl has alleged against Ravi [her ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: Order 1108aba6.20 3 uncle], that while she was studying in 10 th standard, at that time applicant Ravi has inappropriately touched her and as such outraged her modesty.::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::The learned counsel for applicants would submit that both the complaints are nothing but, an outcome of a matrimonial flued.According to him in order to settle the score and to deprive the brothers from the immovable property, false complaints were simultaneously filed on the same day by mother and daughter.The State has resisted all the applications by filing reply affidavit.In reply the case of prosecution has been reiterated.It is contended that the offence is of serious nature and there is likelihood of tampering, hence, applicants are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.Learned counsel for the intervenor also opposed the bail in moderate way.However, he has put additional grievance that some educational documents of daughter i.e. informant in Crime No.1159/2019 are with her father i.e. applicant Rajendra, which are required to be returned.The entire episode is an outcome of a ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: Order 1108aba6.20 4 matrimonial discord between a couple.The marriage of strained couple sailed smoothly for long 21 years and had two children from the said wedlock.After such a long time, the wife has alleged about unnatural sexual acts at the hands of her husband.Though it is alleged that since inception, husband was prone to seek for unnatural sex, however, after long gap of 21 years the matter has been reported to police.At this juncture I am tempted to mention that by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Navtej Singh Johar and others .vrs.Union of India and others::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::Moreover, the FIR discloses that the period of offence is in between 03.12.2019 to 04.12.2019, but, the matter is reported after few days to the police.There is no medical evidence ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: Order 1108aba6.20 5 supporting the allegations leveled in the complaint.::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::As regards to Crime No.1159/2019, the allegations are lacking of details of the incident.It is only contended that while the informant girl was in 10th standard, at that time applicant Ravi has sexually harassed her.In none of the reports there are details as to when the alleged incident had occurred.Pertinent to note that though the alleged incidence happened long back, however, both the FIRs are simultaneously filed on 08.12.2019, which speaks for itself.Having regard to the nature of accusation, apparently nothing is to be seized from the applicants, nor any fruitful purpose would be served by having their custodial interrogation.One of the object of grant of pre-arrest bail is to save the applicant from humiliation.The applicant Rajendra is serving as an Engineer with Public Works Department, while applicant - Ravi is serving as Laboratory Assistant in a reputed college.Already they have attended the police station in terms of the conditions imposed on them while granting pre-arrest protection.Having regard to the nature of accusation and peculiar facts of the case, both applicants have ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: Order 1108aba6.20 6 made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.They can be released in both the crimes on certain terms and conditions.In view of that, following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::(i) In the event of arrest of applicants -Rajendra Ramkrushna Malve and Ravi Ramkrishna Malve in Crime No.1150/2019 registered at Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati for offence punishable under Sections 377, 376, 511, 354, 354-A, 506, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount each.(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant -Ravi Ramkrishna Malve in Crime No.1159/2019 registered at Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.(iii) Both Applicants/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: Order 1108aba6.20 7 evidence.::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::(iv) Both Applicants/accused shall provide their residential address and cell numbers to concerned Investigating Officer and shall not change their place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer.(v) Both Applicants/accused shall attend concerned Police Station as and when called by the investigating officer.Criminal Applications are accordingly allowed and disposed of.This order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the e-mail address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.JUDGE Rgd.::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 02:13:23 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,831,948 | sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 2596 of 2020 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.03.2020 in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No. 89 of 2020 dated 25.01.2020 under Sections 341/325/354B/ 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Arsalam Sekh alias Salam Sk.alias Mithu & Anr. .........petitioners Mr. Sm.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the 2 satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on conditions that the petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer and hand over their passports, if any, within four weeks from date.In the event they do not have passports, they shall personally appear before the investigating officer and furnish affidavit to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,835,610 | Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Pr a Date: 2018.03.15 15:52:37 +05'30' hy ad kkc M of rt ou C h ig HHeard on the question of admission.e Heard on IA No.18426/2017, an application for suspension of ad sentence on behalf of appellant Gaya Prasad.Pr Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and awarded the sentence of life with fine of Rs.5,000/-.a hy As per prosecution case there was a dispute between two brothers in regard to partition of land.The deceased is son of the ad another brother.P. W.1, who is father of the deceased deposed that M dispute was going on, appellant and his wife were abusing him.The deceased was inside of the house, who came out and standing near the of door in that event appellant No.2, who is mother of appellant No.1 and rt grand mother of the deceased came with knife and she gave knife to ou the appellant and appellant inflicted injury on the back of the deceased, due to which he was died on the next day of the incident.C Appellant was not having any deadly weapon.It is alleged that h mother of the appellant had given knife to him.The deceased was ig nephew of the appellant.A quarrel was going between two brothers in H regard to partition of land.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) along with one surety like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court appellant Gaya Prasad be released on bail with a further direction to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 26.11.2018 and on such other dates as may be notified by the Registry in this regard till disposal of this appeal.C. C. as per rules. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,840,172 | The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and seeking relief of quashment of proceedings registered in pursuance to Crime No.20/2015 registered at Police Station Mahila Police Thana District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506-B, 34 of IPC and under Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.IA No. 1238/2016 and IA No.1239/2016 have been filed by the parties showing that they have entered into compromise amicably.Both the aforesaid applications were sent to the Principal Registrar for verification and report.C No. 964/2016 SCC (Cri) 160, allowing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, set aside the order dated 29.9.2015 and proceedings in case No. 2396/2015 pursuant to Crime No. 20/2015 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506-B, 34 of IPC and under Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Accordingly petition stands disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,278,449 | P.W.3 is the younger sister and P.W.4 is the elder sister of the accused.P.W.3 was residing in the first floor of a house, where P.W.4 was residing.The accused was given in marriage to one Gunaselan.Two children were born to the accused.The husband of the accused deserted her and went away to Rajasthan.As the deceased had no other relatives.She took shelter along with her two children in the house of P.W.3 her younger, sister.The life of the accused in her sister's house was not happy.The accused, ashamed on account of this according to the prosecution took her two children at about 1.00.P.M.on 4.9.1989 to a well and after pushing her two children into the well.She also jumped into the well to commit suicide.As the water level of the well was only knee-deep, she suffered a fracture and the children survived.She, thereafter, throttled the children to death and attempted to commit suicide by constricting her neck, in which attempt she failed to her misfortune.3. P.W.6, who went to the well to irrigate her lands finding the accused in the well informed the villagers.The accused and her two dead children were brought out dead.P.W.16 examined her and found a fracture on her right knee.He advised her to take an X.Ray.After first aid, she was sent away by the doctor.P.W.7 thereafter, took the accused and produced her before P.W.1 the Village Administrative Officer, to whom the accused narrated the incident, which was reduced into writing by him.The said statement of the accused is Ex.P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.2 yadasth.A copy of the yadasth and the statement of the accused are Ex.After preparing the yadasth.P.W.1 sent Exs.P.1 and P.2 through P.W.2 Talayari.He informed P.W.20 the circle Inspector of Police, Alangulam.P.4 was prepared.He also drew a rough sketch, Ex.M.Os.1 and 2 series were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P.5, Inquest was conducted over the dead body of Jayakanth between 1.30.a.m.and 3.30.a.m and on the body of Sunilkanth between 3.30.a.m.and 5.30.a.m.P.19 and P.20 are the inquest reports.At the time of inquest P.Ws. 1, 3 and 7 were examined.P.W.20 proceeded to the house of the father of the accused and arrested her.Nylon saree, M.O.3 and the underskirt, M.O.4 produced by the accused were recovered under a Mahazar, Ex.The accused was brought to the police station and sent for treatment.P.W.20 also sent to requisition to conduct autopsy on the dead bodies.On receipt of the requisition P.W.18 went to the scene of occurrence and conducted autopsy on the body of the two children.Body lies on its back.2. Head : No evidence of fracture.Eye swollen and protruded outside the orbit.Embedded into the swollen face.Mouth opened and tongue protruded outside in between teeth.7. Check swollen and skin over was peeled off with occasional blisters andvesicles.Neck and thigh fixed at the knee joint with swelling.Internal Examination.Brain and Meninges congested.He also found the following injuries on the dead body of Sunilkanth:Body lies on the back.Both upper limbs fixed at the elbow joint.Both lower limbs fixed at the knee joint.Head and face swollen.Intestine Skull: digested food particles. .Urinary bladder: full of urine.Pubis normal.He issued Ex.ORDER N. Dhinakar, J.The accused appeals.The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused stands convicted by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for the offence of murder under two counts.The charge against her is that she at about 6.00 P.M. on 4.9.1989 caused the death of her two children Jayakanth and Sunilkanth by pushing them into a well and throttling them and that during the course of the same transaction, she also attempted to commit suicide.The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused, for the above charges, sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder (under two counts) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of, six months for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, the appeal,2. Facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows:P.W.2 produced the said documents at 8.30 p.m on 5.9.1989 before P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police.Uthumalai Police Station, on the basis of which he registered a case against the accused under Sections 302 (2 counts) and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.P.W.20, on receipt of the information reached the police station and after obtaining the printed first information report, reached the scene of occurrence.At the scene of occurrence, an observation mahazar.He found the following injuries on the dead body of Jayakanth:No evidence of fracture skull.Neck: Hyoid bone of both comers fractured.Chest : Both lungs were congested with liquid blood.Abdomen : Food particles.No evidence of poison.Intestine (small) digested food particles.Urinary Bladder: Full of urine.He issued Ex.P.14 post mortem certificate with his opinion that the deceased Jayakanth would appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling.Nose embedded into the swollen face.Neck swollen.Skin was peeled off with appearance of vesicles here and there.Abdomen swollen.No evidence of head bone.1. Head: No evidence of fracture bone meninges and brain congested.Neck: Major blood vessels of the neck congested with fracture of both comers of hyoid bone.Lungs are congested with watery fluids.Heart: left side of the heart empty.Right side with clotted blood.Abdomen : Stomach full of food particles.No evidence of poison.P.15 post mortem certificate with his opinion that the deceased Sunilkanth would appear to have died of asphxia due to throttling.P.W.20 continued his investigation questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements.The material objects were sent to Court with a request to forward them for analysis.When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the circumstances appearing against him the accused denied them.8. P.W.18 the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of the two children gave evidence before court and stated that the two children died on account of asphyxia due to throttling.The children being young and they having been taken out from a well, there can be no doubt in our mind that the said asphyxia was caused on account of homicidal violence.Since this court had no other evidence to come to the conclusion that they committed suicide.The accused was lifted along with two dead children from the well by P.Ws.8 and 9, when it is proved that the accused was seen in the well along with two dead children, it is for the accused to explain as to how the two children died on account of asphxia due to throttling.She has no explanation to offer.Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the non- explanation is a circumstance against the accused.The said inference of ours supported by two other circumstances, namely, the fracture sustained by the accused on her right leg and the extra judicial confession given by her to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer at about 6.00.p.m.Though to the doctor, it was stated that she fell into the well accidentally, we are unable to accept the said theory, as it is seen from the observation mahazar prepared by the investigating officer, that the well had no parapet wall.We are unable to hold that the deceased and the two children fell accidentally and the two children died on account of drowning, especially in the background of the evidence of the post mortem doctor.The post mortem doctor was definite and he has stated that the two children died on account of asphyxia.The internal examination, which he noted in the post mortem certificates also indicate that the children could not have died on account of drowning but could have been done to death by throttling.Hence, the statement made to the doctor, P.W.16 that the accused accidentally fell into the well is an incorrect statement made by the relative of the accused with a view to save her from prosecution.We, therefore, reject the said statement given to the doctor.In this background, we will look at the evidence of P.W.1 the Village Administrative Officer, within whose jurisdiction, the occurrence had taken place.According to him,, at about 6.00 p.m. on 5.9.1989 the accused was produced before him by P.W.7 the brother of the accused (treated hostile) and the accused gave a statement, which was reduced into writing.On the basis of the said statement, a crime was also registered by P.W.19 at 8.30 p.m. In that statement, the accused had stated that she jumped into the well along with two children in order to die.under whose care, they were living.We have no reason to reject the evidence of P.W. 1 and Ex.P. 1 the statement given by the accused.We, accordingly, accept them.Once the evidence of P.W.1 is accepted that the accused had throttled the two children to death, then, there is no hesitation for this court to come to the conclusion that the two children dies at the hands of the accused.In support of his plea, he relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 8 as well as the statement of the accused found in Ex.P.W.6 in cross examination has stated that during the relevant period the accused was in a mentally depressed stage and was saying to every body in the village that she is being called by the God.The three witnesses who had come out with a version in favour of the accused were not treated hostile by the prosecution, we therefore on the evidence hold that during the time of the incident the accused was under severe mental strain though we cannot say that she was insane.From the recitals in Exs.P.1 the state of mind of the accused could also be inferred.In Ex.P.1 the accused had stated that after her husband deserted her she was living in her sister's house and that her sister abused her stating that she is in illicit relationship with her husband and that she was put to shame on account of this.This statement of the accused when looked at he background of the evidence of P.Ws.6 8 and 9 shows that the accused was provoked to such an extent that she believed that she has no other choice except to leave the world.Therefore, she went and jumped into the well along with her two children and at that time she was deprived of her self control which made her to throttle the children and attempted to commit suicide by strangling herself.To her misfortune, two children dies and she survived.We, on the circumstances, feel that the appellant/accused can be given the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.In this regard it is relevant to cite the decision in Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 L.W. (Cri) 86, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that there is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception I and sustained provocation'.The Division Bench went on to observe in the same judgment as follows: | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,854,369 | This petition has been filed to quash the impugned alteration report dated 06.02.2019 in connection with Crime No.17 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the 2nd respondent police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(B), 341 and 307 of IPC.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2978 of 201093.Considering the subsequent development in this case, the prayer sought for by the petitioner to quash the impugned alteration report dated 06.02.2019 in connection with Crime No.17 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent cannot be granted by this Court.4.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition under the provisions of National Investigation Agency Act for appropriate relief.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.20.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Arul To1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidai Marudhur Division, Thanjavur District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidai Marudhur Division, Thanjavur District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2978 of 20109 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,865 | CRL.A. 292/1998 STATE ..... Appellant versus SANJAY @ SANJU ..... Respondent CRL.A. 405/1997 AMRISH CHOUDHARY ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent CRL.A. 407/1997 STATE ..... Appellant versus NASEEM AHMED @ RAJA & ORS ..... Respondents CRL.A. 424/1999 NASEEM AHMED ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent Present: Ms. Aishwarya Rao, counsel for appellant in Crl.A.405/1997 and for respondent in Crl.Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, Amicus for appellant in Crl.A. 40/1998 and for respondent in Crl.Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for appellant in Crl.The prosecution case, briefly is that on 25.12.1987, at about 6.45 PM Sh.Lekh Raj Luthra (P.W.5), along with his wife Smt. Prem Kumar (PW 3) and daughter Bindu Luthra (PW-1) was watching T.V. in the drawing room of Flat No. 5/610, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.The door bell of the flat rang.Bindu PW-1 opened the back door and saw four boys standing; she asked them the reason.They told her that they wanted to meet her brother, Sunil Luthra (the deceased), who was an Advocate.PW-1 asked the boys to wait for a minute; she shut the back entrance and went to the drawing room where her parents were sitting, told her father PW-5 that the four boys had come there to see Sunil Luthra.Thereafter, Bindu opened the front door and asked the boys, the purpose for which they were to meet Sunil.One of them replied that they wanted to talk to Sunil in connection with a case.Bindu told them that Sunil was away to the market and that he would be back within 10 minutes and asked them to wait, inviting them to sit on the Sofa lying in the Veranda.They sat on the sofa and immediately got up and told Bindu Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 2 that they would be back within 10 minutes.While moving towards the main door, they took out their pistols and one of them placed the pistol on her (Bindus) temple i.e. Kanpati and asked her to keep quiet and commanded her to move towards the drawing room.All the four boys went into the drawing room.One of them pointed the pistol at her father and another towards her mother.She gestured to her father to remain quiet; but her mother could not resist and she asked, addressing them as "betas", as to what they wanted.One of them said that they would not leave Sunil alive.All these witnesses raised an alarm.The accused attempted to run away.Immediately, after the incident, Bindu telephoned control room No.100 twice.The police constable reached there.Naseem was handed over to the police by Lekh Raj Luthra.A taxi was immediately called; Lekh Raj Luthra took deceased Sunil to the hospital.Bindu also telephoned her fathers friend namely Sh.Ashok Chand Sikka PW-6 and Sh.Govil (PW.22) Sh.Govil arrived and accompanied Sh.Lekh Raj Luthra to the Hospital.The police alleged that after receiving information, their officials arrived at the spot, recorded the statement of Bindu (Ex. PW-1/A), took seized articles, handkerchief, and other objects.They also took into custody Naseem Ahmed.It was alleged that Naseem Ahmed was arrested on 26.12.1987, and the shirt worn by him was recovered by seizure memo Ex. PW-5/C. It was alleged that in the morning of 26.12.1997 Naseem made the disclosure statement Ex. PW 4/E in which, claimed the State, Naseem stated about a plan with his associates, Harvidner Pal alias Vijay Saini alias Pappi, a taxi driver, Sanjay Kumar alias Raja, Amrish Chaudhary, alias Amit, Shrab alias Shaboo to wreck revenge on Sunil Luthra and to kill him.This plan was hatched at Parade Ground Dehradun in a tea shop.Vijay Anand had assured, payment of Rs.500/- to each one of them for going to Delhi and returning back.About 8 to 10 days, prior to the date of occurrence, he along with Vijay Anand, Sohrab Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 3 Alias Shaboo and Shiv had arrived at Delhi at House No. 3506, Arjun Gali, Paharganj.As they could not succeed in this plan they returned.It was also alleged that according to the disclosure, on 23.12.87 in the night he (Naseem) along with Vijay Anand, Amit, Shiv and Sanjay arrived in Delhi as per program and stayed at Avtar Hotel; they were given the site plan of Sunils house.As soon as Sunil entered the house, Vijay Anand fired but there was no shot.Then Amit attacked Sunil and his father with a knife.In the scuffle and noise, Sunils father caught hold of him and handed him over to the police.He stated that he was later arrested from Dehradun and Bijnoor.He volunteered to get the pistol which they were armed with, recovered.It was also disclosed that there was enmity between Vijay Anand and Sunil Luthra.which was locked.Police enquiries revealed that Naseems associates had locked the room at about 3 PM on 25.12.1987 and had not returned.It was alleged that the police party, on 05.01.1988, went to the Avtar Hotel at about 9 AM.On the pointing of Naseem accused Sanjay and Amrish were arrested while they were standing on the reception counter of the hotel.Their personal search memos Ex. PW 7/A and B were prepared.Thereafter, search was made of the room in Avtar Hotel where they had stayed.From there some stolen articles of dacoity committed at Tagore Garden and belongings of the accused were recovered.In all 74 items, by Ext. PW-7/C were taken into possession.Since accused Sanjay and Amrish had fled from the spot and their identification parade was to be held, their faces were muffled.It was then post-poned to 11.01.1988; that day, the T.I.P proceedings were held.It was alleged that during police remand, on 13.01.1988, Sanjay and Amrish were taken to the spot of crime where they were identified by Bindu, Prem Luthra and Lekh Raj Luthra.The accused also made disclosure statement Ex. PW21/A and B. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, Sanjay and Amrish led the police party to the Railway Colony, in Lodhi Colony.Amrish took the police party to the bushes across the Ganda Nala from where, he took out a knife, the sketch of which Ex. P.W21/D was prepared.It is claimed by the State that subsequently information was received that accused Harvinder had surrendered before the D.C.P. head quarters.As a consequence Sh.J.P. Sharma, ASI along with SI Harvinder Dev, constable Vejinder, Dhanush, and accused Sanjay and Amrish, reached the police head quarters.J.P. Sharma, SI went to the 5th floor of the Police head quarter into Inspector Yadavs room where the accused Harvinder was sitting alone.It is claimed that accused pointed out the place where he had kept his belongings viz the brief case.A brief case was lying near the Police HQ towards the Masjid near the bushes.The accused Harvinder was arrested.The brief case was opened.It contained, amongst other articles, a pistol along with 21 live cartridges, the sketch of the Pistol Ext. PW2/G was prepared.A personal search memo of accused Kishan Lal Ex. PW 21/C was prepared.Harvinder too was directed, after his arrest, to muffle his face.On 14.01.1988, Harvinder along with Kishan Lal accused were produced in the Court of Ms Sangeeta Chopra, Metropolitan Magistrate.The application was again entrusted to Sh.D.S. Punia, Link Metropolitan Magistrate.PW-1 Bindu, in her statement, mentioned that Sunil, the deceased was an Advocate.While she was sitting on 25.12.1987 in the drawing room with her parents, at about 06:45 PM, the door bell rang and she opened the back entrance.The witness saw four boys, one of whom told her that they wanted to meet Sunil.She asked him to wait for a minute, closed the back entrance and went to the drawing room and told her father that four boys wanted to meet Sunil.He also stated (as did PW-3) that Kishan Lal had visited their house when his sister had visited them earlier during the year.He deposed that Kishan Lal used to live in Pahar Ganj.A. 424/1999 and for respondent in Crl.Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) along with Sh.Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate, on behalf of the State.This judgment will dispose of four appeals, directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 23.07.1997 and 31.07.1997, in SC No.54/96 ("impugned judgment") handing down conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Section 396/34 read with Section 411, IPC.The convicted Appellants, who impugn that judgment, are hereafter referred to by their names, i.e. Amrish, Harvinder and Naseem Ahmed.The State has preferred two appeals, in one questioning the sentence, seeking its enhancement to death penalty; in the other, it has impugned the acquittal of two co-accused Sanjay and Krishan Lal.In the meantime, another person, armed with a knife, entered the bed room.He pulled down the attachs lying over the Almirah and started scattering the articles in it.In the meantime, on the sound of Sunils car PW 5 ran towards the main entrance and shouted to Sunil Luthra that he should not come upstairs.An application Ex. P.W.8/ for holding T.I.P. was made in respect of accused Sanjay, Armirsh, to Smt. Sangeeta Chopra, Metropolitan Magistrate, which was assigned to Sh.The Pistol was sealed alongwith the cartridges.After the disclosure statement of accused Harvinder, enquiries were made regarding the where-abouts of accused Kishan Lal.On the statement of accused Harvinder, that the accused Kishan Lal would be available at 4 PM outside the casualty ward of LNJP Hospital, the Police party proceeded there.A search was done near the casualty ward of the Hospital.Accused Kishan Lal went there at about 6:40 PM.Kishan Lal was interrogated and arrested.On 14.01.1988, Harvinder led the police party to the place, where the crime was committed when he was identified by witnesses Bindu Luthra and Lekh Raj Luthra.Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 5The accused were all arraigned for the charges of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302/ 395/396/450 read with Section 120-B IPC.Sanjay, Naseem Amrish and Harvinder were also charged with committing offences under Sections 395/397/398 IPC.All the accused entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution relied on the testimonies of 28 witnesses, besides the exhibits produced during the trial.The Trial Court, after considering them, convicted all the accused, except Krishan Lal and Sanjay.In the case of Amrish, the court also convicted him additionally under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. It was held that the prosecution conclusively proved the guilt and culpability of Amrish, as the accused who inflicted the stab injuries on Sunil, and was able to establish the involvement of Harvinder and Naseem (the latter having been nabbed at the spot).Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned amicus for the Appellant Amrish, argued that the reasons which persuaded the Trial Court to acquit Sanjay ought to have resulted in the formers acquittal and that the Trial Court fell into error in convicting him.It was submitted that all the ocular witnesses had deposed about the role of the accused, during the trial.Yet, in the case of Sanjay, the Court returned a finding of acquittal, whereas in Amrishs case, the finding was one of conviction.In the case of Sanjay the Court rejected the recovery of a chamberless revolver from the bushes near the nullah abutting Railway Colony, Lodhi Colony; however, in the case of Amrish, a knife was recovered at his instance, which was believed and used as an incriminating circumstance against him.In this context, submitted counsel, the prosecution could not substantiate its story about this aspect, i.e. the arrest on 05.01.1988, because unlike in the case of others allegedly arrested at the behest and in the presence of PW-19, the hotel Manager, there was no such witness.Furthermore, argued learned counsel, the Hotel Register produced as an exhibit on the record, did not show Amrishs name, but that of one Amit.The prosecution did not adduce any material to show that Amrish and Amit were the same individual.Therefore, his Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 6 involvement in the case was highly suspect, and a matter of conjecture, purely based on the disclosure statement of Naseem, which was inadmissible during the trial.It was next submitted on behalf of Amrish that the finger prints alleged to have been lifted from the spot, and sought to be connected with him, were not sufficiently proved.It was argued that the prosecution version about the finger prints on the iron, which was not spoken about by any of the eyewitnesses, none of whom deposed that any of the accused had touched any article such as an electric iron.This, according to counsel, was significant, as it could have thrown light on the prosecution version.Counsel also stated that even though the prosecution story was that Naseem was nabbed on 25.12.1987, the day of the incident, yet he was not interrogated or questioned till 27.12.1987, at 04:00 AM.The reason for this delay was not explained which, according to the Appellants counsel, was fatal to the prosecution story.Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 7On this aspect, the variations between the statements made to the police, by PW-1 and PW-5 and their depositions were highlighted.It was submitted on this aspect that whereas some witnesses claimed that four had participated in the attack, one of them said there were five.There was no identification.It was submitted, besides, that the attempt to involve PW-18 to say that he knew Harvinder, and that he went to Dehradun is vague and unbelievable.In these circumstances, his conviction was not based on acceptable evidence.It was urged, that Harvinders, case was similar to Sanjays and the reasons which persuaded the Trial Court to acquit the latter, would also be equally applicable in the said Appellants case.It was also argued that the DD report, Ex. PW-4/A was made at the instance of Mukhtiar Singh, who mentioned about a firing incident.However, the prosecution did not attempt to join him in the investigation or the trial.His omission on the one hand, (as he was an independent individual having no connection with the deceaseds family or the police) and the joining of the family members, (PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5) on the other, pointed to an unfair investigation at the behest of the prosecution, which wanted to suppress facts that were potentially favourable to the Appellant Harvinder.They had also deposed that others were armed with guns.This was established by Ex.PW-19/A, which were extracts of the hotel register.The counsel emphasized that Amrish did not cross examine the prosecution witnesses nor even suggests that he did not stay in that hotel.It was further argued that Amrish was arrested on 05.01.1988 along with Sanjay at the instance of Naseem who had named him in the disclosure statement Ex.Amrish clearly stated that he did not wish to join T.I.P. because the witnesses had seen him at the spot and at the Police Station.Significantly, argued the prosecution counsel, Amrish made no suggestion to the I.O. that he had been shown to the witnesses.The prosecution backed heavily on the evidence of PW-24 - Finger Print Expert and his report Ex.PW-24/A. It was submitted that the chance fingerprints sent for matching were lifted from the electric iron found at the scene of occurrence.Being a very important incriminating circumstance, Amrish had a duty to explain it.He chooses to remain silent.The prosecution urged that Amrishs involvement in the crime was also proved by the recovery of Ex.PW-10, a knife, pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/A; and the seizure memo was produced as Ex.PW-21/D. CFSL report PW-27/P established that knife contained blood group B - the same blood grouping of the deceased.Ex.P-10, the knife was shown to the Doctor PW-13, in whose opinion, the fatal injuries could have been caused by it.So far as the accused Harvinder was concerned, the prosecution again relied upon the testimony of the ocular witness.It was submitted that his stay in Avtar Hotel on 24.12.1987 with Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 9 Naseem Ahmed and others was proved by Ex.PW-19/A. Harvinder checked in and assumed name as Vijay Anand, testified to by PW-19 Indrajeet.Here the prosecution relied upon the personal search memo Ex.PW-21/I dated 13.08.1988 in respect of Harvinder and the disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/J where the signature of the accused was shown as Vijay Saini.It was submitted that this corroborated the prosecution story as it amounted to an attempt to camouflage his real identity and the fact that he had checked into Avtar Hotel along with other accused.He, however, refused to participate in the T.I.P. The same evening he was taken to the place of incident and the supplementary statement of PW-1 & 5 were recorded.PW-3 Prem Kumari also saw and recognized Harvinder as the individual who had visited her house along with Kishan Lal on 23.12.1987 when her husband was absent.The prosecution submitted that the Harvinders conviction was also justified as it was supported by the evidence of PW-18; he claimed to know Harvinder and deposed that in 1984 he had come to Delhi in his taxi from Dehradoon.On that occasion, Harvinder had stayed with Kishan Lal at Pahar Ganj.It was submitted that the circumstances surrounding arrest of Harvinder who assumed the name Vijay Anand when he checked into Avtar Hotel cannot also be disbelieved because in the disclosure statement of accused Naseem Ex.PW-4/C, it was recorded that on 23.12.1987 at night he (Naseem) along with Vijay Anand and Amit etc. as per previous program went to Delhi and stayed in Avtar Hotel.This was corroborated by Ex.The personal search memo contained the signatures of Vijay Anand whereas the hotel register extract produced as Ex.PW-19/A mentioned V. Anand.Learned counsel emphasized that these aspects were carefully scrutinized by the Trial Court and compared the two entries and signatures found in Ex.PW-19/A and Ex.PW-1/J and found the handwriting to be identical.Having regard to these, the Trial Court was justified in drawing the adverse inference as regards the T.I.P. refusal by Harvinder.Furthermore, he was identified by all the ocular witnesses at the trial.As far as the Appellant Naseem was concerned, the prosecution urged that he was caught red handed; - a fact deposed to by all the eye-witnesses.His bloodstained shirt, seized by memo PW-5/C, contained human blood of B grouping, which was that of the deceased.Further, the pistol in the hands of Naseem Ex.P-2 was seized by Memo Ex.This fact had been deposed to by PW-5 Lekhraj Luthra who stated that Naseem had a gun, which fell down.Learned Standing Counsel argued that Naseems fingerprints were lifted from the wooden door; they matched the specimen fingerprints given by the CFSL expert through PW- 25/A & PW-25/B. Moreover, the prosecution underlined that Naseem himself admitted having gone to meet Sunil Luthra, in reply to Question No.147, put to him by the Court while examining him under Section-313 Cr.P.C. He had stated, however, that when he went to meet Sunil, it was in connection with his uncles case.However, no corroborative material was produced supporting this claim; Naseem did not produce any document or witness to substantiate this defence.Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have been conscious of this factor while analyzing the evidence, and ought not to have been unduly swayed.When a crime such as the one in question is committed, it would be futile for its perpetrators to go using their true identities.It was next submitted that the disclosure of Naseem was recorded immediately after the occurrence, on 27th December, 1987; he clearly pointed to the involvement of Sanjay.The most important incriminating circumstance, ie.the knife recovered from the bushes near the Railway Colony, Lodhi Colony, was brushed aside, because no public witness was associated.This approach betrayed a flawed understanding of the law, because there is no requirement that members of the public are to be associated with each recovery, made by the prosecution, pursuant to a disclosure statement.The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that Sanjays involvement was also proved because the personal search memo of Amrish yielded Sanjays photograph- an aspect which could be looked into, in view of his arrest, and recovery of the photograph itself.The Trial Court, submitted the Standing Counsel, erred in disbelieving the ocular witnesses to the incident, who had occasion to observe who had attacked Sunil.As far as the States appeal for enhancement of sentence, and conversion of conviction was concerned, the learned Standing Counsel argued that the Trial Court failed- erroneously to Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 11 convict those charged with committing the crime- under Section 302 IPC, though there was sufficient evidence on this aspect.The four of them were standing in the middle of back entrance.She opened the front door and enquired from them about the work they had with Sunil to which one of them replied that he had come in connection with a case.The witness told them that Sunil was away to the market and would be back in 10 minutes and asked them to sit on the sofa in the verandah.The witness stated that the moment they sat on the sofa, they got-up and said they would be back in 10 minutes.While moving towards the main door, they took out pistols and one of them placed it on her temple, asking her to keep quiet and ordering her to move towards the drawing room.All the four boys went inside the drawing room.One pointed a pistol towards her father and another towards her mother.She asked her father to keep quiet but her mother could not restrain herself and asked them what they wanted by addressing them as Beta.To this one of them stated that they would not leave Sunil alive.In the meantime, according to PW-1, one more person entered the bedroom, armed with a knife.He pulled down an Attach case kept over an almirah and started ruffling through the articles in it.By then, the sound of Sunils car was heard; her father ran to the main entrance and shouted to him to keep away.Sunil, however, went upstairs to see what had happened.At the entrance, all four, armed with pistols surrounded her brother and the fifth armed man gave 5-6 knife blows on Sunils chest and abdomen.Her father tried to save Sunil and in the process apprehended one of the assailants.Before her father could apprehend him, he hit him on the head with some object.Sunil started bleeding profusely and fell-down in the bedroom.Many people came there on hearing the cries of the witness and her father.By then Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 12 her father had apprehended Naseem and the others fled.The witness telephoned number 100 twice.After some time, the police reached there, took into custody Naseem and her father took Sunil to the hospital in a taxi.He was also accompanied by PW-22 Govil.Her statement was recorded by the IO (Ex. PW-1/A).She deposed that she could identify all the accused and did so.She subsequently pointed to Amrish as the attacker who entered later, armed with a knife and as the one who had stabbed Sunil repeatedly.She further deposed that the police had brought Amrish to her house on 30.09.1988 and that she was able to identify him.She was confronted with three inconsistencies in regard to the statement recorded during the investigation.Her deposition regarding the accused pointing a pistol to her father and the other to her mother, was not mentioned in the previous statement to the police.The second mention was with regard to the number of blows given to Sunil.The previous statement did not give the number of blows.The third was the testimony that her father tried to save his son - again did not find mention in the previous statement.Another omission, which she was confronted with (vis--vis her previous police statement) was in regard to her statement that one of the attackers had placed a gun at her temple.It was elicited in her cross-examination that the entire incident took 10 minutes from the time the door bell rang.She clarified in the cross-examination about not going to the Safdarjung Hospital when her brother was taken there.She also mentioned that her second statement was recorded on 14.01.1988 though she did not appear in Court.She clarified not having seen the accused Amrish prior to the incident.However, she added that one of the boys pointed a pistol at her, and another pointed a pistol at her husband, and that Bindu, at pistol point, was made to stand near the other drawing room door.She corroborated PW-1 in other particulars about all the boys being armed with pistols, a fifth one reaching there, through the verandah and going into the bedroom, taking down the suitcase, and rummaging through it, when Sunils car was heard, the warning given to Sunil, his going upstairs, and being given 5-6 knife blows by the fifth boys, one attacker being caught by her husband, who was given a blow, in the process, etc. She also added that Kishan Lal was her sister-in-laws dewar (husbands brother), whom she was able to identify (though she was not on visiting terms with him).She told him why he had visited at that time, when he knew that PW-5 Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 13 would not be home at that time; the two boys had asked for a glass of water, and then left.She had not been asked to identify the accused, in Court prior to the trial.The most significant portion of her cross examination was that she was confronted with her previous Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, where she had mentioned that four boys had come home armed with pistols and when Sunil came back home, had attacked him - three of them holding him, and one, inflicting knife injuries on him.30. PW-5 Lekh Raj Luthra corroborated the deposition of PW-1 in all material particulars about the attack.He too mentioned about four accused initially entering home joined, later by a fifth.He identified Sanjay, Naseem, Amarish and Harvinder as those present at the time of the attack, and that Amrish was the accused who inflicted knife injuries.He also mentioned having nabbed Naseem during the attack.He mentioined that Kishan Lal had called him up on 22.12.1987 asking for some money, which he refused, and that he had informed his wife PW-3 about this.In cross examination, he admitted that the information regarding Kishan lals request for money was given to the police in the second week of January, and later recorded by them.All the eyewitnesses mention about the attack having taken place at 6:45 PM, and PW-1 as well as PW-3 said that the whole incident lasted for about 10 odd minutes.The earliest account of facts was narrated by PW-1, and formed the basis of the FIR; it was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. Her narration of facts, except to the extent recorded in her cross examination, was almost identical with the earliest version, which had stated all the elements, and also that Naseem had been handed to the police, upon their arrival at the scene.The prosecution thus was able to prove how the attack took place, and that four individuals were involved, of whom one (Naseem) was nabbed at the spot, and handed over to the police.The prosecution case was that Naseems disclosure statement led the investigation from then onwards; he mentioned about the involvement of other accused.Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 14So far as the role of Naseem is concerned, the statements of all the eye witnesses i.e. PW- 1, 3 & 5 are consistent.The earliest statement recorded at the instance of PW-1 i.e. PW-1/A clearly mentions that one boy who was amongst the four at the spot of occurrence was nabbed by her father PW-5; they also mentioned that it was Naseem, whose name was ascertained later, the same night.The argument by Naseems counsel about the non-examination of a constable who was named by the prosecution being serious and fatal to its case, is insubstantial.We also notice that PW-10 Mahender Singh carried the D.D. Entry-10A Ex.PW-4/B, corroborated the eye witness stating that he saw Naseem at the spot.The I.O. PW-27 Shri J.P. Sharma also mentioned having taken Naseem into custody at that time.Naseems case before the Trial Court was that he went to meet Sunil at 08:30 PM in connection with his uncles customs case and that after reaching there, the police took him into custody.Apart from stating this and advancing submissions on similar lines, he made no effort to explain his presence at the spot where he concededly was present.By virtue of Section-106 of the Evidence Act - having regard to the testimonies of PW-1, 3, 5 & 27, he ought to have explained the incriminating circumstances.No effort was made by him to substantiate the plea taken by him either by giving particulars in regard to the customs case mentioned by him or by examining his uncle as a defence witness.The prosecution also relied on the depositions of PW-24, the finger print expert; he deposed having visited the crime scene on 25.12.1987 and lifted six finger prints from the side wall and two finger prints on the electric iron kept on top of the table in a room.These were developed by him.He deposed that the fingerprints, sent to him by the SHO (PW-27) on 04.02.1988, on comparison showed that two prints belonged to Naseem.The report was marked as Ex.PW-24/A. PW-27, the I.O. deposed having taken the fingerprints of Naseem and forwarded them to the Finger Prints Bureau, the Seizure Memo was exhibited as PW-27/J. This too constitutes a strong incriminating as well as corroborative circumstance against Naseem which went unexplained during the trial.In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings as regards the involvement of Naseem in the crime.The prosecution had alleged that Amrish had Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 15 checked into Avtar Hotel under the assumed name Amit and sought to substantiate it by relying on the hotel register extract Ex.The prosecution apparently applied for a T.I.P. on the same day itself i.e. 05.01.1988 (Ex.PW- 8/A).The Trial Court recorded the proceedings on 11.01.1988 in its order sheet.Amrish refused to join the T.I.P. because the witnesses had seen him at the spot and at the Police Station.This aspect is of some importance because the prosecutions case was that Naseems disclosure eventually led to the police going to Avtar Hotel and discovering that the room was locked.As noticed earlier, the application for T.I.P. was made on the same day.He clarified during cross examination that he had taken leave that day and was at home.Having regard to these facts, the refusal to participate in the T.I.P. (recorded by Ex.PW- 8/E) assumed some importance.Whether the Court can accept the explanation given by Amrish about his having been shown to the witnesses prior to the date he was produced in the Court for T.I.P. would, therefore, have to seen in the light of the entire circumstances.PW-5 categorically deposed that witnesses were taken at the spot on 13.01.1988 i.e. two days after the T.I.P. refusal.In the circumstances, Amrishs explanation for not participating in the T.I.P. is unworthy of credence.The Court would, therefore, be justified in drawing adverse inference on this aspect against him.The prosecution had relied upon the knife, Ex.PW-10, recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement allegedly made by Amrish; the recovery memo was marked as Ex.PW- 21/D. The knife, according to the CFSL report, Ex.PW-27/P contained human blood group B - the blood grouping of the deceased.Whilst, we agree with the submissions on behalf of Amrish that implication by co-accused in the disclosure statement is per se not incriminating, the recovery of the knife at his instance, however, stands on a different footing.Added to this, is the report of the Finger Print Expert PW-24 who after photographic enlargement of the two chance prints lifted and developed from the spot i.e. from the electric iron tagged as Q7 and Q8 which matched with the specimen finger print of Amrish.The matching points were described in Ex.PW-24/E and the reasons for the opinion in Ex.PW-24/F. We have earlier noticed while discussing the case against Naseem that these chance prints were lifted by the Finger Print Crl.A. Nos.40/98, 292/98,405/97, 407/97 & 424/99 Page 16 Expert immediately after the scene of occurrence.PW-27/K. Amrishs identification by the eye witness and the chance prints lifted from the spot were sufficiently damaging and implicated him in this case.The submissions made on his behalf that none of the eye witnesses mention that Amrish had touched the iron is of no consequence.At least two eye witnesses had deposed that the entire occurrence took place within 10-12 minutes.Having regard to the varying degrees of power of observation and the relative points at which the eye witnesses were placed in the crime scene, seen in the context of the fact that a family member was attacked, as a consequence of which he died, the omission of this detail is insignificant.On the other hand, the eye witnesses are categorical as regards the role played by Amrish i.e. that he pulled out the knife and stabbed the deceased repeatedly.We are conscious of the fact that the prosecution was unable to establish the motive which it claimed led the Appellants to commit the crime.In the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that Kishan Lal bore a grudge of some malice because PW-5 refused to lend him some money, however, his role could not be established.At the same time, the motive which is a key element in a case involving circumstantial evidence plays at best a secondary role if there is clear ocular evidence implicating the accused.The prosecution alleged that his stay in Avtar Hotel on 24.12.1987 with Naseem Ahmed and others was proved by Ex.PW-19/A. Harvinder checked in and assumed name as Vijay Anand, testified to by PW- 19 Indrajeet.Harvinders counsel argued, on the other hand, that PW-19 could not have identified him, and that in any case, the hotel register extracts produced during the trial nowhere reflected his name.Here the prosecution relied upon the personal search memo Ex.PW-21/I dated 13.01.1988 in respect of Harvinder and the disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/J where the signature of the accused was shown as Vijay Saini.While these two circumstances on their own would not implicate Harvinder, they find corroboration in the testimony of PW-19, the hotel manager, who identified him, and also proved Ex. PW-19/A, entry No. 2724, in the name of V. Anand.These certainly implicated him.When specifically queried about Ex. PW-21/I, he denied it, but stated that the police had taken his signatures on blank papers.Ex. PW-21/I was signed as "Vijay Saini".Furthermore, the prosecution sought his TIP the very next day; he refused it.Concededly he surrendered and was arrested in the police headquarters.They were aggrieved by the fact that deceased Tara Singh had purchased the agricultural land which they expected to get from Gurdial Kaur.Two of the assailants were armed with axes, but they did not use the sharp edge of those weapons and the injuries sustained by deceased Tara Singh would show that there were no deep penetrating injuries....Appellants Gora Singh and Balbir Singh are not alleged to have caused any fatal injury to the deceased Tara Singh.Gora Singh, though armed with a "kulhari" (axe), used the blunt portion of that axe.Sikandar Singh was armed with a "sotti" (wooden stick).He caught hold of deceased Tara Singh to enable the other assailants to cause injury to him and Sikandar Singh himself gave sotti-blows on the back of the deceased which resulted in causing fracture of the ribs and, in turn, piercing of the lung tissues of the deceased Tara Singh.Appeal Nos.405/1997, 407/1997 and 292/1998) have to fail.The Appeals of Harvinder and Naseem Ahmed have to succeed in part. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
127,867,542 | "he is residing with his family since 1988 and is running Auto Parts business factory, which was earlier in Jhandenwalan and after that shifted to Rai Haryana.In 2006-07 I incurred big loss in the factory and due to that I was searching for job.At that time in 2010 one Shri Anil Khatri told me invest money and by investing good return Crl.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 1 of 14 will come and after listening all this I got allurement of money and invested money in one Speak Asia company.Anil Khatri along with his associates opened a franchisee of Speak Asia in KD-306, Pitampura and its head office was at Mumbai and Singapore also.The owner of the company I Manoj, Ram Niwas, Ram Sumiran Pal etc. and I came in their words and invested money in the company and for that my online account was opened and for survey online forms started coming to me.In 2011 Company organized a seminar in Talkatora Stadium in which Manoj, Ram Niwas and Ram Surmiran Pal addressed and showed the big dreams to all people and insisted people to invest in the company and after that I invested all my money by taking my wife's jewellery and by taking money from relatives making an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and after few days I got to know that the owners of the company have grabbed the money and ran away by locking the company.So many people in the area tried to get the money back but false promises came from the company.The company did a big fraud with crores of people and nobody complaint about it.But when I saw the photos and arresting of Ram Sumiran Pal in TV and newspaper and now with full strength came to you to lodge a complaint against Manoj, Ram Niwas and Ram Sumiran Pal and as well as Anil Khatri along with his associates have racketeering with me as I have invested Rs.25 lakhs and cheated with me and with crores of people."M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 1 of 14It is pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.LTD., which was incorporated with the ACRA (Accounting and Registration Authorities of Singapore).The company has been in the business of conducting surveys through its web portal www.speakasiaonline.com, wherein Harender Kaur has been the Chairperson and Director since inception.The primary job of the company was to recruit new panellist through its marketing by various modes like print and electronic media, seminars, etc. The marketing of the company was handled by its staff under the supervision and leadership of Mr. Manoj Sharma, CEO, India and Mr. Tarak Bajpai, COO, India.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 3 of 14The said Mrs. Harender Kaur established one more company at Singapore in the year 2006 in the name and style of M/s Haren Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. which was later in the year 2010 renamed as M/s Haren Venture Pvt., Ltd., which was in the business of providing E- magazines to the panellists of M/s. Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd. She was the Chairperson and Director of the above named both companies since inception having office at Singapore and has been maintaining company bank's account in Singapore only.The above named companies were being operated by its Channel Partners/Master Distributors/Collection Agents like M/s. Kritanz, M/s. Seamless, M/s. Tulsiyat Tek and others in India.These Channel Partners/Master Distributors/Collection Agents companies were established by one Manoj Sharma and others in India.The above named Master Distributors/Collection Agents had further appointed about 150 franchisees like A and A Associates, Delhi, Growrich, Mumbai, etc. across the country on behalf of the parent companies.These franchisees were like shops of Master Distributors from where subscription code was purchased by the people in order to be panellist.The petitioner is neither the owner Crl.The same is not reflected in the account of A&A Associates.So the same may be related to some personal transaction between the complainant and Anil Khatri.Detailed account of A& A Associates for the period 1st November, 2010 to 6th January, 2014 are brought on record but there is no proof of payment of Rs. 25 lacs.Counsel for the petitioner has also further submitted that earlier three complaints were filed against the petitioner wherein the bail orders have been passed in favour of the petitioner on 10th January, 2014, 29th January, 2014 and 6th February, 2014 by the ACMM, Mumbai.The copies of the orders are placed on record.The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that his client is one of the franchisee and was receiving the huge amount from the investor and was transferring the same to Master Franchisee in India.The amount received from investor has been transferred to M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Co. (Master Franchisee in India) who used to re-transfer the amount to M/s Haren Venture Pvt., Ltd.This is an application under Section 439 read with Section 482 CrPC for interim bail.The petitioner has been facing trial in a case registered pursuant to the FIR No.198/2013 under Section 420/406/120B IPC at Police Station, Crime Branch, Delhi on complaint of one Rambir Sharma.The contents of the FIR read as under :Even the counsel has made the statement that he was arrested before the date of complaint.On the basis of the complaint the FIR was registered on 29th November, 2013 at Police Station Crime Branch, New Delhi.The petition for quashing the FIR is also pending for disposal.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 2 of 14It is stated that the petitioner is not the owner of Speak Asia company as alleged and the same is also revealed during the investigation in the matter.He is one of the franchisee of the said company, out of 150 franchisees across India.As regards the allegation that a seminar at the Talkatora Stadium was conducted where the petitioner and the other accused addressed the audience and insisted them to invest money, it is stated that firstly there is no Talkatora Stadium in Goa, and even if it is considered that the same was in Delhi, during investigation, petitioner's presence and participation as a speaker in the said seminar is not found.It is averred in the bail application that M/S SPEAK ASIA ONLINE PVT.LTD. was long back in the year 2006, established at Singapore by one Mrs. Harender Kaur in the name and style of M/S. HAREN TECHNOLOGIES PVT.which was later on in the year 2010 renamed as M/S SPEAK ASIA ONLINE PVT.The petitioner concern was only to the extent of 3% commission from the amount received from the members as one of the Franchisee and nothing else.He has been transferring the amount received from the members to M/s. Tulsiyat Tek Co. (Master Franchisee in India) who used to re-transfer the amount to M/s Haren Venture Pvt., Ltd. and ultimately the amount was transferred to M/S Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd.The FIR except naming the petitioner as owner of the company does not contain any allegation against the petitioner.The entire allegation of the complainant in the FIR pertains to advising and getting his money invested against Anil Khatri.The petitioner has never met, advised or received any amount from the complainant to deposit the same with Speak Asia.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 5 of 14 nor a shareholder in Speak Asia company, rather he is only the owner of the franchisee named Growrich.The same is evident from the charge-sheet itself also.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 5 of 14M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 12 of 14(Global Franchisee of Speak Asia) and ultimately the amount was transferred to M/S Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd. as per the case of the petitioner.Further investigation in the matter is in progress as per the case of prosecution and the efforts are being made by the prosecution to apprehend the remaining accused persons, namely Manoj Kumar Sharma, Renu Sharma, Harender Kaur, Anil Khatri, Avadh Kishore Gupta, Mansoor Nazim Patel and Ravi Janakraj Khanna, kept in column No.12 and on the arrest of the remaining accused persons and on receipt of relevant documents/reports, supplementary charge-sheet will be filed accordingly.As stated in the charge-sheet, the petitioner had invested huge amount in real estate in Kamla Nagar and Uttam Nagar and Najafgarh area, the requisite documents have been recovered.It is also the case of the prosecution that the said properties were purchased by the petitioner after the commission of Speak Asia Financial Scam and it seems to have been purchased from the money collected from the investors.Having gone through the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet as well as the status report filed by the respondent.The prosecution yet to apprehend the Crl.No.1272/2014 Page 13 of 14 remaining accused.Thus, at this stage I am not inclined to grant the relief of bail to the petitioner.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 13 of 14But at the same time, it must also be mentioned that the petitioner is in the custody for the last 15 months.The police has so far not been able to arrest other accused for the last more than year.Charges has yet to be framed against the petitioner.The police is not able to arrest other accused and charge-sheets against them is yet to be filed but at the same time why one of the accused who is in custody for the last more than one year may suffer because of failure on the part of the police.The petitioner is granted liberty to renew his bail application before the trial court after expiry of said period.The bail application is disposed of accordingly.Copy of order be given dasti to both parties.(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 02, 2015 Crl.M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 14 of 14M (Bail) No.1174/2014 in Bail Appln.No.1272/2014 Page 14 of 14 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,437,466 | In that festival, the deceased as well as the accused participated.There arose quarrel between them and during which, the deceased abused the son of these two accused/A.1 & A.2 in an obscene language.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.3.On 29.09.2013, around 10.00 pm, near the Badari Road Junction, the deceased was standing with his friends and engaged in chatting.At that time, these two accused who are the husband and wife along with their minor son Mr.K.Kelvin Britto (juvenile) came there and questioned the deceased, as to why he scolded Mr.K.Kelvin Britto (juvenile) on the previous day.It is alleged that when the quarrel was going on between the juvenile accused and the deceased, these two accused/A.1 & A.2 instigated the juvenile accused to stab the deceased.The juvenile accused suddenly took out a knife and stabbed the deceased.The deceased fell down, in a pool of blood.He was taken to the Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai.4.The Doctor after examining him, declared him dead.J) The appellants are A.1 & A.2 in S.C.No.125 of 2014, on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.They stood charged for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 24.03.2016, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A.1 & A.2 are before this Court with this appeal.P.W.18, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1030/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 294(b) & 302 I.P.C., against all the three accused.5.P.W.18, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, in the presence of witnesses.He also recovered the blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence and forwarded the same to Court.Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to Court.6.P.W.13, Dr.Vinoth, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 12.45 pm on 13.09.2013 and he found the following injuries:-1.Reddish abrasion 3 x 2cm on right side of forehead2.Oblique cut injury 5x1-0x1cm on left cheek3.Vertically oblique cut injury 2.5x0.5x1cm on front nose4.Vertically oblique stab wound 4x0.2x4cm on back of neck in midline upper end is blunt and lower end is acute margins were regular.5.Vertically oblique stab wound 4x0.2cm x cavity deep on the middle part of left side of the chest; upper and inner blunt end is 4 cm from midline; lower and outer end is 5 cm from midline.The track of the wound is downward, forward and towards right causing puncture wound of 3x2x4cm in back of left lung.Left pleural cavity contained 700 ml of fluid blood.Both lungs cut section pale.Ex.P.5 is the post mortem certificate.P.W.13 gave opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury to the chest.7.P.W.18, during the course of investigation, recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to Court.He examined many more witnesses.On 30.09.2013, at 5.00 pm, he arrested the juvenile accused Mr.K.Kelvin Britto.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife.In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the knife (M.O.1).P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar, in the presence of same witnesses.He forwarded the material objects through Court to the forensic lab, for chemical examination.Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by P.W.19, the then Inspector of Police.On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Since, Mr.K.Kelvin Britto is a juvenile the case was split up as against him and A.1 & A.2 alone were tried in this Sessions Case.Both of them denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited, besides 8 Material Objects.9.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5, who claim to be the eye witnesses, have spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him to the Police. P.W.6 has stated that, he heard about the occurrence, went to the hospital and found the dead body of the deceased.P.W.7 has also spoken about the same facts that he went to the hospital, on hearing about the occurrence.P.W.8 has spoken about the motive arising out of the previous day occurrence between the accused and the deceased.P.W.9 has also spoken about the motive.P.W.10 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch, at the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has stated that he handed over the dead body to the Doctor for post mortem.P.W.12, an employee of the Chennai Municipal Corporation, has stated that during the relevant time, on the day of occurrence, there was no electricity failure at the place of occurrence.P.W.13 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.14 has stated that the deceased was brought to the Government Hospital at Royapettah, Chennai on 29.09.2013 at 10.30 pm.On examination, he found him dead.Then, he gave intimation to the Police.P.W.15, a Forensic Expert has stated that he examined the vital organs of the deceased and it proved that there was no poison or alcohol.P.W.16 has stated that he examined the material objects and found that there were blood stains.P.Ws.18 & 19 have spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done.10.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness nor did they mark any documents on their side.12.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.13.In this case, as we have already pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 5 claim to be the eye witness to the occurrence.The deceased was standing at the junction of the road, chatting with his friends.These two accused who came there would not have anticipated that the deceased would have been standing there.The juvenile accused came some time after, which is evident from the evidences available on record.The meeting of the deceased and the appellants/A.1 & A.2, at the place of occurrence, was by chance.It appears that the juvenile accused had a knife readily with him and on seeing the deceased, he developed quarrel and stabbed him.From these evidences, it is crystal clear that there was no pre-meeting of mind between these two accused/appellants and the juvenile accused at all.Simply because these two accused/appellants were present at the time of occurrence, it cannot be inferred that they shared the common intention with the juvenile accused to cause the death of the deceased.We find no force at all even to remotely infer that these two accused would have had pre-meeting of mind with juvenile accused and had a common intention to cause the death of the deceased. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,439,589 | The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2010 and subsequent order on sentence date 21.09.2010 in Sessions Case No. 38/09 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The factual matrix of the of the prosecution case is that on 11.10.2005, a PCR call vide DD No. 14-A, was received in Police Station Seelampur regarding burning of woman in House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi.On the receipt on the said DD, PW-11 S.I. Har Prasad along with PW-8 Constable Surender Kumar, reached at the spot, where they came to know that the injured had been taken to GTB Hospital by a PCR van.3. PW-11, S.I. Har Prasad left PW-8 Constable Surender Kumar at the spot and he himself went to GTB Hospital and obtained CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 2 of 35 the MLC of injured Shabana Anjum who had sustained 60-65 % burn injuries.I reside at the aforesaid address.I am a house wife.My marriage was solemnized about eleven years ago.I have two daughters namely Amreen and Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey aged about 9 and 5 years respectively.My husband was harassing me for the last several months and he used to leave the house leaving me alone in the house.On 11.10.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. I was present at my house and my both daughters were playing outside the room in the veranda.My husband and brother- in-law (Jeth) came down from the terrace.Without giving me a chance to take care of myself, my brother-in-law Jafar-ul-Islam poured the kerosene oil on me and my husband lit the match stick and threw the same on me as a result whereof my clothes caught fire.My father-in-law Waheed Ahmad was exhorting to finish me today itself, actual words being "Aaj Ise Khatam Kar do, Baad me main sab dekh loonga ye aurat aise manne wali nahin hai".Both my daughters were also witnessing this incident.These people have set me ablaze with the intention of killing me.During the investigation S.I. Har Prasad prepared the site plan, Ex. PW-11/C, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected one plastic bottle from the spot and some burnt clothes from the scene of crime and put the same in a parcel of cloth and sealed with the seal of GRS and seized them vide memo Ex.Thereafter the investigation was handed over to PW-14, S.I. Nitin Kumar.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 3 of 35The discharge slip is Ex. PW-7/DA, 7/DB and 7/DC.Thereafter, on 05.12.2005 her condition deteriorated and she was again admitted in the hospital, but she succumbed to her burn injuries on the same day.The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted on 06.12.2005 by PW-1, Dr. S. Lal in GTB Hospital and the case was converted into section 302 read with section 34 IPC.As per the post mortem report Ex.PW-1/A, the cause of death was septicemic shock due to superficial to deep ante mortem flame burns.Total area involved 60% of total body surface.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 4 of 35A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 4 of 35The prosecution, in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses.The learned ASJ, after examining the testimonies of all the witnesses passed the impugned judgement dated 09.09.2010, wherein it was held that from the statements made by PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey coupled with the statement Ex.PW-11/A made by the deceased Shabana Anjum and the post mortem report Ex.PW-1/A, it is proved that three accused persons namely Mazhar-ul-Islam, Wahid Ahmed and Zafar-ul-Islam, in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Shabana Anjum.PW-11/A is not of the deceased Shabana Anjum, because, as per the MLC Ex. PW-6/A, there were 60-65% burns injuries on the upper part of the body.Further, PW-1, Dr. S. Lal in his cross-examination stated that superficial burns involved the epidermis of skin.When a person tries to CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 6 of 35 extinguish a fire, his palms and hands are bound to be burnt.Even PW-2 Amreen admitted in her cross-A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 6 of 35examination that her mother was not able to take food herself as her hands including her palms and fingers were bandaged.(iii) That the two eyewitnesses, namely, PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza, were tutored by their grandparents (maternal )in as much as since the date of the incident, that is, 11.10.2005, they are in their custody.(iv) That PW-3 Baby Riza stated that the three accused Upar Se Aaye that is they came from upstairs, but, according to the site plan there is no room, no stairs but only terrace.But PW-3 Riza did not see any of the accused persons going upstairs, though, as stated by her, she was playing in the veranda.The accused persons in their defense examined three witnesses namely, DW-1 Abdul Rehman, DW-2 accused Waheed Ahmed and DW-3 Mohd. Haroon.DW-1 Abdul Rehman stated that in October 2005 he had gone to the house of his sister where he came to know that the uncle of accused Waheed was admitted in the hospital.At that time Waheed used to reside in Dehradun and on CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 7 of 35 10.10.2005, he informed Waheed about the illness of his uncle.He further stated that on 11.10.2005 Waheed came to his house at 12:00 noon and thereafter went to the hospital with him.He left Waheed at the hospital and went to his sisters house.On reaching Jafarabad he came to know about the untoward incident at the old residence of Waheed and he telephoned him at 4:00 p.m. Next day he came to know that Waheed had been taken by the police.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 7 of 35After the retirement he has moved to his house in Dehradun and on 11.10.2005 he had gone to GTB Hospital to see his uncle, he received a phone call from DW-1 Abdul Rehman that there had been a fire incident in the house of his son Mazhar-ul-Islam.After that he came to his house.After that police took him for interrogation and thereafter, detained him and after producing him before the Duty Magistrate, sent him to judicial custody.DW-3 Mohd. Haroon stated that he works at the medical store of accuse Zafar-ul-Islam and on 11.10.2010 he was present at the said medical store.At about 2:00 p.m. on that day, when he was returning from his house after taking lunch, he saw that the father-in- law of accused Mazhar-ul-Islam along with one lady in burqa and CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 8 of 35 one person with beard, entered the house of Mazhar-ul-Islam.At that time accused Zafar-ul-Islam was present at his medical store.He further stated that after 15-20 minutes the said persons left the house of Mazhar-ul-Islam and at about 3:00 p.m. the neighbors told that smoke was coming out of the house of Mazhar-ul-Islam.Mera saara zavar va anye kimti saaman bench chuke hain jeth fad dete hain tatha ghar se zabardasti nikal dete hain.Aapse haath jod kar vinti hai ki meri va meri santaa ki jaan va maal ki raksha CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 18 of 35 karke uprokt logon ke khilaaf kanooni karavai karke meri madad ki jaaye taaki mera va mere bachchon ka bhavishye surakshit rahe.Aapki mahaan kripa hogi."A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 18 of 35The said letter had been proved by PW-16 ASI Prem Chand who brought the complaint register of Police Station Seelam Pur, in respect of the complaint dated 10.10.2005 made by the deceased with the allegation of physical harassment and criminal intimidation which was received vide DD No.34-B and registered diary No.1192 by the Reader-Office.PW-16 deposed that the said complaint was received by the Record Moharir and relevant entry made at serial No.3 and the same was marked to ASI Giri Raj.The original complaint was also produced before the Court.It is pertinent to mention that in the cross-examination of PW-2, she has made the statement that she remembers that her mother had come to home from the hospital once and she was again admitted in the hospital.She has not denied the fact that her nana and nani had taken her mother to the hospital 2-3 times for dressing.She has admitted that the whole body of her mother was bandaged except her face.Her nana and nani had taken her to the hospital 2-3 times.She was declared fit for statement and PW-11 S.I. Har Prasad recorded her statement Ex. PW-11/A, wherein she made the following statement:A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 2 of 35"Statement of Smt. Shabana Anjum W/o.Mazhar-ul-Islam Aged about 29 years R/o.House No. 1312, Street No. 42, Jaffrabad, Delhi.Necessary legal action be taken against them.I have heard the statement and the same is correct.RTI of Shabana Anjum"4. PW-11, S.I. Har Prasad made an endorsement, Ex.PW- CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 3 of 35 11/B, on the complaint of Shabana Anjum and got the case registered vide FIR No.615/2005 Ex. PW-9/A, in Police Station Seelampur under section 307 read with 34 IPC.After the completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused Mazhar-ul-Islam, Wahid Ahmed and Zafar- ul-Islam.Accused Zafar-ul-Islam, who was on interim bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the High Court of Delhi on 13.07.2006 and a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him.Thereafter, on 02.06.2006 charges were framed against all the three accused persons under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Thus the three accused persons were convicted under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC.Subsequently, the impugned order on sentence dated 21.09.2010 was passed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 5 of 35A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 5 of 35The appellants, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order on sentence, have filed the present appeals.The conviction of the appellants, has been challenged, inter alia, mainly on following grounds:(i) That there are no independent witnesses from nearby houses who had seen the appellants coming from the place of occurrence or who had put of the fire of the deceased or made the PCR call.It has also been pointed out that PW-2 Amreen in her cross-examination stated that her father was in the business of making buttons and the workers assisting her father used to come to the house every day for work except on Eid, but , none of such workers were interrogated or made to join the investigation.This shows that the police had not carried out a fair investigation.(ii) That the thumb impression present on Ex.They closed the shop and went to the roof and saw that there was heavy fire in the house.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 8 of 35The statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C of all the three accused persons were recorded in which they denied the allegations against them.They have also stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.Accused Mazhar-ul-Islam has stated that it is a false case registered at the instance of his in laws and his wife as he had divorced his wife prior to the incident.He has further stated that his daughters were constantly under the influence of their mother and after her demise, they came under the influence of their maternal grand parents (nana and nani) in general and grand mother (nani) in particular.His eldest daughter Amreen ran away from the custody of her nana and nani on 25 th January, 2010 and she took shelter at a place where his father was staying.His father informed the police in this regard and gave custody of Amreen to police.Accused Wahid Ahmed has stated that he did not give any CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 9 of 35 exhortation (lalkara).At the time of the alleged incident, he was in Dehradun along with his ailing wife.Zafar-ul-Islam was at his shop at the time of alleged incident.He is not on visiting terms with his younger son Mazhar-ul-Islam and vice versa.He had already disowned him.Accused Zafar-ul-Islam has stated that he was not present at the spot.He was at his shop.He, being the jeth of the deceased, was entitled to claim the dead body of Shabana Anjum.He further stated that he was not on visiting terms with his brother, Mazhar-ul-Islam.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 9 of 35We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and other material placed on record by the prosecution.The following are the main submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants:That the alleged dying declaration, Ex.PW-11/A, cannot be believed as it does not bear thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum.The MLC of the deceased, Ex.PW-6/A, also does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased.That PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum, who are the daughters of deceased and Mazhar-ul-Islam, CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 10 of 35 appellant in Crl A.1245/2010, are the child witnesses and were tutored by their Nana and Nani.Thus, the statements made by them cannot be believed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 10 of 35That Wahid Ahmed, appellant in Crl A.1310/2010, was not residing in Delhi and was not present at the spot when the alleged incident took place.That Zafar-ul-Islam, the appellant in Crl A.1311/2010 was also not present at the spot as he was in his shop at the relevant time.That IO has not investigated the case properly.He did not record the statements of public witnesses who were present there at the spot and had extinguished the fire on the body of the deceased Shabana Anjum.Let us now discuss the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.As already mentioned, the first submission of the appellants is that the dying declaration cannot be believed as the same does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased Shabana Anjum and the MLC of the deceased also does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW- 6 Dr Rajni Sachan admitted that the palm of the deceased was in CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 11 of 35 burnt condition.As per record, the investigating officer obtained the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum on the statement, Ex.PW-11/A, which was not possible as her palm was burnt.It is also argued that no certificate was given by the doctor who was present at the time of recording of the statement of the deceased Shabana Anjum about her mental state and fitness and further the said statement was not recorded by any Magistrate.Thus, under these circumstances, the same cannot be believed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 11 of 35The statement, Ex.PW-11/A, was recorded by SI Har Prasad on 11.10.2005 and it bears right thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum.At the time of cross-examination of PW- 11, no suggestion was given to him that the said statement does not bear the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum.As far as obtaining of certificate from the doctor pertaining to mental state and fitness of the deceased is concerned, the admitted position is that she was brought to the GTB Hospital on the date of incident and she was examined in the hospital at 4:00 p.m. vide MLC Ex. PW-6/A which revealed that she was conscious oriented.The said evidence further shows that the patient was fit for statement.The said MLC was proved by PW-6 Dr. Rajni Sachan, who had stated in the cross- examination that the patient was able to speak well and was fit for CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 12 of 35 making the statement.No suggestion whatsoever was made by the defence counsel in the cross-examination that the deceased was not fit for statement and was not conscious oriented.It was mentioned in the MLC that "Burnt area chest, abdomen, lower chin, neck, both upper limb, back throat, back abdomen approximately 60% to 65%." Since it was not specifically mentioned in the MLC that the palm and fingers were burnt, the presumption is that the investigating officer might have taken the thumb impression of the deceased.As there was no suggestion in the cross-examination of PW-6 Dr. Rajni Sachan as well as PW-11 SI Har Prasad that the same does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased Shabana Anjum, therefore, the evidence recorded in the trial court of PW-6 and PW-11 on this aspect cannot be ignored.It is settled law that if there is no cross- examination of a prosecution witness in respect of a statement of fact, it will only show the admission of that fact.Further, MLC indicates that the patient was conscious oriented and was fit for statement when her statement, Ex.PW-11/A, was recorded by PW-11 SI Har Prasad.The testimony of PW-6 remains unchallenged in cross examination, the same has to be believed as it is settled law that whenever a statement of fact made by a witness is not challenged in cross examination, it has to be taken that the fact in question is not CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 13 of 35 disputed.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 12 of 35A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 13 of 35The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the statement was recorded on 11.10.2005 whereas she died on 5.12.2005 and the said statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration of Shabana Anjum.PW-2 Amreen made her statement on the date of incident as well as before the Court.The substance of her statement before the Court reads as under:"On 11.10.2005 I and my sister Honey were playing in the verandah of the house.My mother was lying in the house.Then my father, my grandfather and my Tau ji came down.My CRL. A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 14 of 35 father and my Tau ji entered the room where my mother was lying and my grandfather remained outside the room.On seeing them, my mother got up.My grandfather uttered about my mohter, "Aaj isse khatam kar do.Main baad mein sab dekh loonga." Thereafter my Tau Jaffar-ul-Islam threw kerosene oil on my mother.Thereafter my father threw lighted match stick on the body of my mother and as a result whereof the clothes of my mother caught fire.My mother, myself and my younger sister ran out of the house crying.Some people from the street put off the fire of my mother.One of them informed the police telephnically and police came there.My mother, myself and my younger sister were taken to the hospital by the police in a police van.My mother was taken to emergency room of the hospital and myself and my younger sister were made to sit outside."A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 14 of 35A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 15 of 35 the Investigating Officer.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that both have deposed falsely at the instance of their nana and nani and PW-3 has even admitted in her cross-examination that earlier she used to obey her mother and now she is obeying her nana and nani.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 15 of 35Thus, we feel that PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey are natural witnesses and are daughters of the deceased and were present in the house at the time of incident as it has come on record.It is also important to understand as to why they would falsely implicate their father, grandfather and their Tau ? The statements of PW-2 and PW-3 further fortify the fact that one day before her death, i.e., 10.10.2005, the deceased wrote a letter Ex.The extract of the said letter written in Hindi and transliterated in English CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 17 of 35 reads as under:A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 17 of 35"Vinti hai ki main makan no. 1312, Gali No. 42In the cross- examination, it is stated by PW-16 that he did not know what steps were taken on receiving the complaint Ex.PW-16/A. Although the said complaint Ex.PW-16/A was also against the mother-in-law and Jethani, however, it appears from the complaint that one day before the incident, she had some apprehension about the incident.She was not able to take her food herself and she also admitted that her palm and fingers were bandaged.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 19 of 3525. PW-2, in her cross-examination, denied the suggestion that when she and her sister had reached the hospital at 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., her nana and nani had come prior to them.Rather she has made the statement that when her mother had reached the hospital, she was in senses and able to talk inspite of her having sustained burn injuries.She has also denied the suggestion that her statement was recorded by the Police after she had been well tutored by nana and CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 20 of 35 nani in the hospital.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 20 of 35The next submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Wahid Ahmed (the appellant in Crl A. No.1310/2010) is that he was not residing in Delhi on the date of occurrence and in fact he had shifted to Dehradoon in 2003 after his retirement from his service.He was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident.Actually he came to Delhi from Dehradoon to see his ailing uncle, who was admitted in GTB Hospital and he came to know about the incident at 4 pm.Both have deposed that at the time of incident Wahid Ahmed, who is the father- in-law of the deceased, was not present at the spot and at the relevant time he was present in GTB Hospital where his uncle was admitted.In fact, he took the plea of alibi.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was present in Dehradoon along with his ailing wife.However, in his defence evidence, he has taken different stand that at the time of incident, he was present in GTB Hospital where he had gone to see his ailing uncle.It is the admitted position that he did not examine his wife in support of his plea that he was present in Dehradoon along with his CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 21 of 35 wife nor he examined his uncle, who was admitted in the hospital, to prove that he was with him at the time of incident.The testimony of DW-1 Abdul Rehman, who was supporting his case, had made a statement that he left Waid Ahmed in GTB Hospital at 12:00 noon on the date of incident i.e. 11.10.2005 and went to his sisters house.The incident in the present case took place at about 3:20 p.m. on the said date, so it appeared that DW-1 Abdul Rehman was not with Wahid Ahmed at the relevant time of incident.Therefore, Wahid Ahmed was unable to prove his plea of alibi.The whole body of her mother was bandaged except her face when she had seen her mother when she came home at her nanas house.Her mother was not able to take her food herself in her nanas house as her hand including palm and fingers were bandaged and also she was not in a position to move her hands.We have also examined the statement of PW-6 Dr Rajni Sachan.From the said statement, there is a conclusion without any doubt that the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, clearly came to the conclusion that the injury was a superficial to deep partially healed flame infected burn present over neck, front of chest, abdomen over upper aspect, both upper limbs completely, front of right thigh and back of chest and abdomen completely.Total area involved approximate 60% of total surface area.Yellowish, green slough present over burns at places and the CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 32 of 35 cause of death was opined to be septicemic shock due to superficial to deep ante-mortem flame burns.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 32 of 35Admittedly at the time of admission, burnt area chest, abdomen, lower chin, neck, both upper limb, back throat, back abdomen was approximately 60% to 65%.It appears from the record that the deceased was discharged on 11.11.2005 at the request of mother of the deceased.The discharge slip is Ex.PW-7/DA.At the time of discharge, the statement Ex.PW-7/DB of the mother of the deceased was recorded which is signed by her and she has stated that she has been informed that the patient was in critical condition and there was likelihood of risk to her life.The thumb impression of her mother was also taken on Ex.PW-7/B.From the medical record available on record, it appears to us that she survived for a longer time than expected and she otherwise could not have survived even if she would have remained in hospital.In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has given its finding in the case of Noorsab alias Noor CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 33 of 35 Ahmed v. State of Karnataka: 2001 Cri.L.J. 425 (Kant) (DB) wherein the victim wife was set on fire by the husband, sustained 80% burn injuries and she got discharged from hospital against medical advice and on her re-admission in the hospital she succumbed to her injuries, the doctor who besides conducting post- mortem examination had also treated the deceased at first instance and after re-admission, opined that deceased died on account of burn injuries sustained by her, the accused was found guilty under Section 302, not under Section 304 IPC.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 33 of 35Considering the overall circumstances of the matter, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for all the appellants.We are of the view that the statements of PW-2 Amreen & PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey are consistent and corroborative and nothing has come out in their cross-examinations which could help the case of the accused/appellants.Therefore, they have to be considered as trustworthy and reliable witnesses and question of disbelieving them does not arise.From the statement, Ex.PW-11/A, of the deceased and the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A, it is proved that the incident took place on 11.10.2005 as alleged by the prosecution and jeth (brother-in-law) of the deceased threw kerosene oil on the deceased and husband of the deceased threw lighted match CRL.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 34 of 35 stick on her body and at the door, Wahid Ahmed, father-in-law of the deceased, exhorted "Aaj Ise Khatam Kar Do, Baad Mein Main Sab Dekh Loonga".Therefore, it is established, without any doubt, that all the three accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Shabana Anjum.The appellants are, therefore, not entitled for the benefit of conversion of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC.A. 1310/2010, 1311/2010 & 1245/2010 Page 34 of 35The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.MANMOHAN SINGH, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J AUGUST 11, 2011 dp/jk CRL. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,442,775 | It appears that there was a loan transaction and following an attempt to seek refund of the loan, there was an altercation and some violence between two groups of parties.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,443,069 | FIR No. 399/2003 under Sections 341/34 and 376(2)(g) IPC was registered at Police Station Narela on the statement of prosecutrix.In the FIR, prosecutrix stated that she had been working in a factory situated at Bhorgarh.On 24th October, 2003 at about 6:30 PM she was returning home from the factory; when she reached near the boundary wall of DDA flats, two boys intercepted her, caught hold of her and dragged her to a nearby jungle, laid her in the bushes and raped her one after the other.While raping her they had gagged her mouth.She was also threatened that in case she raised alarm, she would be stabbed by a knife.In the meanwhile, one person came there to ease himself.On seeing him she raised alarm at which 2/3 rehriwalas came there and caught hold of Mukesh.Other boy, Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 2 of 10 whose name was later on revealed as Narender, succeeded in escaping after snatching ` 740/- from her.After apprehending Mukesh, rehriwalas took prosecutrix as well as Mukesh to a nearby village, where villagers gave beatings to Mukesh.A. No. 274-2009 Page 2 of 10After registration of FIR, prosecutrix was medically examined in Maharshi Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi vide MLC No. 759/03 (Ex. PW5/A).Following injuries were found on her person:-(a) superficial abrasion over right elbow 1x1 cm.Slides prepared from vaginal smear as well as petticoat of the prosecutrix was sealed by the doctor and handed over to the police officials.Mukesh was also medically examined in Maharshi Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi.Doctor opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.Smell of alcohol was noticed in his breath.His blood sample was taken and sealed by the doctor besides his underwear and handed over to the concerned police official.Subsequently, Narender was apprehended.He was also medically examined in the same hospital.Doctor opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual intercourse.His blood sample and pubic hair Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 3 of 10 were taken, sealed and handed over to the concerned police official by the doctor.Both Mukesh and Narender did not cooperate in giving their semen samples.By the judgment dated 24th February, 2009, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has convicted the appellants under Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 1 of 10 Sections 341/34 and Section 376(2)(g) IPC.Appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each along with fine of `3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 376(2)(g) IPC; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Sections 341/34 IPC.Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellants.A. No. 274-2009 Page 1 of 10Accordingly, both the abovementioned appeals are being disposed of together.As per report of CFL (Ex. PW2/A), stains of semen were found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix which were of 'B' group.Blood samples of appellants were identified as that of 'B' group and 'O' group.A. No. 274-2009 Page 3 of 10Charges under Sections 341/506/34 IPC and 376(2)(g) IPC were framed against the appellants on 31 st March, 2004 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all to prove its story.Dr. Saroj Aggarwal stepped in the witness box as PW3 to prove the MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW 3/A).Dr. Jay Kumar and Dr. A.K. Gupta, who had examined Mukesh and Narender respectively, stepped in the witness box as PW4 and PW5 respectively.Both the appellants have denied their complicity in the crime and claimed themselves to be innocent.Appellant Narender examined his wife Geeta in his Crl.However, Mukesh did not examine any witness in his defense.A. No. 274-2009 Page 4 of 109. Trial Court has found testimony of prosecutrix (PW1) trustworthy, reliable and credible.It has been further noted that injuries found on the person of prosecutrix had lend credence to her statement that she was forcibly taken by the appellants to a deserted place and laid in the bushes before committing rape upon her.Traces of semen on the petticoat and vaginal swab of prosecutrix were also taken as corroborative piece of evidence.As per the Trial Court, statement of PW1 was sufficient to convict the appellants for committing gang rape upon the prosecutrix.I have carefully perused the testimony of the prosecutrix and other evidence on record and I am of the view that Trial Court was right in reaching to the conclusion that it is the appellants who had committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix by taking turns, thus, had committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.PW1 has fully corroborated the prosecution story.Her statement is in line with the allegations contained in the FIR.While deposing in the witness box, she has categorically stated that while she was returning from the factory where she had been working, appellants caught hold of her from her both arms; they took her to a nearby jungle which was having some bushes; they laid her on the bushes.Thereafter, Narender and Mukesh committed rape upon her one after the other.She has stated Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 5 of 10 that accused Narender sat on her chest and gagged her mouth while other accused Mukesh committed rape upon her.She has deposed that he had put his urinating portion into her vagina.Thereafter, accused Narender committed rape upon her in the same manner.After committing rape, Mukesh caught hold of her and started moving from that place.In the meanwhile, one person came there for easing himself.On seeing him, she tried to escape from the clutches of Mukesh.She also raised alarm.One vegetable vendor apprehended Mukesh.Narender succeeded in escaping from the spot.On her narrating the incident to the vegetable vendors, they gave beatings to Mukesh.Someone informed the police.Police arrived there and Mukesh was handed over to the police officials.She and Mukesh were taken to Police Station.Her statement was recorded.She was medically examined.Injuries found on her person lend credence to her version.As per MLC, a cut mark of 1.5 cms. was found on the right side of labia majora.Immediately after the incident, vaginal swab and petticoat of the prosecutrix were taken in possession by the doctor.Semen stains were found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix.Traces of semen were also noticed on the vaginal Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 6 of 10 swab.Thus, scientific evidence also lends credence to the statement of the prosecutrix that she was raped on the fateful day.Prosecutrix has identified the appellants as the persons, who had committed rape upon her.There is no reason as to why she would have falsely implicated them in this case, more so, when there was no previous enmity between them, inasmuch as, they were strangers to her.It is not the case of the appellants that they were known to the prosecutrix in any manner or that prosecutrix was having any kind of grudge against them.A. No. 274-2009 Page 5 of 10A. No. 274-2009 Page 6 of 10Learned Amicus Curiae and counsel from legal aid have vehemently contended that the testimony of PW1 has remained uncorroborated from any independent witness.As per the prosecution, on seeing a person, who had come at the spot for easing himself, prosecutrix raised alarm.Thereafter, vegetable vendors/rehriwalas apprehended Mukesh.None of these persons have been joined with the investigation nor were produced in the witness box to corroborate the version of prosecutrix.I do not find any force in this contention.In a metropolis like Delhi apathy of public persons to join the investigation is not unknown.Public persons are reluctant to join the investigation in order to avoid harassment at the hands of the accused as also from taking rounds of court.Non-joining of independent public witnesses by itself is not sufficient enough to discard the testimony of the complainant/injured witness.I Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 8 of 10They have committed gang rape upon a helpless woman turn-by-turn.Section 376(2)(g) IPC mandates that an accused of gang rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life.Proviso to this section, however, vests power in the court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 10 years but only if adequate and special reasons are brought forth.In this case, I do not find it to be a fit case to award sentence less than what has been mandated under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.No other argument has been advanced nor any other plea been raised by the counsel for the appellants.A. No. 274-2009 Page 9 of 10A. No. 274-2009 Page 9 of 10A.K. PATHAK, J.FEBRUARY 22, 2011 rb Crl.A. No. 274-2009 Page 10 of 10A. No. 274-2009 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,443,323 | (i) The Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;Upon failure to attend any two consecutive dates, the learned Sessions Judge, Nasik shall make report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an Application seeking cancellation of bail.The Application is, accordingly, disposed of.All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 4 of 4::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:45:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:45:01 ::: | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
6,146,021 | The second respondent lodged this complaint with oblique motive and only to tarnish the image of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 10 CRL.O.P.No.2219 of 2020 petitioner in the society.Page 2 of 10According tohttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 10 CRL.O.P.No.2219 of 2020 the defacto complainant/second respondent, on 15.07.2019, she joined as an employee to the post of "front office executive" in the petitioner's company viz., Silicon Radio House.Thereafter, the petitioner started to have obscene dialogue with the defacto complainant for which, the defacto complainant warned him.While being so, on 06.08.2019, the petitioner called the defacto complainant to his cabin and asked her to come on Sunday to go out.When she refused for the same and also when she informed that she will lodge complaint, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences and abused her with filthy language.It was informed to her parents and then she discontinued the job.Thereafter, she was asked to visit office to receive salary.Accordingly on 14.08.2019, when the defacto complainant went to the office of the petitioner herein along with her parents, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and her parents.Page 5 of 10It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in deapth.Page 10 of 10This petition has been filed to quash FIR in Crime No.575 of 2019, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioner.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.On the false complaint lodged by the second respondent, this false case has been registered as against the petitioner for the above said offences and the present FIR is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.According to the second respondent on 06.08.2019, the petitioner called the defacto complainant and abused her with filthy language.Thereafter on 14.08.2019, when the defacto complainant along with her parents went to the office of the petitioner for receiving salary, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and her parents.Therefore, there are two occurrences took place on 06.08.2019 and 14.08.2019 and both occurrences cannot be clubbed together and lodged the complaint as against the petitioner.Insofar as the Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 is concerned, there is absolutely no occurrence took place and no offence is made out as against the petitioner.He also relied upon the judgment reported in (1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana and the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7405 of 2017 in the case of G.Logeswaran Vs.State rep.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 10 CRL.O.P.No.2219 of 2020 by, Inspector of Police, and anr.Hence, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.Page 3 of 10Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that there are specific allegations to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioner.Further he submitted that this is only FIR as such, it has to be investigated in depth and only upon filing of final report, it has to be ascertained, whether the petitioner committed the offence or not.Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.Therefore, they sustained injury and went to the government hospital.Page 4 of 10The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the occurrence ought to have been taken place in the public place.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Page 7 of 109. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence allegedhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 8 of 10 CRL.O.P.No.2219 of 2020 against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."Page 8 of 10In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.575 of 2019 and file a final report as early as possible, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 9 of 10 CRL.O.P.No.2219 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Page 9 of 10The Inspector of Police, Aminjikarai Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.CRL.O.P.No.2219 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.1389 of 2020 03.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,461,054 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this third repeat application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 23.09.2016 by Police Station Ghatigaon, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 117/2016 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss.307, 294, 323, 34 IPC and further added Section 302 of IPC and Section 25, 27, 30 of Arms Act.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 18.01.2017 passed in M.Cr.The allegation of causing gun shot injury is on co-accused Akash.The applicant 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. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,466,632 | [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in CMP.No.97/Goonda/Salem City/2016 dated 23.12.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Salim @ Salim Basha, aged 24 years, S/o.Kadhar Sherif, residing at No.211/19, Sundar Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :Kitchipalayam Police Station Crime No.93/2015 registered under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code @ into 147, 148, 120[b], 341, 302 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code.Salem Town Police Station Crime No.250/2016 registered under Section 341, 294[b], 323 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 18.11.2016, one Sakthivel, aged 26 years, S/o.Marimuthu, residing at No.631, Narikuravar Colony, Panchanthangi Lake, Gugai, Salem-6, as de facto complainant has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, wherein, it is stated that in the place of occurrence, the detenu has unlawfully restrained the de facto complainant and also attacked him with an intention to murder and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.514/2016 under Sections 341, 307 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu as petitioner.On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it has been contended inter alia to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,468,040 | And In the matter of : Osman Sk @ Ramjan Sk. ..... Petitioner Mr. Prabir Majumdar, .... for the Petitioner Mr. Prodipto Ganguly, ...for the State.The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The petitioner claims that there is little material for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner and the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time.The State opposes of the prayer on the ground that the offending 'gamcha' was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is the principal accused in the gruesome murder.Considering the material against the petitioner, the prayer for bail cannot be acceded to.CRM 3980 of 2020 and CRAN 2206 of 2020 are disposed of.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,469,016 | And In the matter of:-An apprehension of arrest in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No. 517 of 2016 dated 05.06.2016 under Sections 307/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, arising out of G.R. Case no. 2560 of 2016, pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Berhampore, Murshidabad. ;And In the matter of:- | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,079,120 | (Jabalpur dt.: 05.02.2018) Per : V.K. Shukla, J.-Criminal case was set at motion on the report lodged by Chironja Bai on 12-12-1996 to the effect that an incident of firing had taken place, in which Narbada @ Nabboo was assaulted and he received injuries, out of which he died.In nutshell the prosecution case is that Gannu Patel fired at Nabboo, which caused an injury near the left ear and left eyebrow.At that very moment, Shashi Rajput, who 3 was standing also fired, which hit Nabboo at his right hand and neck, after he had fallen down.It is also stated that at that time Thamman Patel and Gunnu Rajput were also present there.It is alleged that accused Gannu Patel and Shashi Rajput were carrying gun where as Thamman Patel and Gannu Rajput were having country made pistol (Katta).After registration of the report Ex.P-4, the Investigating Officer PW-15 D.K.Dixit carried out the investigation and prepared map.He has also seized blood stained soil and one empty cartridge.The dead body panchname Ex.Accused Thamman Singh was arrested and on his discovery statement Ex.P-18, one Katta and one empty cartridge were seized.Thus, 7 though PW-3 Chironja Bai , who had lodged the FIR Ex.P-4 did not support the prosecution case regarding causing death by the appellants to the deceased but her lodging of the report Ex.P-4 and her presence at the spot gets proved, as she had also received gun injury.A Katta was seized on the discovery statement of accused Thamman Singh vide Ex.P-18 and seizure is Ex.Though seizure witness PW-13 Mangal Singh stated that Thamman Singh had not made any statement before him and the Katta was not seized before him but he admitted his signature on the memorandum of seizure.The factum of seizure of the Katta has been proved by PW-15 D.K.Dixit, the Investigating Officer, who admitted his signature and stated that the Katta was seized near canal (Nahar) which was buried by him.He had also seized one empty cartridge on his statement.Seized articles and the cartridge were sent to the FSL and its report is Ex.In the said report, holes were found in the garments of the deceased, which proves that there were gun shots.As per doctor report Ex.P-1 and the testimony of Dr. A.K.Singhvi, pellet injuries were on the person of the deceased and the holes in the garments of the deceased and on body are same.In the Scientific report, gun which was seized from Thamman Singh was exhibited as A-1, which was a country made 12 bore.The cartridge which was seized was of 'KF- Special', they were marked as Ex.The pellets marked as Ex.P-1 were found having some stain like blood.In both the appeals, a challenge has been made to the common order of conviction and sentence dated 04-05- 2001, passed by Sessions Judge Narsinghpur, in Special Case No.14/2000, whereby the appellants have been 2 convicted and sentenced as under :Criminal Appeal No.778/2001 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302/34 Imprisonment for life IPC.and fine of Rs.2000/- Under Section 323/34 R.I. for 6 months IPC.(Substantive sentence to run concurrently) Criminal Appeal No.956/2001 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302/34 Imprisonment for life IPC.and fine of Rs.2000/-each Under Section 323/34 R.I. for 6 months each.The seized Katta, empty cartridge and the pellets taken out from the dead body were sent to the FSL.The FSL report is Ex.Two accused persons namely Shashi Rajput and Gannu Rajput were initially absconding and the challan was filed during the said period.However, accused Gannu Rajput was arrested and 4 produced before the court.Other accused Shashi Rajput is reported to be still absconding.The accused persons denied the charges and submitted that they have been falsely implicated, as there is an old rivalry with the family of the deceased.The prosecution has examined the witnesses Chironja Bai, (PW-3) who had lodged the FIR, Mohan Bai (PW-5), Guddi Bai (PW-6), Hakko Bai (PW-7), Gyarsi Bai (PW-8), Shyam Bai (PW-9), Pohap Singh (PW-10) and Ramesh (PW-11).They all stated that Nabboo has died but did not state that how was he murdered.The prosecution case has been fully supported by PW-4 Sakun Bai, wife of the deceased.The prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. A.K. Singhvi, who had conducted the postmortem The fact of homicidal death of the deceased has been established by these witnesses.In the present case, out of 7 to 8 eye witnesses, the 5 prosecution case has been supported only one witness PW- 4 Sakun Bai.It has been argued that she is a related witness to the deceased and further in fact she had not seen the exact incident, therefore, her testimony is not trustworthy.To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, we consider it apposite to first examine the testimony of PW-4 Sakun Bai.She is wife of the deceased.She has deposed that she had gone to the field of Pandey Maharaj for harping the crops.She was accompanied by Guddi Bai, Chironja Bai, Munni Bai, Shyama Bai, Hakki Bai and Gyarsi Bai.Her husband alongwith her brother-in-law (dewar) Pussu and Ramesh came on bullock cart.Accused Gannu and Shashi Rajput came from the front side and Dhamman and Gannu came from the back side of the field and they asked the deceased to stop the bullock cart.The same was stopped.Accused Shashi said to kill her husband.On the said, her husband asked to resolve the matter by talking.Accused Shashi said that they do not have any time, then Thamman fired and the bullet struck on the eye of her husband and near the ear.All the accused persons started firing.In para-5 of her statement, she had admitted that a case is pending between the accused persons and Chandra Bhan where her husband had agreed to work.In para-11 of her statement, she has made specific statement that she had seen the accused persons firing on her husband and she denied the suggestion of the defence that when the firing was made, she was not at the spot but on her way.Some contradictions pointed out in her statement but there are not of material nature.Her testimony gets corroborated with the testimony of Dr. A.K.Singhvi (PW-1), who conducted the autopsy and found 10 injuries.In the other articles garments, Ex.G and Ex.C-2 belonging to the deceased, pellet holes were found on them.The seized gun was found to be in working condition.Regarding the articles Ex.EG and EC-2 empty cartridges, it was opined that on Article EG there was sign of firing pin from TC(A-1) article.On the comparison of the firing pin, it was opined that the cartridge Ex,EG was not fired from Article A-1 but Ex.EC-2 was fired from Ex.W-1 and W-2 have been found to be part of load of 12 bore cartridges.Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the injuries received by the deceased could not have been caused by cartridge like KF- Special .According to him when it is fired it spreads multiple pellets in different 9 directions therefore, if PW-4 was present at the spot then she must had received pellet injury.Since she had not received any pellet injury, her testimony is doubtful.We do not find any substance in the said argument as the same is not substantiated by any evidence.There is no such foundation in the case and there is no cross-examination to this effect.On going through the testimony of Dr.A.K.Singhvi (PW-1) and his report, it is evident that the deceased had received multiple wound injuries caused by fire arms.There were holes in the body, which have been proved by the Doctor that they could have been caused by the fire arms.It has been established that the gun which was seized in the case, was used for the commission of offence and the injuries could have been caused by the said weapon.In view of the aforesaid consideration of facts and evidence, we find that the testimony of eye witness PW-4 Sakun Bai is well corroborated with the medical and scientific evidence.Her evidence cannot be rejected merely on the ground because she is a daughter of the deceased.In the cases of Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh Vs.State of 10 Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 318 and State of A.P. Vs.Punati Ramulu and others 1994 Supp(1) SCC 590 it has been held that relation ship by itself is not enough to discard the testimony of related witnesses.On assimilation of the entire facts and evidence of the case we find that the evidence of the prosecution is trustworthy and inspires confidence.We do not find any merit in the appeal.Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.Before parting, we must put on record our unreserved appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae.The High Court Legal Services Authority shall remit fee of Rs.4000/- (Rs. four thousand) to the amicus curiae who assisted this court. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,082,493 | The instant application has been filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) for quashing the entire proceeding of the complaint Case No. 1093 of 2008 (Sandeep Kumar vs. Harpal Singh), u/s 323, 326, 342, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sarsanwa, District Saharanpur.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.It is further submitted that as per police record he was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence and whole criminal proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law which is liable to be quashed.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that applicant has caused grievous injury to O.P. No.2 and also hurled abuses.It is further submitted that earlier an application u/s 482 No. 35844 of 2018 (Harpal Singh Vs. | ['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. |
82,092,228 | Sri Narayan Chandra GhoshState of West Bengal & Ors.Mr. Debasis Kar .....For the petitioner.Ms. Aparna Ghosh .....For the State.The allegation of police inaction is countered by Ms. Ghosh, learned advocate for the State on the basis of written instructions received from the Officer-in-Charge, Titagarh Police Station.According to her, Titagarh Police Station F.I.R. No.347 dated 6th August, 2010 under sections 420/423/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered on the complaint of the petitioner was duly investigated and a final report under Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Code) was filed vide FRMF No.572 dated 16th October, 2010 under sections 420/423/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Bench to various orders passed by the relevant magistrate having jurisdiction suggesting non-receipt of any report under section 173(2) of the Code.Ms. Ghosh, shall produce the final report that was ACO filed before the learned magistrate on next Thursday (25th June, 2015), when the writ petition shall be listed under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.(Dipankar Datta, J.) | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
820,926 | The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals andrevision case can be stated as follows:a) On 7.9.1987 at about 11.30 p.m. the accused 1 to 4 along with twoothers rang the calling bell of P.W.1's house situated at Pullipalayam.P.W.1Appukounder, on hearing the sound woke up, switched on the lights and openedthe door of the house.All the six accusedasked P.W.1 where he has kept the jewels and cash and to show the same.When P.W.1refused, Selvakumar attacked him with Aruval on his left side neck.P.W.2,Pavayi the wife of P.W.1 prevented the said attack and she also sustainedinjuries on her right hand.P.W.1 asked his daughter Nirmala, who was notexamined, to get the revlver in order to scare the accused.The said Nirmalarushed into the kitchen to make the accused believe as if she would get therevolver.b) P.W.1 chased all the accused with the help of P.W.4 Sembulingam,the lorry driver.P.W.1 was able to catch A1 along with M.O.5 bicycle.Itwas informed to P.W.13 Soundararajan Sub Inspector of Police through phone atabout 12.00 p.m. P.W.13 on receipt of information proceeded toNarayanapalayam and examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement under Ex.P.1.He arrested A1 at about 1.00 a.m. On 8.9.1987 and recovered bicycle M.O.5under Ex.P.4 in front of P.W.7 Chinnagounder and another witness.He sentP.W.1 and P.W.2 with medical memo to the Government Hospital, Sangagiri whereP.W.15 Dr.Gnanasekaran examined P. W.2 at about 1.40 a.m. and issued Ex.P.17Accident Register.At about 1.55 a.m. the Doctor examined P.W.1 and issuedEx.P.18 Accident Register.c) P.w.13 brought A1 to the Police Station and on the strength ofEx.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.527 of 1987 under Section 398 IPC.Express printed F.I.R Ex.P.14 was despatched to the concerned court, while thecopies were sent to higher officials.P.W.14 Manickam, Inspector of Police,Sangagiri Police Station took up investigation.On 8.9.1997 he proceeded tothe site of occurrence at about 4.30 a. m. and prepared Ex.P.5 observationmahazar and Ex.P.5 rough sketch in front of P.W.8 Kandasamy VillageAdministrative Officer and other witness.P.W.14 examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 andother witnesses and recorded their statements.He recovered M.O.1 to M.O.3under Ex.P.6 in front of P.W.8 and another witness.Then, P.W.14 oninformation proceeded to Thiruchencode where M.Os.4 and 6 cycles wererecovered under Ex.P.W.14 examinedP.Ws.5,6,7,4 and other witnesses and recorded their sta tements.Heinterrogated A1 and recorded A1's voluntary confessional statement in front ofP. W.8 and other witness.Then, P.W.14 sent A1 for remand.d) On 9.9.1987 at about 5.30 a.m., P.W.14 arrested the abscondedaccused Murali and A4 and recovered M.O.7 cycle from A4 under Ex.P.16 in frontof the witnesses.He sent the absconding accused Murali and A4 for remand.On 19.9.1987, he arrested A2 and sent him for remand.On 11.9.1987, A3 andabsconding accused Selvakumar surrendered before the Court.On 29.9.1987,P.W.9 Judicial Magistraqte, Thiruchengode conducted Test Identification Paradeat Sub Jail at Sangagiri in respect of A1 to A4 and absconding accused Muraliand prepared Ex.I, Sankarithrough the Chief Judicial Magistrate, SalemThe Judicial Magistrate No.I, SankariThe I Addl.Sessions Judge, SalemThe I Addl.Sessions Judge, Salemthrough the Principal Sessions Judge, SalemThe Superintendent, Central Prison, coimbatoreThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Dy.The Inspector of Police, Sankagiri.CA.1011 of 1995Thirumalai @ Thirumalaisami .. Respondent in CA.1012 of 1995CRL.R.C.NO.622 OF 1994:These criminal appeals are preferred under Section 378 of IPC againstthe common judgment dated 18.10.1994 in CA.Nos.7 and 11 of 1993 respectivelyon the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and the criminalrevision case is preferred under Section 397 and 401 Cr.!For Appellant : Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) in CA.1011 and 1012 of 1995 and for respondent in Crl.R.C.No.622 of 1994^For Respondents: Mr.V.Gopinath, SC for Mr.K.Selvarangam petitioner in Crl.These two criminal appeals have been brought forth by the Statechallenging the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salemacquitting A2 to A4 in respect of all the charges levelled against them and A1in respect of the charge under Section 395 IPC, while of them were foundguilty by the trial court, namely, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari wherethey stood charged, tried, found guilty under Sections 395 and 451 IPC andsentenced to undergo 7 years RI each under Section 451 IPC and 7 years RI witha fine of Rs.1500/- in default one year RI each under Section 395 IPC.Thefirst accused on the affirmation of conviction and sentence under Section 451IPC by the Sessions Court has brought forth the criminal revision case.P.11 report.P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the accused properly.P.W.14 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses.On completion ofinvestigation, he filed a charge sheet under Section 451, 398 r/w 395 IPC.In order to prove the charges levelled against the four accused,since two of the other accused were absconding, the prosecution examined 15witnesses and marked 18 exhibits and 7 M.Os.On completion of the evidence onthe side of the prosecution, the accused 1 to 4 were questioned under Section313 of Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence ofthe prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defencewitness was examined.No documents and material objects were marked on theside of the defence.The trial court on consideration of the rivalsubmissions made and scrutiny of the materials available has found the accusedguilty under Section 395 and 451 IPC and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment as stated above.Aggrieved over the same, the State has broughtforth these two appeals challenging the acquittal of A2 to A4 under Section395 and 451 IPC and the acquittal of A1 under Section 395 IPC, while A1aggrieved over the confirmation of conviction and sentence by the SessionsCourt under Section 451 IPC has brought forth the criminal revision case.Arguing for the State, Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal Side) made the following submissions forconsideration by this Court.The trial court on appreciation of the evidence properly found all thefour accused guilty under Sections 395 and 451 IPC.Since two of the accusedwere absconding, the trial in respect of those two accused could not beproceeded with.The prosecution has adduced necessary and sufficient evidenceto hold them guilty, but the appellate court, namely, the Court of Sessions onerroneous consideration and on erroneous view has acquitted A2 to A4 inrespect of all the charges and A1 in respect of the charge under Section 395IPC.The learned Sessions Judge, to make deviation from the judgment of thetrial court, has taken into consideration that though the identificationparade was procedurally done by P.w.9, the prosecution witnesses have spokento the fact that the accused were shown to them already in the Police Station.But, that view of the learned Sessions Judge was not correct, since P.W.1 hasnever stated in his evidence that at any point of time there was an occasionfor him to see the accused in the Police Station and that too beforeidentification parade was conducted, and thus, he has given a categoricalevidence.Even the evidence of P.W.2 was cogent and acceptable in respect ofthe incident that has happened.Apart from the said evidence, the prosecutionhas adduced sufficient evidence as to the arrest and interrogation made andrecovery of cycles, which belonged to P.W.6 and P.W.7 and the cycles have alsobeen identified by them.The said cycles were taken by the accused on hire.Under the stated circumstances, there was ample evidence to connect theaccused to the crime in question, and hence, the judgment of the SessionsCourt has got to be necessarily set aside and the judgment of the trial courthas got to be restored.6. Added further the learned Government Advocate that the criminalrevision case filed by the first accused to set aside the conviction andsentence imposed by the trial court under Section 451 IPC, which was affirmedby the Sessions Court, does not carry any merit whatsoever in view of the factthat A1 was caught red-handed along with M.O.5 cycle.A1 and M.O.5 wereproduced before the court immediately and there was clinching evidencepointing to his guilty.Hence, the appeals filed by the State have got to beallowed and the revision filed by A1 has got to be dismissed.Strongly opposing all the contentions put forth by the State, thelearned Counsel appearing for A2 to A4/ respondents in two appeals wouldsubmit that the entire identification parade was thoroughly vitiated, sinceP.W.2 has categorically spoken to the fact that all the accused were shown tothe prosecution witnesses in the Police Station.There was noevidence to connect A2 to A4 to the crime in question.The trial courtwithout proper appreciation of the evidence, has found the accused guiltyunder the above stated provisions, and hence, the judgment of the SessionsCourt acquitting A2 to A4 of all the charges levelled against them has got tobe affirmed.The learned counsel appearing for A1 in the revision case wouldcontend that the prosecution was able to bring forth sufficient evidencebefore the trial Court in respect of conviction and sentence under Section 451IPC.It was only an attempt of robbery, but no articles were taken away.A1was a student at that time and now he is working as a driver under a Lawyerand there was all possibility to reform and he was also chosen as one of thebest chess players in District and State level and he is coaching the childrenfor chess tournament.Therefore, under the stated circumstances, this Courtcan exercise some leniency by setting him free.This Court paid its full attention on the submissions made by bothsides and made a careful scrutiny of the available materials.Theabsconding accused Selvakumar was armed with Aruval.They threatened P.Ws.1and 2 and asked them as to where the jewels and cash were kept.P.w.2 prevented the said attack and she alsosustained injuries.At that time, P.W.1 asked his daughter Nirmala to get therevolver in order to scare the accused, and the said Nirmala rushed to thekitchen to make the accused believe as if she would get the revolver.Immediately, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence by leavingMO1 Aruval, MO2 one pair of chappeals and MO3 towel.A1 was caught by P.W.1 and an information wasgiven to the police.A1 along with MO5 cycle were handed over to the police.A case was registered and proceeded with.Admittedly, all the accused were not known to P.Ws.1 and 2previously.The occurrence has taken place during night hours.This evidence of P.W.1 wasfully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 a lorry driver.No reason orcircumstance is put forth by the learned counsel appearing in the revisioncase to disbelieve or reject the evidence of P.W.4, a corroborative piece ofevidence, and thus, this court is able to see that both the courts below wereperfectly correct in finding that there was a case against A1 under Section451 IPC.Insofar as the case against A2 to A4 is concerned, this Court has tonecessarily disagree with the case of the State.As referred to above, allthe accused were not known to the prosecution witnesses previously.The TestIdentification Parade, on request made by the Investigating Officer, wasconducted by P.W.9 and the courts below have pointed out that in the course ofidentification parade, the witnesses were able to identify the accusedproperly and there is no quarrel about the same.P.W.2 in her crossexamination has categorically admitted that the accused Nos.2 to 4 were shownto her in the police station prior to the identification parade.The contention of the learnedGovernment Advocate that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have identified the accused properlycannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is evidence to show thatthe prosecution witnesses have seen the accused in the police station beforethe identification parade was conducted, though the same was procedurally doneat the time of test.It is pertinent to point out that the accused Nos.2 to 4were shown in the police station to the witnesses, which supported the case ofdefence.Under the stated circumstances, this court has to necessarily holdthat the identification parade is of no consequence and it has got to berejected.The next contention that was alleged by the learned GovernmentAdvocate was that there was recovery of M.O4 to M.O.7 cycles.There is nodispute that these cycles belonged to P.W.6 and P.W.7, since they wereidentified by them.But, no cycles were recovered from the accused pursuantto the confessional statement.The witnesses examined in order to prove thesame have turned hostile.Hence, the prosecution's case has got to bedisbelieved.Therefore, the identification parade which relied on by theprosecution is rejectionable and the recovery of cycles has also not proved.Hence,there is nothing to interfere in the judgment of the learned I AdditionalSessions Judge, Salem acquitting A2 to A4 of all the charges levelled againstthem and A1 in respect of the charge under Section 395 IPC.The SessionsCourt was perfectly correct in confirming the conviction and sentence imposedon A1 under Section 451 IPC.Taking into consideration the age of the first accused and he isworking under a Lawyer and the affidavit filed by his mother and his lawyerand the other circumstances, the punishment awarded by the trial court to thefirst accused under Section 451 IPC is reduced to three years RI.In the result, both the criminal appeals and the criminalrevision case are dismissed.The Sessions Judge shall take steps to committhe accused No.1 to prison, if he is on bail, to undergo the remaining periodof sentence.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, SankariThe Judicial Magistrate No.Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,097,082 | Because of some disputes, she lodged a report against him and his family members under sections 498-A, 506-II I.P.C. and started living at her parents' house.Petitioner Yasmin filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining maintenance from the complainant in the Court of Magistrate.In that proceeding, she produced a Talaknama dated 7.12.2006 recorded on a fifty rupee stamp attested by Notary.Since this Talaknama was a forged document, complainant filed an application seeking an inquiry, but Yasmin withdrew her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.With the connivance of other petitioners, who are her father, mother, sister and brother-in-law, Yasmin performed second marriage with petitioner Saiyed Ashique Alvi after misrepresenting herself as a divorcee before Shaher Kazi.Since all the petitioners (3) M.Cr.C.No.5207/2012 conspired and helped Yasmin in her second marriage without obtaining divorce, on the basis of forged Talaknama, complainant filed the instant complaint in the Court of Magistrate under sections 420,467,468,471,477 and 494 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Since police Talaiya did not take action in respect of complaint made by him about the forged Talaknama, this complaint was filed.In support of the complaint, complainant examined himself under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as PW-1 and also examined his father Mubarik Ali (PW-2), Ravindra Kumar (PW-3) and Mohd. Raiz (PW-4).Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that prima facie no case of forging Talaknama by accused/petitioners is made out.Similarly there is no accusation or evidence on record to indicate that petitioners in any manner conspired or helped Yasmin to marry Saiyed Ashique Alvi.Apart from it, aforesaid Talaknama was executed by complainant.Learned counsel further submitted since there was no evidence against the petitioners, the criminal proceeding of complaint against them deserved to be quashed.Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand, contended that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioners of having committed the offence.On perusal of the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant, it appears that merely vague allegations have been made against petitioners No.2 to No.7 viz. Mansoor Ali, (4) M.Cr.C.No.5207/2012 Mehfooz Ali, Saiyed Shafique Ahmed, Saiyed Ashique Alvi, Smt. Najmeen Naj and Smt. Rajiya Begum.The main allegation has been made against petitioner No.1 Smt. Yasmin Naj.It has also been stated in the complaint that it was she who had produced the Talaknama in 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings and that on the basis of said Talaknama she married Saiyed Ashique Alvi. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,209,880 | She has been falsely implicated.The relationship between the husband and wife was strained and they lived separately.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,344,471 | Regarding Avdhesh, Raghuvansh Arora PW1 states as under:"I was informed by the police after 2 - 2.5 months that I should go to identify the accused.Police have informed the name of the accused which I do not remember.Police have come to me during day time to inform the name of the accused."I was shown some photographs of the suspects by the crime team when they came on the second day of the incident.Apart from this another photograph bundle was also shown to me.Same is the testimony of PW7 Anjum Arora who stated that:On the next day I was taken to the Police Head Quarter where the police prepared portrait of some persons.Police also showed some dossiers of criminals.On 08.01.04 one of the accused whose name was Avdesh was arrested.I was called by the police and I was taken outside the police station Ashok Vihar.There accused Avdhesh was present.On seeing him I identified him as one of the robbers."Regarding the case of Avdhesh the appellant's counsel has also submitted that even the recovery of briefcase is unsustainable for the reason that according to PW5 Constable Chander Hash Avdhesh was arrested on 23.12.2003 i.e. on the same day when he had taken the rukka.As per the Police Rules whenever a police official enters or departs, it is mandatory to make their entry in D.D. Register.This is fortified from the fact that none of the appellants were arrested at the spot.It has come in the evidence of the witnesses, that despite arrest of the appellant Ghanshyam @ Bablu and Raju @ Katuwa on 01.04.2004, they were produced for TIP only after a week or so in unmuffled face.Their photographs were also shown to the witnesses which washes away the evidentiary value of their identification in TIP proceedings .Refusal by one of the appellant to participate in TIP in the circumstances as disclosed is not fatal and cannot be used against him.As regard to the recovery of the briefcase at the instance of appellant Avdhesh @ Akhlesh Singh it has been submitted that the said recovery also cannot be used against appellant inasmuch as even though briefcase is mentioned as part of the robbed articles, there is nothing which may identify the briefcase so as to make it distinct.Regarding the contents of the briefcase it is submitted firstly that there is nothing mentioned about the contents of the briefcase in the list and secondly no public witness has been associated with the recovery.The Crl.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 2 of 12 preparation of the list of articles after the arrest of Avdesh and non recovery thereof on the first day of his remand also cast serious doubt on the said recovey.It is also submitted by the appellants that in the facts of this case, no case under Section 395 IPC was made out as only three persons have been arrested whereas Section 395 IPC requires involvement of at least five persons.As regard to minimum punishment awarded under Section 397 IPC it has been submitted no weapon was recovered at the instance of the appellants and further evidence of the labourers who were present at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by PW-7 Anjum Arora has not been led to support the case of the prosecution, in fact none of them even examined.It is also stated that the appellants are already in jail for a period of almost 6 years and therefore, even otherwise they are entitled to be released.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 2 of 12The said briefcase also contained visiting cards etc. which relates the said briefcase to the complainant.It is also submitted, that Raju @ Katuwa was identified by both the witnesses even during the course of the TIP proceedings while in respect of all of those refuse to participate in the TIP adverse inference has rightly been drawn.It is also submitted that it is the case of the complainant that five persons have came in their factory for the robbery/ dacoity who all were having desi katta and knife and therefore, the conviction of the appellants was correctly done by the trial Judge under Section 395 IPC.Since deadly weapon was used their sentence under Section 397 IPC is fully justified.To understand the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to the complaint filed by the complainant PW-7 Sh.Anjum Arora which is Ex PW-7/A Crl.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 3 of 12 and which is also the basic of registration of the FIR.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 3 of 12In the said complaint the complainant has stated, that they have been running a factory for manufacturing plastic toys at shed no. 59, W.P.I. A.. On that day at about 7:40 p.m. when he along with his father was present at their factory along with their workers and were working in the factory, five persons armed with desi katta's and knife came to the 2nd Floor of the factory and threatened them to deliver the cash amount collected on that day, on which they responded that they do not have any cash amount.Initially accused Avdhesh @ Akhlesh Singh only was arrested on the same day and at his instance a briefcase Ex.P-1 was also recovered.Challan was filed after completing the investigation.It is thereafter, the other appellants were also arrested.The appellant denied the charges as framed against them under Section 392/ 395/ 397 IPC.In view of the aforesaid, prosecution examined 12 witnesses including PW-1 Raghuvansh Arora and PW-7 Anjum Arora, the complainant who was the eye witness of the incident.PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11 are formal witness and their deposition is informal in nature.PW-10 is IO of the case while PW-12 Ms. Archana Crl.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 4 of 12 Sinha is concerned Metropolitan Magistrate who has conducted the TIP.After the evidence of the prosecution, appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that time also they denied the allegations which were put to them and claimed to be innocent.They have not produced any defence witness.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 4 of 12All the submissions made before me in this appeal were also raised before the Addl.Sessions Judge during the course of trial.However, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has simply brushed aside all the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.As from the deposition of PW-1 Raghuvansh Arora and PW-7 Anjum Arora, it is clearly reflected that they have specifically identified these three accused, namely, Raju, Ghanshyam and Avdhesh, who along with their two associates have committed robbery at their factory on the point of kattas and knife and narrated about their specific role also.Accused Avdhesh has been duly identified as the person, who placed katta on the head of PW-1 Raghuvansh Arora and forcibly took out ring and in that process also gave a fist blow on his head.Accused Raju has been duly identified as the person, who placed katta on the head of PW-7 Anjum Arora and the accused Ghanshyam has been identified as the person, who pointed out katta towards their labourers threatening them not to move.Furthermore, it is also reflected from the case record that the accused Avdhesh and Raju were duly identified by the witness in the TIP Proceedings, however, accused Ghanshyam refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.I do not see any reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW-1 Raghuvansh Arora and PW-7 Anjum Arora on the material aspect specifically when it is not even the stand of the accused that said PWs were having any motive to falsely implicate them in this case."Regarding Ghanshyam and Raju the Addl.Sessions Judge has refuted the submission made by the appellants that since there was no recovery at their instance and their identity was in dispute, in this regard, the Trial Court relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of 2002 (6) SCC 81 has stated as under:"It is quality of evidence that matter and not the number of witnesses.Credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form basis of conviction.The contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration of embellishment are inevitable."Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 5 of 12Sessions Judge that testimony of PW1 Raghuvansh Arora and PW7 Anjum Arora concerning commission of dacoity corroborates each other's testimony.The recovery of stolen briefcase containing certain papers of the complainant at the instance of accused Avdhesh adds credence to their testimony.It is also stated that these witness had no enmity with the present appellants.Moreover, it has also been mentioned that the report filed by the prosecution goes to show that one worker, namely, Parsi S/O Kansi Ram, who was stated to be present at the spot, was examined by the I.O. and was cited as a witness but he could not be examined before this court as his present whereabouts could not be known and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have seriously assailed the findings returned by the learned trial court for various reasons.One of the common arguments raised by all the three counsels is that in the present case, no offence is made under Section 395 IPC for the simple reason, that the said offence requires involvement of at least five persons for having participated jointly for committing offence in the present case.It has been further submitted that only three persons were arrested, no particular of the other two persons are available with the prosecution nor they have been arrested or brought before the court.It is, thus, submitted that he was under Section 395 IPC cannot be sustained.It has been submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the testimony of the witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 any thing has been brought to prove involvement of five persons in the alleged crime.The second point raised by the appellant is that the identity of the appellants has not been established on record in accordance with law inasmuch as two of the accused persons, namely, Raju @ Katuwa and Ghanshyam @ Bablu were arrested in this case on 01.04.2004 i.e. almost after 6 months of the incident.The testimony of the witnesses also shows that the appellants including appellant Avdhesh has been shown to the witnesses Crl.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 6 of 12 much earlier and holding their identification parade.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 6 of 12No copy of the DD entry regarding his coming to the Police Station either on 23.12.2003 or on 08.10.2003 has been placed on record.Thus, it has been rightly submitted that this is a serious lapse and confusion created by the said witness which creates doubt on his testimony.This testimony also makes the recovery of briefcase doubtful at his instance of Avdesh for the reason that if the appellant was arrested on the same day i.e. the date of the incident recovery of a briefcase at his instance should have been effected on the same day.Preparation of a list after 4 days would create a doubt.The appellant Avdhesh was given in Police remand for 5 days.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 7 of 12 The appellant was taken to Bihar to recover the robbed articles.Thus, when the Police was unable to recover anything the counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that a disclosure was obtained by the Police so as to involve him in this case and the recovery of briefcase at his instance was fabricated.This becomes more important because house of the appellant Akhlesh is simply at a distance of Km from PP WPIA, Delhi.It is not understood if disclosure of the appellant was to be made voluntarily why the briefcase could not be recovered voluntarily on the first day of his arrest.In fact, the position becomes more clear if one go by the testimony of PW6 Avdhesh Singh who has stated that no recovery was effected from accused Ghanshyam and Avdhesh in this case after recording their disclosure statement.It is a matter of record that no public witness has joined the recovery proceedings.Both PW1 and PW7 have also stated that the briefcase which has been recovered is easily available in the market.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 7 of 12He was arrested on 28.03.2004 and was produced in the Court on 01.04.2004 with an unmuffled face.His photographs has been taken and shown to some persons.In any case from 01.04.2004 to 13.04.2004 the possibility of photographs of the appellants being shown to the witnesses cannot be ruled out.It is also not the case of the prosecution that he was brought in a muffled case when he was called for TIP.In these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn for the said appellant for having refused to participate in the TIP.Similarly, in the case of Raju @ Katuwa TIP took place on 07.04.2004 i.e. 7 days after the formal date of arrest.Reference has been made to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Crl.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 8 of 12 Court in the case of Bali Ahir V. State of Bihar, 1983 CriLJ 434 (SC).It has been stated that PW-1 has admitted that he has also shown the photographs of suspects by the crime team on the second day of the incidence.In this regard PW-1 also deposed 8-10 days prior to the identification of the appellant Raju @ Katuwa, the investigation officer also informed the complainant about the arrest of the appellant.Thus, carrying out proceedings of identification on the part of the prosecution.It has also been submitted, that nothing has been brought on record to show, the appellants were in possession of any deadly weapon a prerequisite invoking under Section 397 IPC no such weapon has been recovered.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 8 of 12It has been specifically argued that despite allegation of the complainant that the said appellant pointed out katta towards the labourer, threatening them not to move, none of the labourers have been examined nor their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded.Coupled with this fact that there is no recovery effected from the said appellant and his arrest after six months in another case under the Arms Act just on the basis of the disclosure statement of one of the co-accused and has been falsely implicated in this case.The appellant refused TIP on 13.4.2004 on the plea that he was arrested on 29.3.2004 and was produced in the court on 01.04.2004 and his photographs had been taken and shown to the witness which has been blemished side and no importance has been given though this was a fact and delay which has been taken place from 01.04.2004 to 13.04.2004 in holding the TIP to give justification to the submission made by the appellant that it was a case of false implication.Regarding minimum sentence awarded to him under Section 397 IPC it has been submitted, that there being no recovery of weapon, therefore, offence under Section 397 IPC could not be made out reference has been made in judgment Rakesh Kumar Vs.State of NCT (2005 (1) JCC 334).Reference has also been made in another judgment Charan Singh Vs.State [1988 Crl.L. J. NOC 28 (Delhi)].Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 9 of 12Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 9 of 12It is the common case of the appellants that they have already completed 06 years out of sentence awarded to them of 07 years.However, in the present case what is more important is that for the reason stated above neither the identification of the appellants is trustworthy nor the recovery of the briefcase at the instance of Avdhesh is relaible.It is also a matter of record that no weapon of offence has been recovered from either of the appellants despite their having made an alleged disclosure statement.Even recovery of any robbed article has also not been made from the appellants except for the briefcase at the instance of Avdhesh Kumar which is easily availabe in the market and as such is unbelievable also for the reason that the said briefcase was not recovered on the date of his arrest but has been recovered after a week and in the meanwhile Police had obtained a list of robbed articles which includes the briefcase also.Even then the contents of the briefcase have not been included.The non-examination of the labour who were present at the spot is also fatal to the case of prosecution inasmuch as it is for the prosecution to prove their case.If any witness is not available and cannot be produced then the benefit has to be given to the appellants only and not to the prosecution.Insofar as their conviction under Section 397 IPC is concerned, in the absence of any recovery of the deadly weapon at the instance of the appellants, punishment for 7 years cannot be sustained.Reference can be made to the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs.The State of NCT of Delhi.Some observation Crl.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 10 of 12 made in that case are reproduced hereunder:Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 10 of 12In order to bring home a charge under S.397the prosecution must produce convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 11 of 12 record, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 397 IPC cannot be upheld and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt on that count.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 11 of 12App that all the three appellants were identified by PW-1 and PW-7 who had no enmity with them.However, it is not the case of the prosecution that they knew the appellants prior to the date of incident.As such on account of highly suspicious way of holding their Test Identification Parade, their deposition of identification of the appellants becomes doubtful.Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed.Appeal No. 757/2007, 489/2007 & 570/2007 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,351,697 | The applicant has filed this sixth bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier first bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 30/01/2018 passed in M.Cr.Second bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 09/03/2018 passed in M.Cr.Third bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 09/05/2018 passed in M.Cr.Fourth bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 27/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.Fifth bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 13/11/2018 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 16/12/2017 by Police Station Civil Line District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 813/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 342, 294, 506, 384 and 395 of the IPC and Sections 11/13 of the MPDPKProsecution story, in short, is that on 08/12/2017 complainant 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.6027/2019 (Ramdhun v. State of MP) Gwalior, Dated : 19.02.2019 lodged a report at police station concerned to the effect that they had some quarrel with Ravindra & Shailu, in which, Ramswaroop, Rajkumar & Durgaprasad had sustained injuries and due to such incident, the accused persons told the complainant that on the medical treatment of the aforesaid injured persons as well as on the criminal case they have incurred heavy expenditure and, therefore, the accused persons were pressuring the complainant to pay the said expenditure incurred by them.It is further stated that on 28/11/2017, the complainant along with Jasveer and another person were coming to Morena from motorcycle and on the way, the applicants along with accused persons stopped them and started using unparliamentary language and assaulted Jasveer by Lathi and Danda and took Rs. 80,000/- from them on the pretext that they have incurred heavy expenditure on the aforesaid case and also threatened to kill.On the basis of the aforesaid, the applicants have been implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is reputed citizen of the locality and has been implicated due to previous enmity.There is no evidence against him that he committed the alleged offence.It is submitted that earlier the offences under sections 323, 342, 147, 294, 506, 384 of IPC were registered against the applicant, but later on due to political pressure offence under section 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.6027/2019 (Ramdhun v. State of MP) Gwalior, Dated : 19.02.2019 395 of IPC and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act were added to make the case grave.It is submitted that no injury has been received by the complainant on vital part and at the most offence under section 325 of the IPC would be made out against the applicant.The allegations are omnibus in nature.There is a delay of ten days in lodging the FIR.It is submitted that no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter and offence has been registered on the statement of the complainant which is an afterthought.On these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
253,523 | Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home Department Fort St. George ChennaiThe Superintendent Office of the Commandant T.S.P. I Bn TiruchyThe petitioner is a dismissed Police Constable and he challenges the orderdated 21.9.2003 passed by the third respondent.I have heard the arguments of Mr.UM.Ravichandran, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mrs.V.Chellammal, learned Special GovernmentPleader representing the respondents and have perused the records.Subsequently, a charge was framed by the second respondentbeing the appointing authority and Commandant of the Tamil Nadu Special Police.The petitioner was charged for not only committing a criminal offence but alsonot intimating the details of the case in Crime No.319 of 2002 to the higherofficials.Though the case against the petitioner was closed by the Court ofJudicial Magistrate but the enquiry proceeded against the petitioner and he wasfound guilty by the Deputy Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police I Battalion,Trichy, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer.In that order, it was statedthat the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence let in before theEnquiry Officer.Basing upon the said enquiry report, the third respondentpassed an order dated 18.8.2003 holding him guilty of the charges.It wasalso mentioned that in respect of the enquiry report being furnished to him, thepetitioner did not give any further representation and his conduct is shown asunbecoming of a public servant and under the influence of alcohol, he made anattempt to attack the Station House Officer for which a case was registeredagainst him which resulted in imposition punishment of removal from service.A counter affidavit has also been filed by the third respondentrefuting the allegations made by the petitioner.It was stated that during theoral enquiry, the Department witnesses 1, 2 and 7 to 9 have deposed that thepetitioner had attacked the Sub-Inspector and other Police Constables when hewas directed to be sent for medical test.With reference to the petitioner not informing the higher officialsabout the pendency of the criminal case, the departmental witness No.3, viz.,Officer Commanding "B" Company has deposed against the petitioner.He hasalso stated that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not contradictory.On thecontrary, they were complementary.The petitioner has filed the minutes ofthe enquiry report and elaborately argued that the offence was not made out.It is true that the original charge memo did not contain a directcharge on this ground and merely referred to the said incident being subjectmatter of a criminal case.When a charged officer is not informed about thespecific charge, the same cannot be taken into account to find the petitionerguilty as it would amount to depriving the petitioner of defending himself inthe enquiry and it is a denial of reasonable opportunity.Therefore, he was onlyleft with charge of not informing the department immediately about the criminalcase pending against him.It is seen from the records that the alleged incident had takenplace on 02.9.2002 and a First Information Report was registered on 02.9.2002itself and he was produced before the Police Station at 19.00 hours and alsotaken to the Doctor at 11.30 pm in the night.The fact that the FirstInformation Report was registered against the petitioner shows that theDepartment is aware of the criminal case against the petitioner and that cannotbe a charge to be made against the petitioner that he did not inform thesuperiors immediately within seven days.The petitioner was suspended on theground that a criminal case is pending against him shows that the Department wasaware of the criminal case.Therefore, holding the petitioner guilty of notinforming the higher ups cannot be said to have been proved against the deceasedConstable.With reference to the first charge, as stated already, the onlycharge was that the criminal case was pending against him with reference tocertain offences under IPC.Though the criminal case was closed, the petitionerwas punished for the criminal offence of prohibition.The contention of thepetitioner that no charge was framed independently to go into the issue, viz.,the assault on Inspector of Police in the Station, merits acceptance.Therespondents have not taken note of the fundamental fact that without a charge,there cannot be an enquiry and it would amount to depriving reasonableopportunity given to the petitioner.Under the circumstances, the impugned order removing the lateY.Paul, Constable, PC No.2316, from service is hereby set aside.But, as hehas already passed away on 24.10.2006, he could not be reinstated in service.However, on account of the death of the first petitioner, his legal heirs arealso liable to get the terminal benefits, such as, GPF, Grauity and FamilyBenefit Fund.(i) The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary payable to thedeceased till his death, viz., 24.10.2006, to his legal heirs, viz., thepetitioners 2 to 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.(ii) The respondents are also directed to pay the terminal benefits such asGPF, Gratuity and Family Benefit Fund to the legal heirs of the deceased withina period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iii) The respondents shall consider the case of P.Sammanasu Mary, widow ofPaul, for compassionate appointment as if he died in harness, as per theGovernment Rules in existence and this exercise shall be done within a period ofeight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.However, there will be no order as to costs.The Commandant T.S.P. I Bn TiruchyThe Enquiry Officer alias Assistant Commandant - III T.S.P. I Bn Tiruchy | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,353,854 | Back ground facts as unfolded in the FIR may be capsulized as under:- One Md.Khalil Ata (PW1) of village Hizla, post Ashoknagar within P.S. Habra, District North 24 Parganas lodged an FIR alleging inter alia that her daughter Mothfazila Khatun aged 21 years, a divorcee had a love relationship for the last 4 years with A1 who is the son of informant's cousin.Both of them agreed to marry each other and as such A1 used to come to his house and take his daughter out with him.On 09.08.1989 A1 along with three of his friends (one of whose nick name was Kalo) came to his house and took his daughter with them.The people of the neighborhood also saw them to roam at the Mominpur bus stand.On 11.08.1989 at dawn he came to know from the local people that his daughter was lying dead in Alauddin Mondal's jute field in Mominpur Mouza.On receipt of such news, he had been to the place of occurrence and found that his daughter had been murdered and was lying naked with a noose tied around her neck and blood flowing from her nose and mouth.According to the informant, A1 and his three friends together murdered his daughter.On the basis of the said FIR, Habra P.S. Case No.312 dated 11.08.1989 under sections 302/34 IPC was registered for investigation against A1 and Kalo.The case was endorsed to Jahar Sengupta (PW17), S.I. for investigation.In course of investigation the I.O. visited the P.O. and recorded the statement of available witnesses and also seized the wearing apparels of the victim as also her vanity bag and Hawai Chappal under a proper seizure list.On his transfer Dilip Kumar Halder (PW15) S.I. was entrusted with the further investigation of the case.He recorded statements of some of the witnesses and also collected the FSL report.Heads of Charge"That all of you on 10th/11th August, 1989 after 3 p.m. and in the evening/night in the Jute Field of Allauddin Mondal of mouza Mominpour, J. L. No. 66 of P.S.-Habra, Dist.- North 24 Parganas in furtherance of common intention of all of you viz., to commit rape and murder did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Mst-Fajila Khatun by fastening her sari worn by her around her neck and by tightening the same after committing forcibly rape upon her against her will and consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 302/34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Session." 3 "That on 10th/11th August, 1989 after 3 PM and in the evening/night in the Jute Field of Allauddin Mondal of mouza Mominpur, J.L. No.66 of P.S. Habra, Dist.North 24-Parganas.You committed rape forcibly upon Mst Fajila Khatun against her will and consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Session.""That you on 10th/11th August, 1989 after 3 p.m. in the Jute Field of Allauddin Mondal of mouza Mominpur, J.L.No.66 of P.S. Habra, Dist.-North 24 Parganas in furtherance of common intention of all of you viz., to commit forcibly rape and, thereafter, to commit murder actually committed rape forcibly against her will and consent upon Mst Fajila Khatun and thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 376/34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Session."I. Parents of the Victim PW1, Md. Khalil Ata, of village Hijlia, the father of the victim and the uncle of Omar, A1, is the FIR maker.PW 10, Monajat Bibi, is the mother of the victim.V. Forensic evidence PW14, Subrata Narayan Choudhury, scientific officer - cum- assistant chemical examiner, Government of West Bengal, conducted forensic examination of human blood and semen detected in the wearing apparels of the victim.vi) PW8, Dulal Chandra Dutta, S. I. prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit A).PW9, Chittaranjan Saha, a constable posted at Habra PS at the relevant point of time carried the dead body of Fajila Khatun, the victim from a jute field to the Barasat Hospital for post-mortem examination.PW16, Sunil Kr.Das, another constable of the same PS was entrusted with the job of serving process.PW15, Dilip Kumar Halder S. I. is the second I.O. who recorded statements of some of the witnesses.Moreso, whenever the blood group could not be detected for disintegration and insufficiency for test.Conspectus of Appeal In this Criminal Appeal, the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.05.94 and 19.05.94 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) in Sessions Trial No. 2 (12) 93 is under challenge.By the impugned judgement, the learned Trial Judge convicted accused Omar Ali Mondal(in short A1) under Section 376 IPC.Both the co- accused Sadak Ali Mondal (in short A2) and Abdullah Mondal (in short A3) were, however, found not guilty of the charge under sections 376/34 IPC.All the three appellants viz Omar Ali Mondal, Sadak Ali Mondal and Abdullah Mondal were 1 convicted under sections 302/34 IPC.Learned Trial Court sentenced the convict appellant (A1) to undergo R.I. for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default whereof to suffer R.I. for one year more for commission of an offence under section 376 IPC, while the rest 2 convict appellants namely A2 and A3 were acquitted of the charge under sections 376/34 IPC since the said charge was not proved against them.On consideration of the relevant police papers and other connected documents and materials on record, the learned Session Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat framed charge under sections 302/34 IPC against all the three appellants.The appellant No.1 was further charged under sections 376 IPC separately while appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were also charged under section 376/34 IPC.Accordingly, they were asked to answer the charge framed vide order dated 02.12.1993 as under :-All of them, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Accordingly, all of them were put on trial.During trial the prosecution examined as many as 17 PWs and also relied upon several documents (Exhibits 1 series, 2 series, 3 series, 4 series, 5 series, 6 series, 7 series, 8 series, 9, 10 series, 11 and 12 series) and also Material Exhibits (I to VI) in support of its case.None has been examined from the side of defence in order to substantiate its plea of innocence, denial and false implication.The defence has, however, sought to rely upon the inquest report (Exhibit A).Feeling aggrieved, all the three appellants have preferred the instant appeal.This appeal was filed through Mr. Swasta Gopal Mukherjee, ld.Since the appellant No. 1 misused the privilege of bail, this court cancelled bail granted in his favour.After such cancellation of bail, he was rearrested and he is now in custody.Categorization of WitnessesFor a better appreciation of evidence and circumstances on record all the seventeen witnesses examined by the prosecution may broadly be categorized under the following heads :-Eye-Witnesses PW3, Abdar Mondal, and PW 6, Md. Sabur Ali Mondal, were the eye-witnesses.But these two eye-witnesses, have, subsequently turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case as eye-witnesses to the incident of rape and gruesome murder.Last seen together witnesses 5 PW2, Abul Kasem Ata, PW3, Abdur Mondal, PW 11, Md. Nasiruddin, and PW12 Abdul Gaffar Ata (a hostile witness), residents of Hijlia saw the victim to move with the appellants through the village pathway for the last time prior to the incident as alleged.Medical evidence Testimony of PW7, Dr. Bimal Kumar Khastagir, the then Superintendent of Barasat Hospital covers the medical evidence.PW17, Jahar Sengupta, the first I.O. visited the P.O., 6 examined all available witnesses seized a good number of articles in connection with the instant case.Tendered witnesses PW4, Md. Nazir Ali, was tendered for cross-examination and his cross- examination was declined by the defence.PW13, Sk.Aliuddin, a resident of Hijlia was also tendered for cross-examination and he was cross-examined accordingly by the defence.A Witness to the Inquest and Seizure PW5, Gopal Ch.Roy, a co-villager of the informant, witnessed the preparation of a seizure list (Exhibit 2) in connection with the seizure of wearing apparels, hawai chappal and vanity bag of the victim.Evaluation Keeping in view the heads of charge framed against the appellants and quoted in the preceding paragraph 3, we would now proceed to evaluate both the ocular and circumstantial evidence on record to come to a definite finding as to whether such charges have been established against them beyond reasonable doubt.Since both the eye-witnesses (PWs 3 & 6) have been declared hostile, the entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence.A close scrutiny of the Judgement impugned reveals that the prosecution relied on several circumstances and the learned trial court's finding of guilt is mainly based on four circumstances : (i) A1, the cousin of the victim, a divorcee having a love affair with her used to visit her paternal home and set out together out of their house.Even though the date of their marriage was settled, A1 subsequently 7 married elsewhere.(ii) The appellants and the deceased were last seen together by PW2, PW3 (hostile witness), PW11 and PW12, (another hostile witness).(iii) Medical evidence establishing the factum of the victim's death caused due to shock and asphyxia which was ante mortem and may be homicidal in nature.(iv) Forensic report indicating detection of human blood and semen in the cuttings of saya, blouse, brassiere and sari worn by the victim Fajila Khatun.(i) Backdrop of love affair between A1 and the victimThis circumstance relied upon by the learned court below is hardly of any significance for the simple reason that A's frequent visit to the parental house and taking her out of the parental home and moving together here and there pursuant to their love affair alone is not sufficient to connect the appellants with the crimes as alleged, unless it forms a link to the chain of circumstances.( ii) Last seen togetherTrial Court placed much reliance on the evidence adduced by Abdul Kasem Ata (PW2), Abdur Mondal (PW3, a hostile witness) Md. Nasiruddin (PW11) and Md. Abdul Gaffar Ata (PW12), (another hostile witness) who claimed to witness the appellant together with the victim for the last time prior to the incident of murder and rape as alleged against them.Abdul Kasem Ata (PW2) deposed as under :-"In the night prior to the morning when I saw the dead body of Fazila Khatun.I and Sabur Ali Mistry and one aged man Omar Ali were sitting in front of my shop.I saw Sadek Ali and Abdullah proceeding hurriedly towards their houses."At the out set of his cross-examination on behalf of Omar Ali (A1) he deposes that he had a grocery shop for which he had no license but in the same breath he denied that he made any statement before the I.O., that Omar Ali and Sabur Ali were sitting in front of his shop.He further adds that he does not know wherefrom they came and where they went.It transpires from further cross- examination made on behalf of the rest of the appellants that he had been to the PS 4/5 days after the recovery of the dead body.He was examined at that time but he does not recollect if he told the I.O. that Sadek and Abdullah were coming hurriedly on way to their houses.So also he did not state to the I.O. that the dead body was lying in the jute field of Alauddin.He has, however, denied the defence suggestion that Sadek and Abdullah did not go hurriedly towards their houses.Even though he has not supported the case of the prosecution, he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.Be that as it may, the fact remains that the only evidence which is forthcoming from his testimony is that he saw Sadek and Abdullah proceeding hurriedly towards their houses during the fateful night.Abdur Mondal (PW3), a hostile witness has deposed that in the night of murder of Fazila Khatun, at about 7/7.30PM he saw Sadek and Abdullah gossiping together and coming to their village Mominpur.Fazila Khatun was seen 9 following those two persons.He saw them entering their village Mominpur and he does not know anything more.Even though the deponent was an eye-witness to the incident of rape and murder, he retracted from his earlier statement made before the I.O. for the reasons not known to us.Curiously enough, despite his denial of having made any statement before the I.O. as an eye-witness to the incident, Jahar Sengupta (PW17), the first I.O. was not confronted with the statement of PW3 and no reason has also been assigned as to why contradiction was not taken from the I.O. when he came to the witness box.At any rate, during cross-examination by the prosecution he asserts that he did not state to the I.O. that yesterday at about 8 PM he was sitting with two of his villagers towards the end of their village i.e. where the village Hijlia starts and while they were sitting upon an aile of a jute field, or that suddenly he saw three male persons and one female coming by following the aile-path way of the village.The evidence of this hostile witness taken as a whole does not inspire confidence in our mind.Moreso, whenever the I.O. was not confronted with the deponent's denial of making any statement before him to the effect that he saw the appellants with the victim for the last time or he witnessed the incident of rape and murder of the victim by the appellants.The credibility of this witness has thus affected considerably.We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon such testimony of this hostile witness.Md. Sabur Ali Mondal (PW6), another hostile witness testifies as under:- 10 "On a Thursday (details I cannot say) I was sitting from 8PM to 9/10 PM in the shop of Kasem Ata situated at the Bridge Junction of Hijlia.I noticed going away of Sadek and Abdullah towards their houses from that place when I called them.Sadek told me that in that night I would not get seeds from Sadek and on the next day the same might be available.Both of them were seen in an agitated mood and they were in hurriness to go to their houses."During cross-examination this witness disownes his earlier statement made before the I.O. (PW17) and categorically asserts that he did not state to the I.O. that suddenly he noticed Sadek Ali, Abdullah Mondal, Fazila D/o.Khalil Ata and Omar Ali a relative of Ata going upon the village ail path way after crossing village Mominpur or that firstly, their notice escaped those four persons but suddenly they noticed that instead of entering village Hijlia they followed the left side aile path way and entered a jute field.He also retracted from his earlier statement made before the I.O. (PW17) that he saw Omar Ali to fall upon Fazila, and stripped off her wearing sari or that Omar, Sadek and Abdulla made a knot with that sari and fastened that knot around the neck of Fazila, and began to tighten it.He also did not state to the I.O. that Fazila tried to save her.He did not state to the I.O. that, thereafter, Omar Ali caused Fazila to fall down and began to "enjoy" her (sambhog).He further testifies that he did not state to the I.O. that within a short time Fazila became senseless and end of Fazila came thereafter or that the body of Fazila was left there and those three persons fled away therefrom.Jahar Sengupta (PW17), the first I.O. who recorded the statement of PW6 has, however unequivocally asserted that PW6 told him that he and two other villagers were sitting upon the ail towards the end of the jute field where the village Hijlia started.They suddenly noticed Sadek Ali, Abdullah Mondal, and Fazila and Omar Ali, a relative of Ata going upon the Hijlia village aile path way after crossing village Mominpur.The I.O. further states that PW6 told him that firstly those four persons escaped their notice but suddenly they noticed that instead of entering village Hijlia they followed the left side aile path way and entered a jute field when their suspicion arose.13 "In this respect there are two eye-witnesses PW3 and PW6 according to the prosecution but both of them turned hostile.The evidence of PW3 goes unchallenged while the evidence of PW6 was confronted from the mouth of the I.O. and after due consideration I hold that PW6 did not tell the truth and he told a lie."The learned trial court has thus described PW6 as a liar, but in the same breath he has sought to regard his earlier statement before the I.O. sacrosanct.He found the following injuries :-The semen group also could not be determined as the quantity was not sufficient for such test.Furthermore, the blood and semen of the appellants were also not taken out for investigation of the case.Such suggestion was, perhaps, offered when it transpires from his cross-examination that he noticed a place in the jute field measuring about 4-5 cubits in both sides where he saw marks of trampling of jute plants by human beings.Similarly, Jahar Sengupta (PW 17), the first I.O. at the outset of his cross-examination on behalf of Omar Ali (A1), corroborates PW8 and deposes that the victim girl was murdered in the very same place i.e. in the jute filed of Allauddin of village Mominpur.True, Dilip Kumar Halder S. I. and the second I.O. as PW 15 says in his cross-examination that the P.O. was in the house of Md. Khalil Ata of village Hijlia-Mominpur.i.e. after the lapse of about seven months from the date of incident he visited the P.O. for the first time.The ld. trial court has, in fact, discussed the entire evidence on record in details on the question of identification of the P.O. in the judgement impugned.He has rightly rejected the evidence of PW15 that P.O. was in the house of Khalil Ata of village Hijlia on similar grounds that he visited the P.O. long after the occurrence and he even did not see the dead body of the victim Fazila Khatun.".......during the struggle amongst the accused persons in one side and the deceased on the other side the jute plants were damaged and the P.O. is the place where the dead body was lying.It is worthy to note that Fazila Khatun was still bleeding from her mouth and nose when her body was detected in the early morning after the night of occurrence."On our appreciation of evidence of witnesses who spoke on the location of the P.O. we are at one with the learned trial judge that the P.O. was in the jute field of Allauddin in Mominpur.So, we feel inclined to hold that the prosecution 22 has fairly succeeded in pinpointing the exact location of the P.O. and the argument as advanced by Mr. Ganguly, the learned State defence lawyer and Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for A2 and A3 is not tenable either factually or legally and as such their objection on that score stands overruled.We are, therefore, unable to concur with the ultimate finding of the learned trial Judge and to uphold the order of conviction and sentence passed against them.26 Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence impugned in respect of charge under section 376 IPC recorded against A1 is set aside.In the result the appellant Omar Ali Mondal, A1 is acquitted of the charge under section 376 IPC on the benefit of doubt.Let a copy of this judgment together with LCR be sent down to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) forthwith for information and necessary compliance.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,359,153 | Shri Deepak Shrivastava, counsel for the complainant.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as "Special Act"), Ashoknagar in Bail Application No. 600/2016, which was related to Crime No. 399/2016 registered at Police Station Chanderi District Ashoknagar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Special Act, whereby application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant was dismissed.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past as such.The offences as registered in the Special Act were punishable by five years' imprisonment only and, therefore, they are not so grave.It is alleged that appellant along with co-accused persons assaulted the deceased causing his death.The deceased died with 10 injuries and mainly he died due to head injury, however, out of aforesaid 10 injuries, there was no injury caused with Farsa, whereas it was alleged in the FIR that appellant had Farsa.By mere presence, common intention of the appellant cannot be presumed with the co-accused persons.Hence, no offence under Section 302 of 2 Cr.A. No. 1404/2016 IPC is made out against the present appellant.Consequently, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act shall be made out.Remaining IPC offences are also bailable.Under these circumstances, where the appellant is in custody without any substantial reason, the trial Court ought to have released the appellant on bail.2 Cr.A. No. 1404/2016Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the appeal.Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the appeal.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.Order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.It is directed that the appellant namely Chandan Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,360,203 | Whether reportable Yes/No (Passed on 17/11/2015)In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. inherent powers of this Court are invoked for quashing of the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Complaint Case No.895/2015 by which cognizance has been taken of the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 as regards offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.It is pertinent to point out that cognizance was taken against the petitioner only in regard to offence punishable u/S. 201 of IPC, whereas in regard to the other co-accused namely Narendra, Arvind and B.S. Rajput, cognizance was taken of offence punishable u/S. 302/34 r/w 201 of IPC. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,370,109 | It is the prosecutions case that on 30.09.2013 at about 07:00 a.m., the appellant had met the victim, a girl aged ten years at the material time (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix).She had Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 1 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL gone to the ration shop to purchase rusk.The appellant was employed as a mason and was residing in a room near the prosecutrixs home.He was acquainted with the prosecutrix for about one year and six months prior to that date.The appellant asked her to accompany him, however, she refused.The appellant, thereafter, threatened her and she got scared and proceeded along with him.He took her to Shashi Garden and locked her inside a room.He came back to the room at about 12:00 midnight and forcibly removed her clothes and raped her (he inserted his penis in her vagina).digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 1 of 12The appellant left the room next day but locked the prosecutrix inside.He returned at about 08:00 p.m. and offered her food, which she refused.During the night, he once again raped her.On the day thereafter, he shifted her to another room nearby.And thereafter, at about 03:00 pm, he put the prosecutrix on a rickshaw and gave money to the rickshaw puller with the given direction to drop her near Ashok Nagar Metro Station.The mother of the prosecutrix had filed a report on 01.10.2013 with PS New Ashok Nagar.She had said that her daughter (the prosecutrix), who was about ten years old, had left home at about 07:30 a.m. to go to a nearby shop to buy rusk but had not returned.She stated that she and her family members had tried to find her but their search was in vain.She apprehended that her daughter had been lured by some person and was abducted.On the basis of the said Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 2 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL information, an FIR was registered - FIR bearing No. 484, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) with PS New Ashok Nagar (Ex.PW1/A).digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 2 of 12The prosecution established its case by examining twelve witnesses.He testified that on 01.10.2013, he was working as a Duty Officer at PS New Ashok Nagar.On that day at about 05:30 a.m., Ct.Dinesh had produced a rukka sent by SI Mahesh and on the basis of the same, he had got the FIR registered.He stated that he recorded the complaint (Ex.PW2/A), prepared a rukka (Ex.PW8/A) and handed it over to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR.He stated that he searched for the missing girl but could not find any clue.He testified that on 02.10.2013, he received information from the family of the prosecutrix that she had returned home.On receipt of the said information, he went to the house of the prosecutrix and took the prosecutrix and her mother to LBS Hospital.SI Meenakshi was also called there.The doctor had examined the prosecutrix and handed over the exhibits to SI Meenakshi.On directions of the SHO, further investigation was handed over to her.Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 3 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 3 of 12She stated that the age of the prosecutrix was about ten years at the material time.She stated that on 30.09.2013, at about 07:30 a.m., she was not present at her home.However, her two daughters including the prosecutrix were at her home.She stated that she worked as a maid servant in the locality and she had gone to do her work.When she returned home, she came to know that the prosecutrix had gone to purchase a cake from a nearby shop but had not returned home.She testified that they tried to trace the victim at her school and other places but she could not be found.Therefore, she reported the matter to the police on the next day.PW2 further testified that the prosecutrix had returned home on 02.10.2013 in the morning and she had informed her that Vikas (the appellant herein) had come to the shop where she had gone to purchase a cake and had forcibly taken her in a car and had confined her in his room for two days and had raped her.She testified that she had taken the prosecutrix to the police station and had narrated the said facts to the police officials.The police officials had taken her to LBS Hospital and she had also accompanied them.The prosecutrix was medically examined and she had given her consent for the same.He threatened her that if she did not, he would slap her.She testified that the accused was working as a mason and was residing in a room near their house.She also stated that he was known to her for the last one and a half years.She stated that she got scared and went with him.He took her to Shashi Garden and he put her in a room and locked the same from outside.She stated that at about 08:00 p.m. in the evening, he brought her food but she refused to consume it.She testified that she went to sleep but at about 12:00 midnight, the appellant had forcibly removed her pajami and forced himself on her (jabardasti).The court asked her to explain what she meant by jabardasti.She explained that the accused had put his penis inside her vagina (usne apni susu wali cheez meri susu wali jagah me dal diya).She further testified that he did so twice.She felt pain and she cried.She stated that on the next morning, he left the room after locking it from outside and returned back at about 08:00 p.m. He once again asked her to take some food but she refused.She alleged that he raped her once again at night.On the next day, the appellant left the room and took her to another room located nearby.She stated that at about 03:00 p.m., one Jhuman, who was a friend of the accused, called him and informed him that his friends Raja and Jhuman had been caught by the police.She stated that accused put her in a rickshaw, gave money to the rickshaw puller and directed him to drop her at New Ashok Nagar Metro Station.She stated that she went to her house on her own.She also reiterated that the police had taken her to LBS Hospital, where her medical examination was conducted.digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 4 of 12Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 5 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL She stated that thereafter, she was produced before a Judge.digitally signed CRL.She was extensively cross-examined.It was suggested that she was well acquainted with the appellant and she used to call him on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of her brother.It was suggested that she had developed friendship with the appellant and had asked him to marry her.The appellant had refused and had told her that he would marry her, if both the families agree.It was suggested that she had implicated him in a false case as he had refused to marry her.The prosecutrix had responded to all the questions that were put to her.She had also further explained that she was raped on the floor.She had bled after the incident and the blood had stained her clothes.She also stated in her cross-examination that she had offered her resistance and tried to push him away.She also stated that the appellant had placed one of his hands on her mouth, when he had taken her to the rickshaw.She stated that some persons had noticed them but did not react.In her cross-examination, she also described the vehicle in which she was taken (a white coloured van).Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 6 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWALShe testified that she was informed by SI Mahesh Singh that the victim (the prosecutrix) had been recovered and he had called upon her to come to LBS Hospital.She testified that the parents of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix were present in the hospital along with SI Mahesh.She stated that she inquired from the prosecutrix about the incident and recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC.The prosecutrix was medically examined in the hospital.She stated that she had seized the exhibits of the victim collected during her medical examination and had prepared the seizure memo (Ex.PW9/A).She identified her signatures on the same.She had stated that she had searched for the accused and during the course of investigation, they had gone to Shashi Garden to the house of the accused.The police officials were accompanied by the prosecutrix and the accused was apprehended on identification by the prosecutrix.She testified that after identifying the accused, she had arrested him and prepared the arrest memo (Ex.PW12/A).She identified her signatures on the same.She further stated that she had got the accused medically examined through Ct.Mohit and he had handed over the exhibits collected during his medical examination.She stated that she had seized the same and Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 7 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL prepared the seizure memo (Ex.PW12/C).She identified her signatures on the same.She further testified that she had got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC and had also obtained a copy of the same.digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 7 of 12PW12 further testified that the exhibits collected during the medical examination of the victim as well as the accused were sent to FSL.During the course of examination, she had also collected the proof of age of the prosecutrix from the Principal of Nagar Nigam Girls School.She testified that she had examined the prosecutrix.She had conducted the local examination and had found that her "hymen was ruptured with recent tears, not bleeding, introitus admitting one finger easily." but there was no sign of external injury.She was cross-examined.She denied the suggestion that introitus admitting of one finger easily meant that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.The MLC (Ex.PW7/A) also records that the "hymen was ruptured with recent tears, not bleeding, introitus admitting one finger easily".The MLC (Ex.PW7/A) also records that the samples of the prosecutrix were taken.PW7 had also testified that she had taken samples as per protocol and handed over the same to the police.Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 8 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL"The DNA fingerprinting performed on the source of exhibit 1j (sample of victim) & exhibit 3 (Blood in gauze of accused) is sufficient to conclude that the biological stains i.e. seminal stains present on the source of exhibit 1j (sample of victim) and blood stains on the Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 9 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL source of exhibit 3 (Blood in gauze of accused) are from the same source."VIBHU BAKHRU, JShe also identified her signatures on the MLC.The case of the prosecution largely rests on the testimony of the prosecutrix in addition to medical and forensic evidence.She stated that on 30.09.2013, at about 07:00 a.m., she was going to the ration shop to purchase cake Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 4 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL (rusk).While she was on the way, the accused (the appellant herein) met her and asked her to come with him.digitally signed CRL.She had stated after completion of the investigation, she had filed the challan.The FSL Report (Ex.PW12/B) was received and filed subsequently.Dr. Maneesha Singh, SR.digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 8 of 12He had testified that he was working as MHC(M) on 08.10.2013 and he had handed over the samples (four pullandas) vide a road certificate No.120/21/13 sealed with the seal of LBS Hospital, along with two sample seals to Ct.Vijay Pratap.He had also produced the Register No.21 (Ex.PW10/A).Vijay Pratap was examined as PW6 and he had testified that on 08.10.2013, he had taken four sealed pullandas and two sample seals of LBS Hospital from the concerned MHC(M) along with a road certificate and deposited it with FSL Rohini.On his returning back, he had returned the copy of the road certificate as well as the acknowledgment from FSL.Both, PW6 as well as PW10, testified that the samples were not tampered with while they were in their possession.The FSL Report (PW12/B) records that DNA was isolated from the source of exhibits 1j ("Step 9 cervical mucus collection [C]") of the prosecutrix), 1p1 (blood sample of the prosecutrix) and exhibit 3 (blood in gauze of the accused) and the alleles from the source of exhibit 1l (sample of the victim ) was accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit 3 (blood in gauze of the accused).The conclusion of the analysis, as set out in the FSL Report is reproduced below:digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 9 of 12There is some controversy as to the age of the prosecutrix inasmuch as in her testimony, she was described as aged fourteen years; but in the FIR, her age was stated to be about ten years.Further, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW2) had also testified that the prosecutrix was aged about ten years.The prosecution had examined Sh.He had produced the school record, which recorded the date of the birth of the prosecutrix as 06.09.2003.He produced the Admission Register (Ex.PW4/A) and had also identified the signature of the Principal on the same.In view of the above, the Trial Court had, thus, concluded that the age of the prosecutrix, at the material time, was about ten years.This Court has examined the testimony of various witnesses and finds that there is no inconsistency in regard to any material aspects.There are certain minor inconsistencies, such as in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC (Ex.PW3/A), the prosecutrix had stated that she had gone to the ration shop at 07.30 a.m. in the morning for purchasing rations.However, in her testimony, she stated that she had gone to the ration shop at 7.00 a.m. to purchase cake/rusk.In her statement under Section 154of the Cr.PC , the prosecutrix had stated that at about 4 oclock, one Jhuman had called and told Vikas Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 10 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL that Raja and Jhuman had been caught by the police and that he should leave her and the accused had left her and put her in a rickshaw.Although she did testify that Jhuman had called the accused at about 03:00 p.m. and informed him that his friends Raja and Jhuman had been caught by the police, she did not state that Jhuman had asked the accused to let her go.digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 10 of 12Furthermore, her testimony is also consistent with the testimony of her mother (PW2).PW2 had also testified that on returning home, the prosecutrix had informed her that the accused had come to the shop, where she had gone to purchase cake and had forcibly taken her in a car and had confined her in his room for two days and had raped her.The allegations made against the accused are also not belied by the MLC of the prosecutrix.On the contrary, the MLC does indicate that the hymen of the prosecutrix had recent tears.Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 11 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 11 of 12The evidence obtaining in this case leaves little room for entertaining any doubt that the appellant had not committed the crime, for which he was convicted.The forensic evidence clearly establishes that the DNA of the accused was generated from the sample (cervical mucus) collected from the prosecutrix.And, this establishes that the appellant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix.Considering that the prosecutrix is a minor, there is no doubt that the appellant had committed the offence for which he has been convicted.In view of the above, the present appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed.The pending application is also disposed of.VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2020 RK Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 12 of 12 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL.A. 674/2017 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,088,372 | The relevant facts may be related shortly.The incident took place on 31-8-1980 at about 7.00 a.m. in village Sitarampur, Police Station Kalwari of District Basti and the report by oral narration was lodged on 31-8-1980 at 9.25 p.m. by deceased's wife Shanti Devi at Police Station Kotwali.The F. I. R. was sent to Police Station Kalwari through a constable where a case was registered.The deceased Bhagwan Das used to work in Bombay and send money out of his earnings to Bansu accused.On 31-8-1980 at about 7.00 a.m. he was digging earth from old joint Khandhar for constructing cattle grove for his cow.Both the accused appeared there and asked him to dig out the earth from there.The deceased insisted to dig out the earth whereupon at the instigation of accused Hari Ram, the other accused Bansu dealt a lathi blow on the head of the deceased.He fell down and then Hari Ram assaulted him with kicks and fists.Shanti Devi wife of the deceased was nearby who raised shouts attracting the witnesses Nand Lal, Sarva Deo and Udai Bhan.The accused retreated.The victim was taken up to road by his wife and daughter and from there in rickshaw to District Hospital where he breathed his last on 31-8-1980 at 7.05 p.m. It was thereafter that Shanti Devi went to Police Station Kotwali and lodged the F.I.R. by oral narration as stated earlier.On an information having been sent from the Hospital to the Police Station, an A.S.I. prepared inquest report and other necessary papers.Sealing the dead body, he sent the same for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. S. G. Tekriwal CW 1 on 1-9-1980 at about 5.00 p.m. The deceased was aged about 38 years and the ante-mortem injuries found on his person were lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, with traumatic swelling on skull left side, 2 cm from midline 12 cm above the root of nose and multiple abrasions in an area of 10 cm x 5 cm front of right leg., 13 cm.below knee joint.Internal examination revealed ecchymosis and depressed fracture of left parietal bone 6 cm long.It just so happened that the lathi blow dealt by him proved to be fatal, though he had no intention of causing either death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death.But knowledge has to be imputed to him that the act of striking lathi blow on the head of the deceased was likely to cause his death.Therefore, he committed the offence of culpable homicide riot amounting to murder and the offence is punishable under Part II of Section 304, I.P.C.Accused respondent Bansu who was aged about 55 years at the time of the incident, must be nearly 78 years of age now.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.The two accused-respondents Hari Ram and Bansu, real brothers, were tried before the Sessions Judge, Basti in S. T. No. 301 of 1980 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. for murdering their own brother Bhagwan Das.By judgment dated 2-4-1981 passed by Sri Chandra Mohan, the then Sessions Judge, Basti, they were acquitted.Aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal.We have heard Sri K. P. Shukla, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State and Sri Sanjeev Ratna, learned counsel for the accused respondents.The death had occurred due to coma as a result of ante-mortem head injury.At the time of his initial medical examination (when he was alive) by Dr. D. P. Mishra CW 2 on 31-8-1980 at 9.20 a.m. the same injuries were found.The defence of the accused was of denial.Their stand was that the deceased Bhagwan Das was digging earth from dilapidated house and he was injured by the fall of a brick.Hearing his cries, they as well as other family members had rushed up and taken him to the hospital.The prosecution examined, in all, five witnesses.Out of them, Shanti Devi PW 1, Astabhuj Prasad alias Nand Lal PW 2, Sarva Deo PW 3 and Prem Narain PW 4 were examined as eye-witnesses.S. I. Ram Nath PW 5 was the Investigating Officer.CW 1 Dr. S. G. Tekriwal who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased, CW 2 Dr. D. P. Mishra who conducted initial medical examination of the deceased (whose reference has come to be made earlier) and CW 3 Dr. K. M. Chandra CMO, Basti were examined.The prosecution evidence did not found favour with the trial Judge in whose opinion the witnesses had fabricated a false case against the accused on account of enmity.The deceased, according to him, most probably died as a result of accidental injury received by him on a fall of brick.He also made it a point of criticism that there was delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. and interpreted it in favour of the accused-respondents that as per the F. I. R. they had also gone to the hospital with the victim.This, as per the trial Judge, indicated their innocence.Resultantly, he acquitted the accused respondents.On a careful consideration, we are of the firm opinion that none of the reasons adopted by the trial Judge for acquittal can be sustained on an in depth analysis of the evidence on record and attending circumstances.So far as the late lodging of the F.I.R. was concerned, there was plausible and acceptable explanation thereof.True, the incident took place on 31-8-1980 at about 7.00 a.m. and the report was lodged (after the deceased died in the hospital) at 9.25 p.m. but it has to be taken note of that the victim had received serious injury in his head.Therefore, it was of prime importance to save his life, if possible, by instantly providing medical aid and treatment to him.Naturally, therefore, his wife, an illiterate lady, first rushed him to the hospital for the purpose.She could not be expected to run to the Police Station like a computer immediately after the occurrence, leaving her injured husband uncared for and unmindful of providing Immediate medical aid and assistance to him.Judged in this correct perspective, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution case on the premise of late lodging of the F. I. R.The fact that the accused-respondents had also gone to the hospital could not be interpreted that they were innocent.After all, the deceased was their own brother.The incident had taken place on a sudden quarrel between him on the one hand and the accused-respondents on the other.It could be because of filial relationship that overtaken by remorse and repenting their folly, the accused-respondents also went to the hospital where the victim was taken immediately after the incident.This factor could not eclipse the impact of the trustworthy testimony adduced from the side of the prosecution that they were the assailants.It was not at all disputed that the deceased was injured on 31-8-1980 at about 7.00 a.m. when he was digging out earth from the dilapidated house.They had seen the accused respondent Bansu giving a lathi blow on the head of the deceased after brief altercation between the two over the issue of digging of earth, the former asking him not to do so and the latter insisting that he would dig the earth.There was hardly any reason for any of these two witnesses to falsely implicate the accused-respondents.It has come in the testimony of Shanti Devi PW1 that the deceased used to work at Bombay as a carpenter and had come to the village four months before the incident.She also stated that he used to even send money through money order to accused respondent Bansu as financial help, meaning thereby that there was no previous animosity between the deceased and the accused respondent Bansu who struck the fatal lathi blow on his head.Rather, moved by brotherly consideration, the deceased was even helping the accused-respondent Bansu by sending money to him from Bombay.It appears that the incident occurred at the spur of moment on a sudden quarrel over a minor issue.The presence of Shanti Devi PW 1 was natural.Prem Narain PW 4 also explained that the place of occurrence was visible from his door.He saw the deceased digging earth and two accused respondents appearing there.Some altercation took place between the deceased on the one hand and the accused-respondents on the other whereafter the accused-Bansu dealt a lathi blow on the head of the deceased Bhagwan Das who fell down and accused respondent Hari Ram assaulted him with kicks and fists.Learned counsel for the accused respondents argued that the name of Prem Narain does not find place in the F. I. R. It should be stated that the F. I. R. was lodged by an illiterate lady by oral narration immediately after her husband died in the hospital owing to the lathi blow given to him by the accused respondent Bansu.Her mental condition at that time can well be visualized.No adverse inference should be drawn if in emotionally surcharged frame of mind, she omitted to give the name of Prem Narain also as a witness.Prem Narain himself had no enmity with the accused-respondents which could actuate him to depose falsely against them.R. Nand Lal PW 2 gave res gestae evidence that he reached the spot on hearing shouts; he found Bhagwan Das bleeding from the head and that his wife Shanti Devi PW 1 was shouting aloud that Bansu had struck lathi blow on her husband and Hari Ram had assaulted him with kicks and fists.The statement of Sarva Deo Upadhyay PW 3 is that he had reached the spot on hearing shouts.He found Bhagwan Das lying injured and when he inquired from his wife, she disclosed that he had been assaulted by Bansu and Hari Ram.The eye-witness account could not be disbelieved on the hypothesis that there was likelihood of the fatal head injury having been sustained by the victim by the fall of a brick on his head as has been deduced by the trial Judge.CW 1 Dr. S. G. Tekriwal who conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased was categorical that the said head injury could not be sustained by the deceased by fall of a brick.There was strong and firm reason for it that this injury was bone deep with the depressed fracture beneath.The damage sustained beneath the questioned injury i.e. depressed fracture of left parietal bone, was a clear indicator that it was the outcome of a lathi blow struck with force and it could not be attributed to the fall of a brick.The res gestae evidence of Nand Lal PW 2 and Sarva Deo Upadhyay PW 3 that immediately after the incident she was crying hoarse that lathi blow had been struck on her husband by accused respondent Bansu and another accused-respondent Hari Ram assaulted him with kicks and fists, obliterated the scope of any concoction on her part subsequently.The trial Judge has also referred to this aspect of the matter that CW 2 Dr. D. P. Mishra had noted the injury as an accidental injury.To our mind, it did not justify a conclusion against the prosecution case.The explanation was there in the own testimony of CW 2 Dr. D. P. Mishra as to why the injury was mentioned by him as an accidental injury.According to him, the injury being noted as accidental injury meant that either the injury was sustained in an accident or the patient had no money to pay private fee for medical examination.He also stated that the victim was brought by his wife who did not pay any fee to him.So, the case was registered by him in the accident register.The victim having been taken to the hospital immediately after the incident by his illiterate wife, who has no money to pay, was the reason of the injury being mentioned by the Doctor as accident injury.He was unarmed.We convict the accused-respondent Bansu under Part II of Section 304, I.P.C. and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).In default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years.The fine if realized, shall be paid as compensation to Shanti Devi PW 1 wife of deceased, or failing her to the other immediate heir of the deceased Bhagwan Das, The fine shall be paid within three months from today.We convict accused respondent No. 2 Hari Ram under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The fine shall be paid within two months from today.The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti for follow up action.The accused respondent Hari Ram is on bail.In case the fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is not deposited by the accused-respondent Hari Ram within two months from today, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti shall cause him also to be arrested and lodged in Jail to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.The accused respondent Bansu is also on bail the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti shall forthwith cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail for executing the sentence passed against him.The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall report compliance within three months from today. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,838,015 | This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C. No. 3456 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur as against the petitioner.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent persons and he has been falsely implicated in the case with oblique motive.He further would submit that private complaint alone can be filed to punish the accused under Section 188 of I.P.C. and hence, the respondent delted 188 of I.P.C. and included 290 of I.P.C. Therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges framed against the petitioner has to be gone into a full-fledged trial.Further, he would submit that the trial has also been commenced and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2436 of 20195.It is 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 in the case of Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case, within a period of Six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except the dates on which, the trial Judge insisted the petitioner for his appearance.16.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2019The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 2436 of 2019 16.09.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,088,407 | The deceased, Paramanantham, was residing with his familymembers at the police quarters at Parangipettai.P.W.1 is thewife of the deceased, P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 and P.W.3is the brother of the deceased.The deceased left the houseon 02.06.1999 in the morning saying to his wife that he isgoing to attend his duty and he would return back to his homein the night.It is stated by P.W.1 that on the same day i.e.on 02.06.1999 at 9.00 p.m., one constable came and enquiredher that whether the deceased returned back and for that,P.W.1 replied that the deceased not returned back to the home.P.W.1 was expecting the deceased during night-time and as thedeceased not returned even till 03.06.1999, she went toChidambaram Police Station and enquired the Writer and the SubInspector of Police about her husband's whereabouts.Theyinformed that the deceased has not come.Thereafter, she wentto her daughter, Chithradevi's house at Cuddalore and thedeceased was not found even there.Again, she went to theChidambaram Town Police Station in the evening and enquiredthe constable and the Sub Inspector of Police and told themthat she was frightened, as her husband was not found.First Information Report :P.W.1 gave a report, Ex.P.1 to P.W.36, Sub Inspector ofPolice, Chidambaram Police Station, and P.W.36 registered theFirst Information Report in Crime No.262 of 1999 for man-missing on 03.06.1999 at 6.00 p.m.IV.Continuous search of the deceased by P.W.1 :P.W.1 again searched for the deceased and also informedP.W.2, her brother about the same.She once again went to theChidambaram Police Station and she was informed by oneconstable that her husband, the deceased, had gone to therailway track near Meethikudi Railway Station.Again, shesearched for the deceased with her brother P.W.2 and enquiredthe persons from the said locality.Two-three personsinformed her that the deceased was taken by one Guru @Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh, the absconding accused.They have also informed that Veeramani @ Veera, anotherabsconding accused and A-1, Selvam, and one Ravi were alsochatting and proceeding with the deceased.They have alsotold P.W.1 that they are frightened that they would be killed,if they further disclose anything.Thereafter, she went tothe Police Station and informed P.W.39, Inspector of Police,about the information received by her on 05.06.1999.V. First Alteration of the First Information Report:On the basis of the further statement recorded by P.W.39,Inspector of Police, from P.W.1, the offence was altered forthe offence under Section 147, 148, 342, 325 and 364 I.P.C.Ex.P.38 is the altered First Information Report.P.W.39, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation on03.06.1999 from the Sub Inspector of Police in this case.Asalready stated, he recorded further statement of P.W.1 on05.06.1999 and altered the First Information Report for theoffence, as stated above.He went to the scene of occurrenceand prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.6 and the RoughSketch, Ex.He also recovered the scooter bearingRegistration No.TNF 5785, M.O.21, under Ex.P.40 near the sceneof occurrence.He also recovered the bloodstains from thebumper removed from the Feat Car bearing Registration No.MTR4971 under Ex.Feat Car is marked as M.O.22, which wasrecovered under the mahazar Ex.He examined P.Ws.1, 2, 4to 9 and others and recorded their statements.Arrest of A-2 : On 07.06.1999 at 4.00 p.m., oninformation P.W.39 arrested A-2, Ramesh, and in pursuance ofthe admissible portion of his confession under Ex.P.7, herecovered the Auto, M.O.7, in front of the house of A-5 underEx.He examined some more witnesses and recorded theirstatements.Thereafter, he remanded the accused for judicialcustody.Arrest of the absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh and discovery of the body of thedeceased : On 08.06.1999, he arrested the absconding accusedGuru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh at ChidambaramRailway Station in the presence of witnesses.In pursuance ofthe admissible portion of his confessions under Ex.P.22 is the Post-Mortem Notes Paper and Ex.P.23 is the Post-Mortem Report.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceaseddied due to head injury and shock.P.24 is the chemicalexamination report and Ex.P.25 is the report in respect ofHyoid bone received by the Doctors.X. Continuation of investigation by P.W.39 :P.W.39, the Inspector of Police, arrested thedeceased/accused, Kailaperumal, at 4.00 p.m. on 08.06.1999near Chidambaram Bus stand and thereafter, remanded theaccused to judicial custody through the Court.On 09.06.1999, he gave a request to the JudicialMagistrate No.I, Chidambaram, to record the statement from theabsconding accused, Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @Mahesh under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as he expressed his desireto give such statement.On the same day, i.e., on 11.06.1999 at10.00 a.m., he arrested A-1 at the residence of A-5 atPondicherry.In pursuance of the admissible of his confessionunder Ex.P.9, he recovered bloodstained iron pipe and coconutcoir/M.O.23 under Ex.Bansal as a witness in the trial for establishing the facts disclosed in his confession.The Judicial Magistrate No.II Chidambaram.5. 3 & 4 - do -thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.The Superintendent Central Prison Cuddalore.The Superintendent Central Prison Vellore.The Inspector of Police, C-5 Police Station Chennai.The Inspector of Police Chidambaram Nagar Police Station Chidambaram.The Director General of Police Chennai.A.No.626 of2007 have preferred these appeals challenging their convictionand sentence passed by the learned Additional District andSessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram, inS.C.No.323 of 2005 dated 29.06.2007 as they have been tried,convicted and sentenced in the following manner :======================================================================== Accused Charge u/s Conviction Sentence======================================================================== A-1 to 120(B) Guilty A-1 death sentence, A-2 A-5 I.P.C. to A-5 - Life Imprisonment with Rs.1000/-, i/d 1 year R.I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A-1 to 147 I.P.C. A-1 to A-4 A-1 to A-4 - 2 years R.I.A-5 guilty ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A-1 148 I.P.C. A-1 guilty A-1 - 3 years R.I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A-1 to 341 r/w 149 A-1 to A-4 A-1 to A-4 - 3 months A-5 I.P.C. guilty S.I. ;A-5 not guilty ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A-1 to 302 r/w 149 A-1 to A-5 A-1 death sentence ; A-2 A-5 guilty to A-5 - life sentence with Rs.1000/- each, i/d 1 year R.I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A-1 to 201 r/w 149 A-1 to A-4 A-1 - 5 years R.I. ; A-2 A-5 guilty to A-4 5 years R.I. with Rs.1000/- each, i/d 3 months R.I.======================================================================== There are originally 8 accused have been charge sheeted.Oneof the accused, viz., Kaliaperumal died before thecommencement of the trial and the two other accused, viz.,Veeramani @ Veera and Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @Mahesh were absconding.The occurrence in this case is shown to have takenplace on 02.06.1999 at 4.00 p.m. in pursuance of theconspiracy hatched by A-1 to A-5 to kill the deceasedParamanantham, a Head Constable, as A-1 and the abscondingaccused Veeramani @ Veera armed with deadly weapon, viz., ironpipes and while the deceased, Paramanantham, came in hisscooter bearing Registration No.TN F 5785 taking theabsconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Maheshin his scooter, A-1 and A-2 intercepted the deceased andprevented him to proceed further and the absconding accusedVeeramani @ Veera saying that the deceased is not allowingthem to sell the arrack and beat the deceased on his head withiron pipe and while the deceased got down from the scooter andattempted to run away from the scene, A-2 and the abscondingaccused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh caughthold of the deceased and again the absconding accusedVeeramani @ Veera beat the deceased with the iron pipe on theback side of his head twice and the blows fell on the twohands of the deceased.A-1 beat the deceased on the back sideof his head twice with the iron pipe and beat once on the leftshoulder and the deceased fell down unconscious.Thedeceased/accused, Kaliaperumal and A-3 instigated the otheraccused to kill the deceased.The prosecution, in order to bring home the chargesagainst the accused examined as many as 39 witnesses, viz.,P.Ws.1 to 39, filed Exs.P.1 to P.51 besides marking M.Os.1 toThe facts of the case, as projected by the prosecutionduring trial, are as follows :P.44, theburial place of the body of the deceased was discovered and hesummoned the Tahsildar, P.W.31, as per the requisition,Ex.P.45 and also summoned the police photographer.Thereafter, P.W.31, came to that place and the body of thedeceased was exhumed from that place which was identified bythe absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @Mahesh, P.W.1/wife of the deceased, P.W.2/brother of P.W.1 andP.W.3/ brother of the deceased.Second alteration of the First Information Report :In pursuance of the arrest of A-2 and the abscondingaccused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh, P.W.39altered the offence to one under Sections 147, 148, 342, 302and 204 I.P.C. Ex.P.43 is the altered First InformationReport and he sent the same to the Magistrate Court.Continuation of investigation by P.W.39 :He alsorecovered bloodstained earth, M.O.14, sample earth, M.O.15 andbloodstained gunny bag, M.O.5 under Ex.P.14 from the burialplace in the presence of witnesses.Once again, he examinedP.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others and recorded their statements.Inquest : P.W.31, after exhuming the body of the deceasedheld inquest on the dead body of the deceased and examinedP.W.1 and recorded her statement under Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3statement from P.W.3 and Ex.P.26is the inquest report.On 08.06.1999, as per the request of the Tahsildar,P.W.31, the Doctor, P.W.29 and the Doctor, P.W.30, conductedpost-mortem on the dead body of the deceased.(1) A lacerated wound on the middle of the occipital region 12 X 1 X 1 cm pale in colour.(2) A lacerated wound on the left parietal region 5 X 1 X 1 cm pale.Internal Injuries :(1) The upper 1/3 of left ulna fractured.(2) The middle of left radius is fractured.(3) The left shoulder is anteriorly dislocated.Recording the judicial confession of the abscondingaccused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh by P.W.38,the Judicial Magistrate :P.W.38, the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram,received the request made by the Investigating Officer dated09.06.1999 under Ex.P.33, to record the statement of theabsconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Maheshunder Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and by following the procedurecontemplated by giving sufficient time, summoned the saidabsconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Maheshand recorded the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.34 is the request made by the learned Judicial Magistrateto produce the said accused before the Court.P.35 is theconfession statement recorded from the accused Guru @Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh.Recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. fromthe eye-witnesses : The Judicial Magistrate, P.W.38, receivedthe request from the investigating officer to examine the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.17, 18, 19 and 33 but only P.Ws.17 and 33 wereproduced before the Court for recording the statements underSection 164 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, P.W.38, recorded thestatement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from the eye-witnesses,P.Ws.17, and 33 on 20.07.1999 under Exs.Continuation of investigation by P.W.39 :On 11.06.1999 at 6.00 a.m, P.W.39, arrested theabsconding accused Veeramani @ Veera near ThirupapuliyurRailway Station in their presence of witnesses.In pursuanceof the admissible portion of his confession, P.W.39, recoveredspade, M.O.12, TVS 50 bearing registration No.Thereafter, he remanded all the accusedfor judicial custody.He sent the requisition under Ex.P.47for sending the material objects for chemical examination.Healso received the chemical examination report, Ex.P.49,Serologist Report, Ex.P.50 and he has made arrangements to getthe superimposition of the deceased by sending the skull.Heexamined some more witnesses and also received the photographsand negatives, M.Os.16 to 20 and M.O.25 series.Aftercompleting the investigation, he filed the charge sheetagainst the accused on 25.09.1999 for the offence underSections 147, 148, 341, 302, 201, 212 and 120(b) r/w 149I.P.C.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 ofCr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances andmaterials appearing against them, all the accused denied eachand every circumstance put to them as false and contrary tothe facts and they have stated that they have been falselyimplicated in the case.They have not chosen to examine anywitnesses and to mark any documents on their side.S.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing forA-1, A-3 and A-5 contended that the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonabledoubt.P.5 and 37respectively by the learned Magistrate as both the saidstatements Exs.P.5 and 37 not put to P.W.17 and 33 by theprosecution.We have heard Mr.C.T.Selvam, learned Additional PublicProsecutor, on the submissions made by the learned seniorcounsel for the appellants and other learned counsel for theappellants.P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and brother ofP.W.1. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and they haveexamined to speak about the missing of the deceased andsearching for the deceased and they have informed by somepersons that the deceased was last scene with the abscondingaccused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh and oneVeeramani @ Veera and A-1 were proceeding and talking with thedeceased and the said absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh.P.W.2 further added in his evidencethat the absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan@ Mahesh was selling arrack and the deceased taken him in hisscooter and at that time, absconding accused Veeramani @ Veeraand A-1 intercepted the deceased and asked the deceased toleave the absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh and thereafter, the said accusedVeeramani @ Veera beat the deceased and dragged him.P.W.3,brother of the deceased, has spoken only about identifying thebody of the deceased.The prosecution examined P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 to 10 tospeak about the absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh and another absconding accusedVeeramani @ Veera and A-1 were involved in selling illicitarrack.P.W.4 stated that he has seen the deceased along withthe absconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @Mahesh and the said absconding accused informing the deceasedthat he was selling arrack for A-1, A-5 and the abscondingaccused Veeramani @ Veera and thereafter, the deceased takenthe said absconding accused in his scooter to the house of A-1and the absconding accused Veeramani @ Veera.P.W.4 is theonly witness corroborated the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 to theeffect that some of the persons informed them that they haveseen the deceased has taken the absconding accused Guru @Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh in his scooter and A-1and the another absconding accused Veeramani @ Veera also seenwith the deceased.But P.W.4 has turned hostile and notsupported the prosecution case.P.Ws.5, 7 to 10, who have examined by theprosecution to speak about the absconding accused Veeramani @Veera, A-1 and A-5 were involved in selling illicit arrack,also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.P.W.11, who has been examined by the prosecution tospeak about the conspiracy by the accused, viz., A-1, A-5 andthe absconding accused Veeramani @ Veera to kill the policeofficials if they interfere with their business of sellingillicit arrack as they were standing as obstacles for theirbusiness.But even this witness turned hostile.The prosecution also examined P.Ws.17, 18, 19 and33 as eye-witnesses to speak about the occurrence proper.Butthe fact remains even these eye-witnesses turned hostile andthey have not supported the prosecution case.I, Chidambaram.It is to be borne in mind that the said absconding accused wasnot jointly tried along with the accused persons in this caseas he was absconding continuously.P.W.38, the JudicialMagistrate also examined P.Ws.17 and 33, eye-witnesses underSection 164 of Cr.P.C. and their statements were marked asExs.P.5 and 37 respectively.The learned trial Judge mainlyplaced reliance on the judicial confession, Ex.P.35 of theabsconding accused Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Maheshand the 164 statement of P.Ws.17 and 33 which were marked asExs.The main question arises for our consideration iswhether the above said pieces of evidence adduced by theprosecution amounts to a legal evidence and whether the samecould be placed reliance for convicting the accused.Before proceeding to consider the above said mainquestion involved in this matter, let us analyse the othermaterials available on record.It is the case of the prosecution that the accusedconspired to kill the deceased, a Head Constable, as thepolice officials were interfering with their business ofselling illicit arrack.The witnesses, viz., P.Ws.4, 5 and 7to 10, who have examined to speak about the involvement of theaccused in illicit arrack sale, have turned hostile.The fact remains that all the said eye-witnesses havecompletely turned hostile and they have given a total go-by totheir earlier version.The learned trial Judge, in spite ofthe same, placed reliance on the 164 statements of P.Ws.17 and33, viz., Exs.It isneedless to say that the statement under Section 162 ofCr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. can be usedeither to corroborate or to contradict in respect of theirearlier version.Therefore, we have no hesitation to holdthat the learned trial Judge has wrongly placed reliance onsuch statements for convicting the accused resulting in gravemiscarriage of justice.Now let us consider the evidentiary value of theconfession of the co-accused, viz., the absconding accusedGuru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh recorded by theJudicial Magistrate No.The reading of the above said provision makes it crystal clearthat the confession of the co-accused may be consideredagainst the other accused only if such co-accused has beentried jointly for the same offence.Bansal for framing charges against Kalani."In view of the above said settled principle of law laid downby the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra, as inthis case also the prosecution entirely left with the singlepiece of evidence, viz., the confession of the abscondingaccused viz., Guru @ Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Maheshunder Ex.P.35 and such confession of the said abscondingaccused cannot be placed reliance against the present accusedpersons in this case as the said absconding accused Guru @Gurunathan @ Sivagurunathan @ Mahesh was not jointly triedalong with the accused persons in this case, we are of theconsidered view that the learned trial Judge has committed aserious error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.thro' The Principal Sessions Judge Cuddalore.The Judicial Magistrate No.I Chidambaram.The District Collector Cuddalore District.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Madras. | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,849,623 | Heard the parties.The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging theFirst Information Report in F.I.R.No.42 of 2014 dated 01.02.2014, underSections 341, 406, 420, and 506(i) of IPC r/w 109 IPC on the file of theKarupayurani Police Station, Madurai, which had been filed against thepetitioners.To that effect anendorsement is also made by the second respondent.A joint compromise memoalso filed duly signed by both the parties.Both parties are declared thatthe matter has been settled.In view of the aforesaid development and the joint memo ofcompromise, no useful purpose will be achieved by further proceedings.Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the F.I.R.No.62 of2014 dated 02.02.2014 on the file of the Karupayurani Police Station,Madurai, is quashed.1.The Inspector of Police, Karupayurani Police Station, Madurai.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,867,471 | 1 02.09.2019 98 sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 7684 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.08.2019 in connection with Balagarh Police Station Case No. 101 of 2019 dated 08.07.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/448/323/ 325/354B/ 427/379/506/504/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Samrat Ghosh ..... petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee .....for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ....for the State Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations and as no serious injury was found in the medical papers, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,869,047 | The Doctors who have conducted MLC and postmortem deposed that the injuries of deceased persons could be caused due to accident.The prosecution witnesses have admitted that initially they were informed that an accident took place in which the deceased and complainant had sustained injuries.Shri S.K.Tiwari, counsel for appellant.Shri Vivek Lakhera, P.L., for State.Heard on I.A.No.20605/2016 an application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Kallu.This is first bail application under section 389 of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant Kallu @ Harisevak, who has been convicted under section 302, 302/34, 307/34, 323/34 and 341of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- on each count, R.I., for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, S.I., for 1 year and S.I., for 1 month respectively.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant argued that there was enmity between the complainant and appellant.On the date of incident there was accident of motor cycle of deceased Suresh and Ummed with motor cycle of complainant Jethua and witness Munna Kachhi, in which they had sustained injuries and due to these injuries Suresh and Ummed had expired.The complainant Jethua has lodged a false report against the appellant concealing the fact of accident.Except complainant Jethua other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.This Cr.A.No.3068/2016 Kallu State of M.P.corroborates the defence of the appellant.The seizure of weapons at the instance of the appellant was not proved.The trial Court on wrong appreciation of evidence found the appellant guilty in aforesaid offences.The trial Court has not considered the evidence of the appellant given in defence.The conviction recorded by trial Court is not sustainable.The appellant has been falsely implicated, therefore he may be released on bail by suspending the sentence.Learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the appellant had committed double murder and also attempted to murder the complainant.The trial Court has rightly convicted him on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore the appellant may not be released on bail.Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the incident two persons namely Suresh and Ummed were killed and complainant Jethua (P.W.1) and Munna Kachhi (P.W.2) had sustained injuries.Although except complainant Jethua other witnesses have not supported the prosecution, but looking to the statement of Jethua, it appears that he had sustained injuries in the incident.He categorically deposed that while he was returning from Salaiya alongwith deceased Suresh, Ummed and witness Munna Kachhi, the accused persons who were armed with Pharsa (sharp edged weapon) and lathis had obstructed them on the road and caused injuries.His statement is duly Cr.A.No.3068/2016 Kallu State of M.P.corroborated by FIR, which has been lodged without delay.Yashwant Verma (P.W.9) found incised wound on the head of deceased Suresh in postmortem, which could be caused by sharp object. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,869,828 | The prosecution story, as unfolded in the first information report, in brief was as under.The informant Dwarika Prasad (P.W.1) son of Mahadev resident of village Nazarpur, P.S. Suriyawan, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) gave a written report / application (Ex.Ka.-1) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad stating therein that on 11.6.1998, he performed a decent marriage of his daughter Nisha Devi with Chandra Bhan Maurya son of Ram Chandra Maurya resident of Damgada, P.S. Utraon, District Allahabad.He gave Rs.11000/- in cash along with clothes and other gift items in the tilak ceremony and in the marriage, according to the demand, Rs.25000/- in cash was given for scooter.When his daughter came back after 15 days of her vidai, she told her father that her father-in-law (Ram Chandra Maurya) had spent all the money given in the marriage and pressurizing her to bring one motorcycle, a colour t.v. and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash for doing the business of carpet.On this, the informant and family members became shocked.Thereafter, the informant visited the place of his son-in-law and talked to him and his father, who told the informant about the fulfillment of their demand.For the welfare of his daughter, the informant gave assurance to her in-laws' and again his daughter was sent to her matrimonial home along with a motorcycle.In spite of this, the husband and her in-laws' used to extend cruelty and harassment to her daughter.Sometimes her mother-in-law caused burn injuries to her by heated element.The informant was in constant touch with her daughter.Within three years of her marriage, two daughters were born out of the wedlock, out of which one was about 7 - 8 months old.On 4.2.2002 at about 4 to 5 P.M., her in-laws' and husband poured kerosene oil on his daughter and set her ablaze.On 6.2.2002, Ram Chandra, the father-in-law of the her daughter, got registered the agricultural land in the name of his grand children for the assurance that the informant would not lodge the case of dowry death.During treatment in the hospital when she (deceased) regains her consciousness, her in-law's and husband used to threat her.On 5.2.2002, on receiving information, the informant came to Swaroop Rani Hospital and saw that proper treatment was not being given to her daughter.He spent about Rs.10000/- in the treatment to save the life of her daughter.After her death, the informant made several attempts to lodge the F.I.R. against the accused persons, but F.I.R. was not lodged.On the basis of written report, first information report (Ex.Ka-2A) was lodged on 24.2.2002 at police station concerned.G.D. entry was also made.An information regarding the death of the deceased was given to the concerned police on the same day.The concerned police reached the mortuary and prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka.-12) along with police papers (Ex.Ka.-13), report to police concerned (Ex.Ka-14), report to C.M.O. (Ex.Ka.-15), Form 13 (Ex.Ka.-16), sample seal (Ex.Ka-17).Dead body was kept in a sealed cloth and was handed over to the constable Sri Krishan Katiyar for postmortem.Dr. A.C Verma (P.W.5), Medical Officer, M.L.N., Hospital conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Nisha Devi on 12.2.2002 at 2:30 P.M. As per postmortem report (Ex.Ka.-3), deceased was aged about 22 years.She was of average built and muscular body.She expired on 9.2.2002 at 3:05 P.M. The following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Nisha Devi :(i)Superficial to deep burn all over the body except part of both the upper arms and head.Pus pocket present in the wounds.Marks of surgical cut open in both the legs present.On internal examination, membranes were found congested.Lungs were also congested.200 ml.fluid was found present in the stomach.This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants Chandra Bhan Maurya and Ram Chandra Maurya against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2010 passed by Additional Distrcit & Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2003 (State Vs.Chandra Bhan Maurya and others) arising out of case crime no.30 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (In Short 'IPC') and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Utaraon, District Allahabad whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence under sections 498-A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment, for the offence under section 304-B IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment and for the offence under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one week additional imprisonment.All the sentences shall run concurrently.Small intestine and large intestine were half full.The death was caused due to septicemic shock as a result of extensive burn.The investigating officer also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka-10).He also collected the evidence and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Marriage cards Ex.Ka.-4 and Ex.Ka.-5 and letters sent by the deceased to her parents were also collected.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-11) was submitted against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.Accused appeared before the Court concerned.Charges against both the accused-appellants were framed under under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, to which they denied and pleaded themselves innocent and claimed their trial.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 Dwarika Prasad, the informant, who is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 Smt. Kesa Devi, the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 Jitendra Kumar Maurya, who is the brother of the deceased, P.W.4 Constable Rakesh Kumar Singh, the chick writer, who prepared the chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-2A), P.W.5 Dr. A.C. Verma, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, P.W.6, C.O. Mansa Ram Gautam, the subsequent investigating officer of the case, P.W.7 Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, the first investigating officer, P.W.8 Abhay Singh, the retired Circle Officer, who had also conducted the investigation in the matter and P.W.9 Dinesh Chandra Yadav, who prepared the inquest report.Court has also examined C.W.1 Kamlesh Mani Tripathi, who proved the treatment papers of the deceased, C.W.2 Ashish, who was also the witness of treatment of the deceased.Prosecution has also proved the letters Exts.After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they stated the prosecution story to be false, but they specifically pleaded that the deceased died due to accidental burn injuries.The trial Court after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid.Hence, this Appeal.Heard Sri R.C. Yadav and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Zafeer Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Deceased herself in the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate has stated nothing against the appellants.The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have also not made any reliable statement, but the trial Court wrongly appreciated the prosecution evidence.The first information report was lodged belatedly, but no plausible explanation was given.The informant and his family members were present at the time of inquest, but they did not make any complaint about the said offence.Prosecution could not prove its case to the hilt, as required under the law.Therefore, presumption raised by the trial Court taking recourse of the provisions of section 113-B of the Evidence Act is illegal.There are general allegations against both the appellants.Prosecution was also not able to establish that the appellant no.2 ever demanded any dowry from the deceased or her parents.The trial Court itself did not place reliance on the dying declaration, but on the basis of insufficient evidence, conjectures and surmises, convicted and sentenced the appellants.Offence took place in the house of the accused-appellants.There is evidence on record that the accused-appellants were making additional demand of dowry and were causing cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.It was further argued that all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.The trial Court has rightly made presumption taking recourse of the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. has properly been explained in the F.I.R. Since the deceased was under treatment, therefore, informant and his family members were also busy.Thus, the delay occurred in lodging the F.I.R. The findings of the trial Court regarding guilt of the appellants are in accordance with the evidence and law.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.Prosecution examined three witnesses of fact to prove the date of marriage, demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment said to have been caused in connection with the demand of dowry and also to establish the unnatural death of the deceased.Prosecution case is that accused persons poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased and set her ablaze.Deceased died on 9.2.2002 in the hospital during treatment.P.W. 1 Dwarika Prasad and P.W.2 Smt. Kesa Devi are the father and mother of the deceased.P.W.3 Jitendra Kumar Maurya is the brother of the deceased.All these three witnesses have supported the prosecution case.19. P.W.1 Dwarika Prasad has stated that he had given Rs.11000/- as dowry at the time of Tilak ceremony and other articles were also given by him at that time.He had also given Rs.25000/- for purchasing the scooter at the time of marriage.Appellants were demanding Rs.1 lac for business purpose and also colour t.v. and motorcycle.Informant in this connection had gone to the in-laws' house of the deceased and talked with the appellants, but they were adamant on their demand.The deceased had gone to her in-laws second time, but the accused persons were causing cruelty and harassment in connection with the continuous demand of additional dowry.Two daughters were also born out from the wedlock of the deceased and her husband.P.W.1 also stated that he stayed for about 4 to 5 days in the hospital to look after her daughter.Deceased had stated to him that accused-appellants had committed the present offence and they were pressurizing her not to disclose this fact otherwise they would kill her children.P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 all have stated that no any dying declaration was recorded in the hospital as they remained present there during the whole period.P.W.2 and P.W.3 have supported the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R.It is recorded by P.W.9 (D.W.1) Dinesh Chandra Yadav, the retired Deputy Collector.In the said dying declaration, proved as Ex.Kha-1, the victim (deceased) stated as under.**c;ku fd;k fd eS vkt lqcg tyh gWwA eS lqcg jksVh cukus ds fy;s xSl tykus tk jgh FkhA lqcg va/ksjk Fkk blfy;s oxy es fn;k tykdj j[k yh FkhA fn;k ls /kksrh es vkx idM fy;kA eS cq>kus yxhA vkx ugh cq>h rks eS fpYykus yxhA vkx cq>kus esjs vkneh rFkk vkSj lc igWqp x;sA vkSj lc es tks vk;s mudk uke eS ugh tkurhA eSa rks ty jgh Fkh fdldks ns[krhA vkx cq>kus ds fy;s esjs mij ikuh MkysA blds vykok eq>s dqN vkSj ugh dguk gSaA c;ku lqudj rlnhd fd;kA *Medical report (Ex.C-1) prepared on 4.2.2002 indicates that superficial to deep burn injury present all over the body except the scalp and sole.Skin was peeling off at different places.Injuries were fresh and were kept under observation.Postmortem report (Ex.Ka.-3) also reflects that superficial to deep burn injuries were present all over the body except part of both the upper arms and head.If the injury report, postmortem report and the statement of the doctor are taken into consideration, then it is clear that the deceased received superficial to deep burn injuries.She was initially taken to the district hospital by the appellant Chandra Bhan Maurya.Treatment was continued in the hospital till her death.There are two versions regarding the physical and mental condition of the deceased.D.W.3 Dr. B.P. Srivastava has stated that the deceased was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the Surgery.In the cross-examination, this witness stated that when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she was not in a condition to speak, but he opined that on the basis of treatment, she could be able to speak.In the instant case, first and foremost question for consideration is the existence of the first information report.Deceased died on 9.2.2002 in the hospital during treatment.Sale deeds in favour of the two daughters of the deceased were executed by the appellants before lodging of the first information report.He was repeatedly knocking the door of the police station, but no first information report was registered.Thereafter, he moved an application before the S.S.P. concerned.The same fact has been stated by P.W.1 Dwarika Prasad.Direction was also issued for registration and investigation of the case.Deceased was under treatment till her death.Informant and his family members were busy in the treatment of the deceased.It has come in the evidence that they were present in the hospital till she took her last breath.Two daughters of the deceased are alive, therefore, the fact raised by the informant that accused-appellants were pressurizing the informant not to lodge the first information report otherwise they would also kill her daughters cannot be disbelived.If the sale deeds executed in favour of the daughters are taken into consideration, then the fact emerges out that some discussion between the parties was going on regarding the offence.The trial Court observation that every efforts were being made by the appellants to dissuade the informant from lodging the first information report is absolutely correct and in accordance with evidence.Sanctity of such type of dying declaration is more in the eye of law than the other form of dying declaration, though there is no any general rule that in each and every case, dying declaration should have been recorded in question-answer form.Sanctity and authenticity of the dying declaration is attached with its truthfulness.In the present matter, admittedly the deceased, in her dying declaration, did not disclose any fact regarding dowry demand, cruelty and harassment extended on account of demand of dowry.She simply stated that she received burn injuries due to fire caught her from dia (lamp).If the last line of the dying declaration is minutely analyzed in context with the other facts and circumstances of the case and also with the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the daughters of the deceased, dying declaration (Ex.Kha.-1) becomes suspicious document.The last line of the dying declaration clearly indicates that the deceased was under pressure.Prosecution witnesses have stated that no such dying declaration was ever recorded.The trial Court has placed reliance on their statements and disbelived the dying declaration.If for the sake of argument, the defence version be taken into consideration that a dying declaration of the deceased was recorded, then also for the reasons mentioned above, the dying declaration appears to be a suspicious document.Generally, the parents do not think to initiate any criminal proceeding against the in-laws due to the reason that the family dispute will be resolved after sometime.In the present matter, from the statements of P.W.1, 2 and 3, it is quite clear that efforts were made to settle the matter, but the accused insisted for their demand.Parents would have thought that her daughter was safe.No person, except the deceased, was present in the house to help her.As aforesaid, the definition of "dowry" was amended with effect from 19-11-1986, to include the period even after the marriage.She had not specifically stated about the demand of dowry by the appellant.In their evidence PWs 4 and 5 have stated that on 25.8.1997, they went to the house of Pritam Singh in village Burj Naklian, all the accused except appellant-Baljinder Kaur were in the house.After the alleged demand of gold karra two months after the marriage, Sharanjit Kaur went to her house, again came back to the marital house and again went to her father's house and again came back to the marital house.In our considered view, the alleged demand of gold karra about two months after the marriage cannot be said to constitute a proximate live link with the death of deceased Sharanjit Kaur and the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained."Death of the deceased was due to burn injuries received by her within seven years of her marriage.There was persistent demand of dowry made by the accused side. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
108,871,179 | As per the said settlement, the first petitioner was to pay to the second respondent, and she was to receive for herself and for the daughters, a total amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, as full and final instalments of their respective claims, it being payable in various instalments including Crl.M.C. No.4212/2015 Page 2 of 8 Rs. 34,000/-, to be paid at the time of first motion before the family court to the second respondent in her name and Rs. 34,000/- each in the name of the two daughters, this followed by further payment of Rs. 33,000/- to the second respondent at the time of the second motion, along with similar amounts of Rs. 33,000/- each in the names of the two daughters, and further amount of Rs. 33,000/- to be paid to the second respondent at the time of quashing of the FIR and similar payment of Rs. 33,000/-each in the name of two daughters.M.C. No.4212/2015 Page 2 of 8M.C. No.4212/2015 Page 3 of 8Out of their cohabitation, two children took birth, both daughters on 28.10.2008 and 11.10.2011 respectively.On 29.09.2013, the second respondent lodged first information report (FIR) no. 282/2013 with police station Bhalaswa Dairy, for the offences under Section 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (the first petitioner), his father (the second petitioner), his mother (the third petitioner), his sister (the fourth petitioner), and husband of the said sister (fifth petitioner) besides his maternal uncle (sixth petitioner).The investigation into the said FIR is still pending, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) not having been submitted.M.C. No.4212/2015 Page 1 of 8The parties were before the family court for District North at Rohini in maintenance petition no. 226/2013, when they entered into an amicable settlement on 20.12.2014, in terms of which they decided to come together and live peacefully.It was against the said backdrop that the present petition was filed invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the criminal case arising out of the above-mentioned FIR.Against the above backdrop, the matter came up before this Court on 13.02.2017, when the counsel for the parties informed that the parties intended to settle the matter amicably through the process of mediation.They were accordingly referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.After the process of mediation, the settlement agreement was arrived at on 22.03.2017, the report whereof has come on record.In terms of the said settlement agreement, the parties have decided to part ways including by approaching the family court for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent.As per the said affidavit, she has confirmed that she has already received a total amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in various instalments in terms of the above-mentioned settlement.The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court copy of the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court for District North at Rohini in HMA petition no. 161/2018, whereby the marriage of the parties had been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.The parties were thus constrained to move this court for quashing on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,088,831 | While the first accused Rajammal and the third accused Murugesan in S.C. No. 2 of 1986 ion the file of the District Judge, Chengalapattu are the appellants in C.A. 729 of 1986, the Public Prosecutor has preferred C.A. No. 800 of 1989 to set aside the order of acquired of second accused Balasubramaniam and forth accused Asokan and convict them for the offences with which they were charged.Fourth Accused Asokan is the husband of deceased Uma Porkodi.Third accused Murugesan and first accused Rajammal are the parents of the fourth accused Asokan.Deceased Uma Porkodi is the brother daughter of P.W. 7 Dharmar.The father of the deceased is a deaf and dumb person P.W. 12 Ambujammal is the mother of Porkodi.In the beginning of 1985 Uma Porkodi was studying in the twelfth standard in Radhapuram in Tirunelveli District In February, 1985 P.W. 7 Dharmar brought his niece to Madras to arrange for her marriage.The parent of the fourth accused Asokan made a demand of 50 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 10,000/- in cash besides silver, aversions and brass vessels as dowry as dowry.After some bargain they agreed to receive 25 sovereigns and Rs. 10,000/- cash P.W. 12 Ambujammal handed over to P.W. 7 Dharmar 15 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 15,000/- cash for the purpose of marking jewels and purchases articles, and on 24-3-1985 marriage between Porkodi and fourth accused.Asokan took Place Ex. P. 6 is the marriage invitation.As undertaken 25 sovereign worth of jewels and Rs. 10,000/- in cash were paid at the time of marriage.P.W. 7 Dharmar and his brother Ganesan met the marriage expenses.Soon after the marriage when, P.W. 8 Mani had been to the house of the accused first accused Rajammal and fourth accused Asokan were scolding Porkodi for not having brought many cot.Thereupon P.W. 7 Dharmar purchased one pair of the third accused.At that time deceased Porkodi was not even allowed to talk with her uncle P.W. 7 Dharmar.One week after the marriage P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam sent some fruits to Porkodi through P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen, the Manger of Rohini Hotel.P.W. 2 knows all the accused.When he had been to the house of Porkodi, the deceased informed him that her parents-in-law were ill-treating her for not bringing adequate dowry.And the attitude of second accused Balasubramaniam was more overbearing than that of her husband.First accused Rajammal was findings faults with Porkadi for not bringing dowry commensurate with her status.Porkodi was crying.This witness met third accused Murugesan and fourth accused Asokan in Leyland Company and requested them not to Scold Porkodi.In May 1985 first accused Rajammal, third accused Murugesam, fourth accused Asokan and deceased Porkadi attended the betrothal ceremony of Nithiyakalyani a other niece of P.W. 7 Dharmar.The bride's party undertook to give 80 sovereigns of jewels and the scooter to bridegroom.Thereupon first accused Rajammal, third accused Murugesan and fourth accused Asokan left the function in anger saying that while fourth accused was also drawing a salary of Rs. 1,500/- as the bridegroom for Nithiyakalyani, he was given not that much of dowry.Five days after betrolthal P.W. 7 Dharmar visited the house of the accused.Porkodi informed him that all the accused were scolding her for not bringing adequate dowry.P.W. 7 pacified her stating that he would make the present in due course.When P.W. 1 Basha Mohideen had been to the house of the accused, Porkadi pleaded with him to inform the father of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and get the scooter since the accused 3 and 4 were beating her for not bringing the scooter.P.W. 2 informed P.W. 1 Panneer Selvan what Porkadi told him.On 28-5-1985 P.W. 7 Dharmar received Ex. P. 5 letter written by Porkadi narrating in detail the ill-treatment meted out to her.Thereupon P.W. 7 Dharmar presented a four sovereigns Necklace to Porkodi.On 5-6-1985 P.W. 7 Dharmar and his wife went to the house of the accused and invited fourth accused and Porkodi to the marriage of Nithiyakalyani.On that evening fourth accused took Porkodi to the marriage hall and left her there and went away.The next morning first accused Rajammal and third accused Murugesan attended the marriage in Vijayasesha Mahal.P.W. 7 Dharmar undertook to give the "seer varisai" little by little.After her parents-in-law left the place Porkadi met P.W. 7 Dharmar and P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam in the afternoon and told them that the accused 1 and 3 were feeling sorry for having taken a bride from a poor family, and the fourth accused was beating her often for not bringing the scooter as dowry.She showed these two persons the injury sustained by her in her cheek and back.She also told them that second accused Balasubramaniam threw coffee on her and she was afraid of going to the house of her husband.However, P.Ws. 1 and 7 sent Porkodi when forth accused Asokan came to the marriage hall on that night.P.W. 8 Mani was also present in the marriage hall when fourth accused Asokan threatened Porkodi from informing her relatives about the happenings in their household.This witness also pacified Porkodi when she feared for her life in accompanying her husband.On 10-6-1985 Porkodi came to the house of P.W. 8 Mani.She told him that she was being pestered to bring scooter and jewels.Often they used to hear the cry of Porkodi.P.W. 9 Raja Thevar is a resident of Radhapuram.He knows the family of Porkodi.One week prior to 18-6-1985 he felt for Madras P. W. 12 Ambujammal, mother of Porkodi gave the address of her daughter to this witness and requested him to enquire about her welfare in Madras.Accordingly, on 18-6-1985 at 8.30 a.m. P.W. 9 Raja Thevar had been to the house of the accused.He found the accused 1 to 3 and Porkodi there.He told Porkodi that her mother wanted to enquire about the welfare of Porkodi.Porkodi cried and requested this witness to ask her mother to take her home immediately.Since the accused 1 to 3 did not extend any hospitality, this witness immediately left their house.On 19-6-1985 P.W. 17 the Senior Accountant in Ashok Leyland found that the third accused Murugesan did not turn up for work.The fourth accused Asokan was working from 7.30 a.m. to 11.40 a.m.On the same day at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. P.W. 3 Saroja and P.W. 4 Subramaniam heard the crying noise of Porkodi from the downstairs.They did not take it seriously since it was a regular feature.How ever, on that day soon after their hearing the crying noise, second accused Balasubramaniam came to their portion and said that this mother wanted them.Thereupon P.W. 3 Saroja and P.W. 4 Subramaniam went to downstairs.They found first accused Rajammal, second Balasubramaniam and third accused Murugesan in the room next to the hall.Porkadi was lying on the ground with face upwards.There were injuring on the neck of Porkadi.First accused Rajammal told them that her daughter-in-law had committed suicide by hanging.Thereupon P.W. 4 Subramaniam questioned them how she could have committed suicide they heard her crying only a short while ago.Thereupon accused 1 to 3 told him as under :They were repeating their request and pledged to save them.Thereafter P.W. 4 Subramaniam left for his office.In the meanwhile, P.W. 14 Sekar, the opposite neighbours who heard about the death of Porkodi, came outside his house.Second accused Balasubramaniam conveyed to him in the presence of the accused 1 and 3 that Porkadi had died of heard attack.In the meanwhile P.W. 11 Munidass came to the house of the accused to meet third accused Murugesan in connection with his Real Estate Business.Ten days earlier the third accused had asked him to come to his house expressing his desire to sell a site owned by him P.W. 11 Munidass found the house was locked from inside at about 10.00 a.m. when he knocked the door, second accused Balasubramaniam opened it.First accused Rajammal was also standing near him.Third accused Murugesan asked this witness to come two or three days later and then they closed the door.On that day at 11.30 a.m. third accused Murugesan rang up from security room fourth accused Asokan who was on duty in Ashok Leyland Workshop.P.W. 13 Dhanapandi, Supervisor in that factory attended the phone.He conveyed to the fourth accused Asokan about the call from his father.Within five minutes third accused Murugesan came there.He told this witness that fourth accused Asokan's wife had died of heart attack and went away.Ten minutes later fourth accused also left the factory saying that his father had called him.In the meanwhile, second accused Balasubramaniam came to the house of P.W. 7 Dharamar at about 11.30 a.m. in an excited mood.He told him that Porkodi had heart attack and her condition was serious.This witness passed on the message to P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and left for the house of Porkodi.On reaching the house P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam, P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen and P.W. 7 Dharmar found Porkodi lying dead.There were contusions on both sides of her neck P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam asked all the four accused what had happened.First accused Rajammal said that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging.P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam pointed out that second accused Balasubramaniam had told them that Porkodi had heart attack.At about 4.00 p.m. on the day P.W. 21 Tahsildar arrived there and held inquest till 8.45 p.m. At the time he examined P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen, P.W. 3 Saroja, P.W. 8 Mani, Jabamalai Mary and first accused Rajammal.P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam was also present at that time, Ex. P. 16 is the Inquest Report.Thereafter he sent the body with Ex. P. 2 requisition to Stanley Hospital through P.W. 18 Police Constable for Post-mortem examination.At 9.30 p.m. P.W. 22 Sub-Inspector recovered M.O. 8 nylon saree of deceased Porkodi and M.O. 9 teapoy under Ex. P. 8 mahazar.P.W. 15 has arrested this mahazar also.Then the Sub-Inspector got M.O. 11 series Photographs taken of the dead body by P.W. 19 Photographer.At the time of strangulation violence might have been there directly on the hyoid bone as there was a fracture on the hyoid bone.The Doctor ruled out the possibility of hanging with nylon saree.Ex. P. 4 is the post-mortem certificate.After the autopsy was over, P.W. 18 Constable handed over the body to fourth accused Asokan.This witness took M.O. 1 saree, M.O. 2 jacket and M.O. 10 skirt from the body entrusted the same in the Tiruvettiyur Police Station.On 19-6-1985 after receipt of Ex. P. 4 postmortem report, P.W. 21 Tahsildar prepared Ex. P. 17 report and sent the same along with Ex. P. 15 printed F.I.R., Ex. P. 1 complaint, Ex. P. 16 inquest report and the statements of witnesses to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate.On 20-6-1985 P.W. 22 Sub-Inspector altered the crime to one under S. 498-A and S. 302, I.P.C. and prepared Ex. P. 19 Express report.After receipt of the Express report P.W. 25 Inspector examined P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen, P.W. 3 Saroja, P.W. 8 Mani, P.W. 12 Ambujammal and P.W. 14 Sekar.Pursuant to the investigation made till then he arrested all the accused 1 to 4 at 2.15 p.m. and produced them in Court.He examined P.W. 9 Raja, P.W. 18 Constable and P.W. 5 Doctor.On 14-8-1985 the Inspector seized M.O. 3 Record book of Porkodi produced by P.W. 7 Dharmar and sent the same to Court.On his requisition the Judicial Second Class Magistrate sent M.O. 3 and Ex. P. 5 letter to Forensic Science Laboratory under Ex. P. 13 letter for the comparison of the writings.He is of the opinion that both the documents are in the handwriting of one and the same person.P.W. 23 Inspector continued his investigation and gave Ex. P. 9 requisition to forward M.O. 1 nylon saree.M.O. 2, Jacket, M.O. 8 nylon saree and M.O. 10 skirt for chemical examination.Under Ex. P. 10 dated 14-8-1985 the Judicial Second Class Magistrate sent the articles for chemical examination.P. 11 and P. 12 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist.On requisition from the Inspector, P.W. 24 District Register granted Ex. P. 20 sanction to prosecute the accused under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.He checked up the investigation already made.On 6-9-1985 he examined P.W. 21 Tahsildar.On 9-9-1985 he examined P.W. 16 Teacher.He recovered.M.O. 4 answer paper and M.O. 5 Tamil Note Book of Porkodi and sent the same to Handwriting Expert.(1) Harassment of the victim girl and cruelty meted out to her for not bringing adequate dowry by the in-laws which constitute the motive for the crime.(2) Scene of occurrence is the residence of the accused as well as the victim.(3) At about 8.30 on that day accused 1 to 3 and deceased Porkodi were available in the house as per P.W. 9 who happened to be there to convey the message sent by P.W. 12 mother.(4) 3rd accused Murugesan did not go to the factory on that day.(5) The upstairs neighbours P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 heard the cries of the deceased at about 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. from below.(6) Soon after that they found accused 1 to 3 in their house with the dead body of Porkodi.(7) There were injuries on the neck of Porkodi.(8) Ist accused Rajammal represented to P.Ws. 3 and 4 that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging.(9) When P.W. 4 expressed his doubt that it could not be so, accused 1 to 3 confessed to him that they had committed a mistake.(10) Accused 1 to 3 repeatedly pleaded with P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 to inform others that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging.(11) 2nd accused Balasubramaniam told P.W. 14 Sekar the opposite neighbour in the presence of accused 1 and 3 that Porkodi had died of heart attack.(12) When P.W. 11 Muniadass knocked the door of scene house at about this time as per prior appointment he was asked to come later by 2nd accused Balasubramaniam.(13) Then both accused 1 and 3 closed the door from inside.(14) At 11.30 a.m. 3rd accused told P.W. 13 Dhandapani in the factory of 4th accused Asokan that Porkodi had died of heart attack.When P.W. 8 Mani conveyed this message to P.W. 7 Dharmar, he had purchased a pair of cots and delivered them in the house of 3rd accused Murugesan.The presentation of the cot is admitted by A1, A3 and A4 in their statements under S. 313, Cr.P.C. The evidence of P.W. 7 Dharmar also discloses that Ist accused Rajammal expressed her grievance that the marriage of 4th accused Asokan was not performed in such a grand manner as that of Nithiyakalyani another niece of P.W. 7 Dharmar, thought both the bridegrooms were drawing the same salary of Rs. 1,500/-.These are all materials sufficient in our view to hold A. 4 Asokan also liable under section Section 313, I.P.C.The Learned Sessions Judge has observed that since it is not the case of the prosecution that A. 4 Asokan ever demanded any dowry, he could not be held guilty under section 313, I.P.C. As per this Section subjecting a woman to cruelty with a view to harass her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her, to meet such a demand is an offence.Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act mere demand of dowry is punishable and the existence of the element or cruelty is not necessary.A2 Balasubramaniam stated that he has got no connection with the incident, that he is the sole bread-winner of the family and that his entire family is dependent on him.A4 Asokan stated that he is innocent, that he has got a second wife and two children, aged one-and-a-half years and one-and-a-half months respectively, and that he has got to maintain them apart from his two sisters.Second accused Balasubramaniam is the younger brother of the fourth accused.They were charged before the trail court under four heads.The first charge against accused 1 to 3 under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. was that on 18-6-1986 at about 10.00 a.m. in furtherance of their common intention they committed the murder of Uma Porkodi by manual strangulation.The second charge against the accused 1 and 3 under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act, 1961 was that on 18-6-1985 in the ordered of the same transaction from the date of marriage proposal they demanded directly or indirectly from P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and P.W. 7 Dharmar, the guardians of the bride, 50 sovereigns of jewels and cash of Rs. 10,000/- as Dowry at the time of marriage as consideration for the same which was particular complied with.The third charge against the accused 1 to 4 under S. 498-A, I.P.C. was that in the course of the same transaction on or about 18-6-1985 they subjected the deceased Uma Porkodi to cruelty and harassment by making unlawful demands of properties from her guardians.The fourth charge against the accused 1 to 3 under S. 201 I.P.C. was that at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction knowing that murder of Uma Porkodi had been committed, they caused the evidence of the said offences to disappear by attempting to set up the case of suicide by Uma Porkodi with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment.The case of the prosecution as disclosed from evidence on record is an under :- The family of the accused is put up in the ground floor of No. 40/8, Vasantha Nagar, Tiruvottiyur.P.W. 4 Subramaniam and his wife P.W. 3 Saroja are residing in the upstairs of the same house.Both the third accused Murugesan and his son fourth accused Asokan are employed in stock Leyland near Ennore.P.W. 8 Mani who is a co-worker is a distant relative of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam.The said Panneer Selvam is the proprietor of Rohini Hotel in T. Nagar.P.W. 7 Dharmar is a first cousin of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam.At her request this witness met fourth accused in the work place and pacified him.First accused Rajammal and third accused Murugesan used to express their grievance against Porkadi for not bringing proper dowry to P.W. 4 Subramaniam who is residing in the upstairs of the house with his wife P.W. 3 Saroja.P.Ws. 3 and 4 know that Porkodi was unhappy.He also showed first accused Rajammal that there were injuries on the neck of Porkodi.Since P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam entertained suspicion on the death of Porkodi, he went to Thiruvattiyur Police Station along with P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen.P. 14 and P. 15 are printed F.I.R.s prepared by him.After sending intimation to the Tahsildar, P.W. 22 Sub-Inspector came to the scene place, inspected the same and prepared Ex. P. 18 rough sketch and Ex. P. 7 observation mahazar.P.W. 15 Pani alias Burnabas present at that time arrested Ex. P. 7 observation mahazar.On receiving intimation P.W. 23 Inspector also came to the scene place.He found P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and P.W. 7 Dharmar there.He examined them.P.W. 7 Dharmar produced M.O. 6 marriage invitation, M.O. 11 series photographs and M.O. 12 photographs.When he checked up observation mahazar, he found that M.O. 9 teapoy was of 50 c.m. height.When he stood on the teapoy and tried to touch the hook in the ceiling, he could do so only with some difficulty.His height was 5' 6".On the same night P.W. 4 Subramaniam returned home from duty at 11.30 p.m. The accused 1 to 3 told him that when Tahsildar came there earlier, they had told him that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging.They also requested this witness to tell the same thing when questioned.On 19-6-1985 at 10.40 a.m. P.W. 5 Doctor commenced post-mortem in the stanley Medical College Hospital.Rigor Mortis was present in the lower limb.It was a fairly nourished female body aged about 19 years.The lips and finger nails were cranesed (sic).(1) A contusion over the left side of neck 1 x 1 cm (? Nail mark) (2) Contusion just below right mandible 1 x 1 cm (? Nail mark) There was no evidence of any ligature mark around the neck.Internal examination revealed the following :- Examination of the neck showed congestion of the tissues with tear of the muscle tissues in the neck.Heart : Right side contained blood.Lungs : Cyanosed.There was and inward compression of fracture on the left greater born of hyoid bone.Stomach contents : Empty.Liver : Congested.Spleen Kidneys : Normal.Uterus : Empty.Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased would have died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation (throttling) and throttling would have taken place between 10.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. on 18-6-1985 and death would have been almost instantaneous.Throttling cannot be a suicidal one.Both external and internal injuries noted by the doctor along with complete absence of any evidence of ligature mark in the neck showed that it was a case of throttling homicidal (manual strangulation).On 16-9-1985 he examined P.W. 10 Nagarajan.On 19-9-1985 he examined P.W. 13 Dhandapani and P.W. 17 Gnanasambandam.On completion of investigation he laid charge sheet under S. 302 read with S. 34, S. 201, S. 498-A I.P.C. and S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. While denying other allegations first accused Rajammal admitted that P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and P.W. 7 Dharmar who are the relatives of Porkodi arranged for her marriage and that Porkodi was then studying in Radhapuram.She also admitted that an 24-3-1985 the marriage between fourth accused.Asokan and Porkodi took place.P.W. 7 Dharmar presented a pair of cots to the couple.She and her husband attended the marriage of Nithiyakalyani along with her son and daughter-in-law.P.W. 3 Saroja and P.W. 4 Subramanian are residing in the upstairs of their house as their tenants.She told P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging.Second accused Balasubramaniam also admitted that P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam is a relative of Porkodi and P.W. 12 Ambujammal is her mother, that Porkodi was brought to Madras by P.W. 7 Dharmar from Radhapuram to perform her marriage, that Nithiyakalyani's marriage took place at Vadapalani on 6-6-1985, that the first accused Rajammal, third accused Murugesan and fourth accused Asokan attended the marriage and that P.Ws. 3 and 4 are residing in the upstair portion of their house.Their accused Murugesan also admitted that on 24-3-1985 the marriage between Porkodi and fourth accused Asokan took place, that on 5-6-1985 he attended the marriage of Nithiyakalyani with he accused 1 and 4 and that P.Ws. 3 and 4 are residing in the upstair portion of their house.He also, conceded that on 18-6-1985 at 10.30 a.m. he met P.W. 13 Dhandapani, in the store of Ashok Leyland Workshop, that on that day he did not go to the workshop and that fourth accused Asokan was working in the factory till 11.30 a.m.Fourth accused Asokan also conceded the relationship of Porkodi with P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and P.W. 7 Dharmar, that P.W. 7 Dharmar brought Porkodi to Madras to perform her marriage, that he married her on 24-3-1985, that P.W. 7 Dharmar presented a pair of costs to them, that on 5-6-1985 they attended the marriage of Nithiyakalayani and that P.Ws. 3 and 4 are residing in the upstair portion of their house.On appraisal of the abovesaid materials the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 3 to undergo imprisonment for file under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. on the first charge, acquitted second accused of the first charge under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C.convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the Second charge, convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under S. 498-A, I.P.C. on the third charge, acquitted second accused and fourth accused under S. 498-A, I.P.C. on the third charge, convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under S. 201, I.P.C. on the fourth charge, acquitted second accused under section 201, I.P.C. on the fourth charge, acquitted second accused under section 201, I.P.C. on the fourth charge.Aggrieved by the abovesaid conviction and sentence and acquittal these appeals and criminal revision have been preferred as indicated earlier.The Doctor had ruled out the possibility of suicide in view of the external and internal injuries noted by her along with complete absence of any evidence of ligature mark on the neck.So the main question that arises for consideration is whether accused 1 to 3 or any of them are the culprits who have throttled the neck Porkodi and caused her death around 10.00 a.m. on 18-6-1985 at their residence in ground floor of No. 40/8, Vasanth Nagar, Thiruvattiyur.The other questions relate to the charge under S. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A and 201 of I.P.C.(15) At about the same time 2nd accused Balasubramaniam informed P.W. 7 Dharmar that Porkodi had suffered a heart attack and her condition was serious.(16) P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 found contusions on both sides of the neck of Porkodi.(17) Ist accused Rajammal told these three that Porkodi had committed suicide by hanging.(18) At 1.30 p.m. P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam gave Ex. P. 1 complaint stating that it was a case of suspicious death.Though it was denied on behalf of the appellants that no dowry was ever demanded and Porkodi was not subject to any illtreatment in the hands of her in-laws we find from the evidence of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam, P.W. 7 Dharmar and P.W. 8 Mani who had arranged for the marriage that even at the time of negotiations 3rd accused Murugesan and Ist accused Rajammal demanded jewels of 50 sovereigns and cash of Rs. 10,000/- besides silver and cash of Rs. 10,000/- besides silver and brass vessels as "Seer".However, they reluctantly received jewels of 25 sovereigns and cash of Rs. 10,000/-.P.W. 2 the Manager of P.W. 1 speaks about Porkodi telling him that she was being harassed by A1, A3 and A4 for not bringing adequate dowry and A2 was commending her more than her husband.P.W. 8 Mani states that when he had been to the house of Porkodi, Ist accused Rajammal and 4th accused Asokan scolded Porkodi for not bringing even a cot.In fact, according to this witness, on the same day in the marriage house Porkodi complained that 4th accused Asokan beat her saying that not even a scooter was presented to him.She had also shown the injury sustained by her in her cheek and back.She expressed her apprehension to go back to her husband's house stating further that even 2nd accused Balasubramaniam threw coffee on her.It is also the evidence of P.W. 8 Mani that on 10-6-1985 Porkodi came to him and complained that she was being pestered to get a scooter.Thereupon this witness had met 4th accused Asokan in the workshop and pacified him.When P.W. 9 Raja Thevar had been Porkodi in the morning of 18-6-1985, she requested him to inform her mother to take her home immediately.P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 also state that it was a regular feature in the house of Porkodi the in-laws finding fault with her for not bringing adequate dowry.In fact, accused 1 and 3 used to express their displeasure to P.W. 4 subramaniam that adequate dowry was not brought by Porkodi.These are all natural and independent witnesses who have absolutely no animosity against appellants.P.Ws. 1 and 7 are close relations of Porkodi who were interested in her welfare.They were only anxious that Porkodi whose father is a deaf and dumb person must lead a happy married life.The evidence of these witnesses has a ring of truth.And above all we find from Ex. P. 5 the letter written by Porkodi on 28-5-1985 to P.W. 7 Dharmar how her life proved to be a miserable one.The narration as extracted below is tell tale :So there is positive proof that the deceased Porkodi was subject to cruelty and harassment when the dowry demanded was not forthcoming.From the aforesaid materials it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found A. 1 Rajammal and A. 3 Murugesan guilty under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 6 months on the second charge.The third charge under section 498-A, I.P.C. was against all the four accused.The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced only A. 1 Rajammal and A. 3 Murugesan under this charge.But he has acquitted A. 2 Balasubramaniam on the ground that he never participated in the ill-treatment meted out to Porkodi and that he never demanded dowry.However a careful scrutiny of the evidence would reveal that on this aspect, there are three pieces of evidence against him.It is the version of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam that on 6-6-1985 at the time of Nithya Kalyani's marriage, Uma Porkodi told him that A. 2 Balasubramaniam was harassing her more than her husband.It is also the evidence of P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen that when he had been to the house of Porkodi, she complained to him that A. 2 Balasubramaniam was giving orders to her more than her husband.P.W. 7 Dharmar states that Porkodi told him that one day A. 2 threw coffee at her for bringing it late.Though the last one may be an isolated instance exhibiting lack of culture, in the background of the case we are inclined to view the first two as part of the grand design of the accused to coerce her to bring more 'seer.' The word cruelty has been explained in Section 313; so also harassment.I.P.C. reads that whoever being the husband or the relative of husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.As stated earlier cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.Intent to injure is the most important element of cruelty contemplated under section 313, I.P.C. and that stands established against A. 2 Balasubramaniam.So the stand of the learned Sessions Judge that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that A. 2 Balasubramaniam harassed Porkodi on that score does not appear to be sound.However, we do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal of A. 2 Balasubramaniam on the charge under section 313, I.P.C. even though we are inclined to take a different view of the matter, for on that basis alone, in law, an acquittal cannot be interfered with, so long as the view taken is also plausible.The trial Court has acquitted A. 4 Asokan the husband of the deceased also under S. 498-A, I.P.C. on the third charge.In the presence of P.W. 8 Mani, A. 4 Asokan had scolded his wife for not getting him a cot.At the time of Nithiyakalyani's marriage, Porkodi had shown to P.W. 7 Dharmar the injuries sustained by her on her cheek and back.She had complained that A. 4 had inflicted the injuries saying that not even a scooter was presented to him.At the request of Porkodi, P.W. 8 Mani had pacified.A. 4 Asokan regarding the gift of scooter.It may be that A. 4 Asokan cannot be punished under Sec. 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act for there is paucity of evidence of his having made a demand at or before the time of marriage, in connection with the marriage.Maltreatment, beating etc., to extort more and more money or articles from Porkodi or her relative will certainly fall under cruelty contemplated under S. 498-A, I.P.C. In this case the parents of A. 4 Asokan demanded dowry initially and began to ill-treat the girl with a view to compel her to get scooter, cot and other articles.Only to achieve this object A. 4 had joined his parents is subjecting her to cruelty.In any event there is positive evidence as already referred to that A. 4 Ashokan was also making specific demand for Scooter and other articles even though there is no charge framed against him under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is therefore evidence that the finding of the trail Court that A. 4 is not guilty under section 313, I.P.C. is clearly unsustainable.Let us next examine who are the accused persons responsible for the homicidal violence on Porkodi.A. 3 Murugesan admits in his statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C. that on 18-6-1985 he did not go for work whatever be the reason.P.W. 9 Raja Devar had seen A. 1 to A. 3 available in the house along with Porkodi at 8-30 a.m. on that day.He is the former President of Panchayat Board of his village in Tirubelveli District.He had called on Porkodi on that morning at the request of her mother.P.W. 12 Ambujammal.He is a frequent visitor to Madras and his evidence has not been shaken in any manner during his cross-examination.And around 10 a.m. on that day, the upstairs neighbours P.W. 3 Saroja and P.W. 4 Subramaniam had heard the cries of Porkodi from the downstairs.When they came down, they saw A. 1 to A. 3 in the house with the dead body of Porkodi.There were injuries on the neck of Porkodi.When it was represented to them by A. 1 Rajammal that Porkodi had committed suicide, immediately, P.W. 4 Subramaniam pointed out that it could not have been so since they heard her cries only a few minutes back.Thereupon, A. 1, to A. 3 pleaded with them saying that :-This conduct on the part of the A. 1 to A. 3 expressing an intention to give a twist to the event goes a long way to strengthen the view that their design was to hide the guilt.P.W. 3 Saroja admits that she had told P.W. 21 Tahsildar when he held the inquest at 4.00 p.m. on that day as desired by A. 1 to A. 3 pressed her to say so.What she told the Tahsildar is not the truth and her version in the witness box was the only truth.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that the testimony of P.W. 3 Saroja was that of a person who was in the nature of an accomplice.The conduct of P.W. 3 Saroja and P.W. 4 Subramaniam in not coming forward with truth till they were examined by the Police on 20-6-1985 would render their evidence unreliable.We have carefully considered this submission.We have no reason not to act on the testimony of P.W. 4 Subramaniam.Since we do not take into consideration the version of P.W. 3 Saroja, the evidence of P.W. 10 Nagarajan her brother that his sister narrated the incident that took place in the morning and that he advised her to tell the truth is also of little significance.We are unable to comprehend how the prior statements of Jebamalai Mary and her daughter Flora (not witnesses examined in Court) and A. 1 Rajammal, made before the Tahsildar (P.W. 21), would be admissible in evidence to be brought on record as Ex. D. 2 to D. 4, P.W. 23 Inspector of Police, had however examined both Jebamalai Mary and Floraduring investigation.Exs. D. 2 to D. 4 apart from the legal impediment blocking their entry, cannot help the case of the accused.Be it noted that P.W. 4 was in a hurry to leave for his office on that morning.He heard the noise of Porkodi, came down and found her dead.It is true that neither he instructed his wife to speak the truth before he left the house nor he chose to act immediately on learning from her after returning from duty at 11.30 p.m., that she had given a false version at the time of inquest.We cannot expect him to direct his wife when he was in a hurry to go to his Office to speak against his landlords.Only at 11.30 p.m., on that day he came to know that his wife did not tell the truth before the Tahsildar.But on 20-6-1985 when he was examined by the Police, he and his wife had come forward with the true version.So we have no reason to discard the evidence of P.W. 4 Subramaniam.We also find from the evidence of P.W. 11 Munia Doss that even though he had an appointment with A. 3 Murugesan to meet him at his residence when he knocked the door around 10.00 a.m. on 18-6-1985, he was not allowed inside and instead he was asked to come two or three days later by A. 3 Murugesan.This witness had also seen A. 1 Rajammal and A. 2 Balasubramaniam in the house at this time.He is running a pawn broker shop in Washermenpet.His uncle is a real estate agent.Immediately after the occurrence, P.W. 14, Sekar the opposite neighbour was informed by A. 1 Rajammal and A. 3 Murugesan that Porkodi had died of heart attack.A. 2 Balasubramaniam had conveyed to P.W. 7 Dharmar at about 11.30 a.m. that Porkodi had suffered a serious heart attack.When P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 came to the house they were informed by A. 1 Rajammal that Porkodi had committed suicide.Around 11.30 a.m. on the same day A. 3 Murugesan had been to the factory of A. 4 Asokan and told P.W. 13 Dhandapani that Porkodi had died of heart attack.The conduct of the accused in giving prevaricating versions regarding the death of Porkodi exposes only the guilty mind.Though P.Ws. 1 and 7 are relatives of Porkodi and P.W. 2 Basha Mohideen is the Manager of P.W. 1, Panneer Selvam's hotel, P.W. 13, Dhandapani and P.W. 14 Sekar are independent witnesses.The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 cannot be rejected merely because they are the well wishers of Porkodi.The presence of A. 1 to A. 3 in the ill-fated house in the company of the deceased between 8.30 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. has thus been cogently established.At 8.30 a.m. deceased Porkodi was seen alive in the company of A. 1 to A. 3, but at or about 10.00 a.m. or shortly thereafter, she was found dead, inside the house of the accused.On the first charge the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. against A1 Rajammal and A3 Murugesan are confirmed.The order of acquittal passed against A2 Balasubramaniam under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. is set aside.He is found guilty and convicted thereunder.On the second charge the conviction and sentence passed against A1 Rajammal and A3 Murugesan under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are confirmed.The order of acquittal of A2 Balasubramaniam of the third charge under S. 498, I.P.C. is upheld.The order of acquittal of A4 Asokan of charge No. 3 under S. 498-A, I.P.C. is set aside.He is found guilty and convicted thereunder.On the third charge the conviction and sentence passed against A1 Rajammal and A3 Murugesan under S. 498-A, I.P.C. are confirmed.On the fourth charge the conviction and sentence passed against A1 Rajammal and A3 Murugesan under S. 201, I.P.C. are confirmed.The order of acquittal of A2 Balasubramaniam of this charge under S. 201, I.P.C. is set aside.He is found guilty and convicted thereunder.A2 Balasubramaniam and A4 Asokan were summoned and questioned today under S. 313, Cr.P.C. They pleaded that they have got to support their families.Even when repeatedly asked about the sentence to be awarded A2 and A4 stated that they have got nothing further to say.After considering the representations, A2 Balasubramaniam is sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under S. 302, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C., and three years rigorous imprisonment under S. 201, I.P.C. and the sentences are to run concurrently.The Registry will issue necessary warrants for sending A2 Balasubramaniam and A4 Asokan to the Central Prison, Madras. | ['Section 498A 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. |
1,088,922 | JUDGMENT M.K. Arpagavinayagam, J.These appeal and revision are being disposed of by this common judgment, as both arise out of a single case and the parties are the same.(a) Ravi Shah (A 1) is the son of Narayan Shah (A2) and Ganga Bai (A3).As regards, P.W. 4 gave jewels of 12 sovereigns and Rs. 12,000/- as dowry.On that day, as demanded by A2, the father of A1, P.W. 4 gave Rs. 1,200/- for the purchase of a marriage cot.P.Ws. 1 and 4 are working in the same concern.P.W. 13 belongs to the same caste to which P.W. 4 and the accused belong and he is the Secretary of the Caste Association,(b) After marriage, the victim Shanthi Bai was not sent back to the parents' house in order to attend the milk drinking ceremony.P.W. 4, the father went several times to the house of the accused and requested A2 to send her along with bridegroom.Hence, P.W. 4 complained about the attitude of A2 to P.W. 13 and presented a requisition asking P.W. 13 to intervene in the matter and settle the dispute.In pursuance of the effort of P.W. 13 a feast was arranged in the house of P.W, 4 and all.(c) After some months, P.W. 4 visited the house of A2 to see his daughter.The victim also told P.W. 4 and her mother that she was unwillingly doing the same, since she was compelled to massage the body of A2 on so many occasions, even during night hours.Some times A2 used to scold the victim and threatened that he would arrange for the second marriage for his son.A1 and employ the victim as their servant-maid.(d) On the eve of Deepavali, P.W. 4 along with the relatives sent to the house of A2 by taking sweets and other things for the purpose of inviting the new couple to his house for first Deepavali.(Vernacular matter in omitted.) When the victim Shanthi Bai did not talk to P.W. 4 freely, P.W. 4 questioned her as to why she was not joining with them in a happy mood.At that point of time, A2 intervened and asked P.W. 4 and others not to talk to victim any more, as she became his daughter-in-law.There was a wordy quarrel at that time.A1 intervened and scolded P.W. 4 in a filthy language in the presence of the victim and asked them to go out.Consequently, P.W. 4 and others had to go out of the house.Ultimately, the bridegroom and bride did not come to the house of P.W. 4 for celebrating first Deepavali festival.(e) P.W. 4 came to know that the victim became pregnant.After some months, P.W. 4 visited the house of A2 and requested to send her to his house to perform 'Seemantham.' A2 demanded Rs. 10,000/- and told that only if the said amount is given, he would send the victim to his house.Since P.W. 4 was not able to give the money, despite the request of P.W. 4, the victim was not sent to the house of P.W. 4 for the purpose of "Seemantham" function.(f) On 9-12-1988 P.W. 4 was informed that Shanthi Bai gave birth to a male child in Sheeba Nursing Home.Thereupon, P.W. 4, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and other relatives went to see the child at the Nursing Home.They were not allowed to see the child by A2, since P.W. 4 did not give the amount of Rs. 10,000/-.Thereafter, the deceased wrote letters Exs.P5 and P6 to P.W. 4 stating that she was not happy in the house of the accused.(g) Some time later, as requested by P.W. 4, P.W. 1, the friend of P.W. 4, went to the house of A2, in order to see the victim.Ravi Shah and Narayan Shah (A1 and A2) were convicted in S.C. No. 164 of 1990 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, for the offence under Section 498(a) r/w Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.Though the said appellants were convicted under Section 498(a) read with Section 34, I.P.C. they were acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in the same trial in S.C. No. 164 of 1990 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras.Hence, the present revision in Cri.R.C. No. 485 of 1993 as against the said acquittal, by Ramchandra Shah, the petitioner, who was examined as P.W. 4 in the trial, the father of the victim in this case.The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal and revision could be, summarised as follows :-When he visited the house, he found the victim was not happy and in dejected mood.(h) On 13-9-1989 at about 8.15 a.m. P.W. 4 received information that the victim was admitted in the General Hospital and few hours later, she died in the hospital.At 11.00 a.m. A 1 himself went to Chinthathiripet Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W. 15, Sub-Inspector of Police, stating that his wife, the deceased was suffering from heart ailment and since she became fainted when she was pumping waterpipe she was taken to hospital where the died.This complaint Ex. P14 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R. is Ex. P ll.(i) P.W.2 Tahsildar conducted investigation, examined witnesses and sent a report Ex. P 12 to P.W. 5, the then P. A. to the District Collector.On his request through Ex P1, P.W. 2 Doctor conducted postmortem.Ex. P2 is the postmortem report, Ex. P4 is the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex. P3 is the final opinion given by the Doctor stating that the deceased died due to consumption of poison.(j) After investigation, on 2 1 -9-1989 the case was altered into one under Section 304(b), I.P.C. On 19-4-1990 the charge-sheet was filed by P.W. 17, Assistant Commissioner of Police as against A1 to A3 for the said offence.However, the charges were framed by the trial Court against A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 498(a) read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.(k) During the course of trial, P.W. 1 to P.W. 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were filed and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked on the side of prosecution.On the side of defence, Ex. Dl was marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., they pleaded not guilty.It further concluded that A1 to A3 were not guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.(m) As indicated earlier, as against the conviction as well as the acquittal, the present appeal and revision have been filed before this Court.Mr. B. K. Singh, the counsel for the petitioner in the revision, as against the acquittal would contend that the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., as there are materials to establish the said charge and that the decisions in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab , Subedar Tewan v. State of U.P. , Shunmugasundaram v. State 1997 Cri LJ 499, Shyam Sunder v. State l997 Cri LJ 35 (Delhi), Duvasi Ramula v. State of A.P. 1996 Cri LJ 4021 (Andh Par) State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1997 Cri LJ 2133 (Punj & Har) : (State of A.P. v. Gangula Sataya Murthy) ; (Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala Mishra) have not been followed by the trial Court, while appreciating the materials available on record.In the instant case, the victim was taken to (ho hospital by the accused himself, first to P.W. 3, the Doctor at a private Nursing Home at Chinthalhiripet and thereafter, to General Hospital.Since she was declared dead at the General Hospital, Al himself went to the police station and gave a complaint to P.W. 15, the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 11.00 a.m. reported about the death of the deceased.While interpreting Sections 103, 105 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the various High Courts as well as the Apex Court in the citations referred to above, would hold that the accused persons absconded from the place of occurrence and that therefore, the conduct was taken as one of the circumstances to draw the inference that they were the parties for the commission of the crime, in the context of non-explanation of their con duct.In fact, as indicated earlier, the accused only took the victim to the hospital and after her death, he gave a complaint to the police suspecting that the death must have been due to heart ailment.If actually, the poison was administered by the accused, the victim would not have been taken to the hospital nor would the accused have given any such complaint to the police.In such circumstance, I am not able to agree with the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are materials for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.It was submitted before the trial Court on the side of prosecution that though there are no direct materials for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., there are sufficient materials to convict Al and A2 at least for the offence under Section 304(B), I.P.C. This submission was turned down by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the materials available on record would only show the ill-treatment and there is no material to show that the said ill-treatment could be termed to be a dowry torture and that mere cruelty or torture in the absence of dowry demand would not attract Section 304(b), I.P.C.Mr. Ramasamy, the counsel for the appellants in C.A. No. 1 of 1992 challenging the conviction under Section 498(a), I.P.C., would submit that the evidence on record would not prove even the offence under Section 498(a), I.P.C.In this context, though appeal has not been filed by the State as against acquittal in respect of charge of murder the Government Advocate was asked as to his assessment of law and factual aspects in this case.He would fairly submit that there are no materials to show that the accused were liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., but certainly there are materials to show that A1 and A2 committed the offence under Section 304(b), I.P.C.In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, let me now discuss the evidence available on record.The following circumstances have been brought out by the prosecution to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty on various occasions till her death :-According to P.W. 1, during this period A2 was not agreeable for the early marriage, since originally A2 demanded 16 sovereigns for which P.W. 4 agreed for 12 sovereigns.On the date of marriage, an amount of Rs. 12,000/- and 12 sovereigns were given.Since A2 demanded the money of Rs. 1,200/- towards the purchase of marriage cot, the same was given.The genera! custom in their caste is that both bride and bridegroom have to come back to the bride's place for participating in the milk drinking ceremony.A2 did not allow the bride and bridegroom to attend the said ceremony in P.W. 4's house.A2 gave lame excuses as if his sisters were objecting to it, When P.W. 4 enquired his sisters, they had stated that they had no objection for the said ceremony.With reference to this P.W. 4 gave a complaint to P.W. 13, the Secretary of the Caste Association.The said complaint is Ex. Dl.This was given on 20-1-1988, that is, four months after the marriage.(ii) The evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 would show that the victim and her husband were not allowed to go to the house of P.W. 4 to celebrate the first Deepavali.(iv) After the birth of the child on 9-12-1988, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 along with their relatives went to the Sheeba Nursing Home, where they were not actually allowed to see the child by A1 and A2 stating that they are poor beggars and that they cannot see the child without payment of Rs. 10,000/-.Therefore, they did not see the child and came back.(v) The victim wrote letters Exs.Through these letters the victim intimated to her parents that she was not allowed to live in their house freely by A1 and A2 and her jewels were pledged by them and that she was being ill-treated continuously, since she objected to A2's effort of preventing her from meeting them.P.W. 10 also was informed about this by the victim.In fact, these materials have been referred to by the trial Court to come to the conclusion that the victim was subjected to cruelty at the hands of Al and A2, which drove the victim to commit suicide.However, the trial Court has specifically found that there are no materials to hold that A1 and A2 committed the offence under Section 304(b) of I.P.C., since there is no dowry torture and as such, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 304(b), I.P.C. is made out.The above conclusion, in my view, may not be correct, in view of the following reasons.No doubt, it is true that there are various instances which would show that the victim was subjected to cruelty for the reasons other than the demand of money.Even in Ex. DI, the complaint given by P.W. 4 to P.W. 13, there is no reference about the demand of dowry.Up to 'Seemantham' period, as admitted by P.W. 4, the victim was tortured by Al and A2 by not allowing her to go to the house of P.W. 4 and by compelling her to apply balm and rub it on the body of A2 without her willingness, especially when A2 has got other daughters living in the same house.But, the demand of money only was made when P.W. 4 approached A2 to permit him to take his daughter to his house to perform 'Seemantham' in his house.Till the end, 'Seemantham' was not performed by A2 nor did he allow P.W. 4 to perform it in his house.After the child was born, P.W. 4 and other relatives went to the hospital to see the child, but they were not allowed by A1 and A2, as the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- demanded earlier by A2 was not paid.Ex. P9, the statement given by P.W. 4 to P.W. 5, P.A. to the District Collector, on 24-10-1989 would also contain all the details about the demand of the said money and also the demand for more jewels even prior to the marriage.Apart from this, the letters Exs.The relevant portion of the letter Ex. P5 dated 23-2-1989 is this :-(Vernacular matter omitted) The relevant portion in Ex. P6, dated 11-4-1989.is as follows :-(Vernacular matter omitted)When he visited, he saw the victim being insulted by A1 and A2 in his presence. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,088,951 | V.Raghavachari For Appellant in Crl.A.No.612/2008 by A1 and Crl.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:P.W.2 is running a mineral water shop in the name and style 'Penguin Waters' and P.W.1 was running a bunk shop which is part of the building in which P.W.2 is running the mineral water shop.During the relevant time, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 were living together at Nethaji Nagar.P.W.4 reported the same to P.W.1 and P.W. 1 questioned the accused but the accused/A1 to A3 assaulted him.From that time onwards, they were in inmical terms.P.W.4 intended to go to Madras on 8.7.2007 for treatment.She went to the shop of her husband P.W.2 to inform about the same.When she was just nearing the shop of P.W.2, herself and P.W.1 saw A1 to A4 attacking P.W.2 with aruvals and causing injuries.One Ganapathi who was actually standing by the side was pacifying the situation.Ganapathy questioned the conduct of the accused.Immediately, A3 inflicted a cut injury on his neck with aruval.Ganapathy fell down.A1 gave stab injury on his stomach.P.W.3 who was watching T.V. inside the shop came out and when he questioned A1, he was also attacked by him and he got severe injury on his wrist.P26 is the wound certificate and Ex.P24 is the accident register copy in that regrd.(b) P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent Police Station and gave Ex.P1 report to P.W.17 Sub Inspector of Police.On the strength of Ex.P1 report, P.W.17 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.459 of 2007 under sections 427, 307 and 302 I.P.C. The Printed F.I.R. Ex.P31 along with Ex.P1 were sent to Court.(c) P.W.21 Inspector of that circle took up investigation.He proceeded to the spot made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P35 and thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Ganapathy and prepared Ex.He produced M.O.9 aruval which was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.8 and the confession statement of A1 was recorded and the admissible part is marked as Ex.He produced M.O.10 aruval which was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.When the investigator came to know that the other accused viz., A5 and A6 were also involved, they were arrested and both came forward to give confession statement on 30.7.2007 and the admissible part of the confession made by A5 was marked as Ex.A5 produced M.O.13 TVS 50 and M.O.14 TVS 50 key and they were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P14 and he also produced M.O.18 aruval and it was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.A6 also gave confession statement and the admissible part was marked as Ex.He produced Hero Honda Motor - M.O.15 and Hero Hondo key -M.O.16 and the same were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.The accused were sent to judicial remand.These criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Erode District made in S.C.No.31/2008 dated 21.8.2008 For Appellant in Crl.These two appellants along with four others stood charged and on trial they were found guilty as follows:AccusedChargesFindingsSentenceA-1 to A-4148 IPC Not GuiltyA-6147 IPCNot GuiltyA-1 to A-4307 IPCGuilty u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC 7 years RI along with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.6 months RI.eachA-5 and A-6307 r/w 149 IPCNot GuiltyA-1 & A-3302 IPCGuilty Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- i/d.6 months RI eachA-2, A-4, A-5 & A-6302 r/w 149 IPCNot guiltyA-1 307 IPCNot guiltyA-2 to A-6307 r/w S.149IPCNot guiltyA-1 to A-4452 IPCNot guiltyA-1 to A-6427 IPCNot guiltyA-5 and A-6427 r/w 149 IPCNot guiltyThe sentences are ordered to run concurrently.Except these two injured witnesses, the other witnesses also witnessed the occurrence.Not satisfied with the same, they also damaged the furniture in the shop worth Rs.10,000/-.Immediately, the victim was taken to a private hospital.On the way to hospital, they suspected whether the victim was dead or alive.Hence, they took him to the Government Hospital.P.W.15 doctor examined the victim and declared him dead.The accident Register copy in that regard is Ex.P.W.2 was examined medically by P.W.16 in the Government Hospital and wound certificate in that regard is Ex.Equally, the same doctor examined P.W.3 and noted the injuries found on his body and Ex.Pursuant to the request made, P.W.19 doctor conducted post mortem on the dead body and gave his opinion Ex.P33 post mortem certificate that "the deceased would appear to have died, 16 18 hrs prior to autopsy due to injuries Shock & haemorrhage."(d) Pending investigation, A4 was arrested on 12.7.2007 and he came forward to give confession statement the same was recorded.Equally, A1 to A3 were arrested on 16.7.2007 and A2 came forward to give confession statement which was recorded and the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.The confession statement of A3 was recorded and the admissible part was marked as Ex.All the accused were sent for judicial remand.(e) All the material objects, pursuant to the requisition made, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic department, as a result of which Exs.P.20, 21, and 22, chemical and serologist reports respectively were received and produced before the Court.On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.(f) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and relied on 36 exhibits and 22 material objects.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses and they denied them as false.No defence witness was examined.The Court, on hearing the arguments advanced on either side, took a view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in so far as A1 to A4 are concerned and found A1 to A4 guilty under section 307 r/w 149 IPC and awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of 500/- each, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and found A1 and A3 guilty under section 302 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- each , in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.The trial Court made an order of acquittal insofar as A5 and A6 are concerned.These appeals have been brought forth only by A1 and A3 respectively.Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellants learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.The trial Court was not ready to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 in respect of the charges which ended in acquittal, but the trial court has found A1 to A4 guilty under section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. and A1 and A3 guilty under section 302 IPC.Out of the eye witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 4, P.Ws.2 and 3 were shown as injured witnesses.In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would clearly indicate that such an occurrence could not have taken place at all.According to the prosecution, the motive to the incident was the incident that had taken place on 7.4.2007 just three months prior to the occurrence on question.On 7.4.2007, the accused A1 to A3 broke the beer bottle in front of the house of P.W.4 and there was wordy altercation.Even according to the witnesses, the accused used to pass the shop of P.W.2 and also the petty shop of P.W.1 everyday.Under such circumstances, the earlier incident, occurred prior to three months, is the motive which is now attributed in the present incident, could not be true or genuine.There was no intention or premeditation so far as the deceased Ganapathy was concerned.Unless he interfered in the wordy altercation between the parties, he could not have been attacked and no intention could be attributed on the accused.Added further learned counsel, insofar as the place of occurrence is concerned, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place in front of the shop but according to P.W.3 he was actually attacked inside the shop and blood stains were also collected from inside the shop.All would go to show that the place of occurrence is not as one putforth by the prosecution.Further, once the place of occurrence would differ the so called eye witnesses cannot be believed.The learned counsel would further add, the medical opinion canvassed was not in favour of the prosecution.The recovery of material objects alleged to have been made pursuant to the confession statement is nothing but development made by the investigating agency in order to strengthen the prosecution case.Hence, it should have been rejected by the trial Court.In short, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused/appellants to which they are entitled to.The learned counsel would further submit that even assuming the factual position of the prosecution case is taken to have been proved, the act of the accused/ A1 and A3 would not attract the penal provision of murder.They had no intention or premeditation when there was a quarrel going on between the accused on the one side and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 on the other side.The deceased unnecessarily interfered.Hence, this legal aspect has got to be considered by this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest made by the Inspector of Police of that circle, the dead body was subjected to post mortem.The fact that Ganapathy died of homicidal violence was never disputed before the trial Court.Thus, the trial Court was perfectly correct in recording so.It is true, P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of P.W.2 and P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.2 and they were all living together.It is pertinent to point out that A1 to A4, armed with deadly weapons had gone to the place of occurrence and in that process, when wordy altercation was going on, it was A1, A2, A3 and A4 actually attacked P.W.2 with aruval and caused injuries.When it was questioned by P.W.3, A1 attacked him with aruval on his wrist and caused grievous injury.From the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it would clearly indicate that at the time the deceased was actually standing in front of the shop and on seeing P.W.2 being attacked by the accused, quite naturally, he questioned the conduct of the accused.The deceased Ganapathy was an utter stranger and there is nothing to suggest that except questioning the conduct of the accused, he had acted in any manner.While the matter stood thus, A3 attacked him on the neck and A1 stabbed in the stomach and the opinion canvassed through the post mortem doctor would indicate that he died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained on him.has got to be set aside for the simple reason, the trial court was not ready to believe the case of the prosecution regarding A5 and A6 therefore, the question of attracting the provision of section 149 IPC would not arise.A1, A2, A3 and A4 attacked P.W.2 and have caused simple injuries as could be evidenced from the wound certificate Ex.P28 and the accident register Ex.Hence, the appellants were found guilty under section 324 IPC.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC is sustained.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants under section 307 r/w 149 IPC are modified and instead, the appellants are convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment each.The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants are ordered to be given set off.The fine amount and the default sentence imposed by the trial court will hold good.The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the criminal appeals are dismissed.The Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Erode DistrictThe Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, Erode District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,890,248 | The petitioner claims that the victim is an extortionist and the father of a friend of the petitioner has lodged the complaint against the victim for his antisocial activities.According to the petitioner, the present complaint is a counterblast to the original complaint filed against the victim.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.2 3 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3 | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,040,548 | JUDGMENT J.B. Goel, J.In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the nine petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 6.6.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Ses-sions Judge (ASJ), Delhi summoning the petitioners under Section 193 of the Code before trial has started to stand trial for offence under Sections 302/307/24 along with three other accused persons already challaned.Briefly, the facts are that in an incident which took place at about 7.30 p.m. on 19.12.1997, deceased Kesho Ram and his son Dharmender Kumar were attacked by some persons at their House No.1357, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi in which Kesho Ram had received fatal injuries and his son Dharmender Kumar had received injuries.The deceased was removed to GTB Hospital, Shahdara by his injured son and daughter Sunita at 8.30 p.m. He was found "brought dead".Some one had given information on PCR which was transmitted to Police Station, Gandhi Nagar where DD No.26-A was recorded at 8.25 p.m. Information of his admission as dead in that hospital was also conveyed to the Police Station where DD No.27-A was recorded at 8.45 p.m. SI Amrit Raj on receipt of copy of the DD report proceeded to the spot and finding no ye witness there and on spot enquiries made his report that a case under Section 302, IPC be registered and FIR No.267/97was registered at 9.30 p.m. On the same night, inter alia, statements of Dharmender Kumar and his mother Smt. Saroj were recorded who had made statements as eye-witnesses and had narrated the events and circumstances of the accident, names of assailants, their roles and weapon used by them.They had named the assail ants_Pankaj, Rohit, Manoj, Amrit s/o Bobby, Anil, Raja, Sunil, Raj Kumar, Babloo, Ashok, Kamal and Deepak.Statements of Smt. Sunita and Manoj, son and daughter of the deceased were also recorded on the same night who had also stated that their aforesaid brother had told them the aforesaid names of the assailants.Post-mortem was conducted on 20.12.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. and the doctor had noted 15 external injuries on the deceased.MLC of Dharmender Kumar showing stab injuries was also taken into possession.It appears Raj Kumar one of the accused who had also been injured had also been admitted in that hospital on the same day and his MLC was also taken into possession during investigation.Accused Raj Kumar @ Raja, Kamal Raj s/o Kesho Ram Sharma and Deepak were arrested on 22.12.1997, the latter two are son and nephew of the deceased.A dagger was recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar @ Raja on 23.12.1997 and in the opinion of the post-mortem doctor, injuries No. 1, 4, 7, 10 and 15 are possible with this weapon.Remaining assailants were not arrested.However, a report dated 10.3.1998 under Section 173 of the Code was submitted to the Magistrate concerned (MM) against the aforesaid three accused only for offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 324, 302 and 452, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Regarding the remaining persons named as assailants, it was stated that some of them are absconding and some have been interrogated and further investigation was continuing and if evidence is available, supplementary report will be submitted against them.The learned MM did not make any order nor sought further report about the other aforesaid alleged 9 assailants.The learned ASJ on committal after hearing the Counsel for the accused committed and for State, and relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Kishun Singh Vs.State of Bihar, 1993 Crl.L.J. 1700=I (1993) CCR 54 (SC) came to the conclusion that on the basis of material on record, Pankaj, Rohit, Amit, Manoj, Anil, Sunil, Raj Kumar, Babloo @ Sudhir and Ashok Kumar were also involved in the commission of the crime, exercised power under Section 193 of the Code and summoned them through warrants of arrest.The said nine persons have come here under Section 482 of the Code.By an ex parte order dated 12.6.1998, their arrest has been stayed by this Court.Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the recent judgment of Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Vs. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
104,054,852 | The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of proceedings of Criminal Case No.23/2014 pending before JMFC, Ashoknagar for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506-B of IPC.The complainant/respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR against the petitioner to the effect that on 21-11- 2013 at about 4:00 pm petitioner came to his shop and asked about delivery of tyres.Due to non-availability of staff, complainant showed his inability to deliver the tyres which resulted into scuffle and altercation.The accusation of prosecution reflects that the petitioner had gone to take delivery of tyres from the shop of respondent No.2 where due to some issue, scuffle and altercation took place which culminated into registration of criminal case against the petitioner.Admittedly, petitioner is an Executive Engineer, PHE and at the time when alleged incident has occurred on delivery of tyres, petitioner was not discharging any official duties assigned to him.Thus, the protected umbrella as provided under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to a public servant does not come to help the petitioner.Heard the counsel for parties and perused the record.Police investigated the case and filed challan in the matter.State of Bihar and others passed in case No.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission and submitted that since the incident has occurred due to some dispute on delivery of tyres and at that time petitioner was not discharging any official duty, therefore, he cannot take shelter of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,040,551 | JUDGMENT K.S. GuptaPetitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 474/2000 under Sections 420, 467, 471, IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar.Anil Kumar made a complaint to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi against the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that in a raid conducted at the clinic of petitioner a number of objectionable documents were recovered and he has learnt that those documents also included a General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by his deceased-father in favor of petitioner.Petitioner has fabricated documents regarding Shop No. 2/22, Main Market, Amritpuri, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar which is part of property measuring 300 sq. yds.On the basis of forged General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell etc. the petitioner has obtained ex-parte eviction order against him and he has, thus, rendered himself liable for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 182 and 191, IPC.This complaint was sent for enquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. On the basis of complaint, police has registered the present case.During the course of arguments Mr. A.K. Singh has placed on record photostat copy so seizure memo in case FIR No. 434/2000 registered at the instance of Smt. Kalawati.It was pointed out by Mr. Singh that out of 16 documents recovered in the raid conducted at the clinic of petitioner on 25th May, 2000, only the document listed therein at serial No. 9 pertains to this case.According to Mr. Singh neither Anil Kumar, complainant nor I.O. has explained how they came to possess original Special Power of Attorney, Will, Receipt, Agreement to Sell and two affidavits, all dated 1st July, 1989 which were supposed to be with the petitioner and sent to FSL for comparison.Copies of that statement of petitioner, General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell, receipts and two affidavits dated 1st July, 1989 alleged to have been executed by Des Raj Nagpal, obtained from the Court of Rent Controller are placed on the police file.Statement of petitioner would reveal that in his deposition he proved the copies of said documents as Exs.PW 1/A to PW 1/G with the help of original documents which he had brought.On a naked eye perusal of the said documents placed on police file it is evident that they are the copies of documents filed by the petitioner in eviction petition.On enquiry if the petitioner had lodged any report either of theft or missing of documents other than General Power of Attorney at any point of time, Mr. Singh has replied in negative.Taking note of said evidence, the petitioner hardly deserves to be admitted to anticipatory bail.Petition dismissed. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,405,806 | Petitioner faced trial for offences u/s.304-A IPC in C.C.No.204 of 2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur.The prosecution case was that the petitioner rashly had driven a bus bearing registration No.TN-01-L-2538, belonging to Metropolitan Transport Corporation and dashed against a bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-1568 which towards dropping passengers, was stationary at a bus stop.As a result, a person, walking on the left side of the road, sustained grievous injuries and met his instantaneous death on 14.04.2000 at about 06.40 a.m.Before trial Court, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and marked ten exhibits.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.Against such finding, petitioner preferred C.A.No.16 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Ponneri.Appellate Court, under judgment dated 06.05.2010, while confirming the finding of conviction and fine imposed by the trial Court, modified the sentence to one of 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.304 (A) IPC.There against, this revision has been filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side].Perused the materials available on record.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the instant case the doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, has not been examined.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the bus driven by the petitioner, had not been examined.The observation Mahazar had not been marked.Heard learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] on the above submissions.To render a finding of conviction under Section 304-A IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused.In the absence of examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the possibility of the vehicle having suffered a mechanical defect, cannot be ruled out.Similarly, in the absence of examination of the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, the accused would be denied the opportunity of contending and seeking to establish that the deceased came to suffer the injuries in a manner other than that put forth by the prosecution.The absence of the observation mahazar would raise a doubt even regards the very scene of occurrence.For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision shall stand allowed.The judgments of Courts below shall stand set aside.As a consequence, petitioner is acquitted of all charges.Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him.Bail bond, if any, executed by petitioner shall stand cancelled.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.27.11.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yes/1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court IV, Chennai2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.C.T.SELVAM, J.R.C.No.503 of 201027.11.2015 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
104,058,214 | [Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.45/2016 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2 The facts, briefly narrated and are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows:-2.1 The appellant / accused, viz., Saravanan, is the husband of the deceased Sathiya Priya and the marriage between them was solemnised, two years prior to the date of occurrence on 20.10.2014 and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a female child.2.2 The appellant / accused always used to suspect the fidelity / character and conduct of his wife and used to quarrel with her and also abuse her and on account of the same, Sathiya Priya used to go to her parental home often and the elders used to mediate and pacify her to enable her to join the company of her husband.Sathiya Priya on one occasion, came to her parental home and informed her parents that since her husband appellant / accused, continue to abuse her physically, she did not want to go to her matrimonial home and she was again pacified by her parents and on 19.10.2014, the mother of Sathiya Priya, viz., Tmt.Valarmathi [P.W.1], took her daughter to the matrimonial home and on the next day, i.e., on 20.10.2014, for the purpose of inviting her daughter and son-in-law to Nonbu prior to Deepavali festival, P.W.1 went to the matrimonial home of Sathiya Priya along with her sister, viz., Tmt.Selvi [P.W.4] at about 3.30 p.m., and at that time, the appellant / accused and his wife Sathiya Priya were quarreling with each other and when P.W.1 enquired her daughter and she told that the appellant / accused her husband, always used to suspect her fidelity and physically abuse her and that that juncture, the appellant / accused, abused his wife by using filthy words.The wife of the appellant / accused, Sathiya Priya went to the kitchen for the purpose of preparing tea and the appellant / accused followed her, took M.O.1-Koduval, from the slab located in the kitchen and cut her on the left side of the neck and as a consequence, blood started oozing.P.W.1 raised alarm as to the act done by the appellant / accused and on hearing the alarm, three persons, viz., one Kumar, Manjula [P.W.3] and an elderly person, came to the spot and when they made attempts to catch the appellant / accused, dropping the weapon, he ran away from the scene of crime.P.W.1, for the purpose of stopping the oozing blood, put M.O.2-Bedsheet around the neck ; but the blood did not stop and her daughter died on the sopt.2.3 When P.W.1 went out of the house to lodge a complaint, she saw Ranjithkumar [P.W.6] her sister's son and told him about the act of the appellant / accused and he took her to B-13 Pothanur Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.12-Kuppuraj, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station at the relevant point of time.On receipt of the complaint under Ex.Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report.He despatched the original complaint and the FIR through P.W.10-Kumarapillai, Head Constable attached to the said police station, to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court as well as copies of the same to the Higher Officials.P.W.12 also deputed Constables Sasikala and Tamizhselvi, to guard the spot.2.4 P.W.13-Sakthivel, was the Inspector of Police / Station House Officer attached to the respondent police station at the relevant point of time and on receipt of the FIR registered by P.W.12, commenced the investigation and proceeded to the scene of crime and in the presence of P.W.7-Senthilkumar and one Balakrishnan, had prepared the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketches [one prepared outside the scene of crime marked as Ex.P.15 and the other prepared inside the house, marked as Ex.P.16].P.W.13 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased Sathiya Priya in the presence of the Panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report [Ex.P.17].He recovered Blood Stained earth ; Sample earth ; Bedsheet [M.O.2] and Koduval [M.O.1] under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P.5, in the presence of the said witnesses.Larynx and Trachea : Cut Section pale.Heart all chambers contain about few cc of fluid blood.Stomach contains about 50 ml of yellow colour fluid no specific smell, mucosa pale.Small Intestine contains about 10 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa pale.Liver, Spleen, Kidnes, Brain and Lungs cut section pale.Urinary bladder emptyUterus: Normal in size, cut section empty.P.W.11, preserved the viscera for the purpose of sending it to chemical analysis and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries and its corresponding internal injuries and the death would have occurred 12-24 hours prior to autopsy. The Postmortem Certificate given by him is marked as Ex.He stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC, for having committed the murder of his wife Tmt.Sathiya Priya on 20.10.2014 afternoon.The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2017, has convicted the appellant / accused for the commission of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with a default sentence to undergo three months simple imprisonment.Challenging the legality of the said conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused came forward to file the present appeal.P.W.13 sent the body of Sathiya Priya to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, through Tmt.Tamizhselvi for conducting autopsy.2.5 P.W.11-Dr.Jeyasingh, was the District Police Surgeon and Associate Professor in the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine attached to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at the relevant point of time.P.W11, on receipt of the requisition along with the body at about 13.00 hours on 21.10.2014, found the presence of rigor mortis all over the body and commenced the postmortem at about 13.05 hours and noted the following features:-The following ante mortem injuries noted all over the body:-1 A transverse cut injury 20x5cmxcervical vertebra deep noted over the upper most part of left side neck, on dissection the wound cutting the underlying left lateral posterior aspect of neck muscle, vessel, nerves and tendons and completely cutting the C-2 vertebra and mandible, the right end is 5cm below the angle of right mouth and the left end is midline of back of the neck.2 A transverse cut injury 6x1 cm x muscle deep noted over left side neck.The medial end is 8cm lateral to midline [front] at the level of upper end thyroid cartilage.3 A transverse cut injury 8x2cmsxmuscle deep noted left side neck.The medial end is 7cm lateral to midline at the level of mid thyroid cartilage.4 A transverse cut injury 7x2 cms bone deep noted over left side neck.The wound cutting the muscle, vessels, nerves, tendons and left side clavicle bone in its medial 1/3rd.The medial end is 6 cm lateral to midline and 1 cm above the middle of clavicle.5 Stab injury 5x1cmxbone deep noted over left side cheek [ascending ramous].The medial end is blunt an the lateral end is sharp.The medial end is 2 cm lateral to angle of mouth.6 Vertical oblique stab wound 5x2 cm x bone deep note over just below the left lower lip.7 Multiple stab wounds of varying sizes and shapes over an area of 7x6 cmxvarying muscle deep noted over top of right shoulder.8 Vertical oblique stab would 1x1cmxmuscle deep noted over right side chin.The upper end is sharp and the lower end is blunt.The upper end is 2 cm below the right lower lip.10 Vertically oblique stab would 3x1cmxmuscle deep noted over right lower neck, the lower end is sharp and the upper end is blunt.The lower end is 1 cm above the right mid clavicle.11 Transversely oblique cut injury 6x2 cms x muscle deep noted over inner aspect of lower 1/3rd of left forearm.The lower end is blunt and the upper end is sharp.The lower end is 2 cm above the medial end is wrist joint.The lower end is blunt and the upper end is sharp.13 Transversely oblique cut injury 3x2 cms x bone deep noted over palmer aspect of left little finger at the level of proximal phalanx.The wound cutting the underlying muscle, vessels, nerves, tendons and proximal phalanygeal bone.14 Vertical stab injury 3x1 cm peritoneal deep noted over midline of upper abdoment, the lower end is sharp and the upper end is blunt, 3 cms below the xiphi sternum.The would passes inwards backwards entering peritoneal cavity and piercing the liver measuring about 2x0.5x0.5cm peritoneal cavity contains about 500ml of fluid blood.15 Vertically oblique stab wound 2x1cmxmuscle deep noted over left side abdomen.The lower end is sharp and the upper end is blunt.The lower end is 5cm above and lateral to the umbilicus.16 Vertically oblique stab would 2x1cmxmuscle deep noted over left side abdomen, The lower end is sharp and the upper end is blunt.The lower end is 5cm above and lateral to umbilicus.17 Stab injury two in numbers each measuring 2x1cmxmuscle deep noted over inner aspect of right arm.18 Vertically oblique stab injury 2x1x1cm noted over right breast, the medial end is sharp and lateral end is blunt.The medial end is 4cm above and lateral to nipple.19 Vertically oblique stab injury 4x1cmxmuscle deep noted over back of right side chest, the upper end is sharp and lower end is blunt.20 Vertically Oblique stab injury 1x1x1cm noted back of lower neck.Pleural and peritoneal cavities empty.Hyoid bone intact.The final opinion as to the viscera was also received and it was marked as Ex.P.13 and as per the said document, viscera does not contain any poison. 2.6 P.W.13, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of his investigation, examined P.W.1, P.W.4, Selvaraj, Kumar, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.7 and Balakrishnan and recorded their statements.The cloth worn by the deceased Sathiya Priya, viz., Blood-stained Nighty M.O.3 and Blood-stained Inskirt M.O.6, was recovered by P.W.13 under Form 95 and sent the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the concerned Police Constable also submitted the Special Report under Ex.P.W.13, on receipt of the secret information, effected the arrest of the appellant / accused on 21.10.2014 at about 06.00 hours near Kannappa Nagar Lane on Coimbatore Sanganoor Road in the presence of Sathishkumar P.W.5, who identified the appellant / accused and one Prakash and the appellant/accused came forward to give a voluntary confession statement in the presence of the said witnesses, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.The appellant / accused stated that he would identify the spot in which he had hidden the cloth worn by him at the time of occurrence and accordingly, the blood-stained pant [M.O.4] and blood-stained half hand shirt [M.O.5] worn by him, was recovered from a thorny bush at Kolapodimalai Road, Pillaiyarpuram, under the cover of Mahazar Ex.Thereafter, the appellant / accused was brought to the police station and thereafter, sent for remand.P.W.13 examined P.W.5, Prakash, P.W.6, P.W.9 and others and recorded their statements.On 17.12.2014, P.W.13 examined P.W.11, the doctor who conducted the autopsy and recorded his statement and on 30.12.2014, he examined Mr.Vasudevan, who took photographs [Ex.P.19 series] in the scene of occurrence.On the same day, he obtained the final opinion from P.W.11 and on transfer, he handed over the investigation to his successor, Mr.2.7 The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.2.8 The accused was questioned under section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidences rendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false.The accused did not file any documents nor let in any oral evidence.2.9 The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had convicted the appellant/accused for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine and default sentence.Challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.The murder could not have been caused by use of M.O.1-Koduval for the reason that as per the Postmortem Certificate marked as Ex.P.11 issued by P.W.11, very many stab injuries were also noted and those injuries would not have been caused by using M.O.1-koduval and the said weapon has been planted for the purpose of implicating the appellant / accused.The photographs marked as Ex.P.19-series would disclose that the weapon was not found near the body of the deceased and the photographer, viz., Mr.Vasudevan, who took photographs, was also not examined by the prosecution and it also substantiate the defence of the appellant / accused that the weapon was planted to suit the case of the prosecution.M.O.1 was also subjected to chemical analysis and as per Exs.P.7 and 8-Serologist Reports, the weapon was tainted with human blood and the result of the Grouping Test, is inconclusive and whereas, in M.Os.2, 4, 5 and 6, it has been noted that the blood group was AB+.4 Alternately, it is pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused that even as per the case of the prosecution, a wordy altercation preceded the occurrence and that the appellant / accused, in a heat of passion, has committed the offence and therefore, prays for alteration of conviction and reduction of sentence of imprisonment of life.5 Per contra, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the State would contend that the motive has been proved by the prosecution through the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, as the appellant / accused always used to suspect the fidelity / character and conduct of his wife Sathiya Priya and used to physically abuse her and on account of the same, she also used to go to her parental home often and every occasion, she will be pacified to join the company of her husband.Insofar as the commission of the offence of murder by the appellant / accused, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] that P.W.1-mother and P.W.4-Aunt of the deceased Sathiya Priya had cogently spoken about the specific overt act on the part of the appellant / accused in attacking his wife Sathiya Priya with a lethal weapon, i.e., M.O.1-Koduval, repeatedly which caused very many injuries and the appellant / accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence after the commission of the offence had also been spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4 as well as 9 and their testimonies corroborate with each other on all material particulars.The scientific evidence in the form of Ex.P.6 to 8] would also substantiate the case of the prosecution that M.O.1-weapon was used for the commission of the heinous crime and the material objects, viz., M.Os.2, 5 and 6 were tainted with human blood and grouping test would also indicate that it belonged to the blood group of the deceased [AB +].Insofar as the missing of M.O.1-Koduval in Ex.P.19 series [photographs], learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] has drawn the attention of this Court to the Cross-examination of P.W.13 and would submit that marking of the photographs was not objected on account of the fact that Mr.Vasudevan, who took photographs, was not examined and a specific question was also put to the Investigating Officer in that regard and he answered by stating that he did not remember exactly the time in which the photographer came and also stated that the photographer would have arrived to the scene roughly in between 5.15 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence, i.e., 20.10.2014 and however, the witness to the Seizure Mahazar, viz., P.W.5, has spoken about the seizure and it also substantiated by Ex.P.5-Seizure Mahazar and in any event, it can be termed only as a minor / trivial discrepancy.In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] that the prosecution, through the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 4, coupled with the testimonies of P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 and other evidences, had conclusively proved that it was the appellant / accused who committed the murder of his wife Sathiya Priya and the Trial Court, on a proper appreciation and consideration of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant / accused and hence, submitted that the impugned judgment may not warrant interference at the hands of this Court, by exercising its Appellate Jurisdiction and prays for dismissal of this appeal.6 This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions made and also perused the oral and documentary evidences and other materials placed on record including the impugned Judgment as well as the original records.7 The following questions arise for consideration:-[a] Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 4 coupled with the testimonies of P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 are believable to sustain the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant / accused alone has committed the offence of murder?[b] Whether the appellant / accused is entitled for modification of the conviction and sentence if this Court holds that he has committed the murder of his wife?QUESTION NO.1 8 P.W.1-Valarmathi, is the mother of the deceased Sathiya Priya and mother-in-law of the appellant / accused Saravanan and in the chief-examination, she has spoken about the marriage of her daughter two years prior to the commission of the offence and the frequent quarrel between the appellant / accused and her daughter on account of the fact that the appellant / accused used to suspect the fidelity / character and conduct of his wife and the physical abuse on account of the same.P.W.1 would further depose that on one such occasion, her daughter Sathiya Priya came to her parental home stating that her husband used to suspect her character and used to physically abuse her and by pacifying her, P.W.1 took her daughter to her matrimonial home on 19.10.2014 and went to the house of the appellant / accused on the next day, i.e., on 20.10.2014 for inviting them in connection with Deepavali festival and around 3.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and P.W.4 entered the house, they heard the wordy altercation between the appellant / accused and his wife Sathiya Priya [deceased] and when P.W.1 questioned her daughter, she told that the appellant / accused is suspecting her character and conduct and physically abused her.P.W.1 would further depose that the appellant / accused started abusing his wife in front of her by using unparliamentary language and when the deceased went inside the kitchen for preparing tea, the appellant / accused followed her and took M.O.1-Koduval, lying on the kitchen slab and cut her on the left side of the neck and when P.W.1 raised alarm, the appellant / accused also threatened her and P.W.4 with dire consequences and on hearing the alarm, P.W.3, Kumar and an elderly person came inside and the appellant / accused, on seeing them, dropped the weapon and flee away from the scene of crime and thereafter, she had spoken about the lodging of complaint under Ex.In the cross-examination, P.W.1 would depose that her daughter was aged 19 years at the time of the occurrence and she was her only daughter and prior to the commission of the offence, for some reason or the other, her daughter used to come to parental home on the ground that her husband the appellant / accused, always used to suspect her character and conduct and they did not lodge any police complaint for the reason that the said issue could be sorted out through mediatory efforts.She also denied the suggestion that from the hall, she cannot witness the occurrence.9 P.W.4-Selvi, aunt of the deceased Sathiya Priya / younger sister of P.W.1, in the chief examination, has spoken about the harassment meted out to Sathiya Priya on account of the attitude of the appellant / accused.P.W.4, in the cross-examination, has corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 as to the witnessing of the occurrence and when a specific question was put to her as to why no efforts have been taken to prevent the appellant / accused from doing so, she replied it by saying that since the appellant / accused brandished the weapon-M.O.1, they did not make any attempts.10 P.W.2-Anbazhagan, is the neighbour of the appellant / accused and in the chief examination, he had stated that on the date of occurrence, on 20.10.2014, the appellant / accused and his wife Sathiya Priya had wordy altercation and on hearing the alarm, he went inside the house of the appellant / accused and found the body of Sathiya Priya and thereafter, his wife also came there ; but the appellant / accused ran away from the scene of crime and the parents of the deceased were standing outside.A suggestion was put to P.W.2 that he did not witness the occurrence and he denied the same. P.W.3 would also depose on similar lines as that of P.W.2 as to the seeing of the appellant / accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence and denied the suggestion that he did not witness the occurrence.11 P.W.9-Feroz Ahamed would depose that he knew the deceased and her house was ten houses away from his place of residence and he would further state that on 20.10.2014, when he was conversing with his friend Nedumaran, he saw the appellant / accused with blood stains, passing by and when he called the appellant / accused, he did not stop and went away and on the night hours, he came to know about the murder of Sathiya Priya and on the next day, he went to the police station and P.W13 asked him whether the appellant / accused has worn the cloth, viz., M.Os.4 and 5 and he answered it in affirmative.In the cross examination, he would depose that he saw the appellant / accused passing by at the distance of 2 feet and he denied the suggestion that he is stating so falsely.12 The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the appellant / accused is that P.Ws.1 and 4 cannot be treated as the eyewitnesses to the occurrence for the reason that they are the interested witnesses and assuming that they were present inside the house in which the murder took place, they would not have witnessed the occurrence as they were in the hall and according to P.W.2, P.W.1 and her husband were standing outside the house and as such, they would not have witnessed the occurrence.In the considered opinion of the Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance for the reason that P.Ws.1 and 4 were very categorical that the appellant / accused started abusing his wife using unparliamentary language and when Sathiya Priya went inside the kitchen to prepare tea, the appellant / accused followed her and took M.O.1-Koduval from the slab and attacked her on the left side of the neck.The appellant / accused, fled away from the scene of crime, immediately after committing the offence and it was spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 and P.W.9 would depose that he saw the appellant / accused passing by with blood-stained cloth and when he asked him, the appellant / accused did not answer.Thus, the prosecution was able to prove through the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 4, coupled with the testimonies of P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 that it was the appellant / accused alone has caused the death of his wife by attacking her with M.O.1-Koduval.14 PW.7-Senthilkumar was the witness to Ex.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant / accused that insofar as M.Os.2, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, blood group has been identified and whereas, in M.O.1-weapon, the blood group was not identified and coupled with the fact that in the photographs, marked as Ex.P.19 series, the weapon was not found and the defence projected that the weapon has been introduced subsequently, has been substantiated.No doubt, it is an Expert Opinion and like any other evidence, it also requires appreciation.It is to be pointed out at this juncture that the expert has given opinion that the murder would have been caused by the use of M.O.1 and it has also been amply established through the testimony of P.W.7 who has witnessed as to the recovery of M.O.1 under Ex.P.5 and that apart, Ex.P.7 Serological Report would also indicate that the said weapon was tainted with human blood.19 The learned counsel for the appellant / accused also made an alternate plea by praying for modification of the conviction and sentence for the reason that admittedly, as per the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 4, there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant / accused and his wife Sathiya Priya deceased and enraged by the same, he took the weapon which was lying on the slab in the kitchen and attacked her.The testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 4 would disclose that the appellant / accused was always in the habit of suspecting the fidelity of his wife and used to quarrel with her and also physically abuse her which resulted in his wife being going to her parental home often and after mediatory efforts, P.W.1 used to persuade her daughter to go to her matrimonial home and just a day prior to the occurrence, it was done so.In the considered opinion of the Court, the act done by the appellant / accused would not fall within the exception 4 to section 300 IPC and as such the appellant / accused is not entitled to for any modification of the conviction and sentence.Therefore, Question No.2 is also answered in negative against the appellant / accused.21 In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / accused for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2017 in SC.No.45/2016 are confirmed. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
104,059,265 | In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.08.2010 at about 9:25 PM, an information was received at Vivek Vihar Police Station from Hedgewar Hospital that Ravi (deceased) was brought to the hospital by his father with stab injuries cause by a knife.On this information, DD No. 24-A was recorded at the police station.On receipt of DD No. 24-A, HC Mahender and Constable Devender went at Hedgewar Hospital where Ravi was found admitted in the hospital in an injured condition.As he was declared unfit for statement by the doctor, the statement of his father Amar Singh (PW-7) was recorded wherein he stated that on 31.08.2010 at about 7:30 PM, his son Ravi/deceased had gone with his friend Kittu to purchase goods from a shop where their neighbour Sumeet [declared juvenile (JCL)] met them with his cousins Kale (JCL) and Jite/appellant.They beat his son.On hearing the commotion, the families of both the sides intervened and pacified them.The deceased then returned back to his house and at about 7:45 PM, while he was standing in front of the house, the appellant and Kale (JCL) caught him and Sumeet (JCL) brought a knife and exhorted "Aaj isko sabak sikhate hain" (lets teach him a lesson today) and gave a knife blow on the abdomen of Ravi.Thereafter, all three of them ran away from the spot.FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC.As Ravi succumbed to his injuries, Section 307 was replaced by Section 302 IPC.Investigation was taken up by Inspector Yogesh Malhotra.He prepared the site plan and lifted the exhibits from the spot.Crime team was called and the photographs of the spot of crime were taken.Statements of witnesses were recorded.Inquest proceedings on the body of Ravi was done.After postmortem, body was handed over to the kin of the deceased.On the basis of secret information, all three accused were Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 2 of 25 apprehended from the jungle near the railway line behind ITI.Disclosure statements of Sumeet (JCL) and appellant Jite were recorded.Appellant Jite and Sumeet (JCL) disclosed that while fleeing from the spot, Sumeet (JCL) had thrown the dagger in the MCD Park in B Block, Jhilmil Colony.Sumeet (JCL) then got recovered the dagger used in the crime.Site plan of the place of recovery was prepared.PW-7 remains an eyewitness to the incident Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 5 of 25 and PW-1 had also seen the accused running away from the site of the incident and the deceased lying on the road with blood oozing from his abdomen.The weapon of the offence was recovered at the instance of Sumeet (JCL) based upon his disclosure statement and the disclosure statement of the appellant herein.Blood was found on the knife which was further identified by PW-7 before the Trial Court.The case of the prosecution is further corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence on record.A. 329/2012 Page 5 of 25Dhruv Vats (PW-1) deposed before the Trial Court that he was a friend of the deceased and on 31.08.2010 at about 7:30 PM was going on his scooter to the market to buy mehandi/henna, when he met the deceased on the way.The deceased sat on the pillion and both of them reached the market at Pratap Khand, Jhilmil.The deceased got down from the scooter on the piao/water tank kept on the side of the Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 6 of 25 road to drink water.PW-1 went to the shop and was waiting for his turn, when he heard the noise of commotion and saw three neighbours of the deceased quarrelling with him.The crowd gathered at the spot separated the persons.Parents of the deceased and Sumeet (JCL) also reached at the spot.After the incident, the deceased once again sat on the pillion of PW-1 and he dropped him to his house.PW-1 further testified that he had just dropped him in front of his house and crossed a distance of only 2-3 houses, when he heard the noise of commotion.He stopped his scooter, took a U-turn and saw the deceased lying on the road with blood oozing from his abdomen.There is a piao in front of the shop of PW-3 across the road.He saw the appellant, Sumeet (JCL) and Kale (JCL) beating the deceased and the deceased was defending himself.PW-3 testified that he knew all the boys as they are residing in Balmiki Basti infront of Gurudwara.The parents of the appellant and Sumeet (JCL) reached there and along with public persons intervened and pacified them.Thereafter, the deceased left the spot on the scooter Eterno of a boy named Kittu (PW-1).The juveniles and the appellant hurriedly went towards their houses.The parents of the deceased also left the spot.He also stated that the distance between the jhuggies of Balmiki Basti and the spot where the boys were quarrelling is around 150 metres.In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the distance between the piao and the Gurudwara is about 150 metres.He stated that the parents of the deceased and Sumeet (JCL) intervened to control their sons.The parents had reached there within 2-3 minutes.After the deceased left the spot, his parents also Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 8 of 25 left the spot.He stated that the walkable distance between the house of the deceased and the piao can be covered in 3-4 minutes.The father of the deceased Amar Singh (PW-7) deposed that on 31.08.2010 at about 7:30 PM, the deceased was standing in the street outside his house, when his friend Kittu (PW-1) came there on a scooter and they went to a general store behind the Gurudwara.While PW-7 was present in his house, he heard the noise of commotion and someone saying "Ravi ke larai ho gai, uske papa ko bulao" (Ravi is in a fight, call his father).PW-7 and his wife rushed to the spot and found that Kale (JCL), Sumeet (JCL), appellant and the deceased were present having been pacified by the parents of Sumeet (JCL) and other public persons.The appellant, Sumeet (JCL) and Kale (JCL) left the spot and rushed towards Balmiki Basti saying "aaj isko sabak sikha de ge" (Well teach him a lesson today).The deceased had informed PW-7 that he was standing there, Kale (JCL) had slapped him; he also slapped Kale (JCL) and then all three started beating the deceased.The deceased left the spot on the scooter of his friend Kittu (PW-1).The deceased returned to the house and PW-7 also returned following him.Kittu (PW-1) left the spot asking the witness to take the deceased inside his house.The deceased asked PW-7 to go inside and that he will come with his mother and two brothers.PW-7 deposed that he was just entering his house, when the appellant, Kale (JCL) and Sumeet (JCL) came there.The appellant and Kale (JCL) caught hold of the deceased and Sumeet (JCL) stabbed him.The deceased raised an alarm saying "Papa mujhe bachao" (Father, save me).At this point, PW-7 turned and saw Sumeet (PW-7) taking a knife away Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 9 of 25 from the stomach of the deceased.PW-7 rushed towards the deceased and the appellant, Kale (JCL) and Sumeet (JCL) ran away from there.He deposed that his son Ajay chased the perpetrators and even threw a brick at Sumeet (JCL); Sumeet (JCL) showed a knife to Ajay and even rushed towards him when the father of Sumeet (JCL) caught hold of Ajay.He deposed that the deceased died at about 10:30 PM the same day.PW-7 also deposed regarding the taking of the deceased to the Hospital, the arrest of the accused, and the recovery of the weapon, i.e. knife, at the instance of Sumeet (JCL).He stated that on the next day, Sumeet (JCL) led the police party to the Park B-Block and got recovered a knife of 14 inches from the heap of construction material of Dispensary, which was under construction.The sketch of the knife (Ex.20. PW-7 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence counsel when he stated that he did not know the name of the children saying "Ravi ke larai ho gai" (Ravi is involved in a fight).He stated that the distance between his house and piao is around 100-150 feet and the distance between his house and house of Sumeet (JCL) is 10-15 feet.Kittu (PW-1) and the deceased left the spot along with him.The deceased and Kittu (PW-1) went on scooter and PW-7 followed them on foot and reached his house within 2-4 minutes by walking briskly.Kittu (PW-1) left on scooter after leaving the deceased in front of his house.He further stated that he had heard the alarm raised by the deceased after about 1 minute when Kittu (PW-1) left the spot.Kale (JCL) had caught hold of the deceased by his left hand by twisting it on his back.He stated that his brother, who had died in 2005, was a friend of Ajender Singh since childhood.He further stated that he did not state Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 10 of 25 to the police that the perpetrators had said "aaj isko sabak sikha de ge" (Well teach him a lesson today) or the fact that the deceased and Kale (JCL) had exchanged slaps and later Kale (JCL), Sumeet (JCL) and appellant had beaten the deceased.He stated that the deceased reached the house after 10 minutes of the quarrel near piao and the time was around 7:45 PM.He affirmed that the deceased came to the house with Kittu (PW-1) and that he had reached the house within a gap of 1 minute to the deceased.He also affirmed the suggestion that he was going to climb the stairs to the first floor, which start from the street itself, with his back towards the deceased when he heard the alarm "papa mujhe bachao" (Father, save me) and he took a turn and saw the accused stabbing his son.In respect of the recovery, he stated that some construction was going on in the MCD Park and public movement remains in the park.Yogesh Malhotra (PW-13) has also deposed as to the recovery of the knife at the instance of Sumeet (JCL).He deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statements of the appellant and Sumeet (JCL), Sumeet (JCL) had led them to D- Block, Jhilmil Colony and there from a park near under construction MCD Dispensary, he got recovered a dagger stated to be the weapon of offence, which was seized vide Ex.PW-7/J.It is also useful to analyse the medical evidence relied upon by the prosecution.S. Lal (PW-6) had conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased.He deposed that the deceased was brought by Ins.Yogesh Malhotra (PW-13) with alleged history of stab injuries and Crl.The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.01.2012 and order on sentence dated 03.02.2012 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Prior to recording the case of the prosecution, we may note that the incident involved three accused, namely Sumeet, Jite/appellant and Kale.Only the appeal of Jite/appellant remains pending before this Court.A. 329/2012 Page 1 of 25The opinion of autopsy surgeon with regard to the recovered weapon of offence was obtained.Statements of witnesses Kittu and Ajender Singh were recorded and they confirmed the quarrel between the deceased and the accused prior to his murder.Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for expert opinion.A. 329/2012 Page 2 of 25On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant Jite and Sumeet (JCL) before the Trial Court while charge sheet against Kale (JCL) was to be submitted separately before the Juvenile Justice Board.Charges under Section 302/32 IPC were framed against the appellant and Sumeet (JCL) along with a separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Sumeet (JCL).Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused.Statements of Sumeet (JCL) and appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and neither led any defence evidence.The appellant denied all the evidence against him and stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the complainant (PW-7) has an enmity with him and hence, he has been falsely implicated in the case.Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the impugned judgment and the order on sentence are contrary to law and the facts established at trial and hence, have resulted in gross Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 3 of 25 miscarriage of justice.The Trial Court has proceeded based on conjectures and surmises.As these persons were interested witnesses, their testimonies could not have been relied upon to convict the appellant.As regards the second incident of stabbing, PW-1 and PW-7 have contradicted each other and hence, the Trial Court has erred in relying upon their depositions.Neither of the two witnesses are eyewitnesses to the incident as PW-1 has admitted that he did not see the stabbing and PW-7 has claimed to be climbing the stairs of his house when he heard the cry of his son/deceased.Lamba also contended that the recovery of the knife at the instance of the Sumeet (JCL) is doubtful as it was recovered from a MCD Park which is a public place.Further no independent person had been arrayed for the recovery.She also submits that the FSL Report (Ex.PX-1) does not support the case of the prosecution as the report is inclusive and thus, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant.A. 329/2012 Page 4 of 25As an alternate argument, Ms.Per contra, Ms.In response to the submission that the offence of murder under Section 302 is not made out, Ms.Tiwari has relied upon paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Trial Court to contend that the second incident took place after sometime and the fact that the accused, including the appellant, had returned armed with a knife would show their intention to kill the deceased.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, examined the testimonies of the witnesses and the Trial Court record.Since the case of the prosecution is premised on the testimonies of Dhruv Vats (PW-1), Ajender Singh (PW-3) and Amar Singh (PW-7), we deem it appropriate to examine their testimonies.The father and uncle of the deceased along with other persons were lifting him, while the appellant, Sumeet (JCL) and Kale (JCL) were running away from the spot.A. 329/2012 Page 6 of 25As PW-1 was resiling from his previous statement, he was cross-examined by the Addl.PP for the State wherein PW-1 stated that when he had left Pratap Khand, both the accused and Kale (JCL) hurriedly left the spot towards Balmiki Basti talking with each other.The parents of the deceased also followed them and reached their house.He denied the suggestion that he had seen a big knife in the left hand of Sumeet (JCL) when he was running away from the spot when he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.He stated that there is a Gurudwara in front of the house of Ravi and the distance between the Gurudwara and the piao is about 100-150 steps.The distance between the piao and the shop where PW-1 was Crl.He further stated that the first quarrel took place 5-7 steps away from the piao and by the moment PW-1 had reached there the parties had been separated.The parents of the deceased and Sumeet (JCL) reached the moment the parties were pacified.He stated that when the deceased had sat on the pillion of his scooter, the parents of the deceased had left the spot and went on to voluntarily depose that he kept on standing at the spot talking with the deceased.PW-1 further stated that the deceased had met him by-chance near his house.A. 329/2012 Page 7 of 25The next witness is Ajender Singh (PW-3), who deposed that he is a property dealer and running an Atta/flour chakki.On 31.08.2010 at about 7:30 PM, he was standing inside his shop when he heard the noise of commotion and came outside.When PW-3 reached the spot, Dhruv (PW-1) was not there and was coming towards the spot.A. 329/2012 Page 8 of 25PW-7/I) and the Memorandum regarding recovery (Ex.PW-7/J) were signed by the witness.A. 329/2012 Page 9 of 25The dagger (marked as exhibit 6) was sent to the FSL for examination, which by its Report dated 18.01.2011 (Ex.PX-1) detected blood on the dagger; but the ABO Grouping was inclusive.A. 329/2012 Page 11 of 25 taken to Dr.Hedgewar Hospital vide MLC No. 3957 dated 31.08.2010 at 9:36 PM and he expired during treatment at 10:30 PM.The post mortem report (Ex.PW-6/A) details the following ante mortem injury:A. 329/2012 Page 11 of 25"Incised stab wound 7.0 x 1.0 cm x cavity deep on Lt. side lateral aspect of upper abdomen, vertically placed, lower angle of wound is acute and upper angle is blunt.The wound is placed just below the sub costal margin and 17 cms to umblicus.The wound entered the cavity in backward and medially direction to cut the spleen, Lt. kidney and intestine.The cut mark is also seen in peritoneum and mesentry.The total depth of the wound is about 13.0 cms."The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem stab injuries to abdomen and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Subsequent opinion (Ex.PW-6/B) was sought with respect to the weapon of offence, i.e. dagger, wherein PW-6 opined as under:"After going through the P.M. report finding and examination of weapon (dagger) I hereby opined [sic: opine] that Injury no.1 mentioned in P.M. report finding could have been possible to cause by this weapon of offence produced before me for examination.The cut mark on the clothes, I already mentioned in the P.M. report which is possible to be caused by this weapon of offence and correspond to injury No.1 mentioned in P.M. report finding."Having examined the testimony of the prime prosecution witnesses the incident unravels that on 31.08.2010 at about 7:30 PM, the deceased was standing outside his house in Balmiki Basti when he met Dhruv Vats @ Kittu (PW-1), who was going to the market to buy mehandi/henna.Upon reaching Pratap Khand, the deceased remained near a piao/water tank while PW-1 proceeded to the shop.Some altercation took place between the deceased on one side and the appellant, Kale (JCL) and Sumeet (JCL) Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 12 of 25 on the other when both sides exchanged blows.The parents of Sumeet (JCL) and deceased, including Amar Singh (PW-7) rushed to the spot.With the intervention of public persons, the parties were pacified.The deceased went back to his house on the scooter of PW- 1, where his father (PW-7) also reached within 1 minute.The appellant, Kale (JCL) and Sumeet (JCL) also rushed towards Balmiki Basti.PW-1 left the deceased at the gate of his house and went away.PW-7 was on the steps of the stairs to the first floor, when alarm was raised by the deceased.PW-7 turned around to see that the appellant and Kale (JCL) had caught hold of the deceased while Sumeet (JCL) was withdrawing a dagger from the stomach of the deceased.Thereafter, the appellant, Kale (JCL) and Sumeet (JCL) fled away and the deceased was taken to the Hospital where he later succumbed to his injury.The testimonies of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7 are consistent in this regard.Further, the same are duly corroborated by the recovery of the blood stained weapon of offence, i.e. dagger, on the instance of Sumeet (JCL) and the medical evidence on record.A. 329/2012 Page 12 of 25Further the recovery is duly Crl.A. 329/2012 Page 13 of 25 witnessed by the father of the deceased (PW-7) and it cannot be said that the same was only before police witnesses and PW-7 has also identified the dagger in his dock deposition before this Trial Court.It is not mandatory but only a rule of prudence that a public witness should be associated at the time of recovery [State v. Vikas @ Bhola & Anr., ILR (2013) 5 Del 4032 (paragraph 13)].It is only when other cause is shown to suspect the recovery that the same may be discarded.A coordinate bench of this Court in Titu v. State, ILR (2007) 1 Del 990 (paragraph 30) had observed that merely because all the witnesses of recovery were police witnesses and no independent public witness was joined for affecting the recovery would not be fatal.In the present case as well, the recovery of the dagger at the instance of Sumeet (JCL) is not doubtful merely because public witnesses were not enjoined.A. 329/2012 Page 13 of 25As regards the second prong of the argument of Ms.Lamba, the recovery cannot be said from a public place as the same was recovered from a heap of construction material.It is also pertinent that the recovery took place the very next day from the date of incident excluding time for the general public to become aware of the weapon.Additionally, the FSL (Ex.No doubt, the blood group of the blood on the dagger was not detected, however, blood was still found on the weapon of offence recovered at the instance of Sumeet (JCL) giving credence to the story of the prosecution.Additionally, in view of the other clinching evidence against the appellant, the non-detection of blood group does not raise a doubt upon the story of the prosecution.A. 329/2012 Page 17 of 25During the first, an altercation took place where both parties exchanged blows.L.J. 4680, wherein the accused had returned in 2-3 minutes after a heated exchange of words with a knife and stabbed the deceased, the conviction of the appellant was changed from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.The relevant paragraphs read as under:It is clear from the testimonies of P Ws 8, 9 and 10 that there was no previous enmity between the Appellant Mohd. Sultan @ Kallu and Yamin and his brothers and cousin.It is also apparent from their testimonies that a theft had taken place in the night intervening 17/18.09.1992 in the factory of Mohd. Farukh and his brothers.There was a heated exchange of words on the next night around 9:15 pm between Mohd. Sultan @ Kallu and PW8 Mohd. Farukh, in which the Appellant Mohd. Sultan is said to have questioned Mohd. Farukh as to why the former's name was being dragged in connection with the theft of the previous night.The altercation between the two escalated and resulted in Mohd. Sultan @ Kallu slapping Mohd. Farukh 2/3 times.On the intervention of the other brothers and cousin Mumtaz, Mohd. Sultan left the premises threatening to teach them a lesson.He went to his brother's factory nearby in the same gali and returned with a knife within 2-3 minutes and immediately thereupon stabbed Yamin who was standing outside the factory with PW9 Yasin.The quarrel was sudden and on account of the heat of passion. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,040,597 | JUDGMENT A. K. Yog, J.All the respondents are represented by the standing counsel and writ petition can be disposed of finally as the time likely for final hearing of the case will be the same as or deciding 'stay application' ; I propose to decide the writ petition finally as contemplated under Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court.No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in spite of several opportunities being given by the Court.On perusing the petition and the documents annexed therewith, it is apparent that the facts stated in the petition are matter of record.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.Petitioner was employed as constable in the Department of Police.U. P. Government.He completed 28 years of his service with unblemished record as stated in (paras 4 and 5 of the writ petition).Petitioner alleges that the said first information report was lodged by the landlord to implicate him falsely out of enmity.In the aforesaid crime case, the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.Moradabad found him guilty of committing offence under Section 323, I.P.C., imposed fine of Rs. 250 and in case of failure to deposit the same within the stipulated period he had to serve one week's rigorous imprisonment.He was found not guilty of other offence.In appeal, the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 7.3.1995 and confirmed the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.Against aforesaid impugned order dated 3.6.1996, appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.Moradabad Zone, Moradabad.The appellate authority also failed to refer to the specific pleas raised by the petitioner in his defence in the memorandum of appeal.Review petition has also been dismissed vide his order dated 28.11.1997 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). | ['Section 323 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.