id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,040,721 | Apparently there was no eye witness to the actual occurrence.She named the petitioner as the person who had thrown acid on her.The FIR accordingly recorded the name of the accused.The substance of her statement is as under:The appellant along with another person came in her house on that day at around 9.30 a.m. when her father was away to his duty and her mother had gone to get her younger brother admitted to school.She was present at the house with her younger sister of only 4 years.That the appellant was known to her and the members of her family as he had an office of security guards where she had been working as telephone operator.The appellant had been visiting her at her residence but by now the office of the security guards had been closed and she had not been going to the office for about one month.The appellant asked her to come to his house as she had been called by his wife.She refused as her parents were not at home and offered to come to his house along with her mother, when her parents would have returned.On this the appellant went to the toilet and in a glass brought something which looked like water and threw the same on her face which caused her severe burns.She screamed on account of the burns.The two left her house closing the main door from outside.The neighbours opened the door and poured water on her.The other man accompanying the appellant threatened her of dire consequences even as they left, and their intentions appeared to be bad.In the meantime, her mother arrived and brought her to the Jaipur Golden Hospital with the help of the neighbours.The statement is Ex.PW-1/A, the endorsement of the police officer is Ex.PW-8/A and the formally recorded FIR is Ex.PW-2/A. The MLC prepared by the Jaipur Golden Hospital is Ex.PW-7/A which recorded that the history of burns by thrown by two boys at 11.00 a.m. today.The diagnosis was "burns (15%)".The endorsement on the MLC says that she was fit for statement on 2.4.1994 at 12.50 p.m., i.e., when she made this statement to the police officer.During investigation statement of the witnesses were recorded and other formalities of investigation were completed.From the spot of the offence a bottle of acid was seized and was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh for examination of its contents.The witnesses produced during trial include the mother of the victim, Satya (PW-1); a neighbour, Smt.Sohna Devi (PW-6); a doctor from the Jaipur Golden Hospital (PW-9) who treated the victim and the police officers who were involved in this case since the recording of the FIR.The doctor proved that the victim had suffered from Chemical burns on face, chest and upper part of her breast and upper part of her back.JUDGMENT Manju Goel, J.The appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in a case in which injury to the victim was caused by throwing acid on her person.The salient feature of this case is that the injured, Sunita Devi, on whose statement the FIR was registered expired before the trial could commence.The victim could not be examined during trial.The evidence against the accused/appellant is the testimony of the victim's mother who saw the accused leaving the house and claims to have been told by the victim that the appellant had thrown acid on her.Another salient feature of the case is that in the statement of the mother recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `Cr.P.C.'), the name of the accused has not been mentioned.The trial court observed, inter alia, that there was no reason why the accused would have been falsely implicated, that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the mother on the material facts deposed by her and that the evidence on record proved the charge against the accused.Hence the conviction.We can now refer to the details of the case.The FIR No.130/94 under Sections 307/34 IPC at police station Saraswati Vihar was registered on 2.4.1994 at 1.40 p.m. on the statement of Sunita Devi.The appellant was arrested and he was challaned under section 307 IPC.He was charged under Section 307 IPC and was tried for the offence.Both of her eyes were damaged on account of the burns.According to him the injury was grievous.She was not cross-examined by the accused.The incident of acid being thrown on the victim Sunita in the morning of 2.4.1994 is not disputed.The medical evidence confirms that the burns were caused by Chemical.The report of the Chemical Examiner supporting the prosecution case is Ex.PW-8/C. The only question that remains to be determined is who committed the offence ?She states that when on that day she returned from the school at A-Block, Pitampura and was about to enter the gate of her society in which her flat is situated she saw the accused/appellant coming out of the gate of the society in a perplexed condition.As she entered the house she found her daughter crying and asked her as to what had happened on which she had told her that it was Kapoor Singh Rana/appellant who had poured acid on her face and she had become blind.Her narration continued to prove that Sunita was in service at Azadpur as a telephone operator, that she had been handing over the keys to the accused on the closure of the office, that the accused had joined in the celebration of her birthday in January, 1994 at her house that the accused used to visit the house but his behavior was not quite normal on which she had become suspicious and had asked the victim to avoid the accused that the victim left her job in the month of February, 1994 and that the incident took place on 2.4.1994 at around 9.30 a.m. She further stated that on the day of the incident the police arrived at the Jaipur Golden Hospital and took the statement of her daughter which is Ex.PW-1/A which was signed by her daughter.She made her statement on two different dates and there were some minor contradictions in the statement on those two days which she sufficiently explained.The only thing of substance that cropped up in her cross-examination is that her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not include the fact that her daughter had told her that it was the appellant who had poured acid on her face and had thereafter gone away.We shall advert to this aspect later.There were certain other omissions in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which were not of much significance.It is not necessary to go into the said details for the purpose of this judgment.8. PW-6 Smt.Sohna Devi is the neighbour who deposed that she had heard the voice of Sunita and she had pushed open the door of Sunita's house and had poured water.She, however, denies to have seen the appellant going out of the house.The officer who recorded the statement of Sunita is PW-8, ASI Dashrath Singh, who also eventually conducted the investigation.There is nothing worth mentioning in his cross-examination.In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied to have been seen by PW-1 on the relevant day at the gate of the society.He denies that he has been visiting the victim and says that he has been falsely implicated in the case.It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses....The next question is to what extent the testimony of mother of the victim to the effect that the victim had told her that it was the accused who had thrown acid on her could be relied upon.Therefore, certain aspects may not find their place in a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the present case the evidence of the mother of the victim, PW-1, says that she arrived at the spot immediately after the occurrence.She being the mother of the victim, the natural sequence of events on her arrival at the spot and on finding her daughter in distress will be an enquiry as to what had happened and as to who did it.The natural reaction of the mother would be first to ask as to what had happened and having got the answer to this question would be to ask as to who has done it.Although, the immediate concern will be to get medical aid to the daughter, the mother's anxiety to know these details will be equally urgent.The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. makes no mention as to any talk between the two.The translated version of the statement of Satya under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is as under:"I state that I live at the aforementioned address with my family.Today at around 9.30 AM I was coming back from the school after obtaining the certificate of my child and as I was about to enter the main gate of the apartment I saw Kapoor Singh Rana, appearing nervous, leaving the gate with speed.I know Kapoor Singh Rana for the last 2 or 3 months as my daughter used to work in his office and Kapoor Singh Rana had visited my house several times, sometimes alone and sometimes with his wife.He often used to praise the beauty of my daughter.I used to doubt his intentions.On seeing his behavior I removed Sunita from his employment.Inspite of that Kapoor Singh Rana requested several times that Sunita came back to work which I declined.Today when he was leaving the Ajay Apartment I asked him as to why he had come to the house again despite my forbidding.He left without giving any reply.Another tall, well-built person with white kurta & payjama was following him.He also looked perturbed.As I came up to my apartment and entered the same I found a few women and as soon as I entered I found my daughter Sunita labouring in the pain of acid burn.With the help of my neighbour I brought her to the Jaipur Golden Hospital where you arrived and recorded the statement of Sunita and where on the advice of the doctor you obtained the clothes on the body of the Sunita inlcuidng one kameej and banyan and kept them in a pulanda.Thereafter I came back to the Flat No.36, Ajay Apartments where on search one bottle with a little amount of acid was found behind some boxes which was seized by you.Thereafter, the plan of the area was drawn....Nonetheless, the trial court on examining the witnesses and on reading the total evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence.The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. | ['Section 307 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. |
104,237,956 | (493)C. R. M. 8808 of 2014 In the matter of : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 31, 2014 in connection with Bolpur Police Station Case No. 294 of 2014 dated June 25, 2014 under Sections 448/323/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Kailashpati Jha & Ors. .....................petitioners Mr. Debabrata Das Gupta..........for petitioners Mr. Bidyut Roy.........for the State We have heard the learned Advocate representing the petitioners and also the learned Advocate for the State.We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail.Accordingly we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down 2 under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) (Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti-J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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. |
1,042,486 | Dhobi appellant No. 1 was an agricultural assistant and wasworking under Khairnar appellant No. 2 who was agricultural512supervisor in the soil conservation section of theGovernment of Maharashtra.Dhobi was incharge of the workrelating to a Bundh in block No. 13 of village Asane inTaluka Mandurbar.The above block comprises agriculturallands bearing survey Nos. 8, 17, 18, 19 and 32 measuring 90acres.Rectification work in respect of those Bundhs at acost of Rs. 369.07 had to be got done by Dhobi appellantunder the supervision of Khaimar appellant.The Governmentsanctioned an amount of Rs. 4779 in connection with theconstruction of the Bundhs.An advance amount of Rs. 5000was received by Khaimar accused on March 2, 1966 in thatconnection.Work of the value, of Rs. 4400 was done butthat relating to rectification work was not done.Accordingto the rules of the soil conservation section, theGovernment spent the money in the first instance and afterthe report of the completion of work was received, theexpenses were recovered from the landowners for whosebenefit the work was done.On March 11, 1966 Khaimar madeentries in measurement book Ex. 27 showing that he hadchecked 28 payments and certified the, same.Paysheets Ex. 64 wereprepared by Dhobi accused and he obtained the thumbimpressions and signatures of the laborers on the paysheets.Khaimar made his initials below the thumb impressions in thepaysheets.On the last page of the paysheets, Khaimarsigned a certificate according to which he had paid Rs.369.07 to PW 10 Jagan Trinibak who used to do the labourwork.Final bill Ex. 28 was also prepared on that day bythe accused and the signature of Jagan Trimbak was obtainedon the same.The bill was got signed from PW 7 ZiparuTukaram and another person as attesting witnesses.The billwas signed thereafter by Khaimar.Debit entry Ex. 32 of Rs.369.07 was made by Khaimar accused in the cash book.Healso prepared work abstract Ex. 29 on April 16, 1966 andsent it to the sub-divisional soil conservation officerNandurbar showing an expenditure of Rs. 369-07.The case of the prosecution was that the measurement bookEx. 27, paysheets Ex. 64, final bill Ex. 28 and cash bookentry Ex. 32 were false documents and were fabricated by theaccused without doing any reification work on the Bundh.According further to the prosecution case, the landowners inblock No. 13 came to know of the, above, acts of the accusedand they complained about it to Sarpanch Tanku Bhagwan (PW12).Tanku sent a telegram on April 12, 1966 to thesuperintending agricultural officer, Bombay division, Nasikin this connection.A copy of the telegram was513thereafter sent by the superintending agricultural officerto divisional soil conservation officer D.S.D. Ghate (PW 1)for necessary action as well as for enquiry and report.He found that entries had been made about thepayment of Rs. 369.07 in the measurement book and cash bookeven though no rectification work had been done.Chatesubmitted his report on May 6, 1966 for proceedingdepartmentally against the accused.On receipt of the abovereport, the superintending agricultural officer directed P.R. Inamdar (PW 1 1 ), deputy director of agriculturalengineering, to go to Asane village and submit his reportafter personally verifying the facts.Inamdar went withGhate to block No. 13 in Asane village on May 11, 1966.Both Inamdar and Ghate found that no rectification work hadbeen done.They did not find even a single pit in the landsin that block although, according to measurement book, 83pits had been recently dug.Inamdar and Ghate also met theSarpanch and other landowners of Asane village.Reportdated May 18, 1966 was thereafter submitted by Inamdaraffirming those facts.Sarpanch Tanku sent complaint Ex. 84, in the meanwhile, onApril 30, 1966 to the director of anti-corruption branchMaharashtra State stating that the accused had preparedfalse bill for Rs. 369.07 without doing any work and thatthey had misappropriated that amount.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedMarch 27, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal AppealsNos.V.S. Kotwal, A. G. Ratnaparkhi and Rajiv Shah, for theappellant.R. M. Mehta and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKhanna, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Khandu SonuDhobi and Bhikanrao Rambhau Khairnar against the judgment ofthe Bombay High Court affirming on appeal the conviction ofthe appellants under section 218 read with section 34,section 477A read with section 34 and section 409 read withsection 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under section 5(2) read with section 5 ( 1 ) (d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of one year and a fine of Rs. 200 or in defaultfurther rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months hasbeen awarded on each count to, the appellants.. Thesubstantive sentences have ben ordered to run concurrently.It was also statedthat attempts were being made to shield the accused.Thedirector of anti-corruption sent a copy of that applicationto Sub Inspector K. G. Patil (PW 13) who was then attachedto Dhulia officse of the anticorruption branch.SubInspector Patil made local enquiry and took into possessionthe measurement book, paysheets and cash book.The directorof anti-corruption branch directed Patil to register a caseand investigate into the, matter.Patil went to Nasik andrecorded statement Ex. 79 of Inamdar PW on November 7, 1966.The statement was then sent to Nandurbar Taluka policestation.OnNovember 12, 1966 sub Inspector Patil applied for permissionunder section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act ofjudicial magistrate 1st class to investigate the offence.The permission was granted by the judicial magistrate 1stclass Nandurbar on the same day.Patil thereafter recordedstatements of a number of persons.According tothe accused, they had prepared the various documents inaccordance with the instructions of Ghate PW who wasinsisting in March 1966, and even earlier, that a completionreport relating to block No. 13 be sent as the entire amountspent on that block since 1962 could not be recovered forwant of a. completion report.The learned special judge held that the amount of Rs. 369.07had not been paid by the two accused to the labourers.Nowork, it was found, had been done and the differentdocuments prepared by the accused in this connection werefalse even on their own admissions.The explanationfurnished by the accused that they prepared false documentsat the instance of Ghate and got work done thereafter wasnot accepted.Theseobjections were repelled.The accused were accordinglyconvicted and sentenced as above.On appeal the High Court affirmed the, findings of thelearned special judge.We have heard Mr. Kotwal on behalf of the, appellants andare of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.Ithas not been disrupted before us that the accused madevarious entries and prepared documents on March 11, 1966about their having got the rectification work done as wellas about the payment of Rs. 369.07 on that account.According to Ghate (PW 1) and Inamdar (PW 11), nowork relating to the rectification of the Bundh was found tohave been done till May 11, 1966 when they visited the sitein question.Inamdar's evidence also shows that accordingto the measurement book prepared by the accused, 83 pitshad been recently dug although the witness could not find asingle pit on the spot. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,042,514 | P1 to P18 and Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.7 has returned a verdict of conviction as stated supra.The case in brief of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence adduced on their side is as follows:They had been blessed with three children.Except Romeo-P.W.10, the other two children were staying in a hostel.3. P.W.1 is carrying on groundnut cake business in the ground floor of his house at Gandhi Nagar, Chennai.P.W.1, the victim and their daughter Romeo were staying in the upstair portion of the said house.The accused Murugan was employed as an assistant in the said shop and he was staying in the ground floor itself, where the business was carried on.On 3.8.2000 at about 1.30 pm the victim went to the ground floor for the purpose of handing over the ration of food to the accused.P.W.1 waited for some time, but the victim had not returned.He came down to the ground floor and heard an alarming noise.When he attempted to push the outer door of the ground floor he found that it was locked from inside.P.W.1 went around the house and peeped through the window.He found to his shock that the accused, taking position on his wife who was lying on the ground, attempted to strangulate her.Thereafter the accused opened the door from inside and sped away from the scene of occurrence.The accused took shelter in a nearby bush.He went to the church and informed the people over there.He came down to his house and found his wife dead.Thereafter P.W.1 went to Kolathur police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.9, who was present over there.The latter registered a case in Crime No. 1050/2000 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared printed FIR-Ex.P9 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the copies thereof to the higher officials.The Inspector of Police, Mr.Natarajan - P.W.13, who was incharge of the said police station when Varadarajan, the regular Inspector of Police-P.W.14 was on leave, took up the case for investigation on receipt of a copy of the FIR and rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch-Ex.He also prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P2 in the presence of Chellaiah, P.W.4 and another witness.He held inquest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report, Ex.At about 8.30 pm on the said day, in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, P.W.13 recovered thali chain-M.O.4 and packing material- M.O.7 under relevant mahazar, Ex.He entrusted the dead body to the Head Constable Mohan, P.W.8 for the purpose of taking the same to the doctor for conducting postmortem examination.The subcutaneous soft tissues underlying the ligature abrasion were found congested.2) Inward compression fracture of right horn of the hyoid bone found with extravasation of blood in the surrounding soft tissues.Heart: Intact.Trachea: Empty.Stomach contained 200 ml of brown fluid with partly digested cooked rice particles.No definite smell.The doctor in his postmortem certificate, Ex.P7, has opined that the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation of the neck.The postmortem constable, P.W.8, recovered the saree-M.O.1, jacket-M.O.2, and petticoat-M.O.3 from the dead body after the postmortem examination was over and entrusted the same to the investigating officer for the purpose of further investigation.The Inspector of Police Mr.JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J.The sole accused in this case, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) read with 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, has preferred the present appeal.2. Learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai having thoroughly adverted to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.Deivasigamani, P.W.7, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the victim at about 11.40 am on 4.9.2000 and found the following injuries and symptoms on the dead body:A well defined incomplete oblique ligature abrasions mark in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage, 16 x 1 cms on the front, the ligature abrasion was 8 cms below the chin and 6 cms above the suprasternal noted and the ligature abrasion was absent on the back of the neck.Varadarajan, P.W.14, having joined duty on 4.9.2000 took up the case for further investigation in this matter.The accused gave a voluntary confession statement and on the basis of the admissible portion, Ex.P6, of the confession statement, lungi-M.O.5 and underwear-M.O.6 were recovered from the scene of occurrence.As P.W.14 found some nail marks on the person of the accused, he sent the accused Murugan to the hospital for treatment.Dr. Megajabeen- P.W.11 medically examined the accused on 7.9.2000 at 12 noon and gave first aid to the accused.P.W.11 has deposed before Court that the accused informed her while treating him that he sustained nail marks when he was attempting to rape the victim.Romeo, P.W.10, 14 years old daughter of P.W.1 has deposed that her father P.W.1 admonished the accused in an earlier occasion when he made advances to his mother.She has also spoken to the fact that when she came down from the church she found her mother dead in the ground floor of the house.Gnanavendhan, P.W.12, forensic expert has spoken to the fact that the lungi sent for forensic examination was found with human blood of 'A' group.The blood sample was collected from the victim and the same was classified as 'A' group by the forensic expert.He has spoken about the serologist report, Ex.P11, prepared and issued by him.P.W.14 gave a requisition, Ex.P14, on 7.9.2000 to the Court to charge the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC also.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances made available against him, he denied each and every circumstance as false and contrary to facts.No documentary evidence was marked on his side.He has deposed before Court that he had affairs with the victim for about five long years and on the day of the occurrence the victim came with the food meant for him at about 12.30 noon.He has also deposed that the injuries found on his person were self- inflicted injuries on account of the threat which he received from the police during custodial interrogation.The trial Court having placed reliance on the testimony of P.W.1, who is none other than the husband of the victim and the other testimony available on record, has come to the conclusion that it was only the accused who not only attempted to rape the victim but also caused her death by strangulating her.Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there had been a delay of 2 1/2 hours in lodging the complaint.The occurrence is said to have taken place at 1.30 pm, but the complaint was lodged only at 4 pm.The delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution.Learned counsel for the accused would further contend that the complaint had been prepared with the assistance of an advocate Mr.Justin and that therefore, the complaint is found with a concocted version as though the accused committed the murder.The conduct of P.W.1 is against nature in asmuch as he had gone to consult the people at the church even before he came down to see his wife who was allegedly assaulted by the accused.Referring to the postmortem certificate, learned Counsel for the accused would submit that strangulation had been allegedly done manually and therefore, the prosecution story that the Thali chain was used for the purpose of strangulation would be totally untrue.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned trial Judge having thoroughly browsed the evidence on record has rightly returned a verdict of conviction and therefore, the said judgment warrants no interference.15. P.W.1 is the husband of the victim in this case.He has cogently spoken to the fact that having waited for some time for the return of his wife, he came down to the ground floor in search of her.By that time he heard an alarming noise and peeped through the window of his ground floor.He found the accused taking position on his wife and attempting to strangulate her.It is his further version that when the accused came out running he and P.W.2-Elumalai gave a chase to the accused.P.W.2 also has corroborated the version of P.W.1 to the effect that both of them gave a chase to the accused immediately after the occurrence.It is the version of P.W.1 that he used to supply ration of food to the accused.The occurrence took place when his wife came down to supply food to the accused.The testimony of P.W.1 inspires confidence of this Court.There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.P.W.11, doctor, who treated the accused has categorically deposed before Court that the accused informed her that he sustained injuries when he made an attempt to rape the victim.The accused had not chosen to inform the learned Judicial Magistrate that he caused self inflicting injuries under threat from the police as has been stated by him during the course of his examination before the Court.If at all the injuries found on the person of the accused had been caused for the reasons stated by him, he would have at least informed the doctor who treated him or the Judicial Magistrate who enquired about the treatment meted out to the accused at the time of remand.The theory of the accused that he sustained injuries only on account of the threat wielded by the police during police interrogation is found not acceptable to us.The nail marks on the person of the accused unerringly point to his role in the crime alleged against him.Of course there had been some delay in lodging the complaint.If we carefully go through the evidence of P.W.1, we can find that he went to the police station only after verifying the condition of his wife.In all fairness P.W.1 would admit that he informed about the occurrence to one Mr.Justin, an advocate by profession.There is no evidence to show that the complaint was drafted only as per the dictation of the above said advocate.Therefore, the defence that the FIR was concocted does not appeal to us.The scene of occurrence is about 2 1/2 kms away from the police station concerned.P.W.1 had witnessed the occurrence.He had found his wife lying on the floor partly without dress.She was found lying dead.P.W.1 would have taken some time to console himself before setting the law in motion.Further when there is ocular testimony to point to the involvement of the accused in this case, the delay, if any, will not go to the root of the case at all.The delay of 2 1/2 hours in lodging the complaint to the police station, which is located 2 1/2 kms away, after taking some time to draft the complaint cannot be termed as inordinate.18. P.W.1 has chosen to chase the accused along with P.W.2 and having found some people in the church, which is nearby, informed them about the occurrence and thereafter came down to his house to verify the fate of his wife.P.W.1 should have been in a state of shock having seen the accused strangulating his wife.It is quite common for a person under shock to share his grief to the persons who are found close by his residence.It is not as if P.W.1 rushed straight to the police station after informing certain persons in the church without even verifying the fate of his wife.We find for the above reasons that the conduct of P.W.1 cannot at all be termed as unnatural.The accused had been arrested on 6.9.2000 and only on the basis of his confession statement his apparels had been recovered.It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the accused, who was spotted committing the crime, would not have taken some time to hide his apparels in a safe place.It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 having witnessed the occurrence by peeping through the window came down to the doorway with a view to open the door.The door was opened from inside by the accused.It is not as if the door was opened by P.W.1 immediately after witnessing the occurrence through the window.The accused, who was inside the house, would have had time to remove his apparels, which were found blood stained, to put it in a safe place in the house.The recovery at the instance of the accused raises presumption of guilt as against him. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
104,256,248 | No. 808 of 1995 were ranked as A1, A3 and A6 along with four others.The accused were charged, found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as shown below:a) The accused, who were arrayed as A1 to A7, one Ramesh, who was absconding accused and his case was split up, and P.Ws.1 to 6 were all hailing from same political party.On 30.11.1991, an election was conducted for the local District Secretary and there was a competition between the group of deceased and the first accused.There was a clash between the group of the deceased and the first accused.A1 sustained injury and due to that, the said election was stopped.A1 was aggrieved over the said incident.b) On 27.4.1992 at about 8.30 p.m., PW1 and his brother Panneerselvam, Karikalan, Murthy, Veerayan, Pakianathan and Pazhakadai Durai were all went to Thambu cheppal Shop situated in the Old Bus stand.At that time, an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. TNZ 1616 was came there.In that Car A1 to A7 were travelling and they parked the said car in the entrance of the bus stop and came out of the car.Further two cars bearing Registration Nos. TSF 7785 and TMF 8671 came there and from the said two cars, 10 to 15 persons have got down.A2 was holding a gun, while the other accused were armed with deadly weapons.At that time A1 told his brother A2 that "Pannerselvam is here shoot him".Immediately, A2 shot at him with his gun on his right leg and the first accused cut the right leg of the said Pannerselvam using Aruval, A3 cut him on his left leg.At that time, Pannerselvam raised alarm and fell down.In order to restrain the attack, Murthy was attacked by A4 and A5 on his left leg and left thigh using Aruval.A6 attacked Murthy with Aruval on his left leg and right shoulder.Ramesh attacked Murthy on his right side head by using bottom portion of Aruval.Ramesh also attacked Veerayan on his left cheek and A7 attacked Veerayan on his right shoulder and head using Aruval.They raised alarm.Chairs were thrown out.Then A2 raised a slogan "Panner is closed, let us go".After that, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence through the said Cars.Pannerselvam, Murthy and Veerayan were taken to Government Hospital, Pattukkottai by P.W. 1 in a Cycle Rickshaw.c) P.W. 15, Devendran, Constable, who was on duty at that time, registered a case in Crime No. 374/92 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. The printed F.I.R Ex.P. 14 was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Pattukkottai and the copies were sent to officials.P.W. 17 Vaithyalingam Inspector on receipt of the copy of F.I.R. took up investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence on 28.4.1992 at 6.00 a.m. He prepared observation mahazar in the presence of the witnesses under Ex.P. 2 and rough sketch Ex.On the same day, he recovered M.O. 4 blood stained earth, M.O. 5 sample earth, M.O. 7 broken glass pieces of car, M.O. 8 Yamaha Motor Cycle and M.O. 1 Steel chair under Ex.P. 3 mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.He visited Pattukkottai Nadimuthu Nagar Corporation Park and seized the damaged Ambassador Cars M.O. 2 TNZ 1616, M.O. 3 TMF 8671 and M.O. 9 TSF 7785 under Ex.P. 4 mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.d) On the same day at about 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatars and prepared Ex.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.This judgment shall govern both Criminal appeal in CA.In the hospital, the doctor declared Pannerselvam dead.Then P.W. 1 rushed to the Police Station at 9.30 p.m. and lodged a complaint, which was marked under Ex.On the strength of which, a case came to be registered.P. 16 inquest Report.He examined PW1 and other witnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent through a Constable along with a requisition for post-mortem to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.On receipt of information, P.W. 12 Doctor Uma Maheswari conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Pannerselvam and has given post-mortem report, which was marked as Ex.The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injuries of the lower limbs.P.W. 10 Dr. Ambujam examined P.W. 2 on 27.4.1992 at 11.50 p.m. P.W. 11 Dr. Anantharamakrishnan examined moorthy, who was not examined as witness, and found the following injuries:Incised wound over 7 x 3 (Rt) Knee exposing the muscles and patella.Fresh blood present.Incised wound lat.Aspect of (Lt) leg muscles cut 3 x 3 x 3 cmLacerated wound (Rt) Tempero-parietal 2x2x24) Incised wound (Rt) arm 3x2, depth not assessed.Fresh blood present5) Incised wound (Rt) (N.C.) 3 x 3 x 3 cm The wound certificate was marked as Ex.e) P.W. 17 Vaithialingam Inspector examined P.W. 5 and other witnesses on 29.4.1992 at about 11.05 a.m. He examined one Ramesh, who underwent treatment in the Thanjavur Medical College hospital.On the very day, at about 11.55 a.m. he arrested A6 and A6 was sent to judicial remand.Mos recovered were sent for chemical examination by the concerned court.The remaining witnesses were also examined.P.W. 18 Subramaniam Inspector took up further investigation, examined PWs.10, 11 and 16 and completed the investigation.He laid a charge sheet.In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and the other accused, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and 12 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.But they would further add that they sustained injuries at the time of occurrence and PWs were aggressoRs.No defence witnesses were examined.On consideration of the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the materials available, the trial court found the accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty under Section 326 and A6 was found guilty under Section 324 IPC, while acquitted all other accused and the appellants herein also in respect of other charges levelled against them.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel made the following submissions for consideration by this Court.According to the prosecution case, 8 named persons, who were arrayed as A1 to A7 and one Ramesh, who was subsequently acquitted in the split up case along with 10 to 15 other persons armed with deadly weapons came to the place of occurrence in three Ambassador cars and attacked the deceased and others.The trial court found A1, A3 and A6/appellants herein guilty, while acquitted all other accused.Having accepted the defence case in respect of all other accused, namely A2, A4, A5 and A7 and disbelieved that part of the prosecution case against them, the trial court should have acquitted all the accused.There are so many circumstances indicated to show that P.W. 1, who was an informant, could not have been available at the place of occurrence.Even the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution do not speak about the presence of P.W. 1 at the time of occurrence, and hence, it would be clear that P.W. 1 was not present at the time of occurrence.Hence, the case registered on the basis of the complaint given by P.W. 1 looses its vigour.The defence was able to show that A6, A7 and Ramesh against whom the case was separately conducted were also sustained injuries.A6 was examined by P.W. 9 Doctor, who has issued Ex.P. 5 wound certificate.It is pertinent to note that A6 was examined at 10.00 p.m. within 1-1/2 hours from the time of occurrence, where he has categorically stated as to how he was attacked by number of persons.There is also evidence to show that Ramesh against whom the case was separately conducted was also injured.A scrutiny of the wound certificate would clearly show that he sustained cut injuries and also bleeding injuries.The prosecution has not made any attempt as to how the accused sustained injuries at the time of occurrence.It was also brought to the notice of the lower court that a complaint was lodged by A6 immediately and a case was registered in Crime No. 376 of 1992 by the same police.The same was not taken into consideration by the trial court.In the instant case, there were so many infirmities and lacuna incurable at the time of investigation, and thus, the suppression on the part of the investigation as to the case registered at the instance of A6 and further what happened to the said case, would all go a long way that the trial court could not appraise or make proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and to arrive at a correct conclusion, and hence, in view of all the above, the trial court should have acquitted the appellants.Arguing for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that the trial court without proper appreciation of the evidence has acquitted some of the accused in respect of all the charges and the appellant before this Court in respect of Sections 302 r/w 34 and 149 IPC.The eyewitnesses, namely, PWs.1 to 3 have categorically spoken about the overt act committed by A1 and A3 in a clear terMs.Their evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence.Under the stated circumstances, the trial court should have found both the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC.The trial court has not found the accused guilty under Section 149 IPC and other provisions relating to unlawful assembly, since no weapon has seized.The contention put forth by the appellants' side that the injuries on the accused/appellant were not explained by the prosecution cannot be countenanced.The same contention was also raised before the trial court, but the trial court was not inclined to accept the same, since the injuries found on A6, A7 and one Ramesh, who was an absconding accused, were simple and superficial, which the prosecution was not called upon to explain.Insofar as the contention regarding Cr.No. 376/92 was concerned, the non production of F.I.R. and the connected records has not in no way affected the case of prosecution, since there is nothing to show that the Crime No. 376/92 came to be registered in relation to the same transaction in question, and thus, without proper appreciation, the trial court has acquitted the accused for the charges under Section 302 and other provisions, and hence, the conviction and sentence insofar as that part is concerned has got to be modified.Answering to the above contentions, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial court on proper appreciation of the evidence has found A1 and A3 guilty under Section 326 IPC and A6 was found guilty under Section 324 IPC.It is true that a case in crime No. 376/92 came to be registered at the instance of A6 at 11.30 p.m. under Sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC.It is also true that the copy of F.I.R and other connected records were not produced before the trial court.The trial court considered the injuries that were sustained on the accused at the time of occurrence and found they were simple and superficial, and hence, the prosecution was not called upon to explain the same.Hence, the judgment of the trial court has got to be affirmed.This Court paid its full and complete attention on the rival submissions made and had a close scrutiny of the materials available.Admittedly, there was enmity that prevailed between the first accused and the deceased Pannerselvam due to political rivalry.The gist of the prosecution case was that on 27.4.1992 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 7, one Ramesh absconding accused and 10 to 15 persons came with three cars.A2 was holding gun and all other accused were armed with deadly weapons.On seeing the deceased, A1 told his brother A2 that "Pannerselvam is here, shoot him".Immediately, A2 shot at the deceased with his gun on his right leg and all other accused have also attacked him on different parts of his body.PW2 and Murthy, who was not examined, since deceased, were also shown as injured.According to the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were eyewitnesses.The learned counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of the court a few circumstances, which casts a doubt whether P.W. 1 was present at the time of occurrence.But, P.W. 1 has claimed that he took the deceased and other injured to the hospital.Hence, it is very doubtful whether P.W. 1 was present at the time of occurrence.On the strength of the complaint given by P.W. 1, a case came to be registered in the instant case.It could be well said that though P.W. 1 was not present at the time of occurrence, he set the law in motion.As could be seen from the available materials, A6 was examined by P.W. 9 Doctor at 10.00 p.m. He informed to the Doctor that he was attacked by four known persons, which has been recorded.The following injuries were found on A6:1) Laceration on the (Rt) fore head, obliquely placed size 3"/1"/2" Bleeding present.2) Three cut injuries on the (Lt) Thumb and finger is hanging loosely.3) Three cut injuries on the (Rt) side Transversely placed one at the heel, one at the base of toe, another at the base of little toe.Apart from that from the evidence of Investigating Officer, it is clear that injuries were found on A7 and other accused also.It is a matter of surprise to note that When the Investigating Officer went to the hospital to effect the arrest on A6 and A7, he noticed injuries caused on them.But, he did not enquire about the same.The contention of the learned counsel for the revision case and the learned Government Advocate that the injuries were superficial and hence the prosecution was not called upon to explain cannot be accepted in view of the nature of the injuries as could be evident from Ex.P. 5 wound certificate.But, they plead no knowledge about the same.Hence, it is a case where the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused in the cause of the same transaction.A case came to be registered on the complaint of A6 in Crime No. 376/92 at 11.30 p.m. on the very day.Hence, it cannot be now stated that the complaint given by A6 was pertaining to some other transaction.No doubt, the accused were sustained injuries on the same transaction.If so, a duty is cast upon the prosecution to produce the said F.I.R and all other connected records and must also explain what happened to the F.I.R and whether the investigation was taken up or not.This Court is of the view that the prosecution has suppressed all the materials pertaining to Crime No. 376/92 which has arisen in respect of part and parcel of the same transaction.Without the presence of the same, the trial court cannot take correct decision in the matter.Taking into consideration that no explanation was tendered by the prosecution in respect of the injuries found on A6, A7 and other absconding accused and the suppression of the materials in respect of Crime No. 376/92, this Court is of the view that it would not be possible to take a correct decision in the matter on the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, which is not free from doubt, and hence, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the trial court finding A1, A3 and A6 guilty has got to be set aside.The appellants/accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are acquitted of the charges under Sections 326 and 324 IPC respectively.Consequently, connected. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
97,500,202 | Case diary is perused.sh Learned counsel for the parties are heard.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for e ad grant of bail.The applicant was arrested on 20.02.2018 by Police Station Sironj, Vidisha in connection with Crime No.03/2018 Pr registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 a of IPC and under Section 25, 30 of Arms Act.hy It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that as per the ad prosecution story on 03.01.2018 one Badri Bagdi S/o Gopal Bagdi lodged a complaint against one Gorelal Bagdi S/o Babulal Bagdi, M alleging that Gorelal Bagdi on 01.01.2018 at about 8.30 p.m. had of taken his father alongwith him for hunting of wild boar.He was carrying a Bharmar Gun on his shoulders.When his father did not rt return back in the morning, he inquired about his father but Gorelal ou was not found in his house.He alongwith his uncle searched for his C father for the whole day but during night they discovered body of his father near Chindyai forest in the agricultural field of Panda.On his h ig report, FIR was lodged on 03.01.2018 at 5.30 a.m. against Gorelal H Bagdi.It is further submitted that during investigation, memorandum of Gorelal was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and one Bharmar Gun was recovered from his possession so also a sweater stained with blood marks.In his statement he informed that the gun belongs to Gorelal S/o Kashiram i.e. present applicant and did not produce arms licence and therefore Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 34 of IPC was enhanced.It is the case of the applicant that his arms licence was seized and after arresting him, his statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were also recorded and thereafter charge sheet was filed before the competent court bearing No.64/2018 on 01.03.2018 under Sections 302, 34 of IPC, Section 25 and 30 of the Arms Act.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that at best the applicant could have been charged under the provisions of Arms Act for allowing some third party to use his licensed gun but by no stretch of imagination he can be convicted under Section 302 of IPC.It is also contended that Section 34 of IPC deals that when a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention in all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same sh manner as if it were done by him alone.In the present case, there is no e prima facie element of common intention so to attribute allegation ad under Section 302, 34 of IPC.In view of such facts, since there is no Pr allegation against the present applicant of having any common intention to have killed Gopal Bagdi, the applicant deserves to be a enlarged on bail.His single non-appearance shall cancel his bail automatically by the trial court concerned, without any further order of this court.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE SP Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Date: 2018.05.01 10:30:47 +05'30' H ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh | ['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. |
97,500,458 | And In the matter of: Amar Majumdar & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Pabitra Biswas For the Petitioners Mrs. Ratna Ghosh For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Haringhata Police Station Case No. 83 of 2013 dated 02.04.2013 under sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner No.1 is the husband and the Petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law of the Complainant.The Petitioner No.1 married the Complainant eight years ago.They have a daughter.We have seen the case diary.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2 3 3 | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,750,074 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Pankesh Kumar, involved in case crime no.752 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Mohammadabad, District-Farrukhabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
97,502,159 | 4. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor, who would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same is sustainable.We have considered the rival submissions.5. .....Thiru Divine Balakumar has not filed any bail application in Kovilpalayam Police Station Crime No. 260/2016 u/s. 392 @ u/s. 392 r/w 397 I.P.C.. In similar case registered in the Coimbatore District, Mettupalayam Police Station Crime No. 2768/2011 for offence under Sections 392 r/w 397 IPC, the conditional bail was granted to Thiru.Hence, there is a real possibility of Thiru.Divine Balakumar to be released on bail in the ground case of Kovilpalayam Police Station in Crime No. 260/2016 u/s. 392 IPC @ u/w 392 r/w 397 IPC by filing bail application before appropriate court in future..........A perusal of the above would make it amply clear that admittedly, as on the date of passing of the detention order, there was no application filed by the detenu seeking bail in respect of the ground case in Crime No. 260/2016 on the file of Kovilpalayam Police Station.Further, there were no cogent and sufficient materials available before the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail.Thus, in our considered view, without making proper application of mind relating to these facts, the Detaining Authority has passed the detention order.Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the same.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 27.02.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside.The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
97,511,879 | The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 352, 324, 506(ii) of IPC @ into 294(b), 352, 307 of IPC in Crime No.1260 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9175 of 2020 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2020 at morning 05.00 hours there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner's husband, petitioner and the defacto complainant regarding the water dispute for cultivating the land.The petitioner and her husband used filthy language against the defacto complainant and her husband.The defacto complainant was attacked by the petitioner's husband with knife and the defacto complainant was injured on her left thumb and left side ear near face.The defacto complainant's husband was also attacked by the petitioner on the head and back side.Hence the complaint.4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant as such admitted in hospital.Thereafter, the injured was discharged from hospital.However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9175 of 2020 5 Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.7 Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9175 of 2020 [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.23.03.2020 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Dua 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9175 of 20201.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirvuannamalai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9175 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, Dua Crl.9175 of 2020 23.06.2020 | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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. |
97,512,256 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in case crime no. 120 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat.As per Post-mortem report two gun shot injuries have been found and duration of death is one and half days back.Thereafter on 16.02.2019 an application was moved by the informant to the concerned police station stating that on 11.02.2019 deceased went taking Rs. 50,000/- to his sister's house and when he came at the house applicant took away to his field.While going the deceased along with Deepak, Billu s/o Mahak Singh, Khachadu and Sunita w/o Beersain were present at the house.In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
97,517,318 | 2.1 Brief facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of present bunch of petitions are required to be stated first.2.2 On a complaint of one Rakesh Singh Kushwaha, Lokayukt Organization took cognizance and initiated inquiry under the M.P.Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 in regard to alleged complaint against petitioners herein arising out of the work of repairing/maintenance and widening of the old roads from Motijheel to Tighra Road vide agreement dated 14/11/2011 between Special Area Development Authority (SADA) and contractor M/s. Prestigious Scores Pvt.Ltd.During the course of execution of work in question, the said contractor requested not only for increasing depth of scarifying work but also change in quality of material to be used which led to increase in the estimated cost from originally agreed Rs. 18,90,000/- to Rs. 78,68,240/-.The said proposal of contractor was accepted during the period of posting of petitioners on different positions.Sheel Nagu, J.Shri Anil Khare, Sr.Shri A.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondentShri J.D. Suryavanshi, learned Sr.Shri A.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondentLearned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.Since common questions of fact and law are involved, all the five petitions have been taken up for analogous hearing and are being decided by this common order.All these petitions filed invoking inherent powers of this court u/Sec.482 Cr.P.C. assail the same order dated 22/4/2019 passed by Special Judge (PC Act)/First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Case No 02/2019 arising out of Crime No. 84/17 registered at Special Police Establishment, Gwalior alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for brevity the PC Act) and Sec. 120-B of I.P.C.It was alleged in the complaint that the said proposal of the contractor led to increase in the estimated cost of the work which was accepted resulting in financial loss to public exchequer.After registration of offences under the PC Act against petitioners and few others, investigation was conducted, but a closure was submitted.2.3 This closure report was filed before the court of competent 4 criminal jurisdiction which passed the impugned order after hearing the petitioners and prosecution, differing with the closure report and declining to accept the same after finding prima facie case for taking cognizance of the offences punishable 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the PC Act and Sec. 120-B of IPC against petitioners and few other co-accused.However, since the statutory bar u/Sec. 19 of the PC Act came in way, the trial court after recording finding that there is prima facie material enough to take cognizance of the said offences, asked the prosecution to obtain necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authority.2.4 The challenge to the said order of learned Special Judge is three folds as enumerated below:-(iii) By relying upon Sec. 10 of M.P. Lokayukt Evam 5 Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, the contention of petitioner is that while conducting inquiry into foundational complaint the Lokayukt Organization have not afforded opportunity of being heard to petitioners thereby vitiating the inquiry and its subsequent action, i.e. FIR and the special case.2.5 Taking up the first ground as enumerated above, learned counsel for petitioners has taken this court to the foundational allegations made against petitioners in depth in a valiant attempt to demonstrate that the basic ingredients constituting the offences alleged are not made out and therefore the FIR and so also the impugned order is bad in law.More so, findings arrived at in the impugned order are perverse for being unsupported by any evidence.2.6 A perusal of impugned order shows that the trial Court found sufficient materials for taking cognizance, as the petitioners had illegally permitted making of payment to the contractor four times the agreed price and more so as against the amount paid to the contractor only meager amount was recovered from contractor, which shows misuse of official position on the part of petitioners.The cognizance has been taken on the basis of report received from Inspector Rajiv Gupta, which was called due to issue being technical.Inspector Rajiv Gupta has observed in his enquiry report that as per MP PWD SOR (Item No. 3.9) dated 6 15.4.2009 scarifying the existing course, Schedule Item No.2, i.e., only 50 mm thick, there is no provision as to performance of the aforesaid work in layers, and yet the petitioners permitted payment for four layers beyond the prescribed rates and when the notice was issued to the contractor, he preferred an appeal before the President, SADA, meanwhile the petitioners stopped payment of Rs.10.00 lacs but remaining amount had been disbursed in favour of the contractor.Besides, contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioners permitted loss caused to be set off against the earnest money/security money deposited by contractor prior to completion of work, which further reflects malafide on the part of petitioners.2.7 Thus, on the anvil of the above analysis the trial Court has rightly found sufficient grounds for taking cognizance.2.8 After going through the foundational allegations against petitioners it is seen from the impugned order dated 22/4/2019 that learned Special Judge has taken pains, not only to go into the factual allegations but has also assigned cogent reasons for taking a contrary view and finding the offences alleged to be worth taking cognizance of.2.9 Thus, as regards first ground that foundational ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out, this court has already rendered it's 7 finding that the offences alleged appear to be made out on prima facie assessment.2.10 As regards second ground that learned Special Judge exceeded it's jurisdictional limits by recording finding of alleged offences worthy of taking cognizance has influenced the mind of competent authority u/Sec. 19 of the PC Act, which is yet to take a decision on question of grant/refusal qua sanction for prosecution, learned counsel for petitioners relied upon decisions on State through CBI Vs.2.12 As noted above, a plethora of decisions of Apex court and this court were cited by learned counsel for petitioners but this court need 8 not go into prolixity of these citations for the simple reason that Apex Court in a case arising from this very High Court and attended with similar circumstances where the challenge made was also on similar ground as raised herein, has already taken a view and laid down law in Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 13Relevant paras 2 to 8 and 13 to 40 of the said judgment are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :-The brief factual matrix relating to this appeal is as follows:The respondent no. 2, Shri.Raghav Chandra, who is a Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal along with respondent no. 3, Shri.Shahjad Khan, posted as the then Collector, Katni, Jabalpur and respondent no. 4, Shri.Ram Meshram, posted as the Land Acquisition Officer, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal, whilst, discharging their functions, had allegedly entered into conspiracy and made a secret plot with Shri.B.D. Gautam, the Director of Olphert Company and, subsequently, purchased the land belonging to Olphert Company at higher rates for the M.P. Housing Board, thereby, caused a financial loss of over `4 Crores to the Government.The appellant reported this alleged transaction of purchase of land by the M.P. Housing Board, alleging financial loss to the Government, to the Lokayukta, Bhopal.Subsequently, the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Lokayukta Police") registered an FIR No. 165 of 2002 against accused respondent nos. 2 to 4, as the alleged act or conduct of the accused respondents, all working as Government Servants, amounts to an offence under Section 13 (1-d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PCA") and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").Accordingly a Criminal Case No. 165 of 2002 was registered against respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the Court of learned Special Judge.However, the sanction of the Government was necessary as mandated by Section 19 of the PCA in order to prosecute the said respondent-accused.Acting upon the complaint of the appellant, the Lokayukta Police, after conducting the investigation, had exonerated respondent nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them and submitted final closure report, under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr. P.C."), to the learned Special Judge, Katni as no case had been made out to prosecute respondents.The operative portion of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge is extracted below:We have heard the learned counsel for the parties before us.The expression of the personal view or opinion of the Judge is just a casual remark made whilst deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court.Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the Order of the learned Special Judge.In the result, the appeals are allowed.This order of Special Judge was assailed before the High Court and the High court allowed the petition by quashing the order of Special Judge Katni by relying upon decisions in Abhinandan Jha & others Vs.State of M.P. & others 2011(3) MPHT 44 (DB) where it has been held that breach of Sec. 10 of 1981 Adhiniyam cannot vitiate the inquiry and the subsequent prosecution.Thus, the said third ground does not hold any water.3.1 Some other decisions of Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners are not being discussed since latest view of the Apex court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal (supra) has been rendered after considering majority of the earlier cases on the issue.Thus, the trial Court has neither exceeded its jurisdiction by finding offences worthy of cognizance, nor acted unlawfully by directing prosecution to take appropriate steps qua sanction.In the conspectus of the above discussion, this court declines 22 interference and dismisses all petitions bearing Mcrc 21921.2020 (Dev Dutt Mishra Vs.6. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial court for doing the needful. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
975,178 | This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Ninth Presidency Magistrate, Egmaore.I.P.C.", and: sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-.and in default, to undergo R.I. for two months.The learned Magistrate also directed that a sum of Rs. 100/- be paid to the complainant as compensation out of the fine.The case of the prosecution was that the accused.Murugan offered' to the complainant.It is said that a Marwadi had obtained a decree against the appellant in E. P. NQi 581 of 1968 and attached the property of the appellant in execution.In support of this allegation.There is nothing in the sale proclamation to show if and when the attachment of the property was effected by the decree-holder.One would expect the prosecution to have produced the order of the-Court directing attachment and the endorsement of the bailiff effecting attachment of the property in pursuance thereof.Where unimpeachable documentary evidence is available to prove the date-and factum of the attachment, the prosecution has failed to produce the same and has chosen to rely entirely upon the sale proclamation, which has come into being two years after the date of the appellant's sale and which makes no mention of the alleged attachment.If the prosecution has failed to prove that., on the date of the sale, there was an attachment in force, then there is no. basis for the complaint that the appellant failed to disclose that attachment in the sale deed and that he did so fraudulently and thereby committed the serious offence of cheating.That endorsement was made under the following circumstances.the complainant, went into the witness box and said that there were no direct negotiations at all between her and the appellant, that, she did not know the appellant at all, that the sale negotiations were conducted through a broker and that she did not even attend the Registrar's Office at the time of the re- gistration of the sale deed.By these disastrous admissions she gave away her entire case.It was at this stage the learned Magistrate appears to have made an attempt to salvage the prosecution case by putting some questions to the appellant.It is unfortunate that the Magistrate did not record the question that he put.No doubt, under Section 342 (1).P. C. for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of any enquiry or trial, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary, and shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.There was nothing in the evidence of P. W. 1 which was against the accused and consequently there was no need for the learned Magistrate to put any question to .Further, the endorsement made by the Magistrate has not been signed by the accused-appellant and it is to the following effect:I told vakil there was attachment by the Court. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
97,518,946 | 47/2007 Page 1 of 13The appellant has filed the present appeal by alleging that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he was brought to Delhi by the Police officials of Crime Branch.In his appeal, it has been alleged by the appellant that he was not involved in this case but has been falsely implicated by the Police officials of Crime Branch who brought him from Hyderabad sometime on 28/29.12.2006 and thereafter, falsely implicated him in this case.i. On 07.01.1999 a secret informer met Inspector Ishwar Singh of Anti Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram and informed him that one I.S.I. agent would be going to receive consignment of explosives from his associates at about 6.00 PM at New Delhi, Railway Station, Pahar Ganj side.Accordingly, a raiding party was constituted and the accused/appellant Sayed Abu Nasir was apprehended at New Delhi Railway Station on the same day when he was found in possession with 2 kg RDX and 5 detonators.In view of that, the appellant was arrested and was sent for Crl.47/2007 Page 2 of 13 trial after the completion of investigation.47/2007 Page 2 of 13Various charges were framed against him as stated above.After the evidence of the prosecution was recorded, the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when he denied his involvement in this case.In his defence, the appellant appeared as DW-2 and his statement was recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C. He has claimed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.He stated that he was forcibly picked up by Special Branch, Kolkata Police on 16.12.98 and that news in this regard was published on 18.12.98 in the "Asian Age" and "Dainik Vartman" and on 19.12.98 in "Azad Hind", Kolkata and "Sanmarg".He further claimed that on 18.12.98 itself he was interrogated by two American Embassy officials in the office of ACP (SCO), Kolkatta.He further stated that on 19.12.98 Special Branch, Kolkata Police handed him over to S.I.B. who illegally detained him till 23.12.98 when he was handed over to ACP Shri P. Sitaram Reddy of Crime Branch, Hyderabad who brought him to Hyderabad.He further stated that that on 29/30.12.98 SI Pyare Lal, HC Chander Pal Singh and Ct.Mahesh of Delhi Police brought him from Hyderabad to Delhi.He claimed that then he was taken to Crl.47/2007 Page 3 of 13 the office of Crime Branch, R.K. Puram where he was kept in illegal detention till 07.01.1999 and then falsely implicated in the present case.During course of his examination in Chief, DW-2 accused Abu Nasir claimed that towards end of 1998 he along with other members of his family had gone to District Medhnapur in West Bengal to house of his grandfather.He claimed that he was a native of Bangladesh and had come to India on basis of valid legal documents.It was claimed that on 16.12.98 he was picked up from Kolkata by the Kolkata Police and the said fact was published in Azad Hind and Sanmarg, copies of which were placed on record as Mark DW-2/DA & DB.Similar facts were also claimed to have been published in Asian Age and Dainik Vartaman.Accused claimed that he was interrogated by the Kolkata Police and also by officials of American Embassy who had come from Delhi.He claimed that on 21.12.98 he was taken by ACP Shri P. Sita Ram Reddy of Hyderabad Police to Hyderabad.He claimed that he had been taken to office of Crime Branch, Hyderabad where he was kept for about 4-6 days.He further stated that on the last day of his detention in Hyderabad, ACP P. Sita Ram took him to his office and informed the accused that he had to be taken to Delhi and would be set free after interrogation in Delhi.As per accused, SI Pyare Lal, HC Chanderpal and Ct.Persons were properly interrogated as Pakistan search were made but nothing was incriminating to seized in the case.In course of interrogation the accd.(The Appellant could not arranged any document in this regard as he was in the custody of Delhi Police and thereafter he was send to Judicial custody.That on 28/29.12.1998 S.I. Pyarey Lal, H.C. Chander Pal, constable Mahesh from Delhi Police went to Hyderabad and took the appellant to Delhi by Andhra Pradesh Express (AC-IInd Class) in the name of interrogation in a FIR No. 41/1999 i.e. in the present case and involved the appellant in this false case alleging that on 07.01.1999, the appellant was caught red handed with 2 kg.of RDX and 5 detonators at New Delhi Railway Station.In fact, at that date and time the accused/appellant was in the Police custody at R.K. Puram Crime Branch.(a) No railway ticket was recovered, whereas the appellant alleged to be caught in the Railway Station before the exit gate.One cannot through valid ticket due to fear of Ticket Collector in Exit Gate.(c) No official from Bomb Disposal Squad was present despite information of 2 kg RDX and detonators which can explode in the busy Railway Platform.(d) There is no Public witness found by I.O. in the Railway Platform.This appeal has been filed by the appellant against his conviction by the Addl.Sessions Judge Delhi in Sessions Case No. 156/2 arising out of FIR No. 41/99 which was registered at P.S. New Delhi Railway Station under Section 121/121-A/122/123 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC, under Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted only under Section 4 (b) of the Explosive Substances Act, while he was Crl.47/2007 Page 1 of 13 acquitted of all other charges.The sentence of 7 years awarded to him has already been undergone by him.He claimed that nothing was recovered from him and the recovery of explosives had been planted upon him by the Police.Accused claimed that he wanted to lead defence evidence.47/2007 Page 3 of 13However, his defence has not been accepted by the Trial Court.Mahesh of Delhi Police met him in Hyderabad on 29/30.12.98 and brought him to Delhi.He claimed that he was taken to Siliguri where he was formally arrested in case FIR No. 515/98 P.S. Siliguri.Certified copy of FIR of that case was placed on record as Mark DW-2/DC and photocopy of remand application as Mark DW-2/DD.He claimed that other connected documents were already on judicial record as Ex.As per the accused, he was taken by Kolkata Police to Kolkata from Siliguri and in October/November 1999, he was brought back to Delhi and produced in court where he received charge-sheet of the present case.He claimed that he came to know about the other accused persons involved Crl.47/2007 Page 4 of 13 in this case only after receipt of copy of charge-sheet.Accused claimed that he had not made any disclosure statement in this case and that his signatures had been forcibly taken by the Police on many blank papers and written documents, contents of which were never read over to him.He claimed that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.Accused also filed English translation of those documents.47/2007 Page 4 of 1333A. During course of cross examination by Ld. APP for State, accused denied the suggestion that whatever he had stated during course of his examination in chief had been so stated by him to save himself in this case.He denied the suggestion that the case of the prosecution was the correct version or that he had deposed falsely.He admitted that he was never formally arrested in any case by the Hyderabad Police prior to the present case but claimed that he had been apprehended by the Hyderabad Police.However, he claimed that he had been arrested in that case but the documents regarding his arrest had been destroyed by the Police and he was never shown to have been formally arrested in the said case.APP for State had sought permission to place on record attested English translation of the newspaper cuttings filed by the accused.Same were got prepared with assistance of Shr B. Chakraborty from Rama Krishna Mission and placed on record.Accused denied the suggestion that the English translation of documents filed by him on record were not true and correct translation.He denied the suggestion that case of the prosecution was true and correct or that the defence taken by him was false.The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed:Now we deal with the so-called main accused i.e. Abu Nasir.Accused Abu Nasir had put up a defence that he had in fact been apprehended by police from Kolkata on 16.12.98 and thereafter on 21.12.98 he was taken by Hyderabad police to Hyderabad and subsequently on Crl.falsely implicate them in the present case.Accused Abu Nasir had examined himself on oath as DW-2 and during course of his examination in chief had reiterated his aforesaid defence.Only suggestions to that effect has been made by the accused to the various Police officials examined during course of trial and the suggestions made cannot be said to have any evidential value It was so observed in State Vs.Mohd. Misir Ali and Bachittar Singh vs. State (Supra).47/2007 Page 5 of 13The Additional Sessions Judge has taken note of the evidence which has been led by the prosecution to prove the allegations against the appellant.The witnesses examined by the prosecution comprise at least six witnesses of the raiding party which was constituted to Crl.Before this Court, the appellant was represented by a counsel appointed by him, namely, Shri Asit Kumar Roy, who has filed written submissions to substantiate that on the relevant date the appellant was in Police custody.It has been submitted that:That on 16.12.1998 the appellant was arrested by Kolkata Police and he was in the Police custody for 5 days.The relevant portion of the said order which is to read as under:"......Sayed Abu Nasir an ISI Agent already arrested in Hyderabad case CR No. 155/98 U/S 121A/122/143A, 420/471 IPC 25(1) Arms Act 3 E.S. Act. Sec. 10(3)(B), 12 of Task Force Act 1967, Sec. 3(A) & 14 Foreigners Act on 21.12.98 from Calcutta and also some incriminating documents were seized today (08.01.19) from 6A Karim Bux Lane, Calcutta, Investigation into the case is proceeding".No. 12 and sl 13 stated that Syed Abu Naser @ Safique Ali @ S.A. Khan @ Aloke of Kayaniz Para.P.S. Saidpur, Dist.Nilphamari, Bangladesh is know to them.Sayed Abu Naser arrested at Hyderabad Centre Crime Station in C/W Case No. 155/98 U/S 121/121A/122/153A/420/471 IPC R/W 14 Foreigners Act. (illegible) on Said Syed Abu Naser visited their home at Siliguri".v. That on 31.12.1998 S.I. Bimal Kumar Ghosh filed application before the Court of SDJM, Siliguri seeking 10 days police custody remand, wherein, he admitted that the appellant was in the custody of Hyderabad Police.The relevant paragraph from mark DW-2/DC is to read as under:That the appellant applied for summoning the judicial record qua these two cases of Hydrabad and Siliguri and order has been passed in his favour on dt. 10.12.2007 by this Honble Court, but the trial Court file of Hyderabad has not been reached to this Honble Court still date.That the appellant took his defence inter-alia saying that he was in police custody during the period of alleged occurrence in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. specially page no. 20, 21 which may be considered as bonafide.47/2007 Page 12 of 13Thus, I do not find any substance in the story of the appellant to prove his innocence. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,847,276 | The prosecution Agency is the appellant before this court.According to the prosecution one S.Babu, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade I, attached to the office of RTO Kumbakkonam was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.During the said period the tentative total income of S.Babu and his family members was estimated at Rs.8,90,000/- and the expenditure of was estimated at Rs 3,57,484/-.The balance of Rs. 5,32,516 alone is likely to be the savings, whereas the assets at the hands of S.Babu and his family members were far in excess of that.Mangaiyarkarasi w/o Babu, Selvi Shobika D/o Babu, Selvi Rasika D/o Babu have assisted and aided S.Babu for acquisition of wealth in their name on behalf of S.Babu.Hence, final report against S.Babu and others was laid on 09.11.2009 by the prosecution agency before the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Salem to try them for offence under sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act 1988 and section 109 IPC.The chief judicial magistrate, Salem took cognizance of the offence and assigned Spl.C.C.No.80/2009 and proceeded.Mangaiyarkarasi w/o S.Babu.Pursuant to that, application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum Special Judge, Salem under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attach properties listed in annexures I to IV of the application.Meanwhile the Government passed order on 18.10.2010 permitting the investigating officer to file application for attachment of the properties which stood in the name of second accused Tmt.In the said application Crl.M.P 1546/2013 in Spl.On receipt of the notice, the respondent/accused filed objection and matter was pending for adjudication.While so, the case was transferred to the Special Court, Salem constituted to try cases under Prevention of Corruption Act exclusively.The main case Spl.C.C.80/99 and the application Crl.M.P 1546/13 were taken on file and renumbered as Spl C.C.46/2014 and Crl.M.P No. 56/2014 respectively.To decide the appeal, the operative portion of the impugned order is relevant hence extracted below:-Entries in the notes paper reveal that subsequent to the order of ad-interim attachment the complainant/petitioner did not pursue any further to have the properties attached.Clause 11 provides for appeals against the order(s) of the District Judge, in the matter of attachment before the jurisdictional High Court.Meanwhile the respondent has filed his objection and application has been kept pending for final adjudication.When the prosecution has sought for passing final order of absolute attachment in their application, the court below has dismissed the application on the ground the application has become redundant due to efflex of time quoting clause 10 (a) of the Ordinance.Since the application for attachment was filed after taking cognizance of the offence and interim order was also passed, for a llimited period, clause 10 (a) of the Ordinance is not applicable to the facts of the case.In the result, the appeal is allowed. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,848,145 | CRM 6331 of 2014 Item No. 296 (bm)Item No. 296Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to conditions as laid down under subjection 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Samapti Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,849,378 | Tiwari, Mr.Anil Kumar, Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner with petitioner in person in Crl.Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Mittal & Ms. Rachna Maheshwari, Advocates for the petitioner in Crl.Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate for the CBI.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 15 Crl.M.A. 19520/2017, 19284/17, 18282/17, 19283/17 (for clarification and modification of order dated 30.10.2017)CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 15The present applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 The Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P.C) for clarification and modification of the order dated 30.10.2017, passed by this court.Vide order dated 30.10.2017, this court passed the following orders:-Mr. Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner through his present application prayed for revival of the present petition to its original number on the ground that on 01.02.2017, the then Ld. Special Judge, CBI passed order-on-charge against the petitioners under Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 471, 465, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 )hereinafter referred as IPC) & Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as P.C.) and the substantive offences thereof; that thereafter on 10.02.2017, the then Ld. Special Judge CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 15 framed two separate charges vide separate orders i.e. one for substantive offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 471, 465, 477A IPC and another composite charge covered under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 471, 465, 477A IPC & Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act, 1988; that inadvertently only the charges for substantive offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 471, 465, 477-A, IPC were annexed with the petition and the separate charge covered under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 471, 465, 477A IPC & Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)9(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 have been filed subsequently with Crl.M.A. 14616/2017 (application for early hearing and stay of proceedings before the trial court).; that this fact was not pointed out before this court at the time of addressing arguments on the main petition and the order dated 30.11.2017, was passed by this court keeping in view the order dated 10.02.2017, relating to offences only under the IPC.Hence, the present application.In view of the above fact, order dated 30.10.2017 is recalled and all the petitions are restored to its original numbers.CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 3 of 15CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 12 of 15CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 13 of 15Accordingly, the charges for the offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w Sections 420, 471, 477-A IPC & Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and the charges for the substantive offences punishable u/s 420, 471 r/w Sec. 465, 477-A IPC be framed against the accused R.P. Singhal (A-2); Raghvinder Dabas (A-3); Jitender Dabas (A-4); Mukesh Kumar(A-5); Birender singh Yadav (A-6); Sushil Kumar Jain (A-7); and Ravinder Singh (A-8).CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 15 of 15 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,859,273 | This is a petition u/s. 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') praying for quashment of order dated 02/03/2017 passed by 11th learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No. 185/2017 whereby charge for offence under Section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,860,124 | In response of some query of the court, he fairly submits that in MLC all the five injuries were sustained by the victim, as stated by the Doctor to be lacerated wounds and the Specialist Doctor has stated the same to be grievous in nature which could have been caused by sharp object.In such premises, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.His single non-appearance before the trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.Certified copy as per rules.(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge bks | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,862,019 | In default of payment, he was to undergo for six months' R.I. in addition.The prosecution's case in short is that on 19.2.2005 at about 1:00 p.m. in the noon, the prosecutrix (PW-3) a girl of seven years of age was sitting in her house situated at village Duari (Police Station Suhagi, District Rewa).The prosecutrix 2 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 was a deaf and dumb girl.On her shouting, her sister Nirmla (PW-2) went to the spot and found that the appellant was running from her house and blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix.Since the parents of the prosecutrix went to do some labour work, they were informed about the incident when they came back from the work.Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the outpost Sonori of the Police Station, Suhagi, where Gajraj Yadav (PW-1) had lodged an FIR Ex.The FIR was transferred to the Police Station, Suhagi and a case was registered.The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination to the Government Hospital, Rewa.She found that no external injury was there on the person of the prosecutrix.However, hymen was found torn and during the examination, blood was oozing from the margin of the hymen.There was no blood collect in her pelvis.However, two slides of her vaginal swab was prepared and handed over to the police after sealing them.(Delivered on 7th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.97/05, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced for ten years' R.I. with fine of `100/-.The prosecutrix was referred to her ossification test.Dr. R.J. Sharma (PW-7) gave his report Ex.P/8 after examining the prosecutrix.He found that the prosecutrix was 7-8 years old girl.The appellant was arrested and he was also examined by Dr. S.N. Pandey (PW-6).Nothing abnormality was found with the appellant.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chouthar, who committed 3 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa.The appellant abjured his guilt.He has stated that (the appellant is a dumb person and his statements were recorded by the indications given by him) he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity between the owner of the flour mill, where he was working and father of the prosecutrix.In defence, one Rajan Kol (DW-1) was examined to show the enmity between the parties.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since seven years.He is also a dumb person and the prosecutrix was also a deaf and dumb girl.The appellant could not tell the actual things before the Court or his counsel.He was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.There is no evidence against the appellant that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.If blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix then, it could be due to insertion of any hard and blunt object like finger and therefore, the appellant may be convicted for the offence 4 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 punishable under Section 354 of IPC at the most, whereas he is in custody since seven years.Under these circumstances, it is prayed that he may be released forthwith.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is confirmed by the medical evidence and timely lodged FIR and therefore, the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct.The trial Court has granted the minimum sentence, which cannot be reduced further.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appellant can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC; and whether the sentence imposed by the trial Court can be reduced?In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-3) is a deaf and dumb girl, who was brought before the Court and she identified the appellant but thereafter, she could not state about the incident and started weeping before the Court and therefore, she could not be examined further.Under such circumstances, the version of the prosecutrix is not available on the record.Nirmla (PW-2) has stated that when she heard the cry of the prosecutrix, she rushed to her house and found that the appellant was leaving the house at that time and when 5 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 she went inside the house, she found that blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that Nirmla (PW-2) was not the eyewitness to the incident.Nirmla (PW-2) was only the witness to tell the circumstance, whereas Gajraj (PW-1) was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and he was informed about the incident by Nirmala and therefore, the entire circumstantial evidence depends upon the evidence of the witness Nirmla.Some suggestions of enmity were given to the witness Nirmla but she did not accept.It is established that the appellant was working in a flour mill.The defence witness Rajan Kol (DW-1) was examined on behalf of the appellant.Rajan Kol father of the appellant, who tried to create a story that he was in the side of Ramsiya Gaderiya and therefore, Ramsiya uncle of the prosecutrix lost the election.But looking to that election activity, it was not possible for the 6 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 witness Gajraj to implicate the appellant falsely.FIR has been lodged soon after the incident, and the evidence of the child Nirmla appears to be acceptable therefore, looking to the evidence of the witness Nirmla, it is established that when the prosecutrix shouted, then Nirmla went to the spot and saw that the appellant was leaving the spot and blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix.Looking to the evidence of the witness Nirmla, it appears that when she heard the cries of her sister, she immediately rushed to the spot.If the appellant had inserted his penis in the private part of the prosecutrix, then on her shouting, he was to leave her after dressing himself and therefore, when the witness Nirmla reached to the spot soon after the cry of the prosecutrix then, she must have seen the appellant wearing his cloths and therefore, he could not leave the spot in such a small span of time.Under such circumstances, it is apparent that when the appellant was with the prosecutrix, he did not undress himself.The appellant was examined by Dr. Pandey (PW-6) on the next day of the incident.If the appellant would have inserted his penis in the private part of the prosecutrix, which was a smaller one and only a little finger could be pushed in her private part with difficulty, then after inserting the penis to make the hymen torn, the appellant must have sustained some injury on his penis, but Dr. Pandey did not find any injury on the penis of 7 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 the appellant.Under such circumstances, where no FSL report relating to the appellant had been submitted before the Court and it is not proved that the semen particle was found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, then there is no evidence by which an inference can be drawn against the appellant that he inserted his penis in the private part of the prosecutrix.The injury caused to the prosecutrix could be caused by insertion of a hard and blunt object like finger in her private part.Under such circumstances, if the entire evidence given by a child girl Nirma is accepted as such then, by her evidence and the injury sustained by the prosecutrix, no inference can be drawn that the appellant committed any rape with the prosecutrix.This possibility cannot be ruled out that he tried to insert the finger into the vagina of the prosecutrix and therefore, she cried.In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC or for its attempt, but it is established by the circumstantial evidence that when the witness Nirmla reached to the spot after hearing the cry of the prosecutrix, Nirmla saw that the appellant was running from the spot and therefore, he was guilty conscious at that time and secondly, there was an injury on the private of the prosecutrix and therefore, an inference can be drawn against the appellant that he inserted any hard and blunt object like finger in the private part of the prosecutrix and it is proved 8 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006 beyond doubt that he used a criminal force to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and therefore, he is a guilty of an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.The offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is an inferior offence of similar nature as of the offence under Section 376 of IPC therefore, the appellant can be convicted for that offence according to the provisions of Section 222 of Cr.P.C. without framing a separate charge for that offence.So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant remained in the custody for more than a period, which is prescribed as a maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and therefore, it would be proper that the sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody and no fine be imposed upon the appellant so that he may not undergo for the default sentence.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.The conviction as well as the sentence directed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC is hereby set aside.He is acquitted from the aforesaid charge but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentence with a jail sentence for the period, for which he remained in the custody.9 Criminal Appeal No.221/2006(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 07.09.2012 pnkj | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
948,648 | ORDER K.L. Issrani, J.The present revision-petition is against the order dated 6-4-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in Criminal Case No. 688/90, whereby the application of the applicant for releasing his truck on Supurdgi was rejected on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction.The truck in question was seized by the Forest Department on 8-12-1990 on account of carrying about 35 stones, which, according to the prosecution is a forest produce.But anyhow, the applicant was able to take away his truck from the custody of the Forest Department.On this the police registered a case Under Section 353 and 186 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code against the applicant.In this case, the applicant, along with other co-accused, was bailed out on 23-12-1990 but according to the applicant, on receiving oral requisition of the truck from the police, the police made a formal seizure of the truck for an offence under Sections 353 and 186 read with Section 34, IPC.To this, a further section was also added as Section 379, IPC.ON the same day, the applicant moved an application Under Section 451/457, Cr.Thereupon, the applicant filed a writ petition before this Court challenging those orders.The writ petition (M.P. No. 473/91) was allowed.Hence this revision petition.The direction was given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the production of the truck before forest authorities.It was ordered that the truck be handed over to the Forest Department for dealing with it Under Section 52(3) of the Act.It is to be seen that the challan was filed on the first information report lodged by the Forest Department on 8-12-90 in which it was complained that after seizure the driver of the truck flew away with the truck.P.C. was moved by the applicant.Against this, petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. lay to this Court, but the applicant chose to file the writ petition, in which the earlier orders dated 31-12-90 and 24-1-91 were quashed and it was directed that the application be decided afresh. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
948,663 | Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 594 of 1988, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offencespunishable under sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C.The prosecution case in brief is that, the appellant alongwith other two accused had been chargesheeted for offences punishable under sections 255, 260, 261, 268 and 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. It is alleged that in between January 1988 to 12th August, 1988, at Pune, all the accused counterfeited certain stamps issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue and used the said stamps as a genuine counterfeit with intent to cause loss to the Government and during the said period, they forged certain documents i.e. appointment orders under the signature of Police Superintendent, Shivajinagar, Pune City Police Office, Pune and also the letters of interview call issued by the Employment Exchange office of sub-region, Pune intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of cheating and by such act to issue calls to the persons viz. Vithal Krishna Margaje, Shamrao Gulabrao Shinde and other 16 persons dishonestly induced each of them to deliver money to them to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- each.That, at Pune, the police force is divided into two sections i.e. for Corporation area and another for Rural area.The Commissioner of Police is a Head of Police force for Corporation and the Superintendent of Police is the Head of Police Force for the Rural area.The Commissioner of Police and Superintendent of Police are the appointing authorities of Police Constables for the said respective areas.It is submitted that the Dy.Commissioner of Police Shri Bhal received a xerox copy of the appointment order of one Hanumant Krishna Margaje as a Constable in City Police area.On receiving the said copy, he suspected that a gang of some persons is going to issue such false orders to some persons and obtaining money from them.He, therefore, brought this fact to the notice of his higher officers and entrusted the investigation to Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Thakur.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Thakur then asked P.S.I. Pratap Shankar Randive to make enquiry in the matter.In the instant case, before considering the documentary evidence, the oral evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses who are victims in this case, is to be taken into consideration, P.W. 6, the complainant in his evidence has stated that he its a resident of Malsenagar doing the work of plumbing, studied upto 8th standard and he alongwith his brother was trying to get employment by hook or crook.One Gakare,.It is deposed that this witness (P.W. 6) showed that call letter to one person who was working in the Police department.That person told him that it was a false call letter.Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and narrated the said fact to the police and his complaint was recorded Like this, other witnesses i.e. P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 8, P.W. 11, P.W, 12 etc. have come forward and reported to the police.ORDER V.H. Bhairavia, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order date 31-10-1990, passed by the learned Addl.Thereafter, he registered a case of cheating and investigated the said offence.P.S.I. Shri Randive visited the house of the appellant-accused No. 1 located at Dehu Road and took search of his house in the presence of panchas.During the search, they found three rubber stamps of the Office of the Police Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Pune, ink pad and another rubber stamp of clerk of Superintendent of Police, Pune.They have also found some blank copies of order of recruitment for the post of police constables, identity cards of some persons, xerox copies of call of interview issued by Employment Exchange Office, some postal stamps and some envelopes etc. and all these documents attached in the presence of panchas after drawing the panchanama (Exh. 12).It reveals from the record that at that time, the appellant-accused was in the house and after seizing of the documents, he brought to the police station.On the next day, he was taken to his another residence at Ganesh Peth.During the search at Ganesh Peth house, a cash for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was found.On 12-8-1988, one Hanumant Krishna Margaje came to the police station and lodged his complaint (Exh. 25) against the accused persons.On the basis of the said complaint, C.R. No. 276 of 1988 was registered and the investigation was carried out by P.S.I. Randive.During the investigation, the prosecution received in all 19 to 20 such other complaints of cheating at the hands of the accused and their statements were also came to be recorded.After completing the investigation, chargesheet was submitted to the learned Magistrate's Court and as the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the same was transferred to Sessions Court, Pune.The appellant-accused alongwith other two accused were charged and prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.After recording the prosecution evidence, the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 31st October, 1990, was pleased to hold that the appellant-accused was not found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 255, 260 and 261 of the I.P.C. and therefore, he was acquitted.However, the appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C. and therefore, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years !or each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each count or in default to suffer S.I. for six months for each count.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Further, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the charges levelled against them.Hence this appeal by the appellant.Not a single witness has produced any documentary evidence regarding the inducement made to him by the appellant-accused to part with the money.The evidence regarding inducement led by the prosecution and relied on by the learned Judge is a weak evidence and no reliance can be placed on such weak evidence.Mrs. Agarwal has emphatically submitted that the prosecution has failed to get in writing the expert's opinion regarding the hand writing and therefore, whatever documents seized and used as incriminating documentary evidence against the appellant, is bad-in-law on that count also, the conviction is bad-in-law and the appellant-accused is entitled for acquittal.rikshaw driver was his neighbour.The brother of this witness asked Gajare to make an enquiry about the service.This rikshaw driver took him (P.W. 6) and his brother to Padmavati to the house of one Khandale.Khandale told them that he will nnanage for service in Police Department and for that they will have to pay money to him.Then Khandale and Gajare took them to Ganesh Peth to Mohorkar (appellant-accused).Mohorkar, the appellant-accused told them to pay Rs. 7,000/- each to get service in the Police Department He deposed that they agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/-each if they get service.The appellant-accused assured them to get service in the police department.He also asked them to obtein employment card.On 2-7-88, accused No. 1 sent them an employment letter.By that letter, they were asked to remain present for medical examination at Sassoon Hospital, Pune.Thereafter, on 1-9-88, they received a call letter.The Investigating Officer recorded their statements.The clinching prosecution evidence regarding the demand of money and regardingthe inducement by the appellant-accused for getting job for the witnesses and relying on the word of promise of appellant-accused parting with money under the hope that they will get job, is concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that there was an inducement by the appellant for securing job on receiving the demanded money.Relying on the false promise of the appellant, these witnesses have parted with the money.The appellant-accused has written a letter (Exh. 45) to this witness wherein he has again assured him that he will get order within a week.This witness has identified the signature of the appellant and the learned Judge has been satisfied himself by comparing the signature of the appellant-accused with his signature on the Vakalatnama.I myself also compared and satisfied that the letter Exhibit 45 is written by the appellant himself and the signature thereon is the same.This is also one of the circumstantial evidence showing the involvement of the appellant-accused for offence of cheating.In view of that, the appeal requires to be dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence requires to be confirmed.However, it has been pointed out by Mrs. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case is of 1988,10 years have already been passed and the appellant, by this time attain the age of 60 years and he is also suffering from illness and he is physically weak.In the result, appeal is partly allowed.However, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the order of sentence of R.I. for three years on each count imposed on the appellant-accused is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/, in default, one month's S.I. The appellant-accused is directed to pay the fine within 8 weeks from today.Appeal allowed partly. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,621,081 | And In the matter of : Md. Zahid & Anr. ... Petitioners.Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Krishan Ray Ms. Amrita Chel... for the Petitioners.Ms. Ratna Ghosh... for the State.Defence counsel submits that petitioner is a neighbour of the de-facto complainant.Therefore, order be passed as sought.The case filed by 2 the petitioner is later in point to that filed by the de-facto complainant.The petitioners are the tenants of the de-facto complainant.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3 | ['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,626,900 | 05.09.14 387/akd (Allowed) C. R. M. No. 9010 of 2014 In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 01.08.2014 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 403 of 2014 dated 19.05.2014 under Sections 448/323/325/354C/ 506/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Utpal Ghosh & Ors.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.) | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,628,269 | And In the matter of: Sanjay Sutradhar & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Pabitra Biswas For the Petitioners Mrs. Pushpita Saha For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Haringhata Police Station Case No. 164 of 2013 dated 05.06.2013 under sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2 | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,628,634 | % 13.07.2017 Crl.M.(B).841/2017(regular bail) This is an application filed by the appellant seeking suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.At the outset, Mr. Saleem Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant in this case has been in incarceration for a period of more than 13 years.He also submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as she was demanding a share in the property of her in-laws post the death of her husband, who died at a very young age leaving a one year old daughter.It is contended that after she was falsely implicated, both the daughters of the deceased have sold the properties and deprived her of her share.On the merits of the matter, learned counsel contends that the prosecution has not been able to connect the appellant with the co-convicts, no call details or any other form of evidence has been placed on record.It is contended that neither it is the case of the prosecution that she was present at the site where the murder took place nor there is any evidence to show that she had any connection with either of the two co-convicts nor any conspiracy has been established.Saleem also contends that the Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the testimonies of PW-1 Kumari Manju and PW-3 Dr. Anil Nangia, but failed to consider that PW-3 is an interested witness while PW-1 is a planted witness.He submits that, admittedly, PW-3 claims to be present at the site of incident, however, there is no evidence on record to show that he made any attempt to save his in-laws or his wife.Mr. Saleem also contends that as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant along with Nawab Singh had kidnapped PW-3 Dr. Anil Nangia from his clinic on showing of a pistol by Nawab Singh.; on the way, the appellant left the car, thus the only role of the appellant as per the case of the prosecution was kidnapping for which she has been convicted for seven years and she has already served the sentence without an opportunity of hearing the appeal.Learned counsel submits that serious prejudice has already been caused to her on account of a protracted trial, she would not earn any remission and would not be entitled to furlough as well.He further submits that the daughter of the appellant was barely one year of age when the appellant was arrested and at the time of order on sentence, she was 13 years of age.In addition, it is submitted that the appellant has an old aged father to look after, besides she is a widow.It is further stated that this appellant had accompanied Nawab Singh, one of the convicts, to the clinic of PW-3 Dr. Anil Nangia, when Nawab Singh pulled out his pistol, Dr. Anil Nangia was kidnapped and taken to the house of the deceased, where Nawab Singh had forced Saudagar Singh to sign documents in favour of this appellant, which would clearly establish the role of this appellant and would show that she was connected with the crime.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.The appellant has been in incarceration for a period of more than 13 years.We also find that the charge in this case was framed on four occasions.The order on sentence would show that this appellant has been convicted under Section 365 read with Section 34 IPC for which she has been sentenced for imprisonment of 07 years, under Section 387 read with 109 IPC for which she has been sentenced to 07 years, under Section 307 read with Section 111 IPC for which she has been sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years, and under Section 302 read with Section 111 IPC for which she has been convicted for life.The appellant has already undergone the sentence awarded for the offences committed by her, barring the last, during the pendency of the trial.We may notice the following observations of Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2147:The appellant contends in this application that pending the hearing of the appeal he should be released on bail. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,634,449 | Prosecution case is that PW-2, Soundari, victim girl at the time of occurrence, was aged 17 and studying 10th standard.The accused was her neighbour.One night, when she was in her house, the accused represented that PW-1, her father was unwell and took her to his relative's house at Kodikalkuppam.By compulsion, a yellow thread was tied to her neck in front of a Pillaiyar Temple.She stayed there for 13 days.During such time, the accused, against her will and without her consent, committed rape.PW-1, Nagaiyan had one son named Soundarapandiyan and two daughters, named Soundari (PW-2) and Sankari.In May 2005, he went to attend a Grahapravesam function at Sorapur village.On the next day, his son Soundarapandiyan came to Cuddalore bus stand and informed that the accused tresspassed into his house and committed theft.Therefore, PW-1, Nagaiyan gave a complaint before Nellikuppam Police Station.The accused was arrested and subsequently, there was a compromise.It was due to such enmity that the accused kidnapped PW-2, his daughter Soundari.Thereafter, he gave complaint in Ex.P1 at the Nellikuppam Police Station.On 15.09.2006 at about 14.15 hrs., PW-9, Sub Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam registered a case in Crime No.818 of 2006 for offence under Section 366(A) IPC and forwarded the same to PW-10, The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam.Upon receipt of FIR, Ex.P10, PW-10 took up investigation and visited the place of occurrence.Upon receiving information, he went to Thiruvanthipuram bridge along with PW-7 and another and secured the accused and the victim girl.He recorded the statement of accused in the presence of PW-7 and others.He produced accused and victim girl before learned Judicial Magistrate.He submitted requisition letter before the learned Judicial Magistrate for conduct medical examination of the accused and victim girl, Certificates whereof were marked as Exs.He examined PWs-1, 2 and 7 and recorded their statements.On transfer, he handed over investigation to PW-11 Inspector of Police.On 16.09.2006, PW-11, Inspector of Police, took up investigation, examined PW-6 and another and recorded their statements.On 30.09.2006, he examined PWs.3, 5 and 8 and recorded their statements.On completion of investigation, PW-11 filed charge sheet informing commission of offences u/s.366 and 376(i) IPC.Upon committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.256 of 2007 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.Before trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked 12 exhibits.Defence examined DW-1 and on the side of defence, no exhibits were marked.On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., accused denied charges.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 06.02.2008, convicted accused for the offences u/s.366 and 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 366 IPC and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 376(i) IPC.Trial Court directed both sentences imposed on the accused to run concurrently.There against, the present appeal has been filed.Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.It is admitted prosecution case that PW-2/victim was aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence.Prior to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 (13 of 2013) in force from 03.02.2013, sex with a female, aged 16 years or above, did not amount to rape.Prosecution case, is one of an admitted love affair between accused and PW-2 and the same having been objected to by parents.It is the specific evidence of PW-2 that she has taken residence with the accused at the house of DW-1, aunt of the appellant.The case is of one consensual sex, which is borne out from the fact that PW-2 has spoken to knowledge of complaint preferred by parents and there upon accompanying the accused with the intention of falling at their feet and seeking forgivance.In the circumstances, this Court holds that neither of the offences are made out against the accused.Appeal shall stand allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused shall stand set aside.Bail bonds, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.27.07.2017Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/Nokmi C.T.SELVAM, J.1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.2.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.153 of 200827.07.2017 | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,650,211 | 1 13.11.2018 03 Allowed md.CRM No. 6716 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27th August, 2018 in connection with Ballygunge P.S. Case No.109 of 2018 dated 2/8/2018 under Sections 409/420/419/406/467/468/ 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Mukund Agarwalla ... Petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, A.P.P.Mr. Debajyoti Deb, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Ballygunge P.S. Case No.109 of 2018 dated 2/8/2018 under Sections 409/420/419/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.1 2 The charge against the petitioner in the complaint is that the petitioner induced the creation of the firm with the intention that the petitioner's brother would siphon off the money or loan obtained from the bank.The matter had been adjourned previously since the signature on one of the documents had been questioned and the expert's opinion on such signature was awaited.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 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,426,128 | C.R.R. 1445 of 2013 Vinay Kumar Sethia & Ors.Versus Vinita Sethia & Anr.He further 4 submits that as there was a previous search resulting alleged recovery of six items and no other item, then any further direction of further search would be futile and it will only cause harassment and embarrassment to the present petitioners being husband and other in-laws.He next submits that in the name of the recovery of 'stridhan' properties I. O. cannot be permitted to search not only the house of the present petitioners but also the house of their relations and friends.After investigation police submitted charge sheet being No.302 of 2010 dated 23.10.2010 under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners showing seizure of six items as 'stridhan' properties from the premises of the present petitioners.After about three months of submission of said charge sheet, Golabari P. S. made a prayer to the CJM on 18.01.2011 for further investigation of the case as a major portion of 'stridhan' properties could not be recovered during earlier investigation and prayed for issuance of search warrant.Learned CJM refused said prayer of issuance of search warrant as police has sufficient power for further investigation as well as for recovery of articles by search.Complainant housewife, however, made a prayer on 28.06.2012 to the Commissioner of Police, Howrah for further investigation of the case for recovery of her remaining ornaments and 'stridhan' properties which were still lying in the custody of the accused persons.3 Commissioner of Police, Howrah assigned the case to the officer in-charge of Women P.S. Howrah for further investigation of the case and accordingly S. I. Surabhi Pal took further investigation for recovery of remaining 'stridhan' properties.Being aggrieved the present petitioner accused persons preferred a revision being criminal revision No.28 of 2013 in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Howrah.Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee appearing for the petitioners submits that as per complaint there was a list of articles alleged to be given to the defacto complainant wife by two persons named therein but police did not ascertain from them whether those articles were really given by them to the O. P. No.1 defacto complainant or not.Mr. Amarta Ghosh appearing for O. P. State supports learned counsel for O. P. No.1 by submitting that at the time of investigation and or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused persons had no say.There is no denial that in the complaint a long list of ornaments and articles were furnished as the 'stridhan' properties of defacto complainant wife which were illegally kept by accused husband and other in-laws.At the time of filing of first charge sheet only six items out of them could be recovered and seized under seizure list.As most of the 'stridhan ' properties could not be recovered at the time of filing of first charge sheet there was further investigation at the prayer of the defacto complainant wife.In the process there was a prayer from the side of second I. O. for issuance of search warrant for recovery of those remaining 'stridhan' properties from different places as mentioned therein.The revisional application is hereby dismissed on contest.However, I pass no order as to costs. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
193,427,193 | 6.Further, he submits that the appellant did not abscond.[Order of the Court was made by M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.] The appellant is arrayed as accused in Spl.The charges were framed against 27 accused on 23.11.2004 in C.C.No.5 of 2013 the parent case and some of the accused absconded.The Court below issued a Non bailable warrant against the absconded accused and some were secured later.Two PVC Pipe Bombs with match box were recovered from her possession.2.The appellant filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2003 before the POTA Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed.Subsequently, the appellant along with five other women accused filed another bail application before this court in Crl.A.No.335 of 2004 and this Court by an order dated 28.04.2005 had granted bail to them.In view of the above situation, there is no reason to hold that these women accused will flee from justice.Therefore, the women accused alone are ordered to be released on bail, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Designated Court, with condition to reside at Poonamallee and report to the Designated Court daily at 10.30 a.m on all working days until further orders.No costs.If there is any violation of the conditions imposed by this Court, it is open for the respondent to move this Court by filing necessary application, for cancellation of the bail granted to the women accused.”3.Thereafter, this Court had modified the above said conditions in Crl.M.P.No.4170 to 4172 of 2006 dated 06.09.2006 filed by the appellant and other accused and directed them to appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates.But, the appellant was absent from 23.12.2009 has not complied the conditions and she went underground and continued her activities of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization.4.On 07.12.2018, the appellant surrendered before the POTA Court, Chennai and sought recall of Non bailable warrant issued against her, since proclamation order was in force, she was remanded to Judicial custody.Thereafter, she filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.533 of 2018 before the POTA Court, Chennai.Therefore, the present appeal has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.While she was returning after medical treatment from Ernakulam to Chennai, the appellant was illegally arrested by a group of Police in civil dress at Chennimalai Road Railway Station, Erode, for which her husband Vivekanandan filed H.C.P.No.1154 of 2018 before this Court.This Court by an order dated 19.06.2018 had closed the Habeas Corpus Petition with a direction to the respondent to inform the appellant's husband as and when a Non bailable warrant against the appellant was executed.As regards the Writ petition, the High Court of Hyderabad had dismissed the same for the reason that the appellant did not make out a Prima facie case.7.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 10.12.2018 the appellant was admitted in the Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai on the complaint of chest pain, giddiness and was given treatment in the Cardiology Department for two days.Without giving proper and complete treatment against her wish, she was discharged on 13.12.2018 from the Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai and on the way back to the Women Prison, Puzhal, Chennai again she developed chest pain and taken back to the Stanleyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Government Hospital, Chennai.Thereafter on 15.12.2018, the appellant was discharged from the Stanley Government Hospital.8.Since, the appellant health condition had not improved, the respondent and the prison authorities failed to give proper attention and medical aid, the appellants husband filed HCP.No.2941 of 2018 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 27.12.2008 disposed the Habeas Corpus Petition with a direction to admit the appellant for treatment in Multi Specialty Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai and the appellant was to bear the cost of treatment and for security and other incidental cost.Accordingly, the appellant was taken to Multi Specialty Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai on 31.12.2018 and she was treated as Out-Patient and was taken back to the Women Prison, Chennai, though her health condition needed prolonged treatment as in-patient.The respondent as well as the Jail authorities are not providing proper medical care for her heart problem.Due to which her health condition is deteriorating day-by-day and putting her life to danger.Hence, prays to enlarge the appellant on bail.During her arrest, she was found in possession of two PVC Pipe Bombs with match box.Thereafter, the appellant filed a bail application in Crl.Subsequently, the appellant along with five other accused filed another bail application before this court in Crl.A.No.335 of 2004 and this Court by an order dated 28.04.2005 had granted bail to them.10.Thereafter, this Court had modified the conditions in Crl.M.P.No.4170 to 4172 of 2006 dated 06.09.2006 filed by the appellant and other accused and directed the appellant as well as other women accused to appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates.But, the appellant was absent from 23.12.2009 without complying the conditions and she had gone underground and continued her activities of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization.11.The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the appellant absconded herself from 23.12.2009 to 13.07.2012 and 317 Cr.P.C was filed periodically and allowed.Since the petitioner was absconding, on 01.07.2014 surety action petition under Section 446(A) of Cr.M.P.No.290 of 2014 in which, the sureties viz., Suryanarayanan father of the appellant and Sivaramanhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Karkala her Junior father paid penalty and got discharged from their liability as surety.Thereafter, on 02.02.2015, the case as against the appellant and the other two absconding accused was split up into Spl.Even after the publication of the proclamation, the appellant failed to appear before the Court below.In the meanwhile, she had surrendered on 07.12.2018 when proclamation proceedings were pending against her.During this period on 10.12.2018, she complained of heart problem and admitted in the Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai for two days and on 13.12.2018, while she was taken back to the Central Prison, Chennai again she complained of heart problem and was taken back to the same hospital.During her absconding period, the appellant's husband filed an HCP.No.1154 of 2018 alleging that the respondent Police in civil dress had detained the appellant at Chennimalai Road Railway station, Erode, while she was returning from Ernakulam to Chennai for her medical treatment.13.The appellant's husband also filed a similar Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.22306 of 2017 and the same was dismissed.This Court in H.C.P.No.2941 of 2018 had directed the Prison authorities to provide medical treatment at Multi Specialty Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai under cost.The appellant was taken to the Multi Specialty Hospital on 31.12.2018 and she was treated as out patient and thereafter she was taken back to the prison.The sureties, who are none other than father and Junior father of the appellant paid penalty and discharged themselves from their liability as surety.Despite prolonged efforts, the appellant could not be secured.In the meanwhile, the appellant's husband made allegations as though the appellant was detained by the respondent by filing the Habeas Corpus Petitions before this Court and High Court of Hyderabad.Finally, this Court cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and issued a Non bailable Warrant.Thereafter, the Proclamation proceedings was initiated and paper publication were carried out, then only the appellant had surrendered on 07.12.2018.http://www.judis.nic.in 1015.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Special Court Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, Poonamallee, Chennai had given a detailed, well-reasoned order, dismissing the bail application of the appellant.Further, the appellant did not produce any medical records.Whenever appellant had any health issues, she was taken to Stanley Government Hospital, where all medical facilities are available and the appellant was attended by specialized Doctors.Further, on the request of the appellant, she was taken to Multi Specialty Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai.Therefore, it is seen that even according to the appellant she was taken back to the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai only on the advice and approval of the Doctors and on undertaking that whenever the appellant is in need of medical treatment, the prison authorities provide the same.The case is of the year 2018 and trial is delayed for one reason or other.Therefore, the respondent strongly objected to enlarge the appellant on bail.For this health issue, the appellant is taking treatment for a long time.From the order of the Court below in Paragraph 18, it is found that the copy of the discharge summary dated 28.11.2007 of the Venkateswara Hospital, Chennaihttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 had been produced and the heart ailment history of the appellant shows that, she is living with this particular ailments for nearly ten years as of 28.11.2007 including SVT (Supra Ventricular Tachycardia).The respondent and the jail authorities submit that, whenever the appellant requires any treatment, she would be attended with medical care as to her health requirements in the Central Prison Hospital; Stanely Government Hospital, Chennai; Multi Specialty Hospital, Omandurar Estate, Chennai, or any other hospital, as per the doctors advice.In the result this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.No costs. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,432,630 | A. 103/2003 Page 1 of 16A. 103/2003 Page 1 of 16The prosecution's case as revealed from the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that on 1st April, 1996 Sh.The owner of the truck, namely, Sh.Manmohan Singh had sent him with the aforesaid truck along with a helper-Sanjay with the instructions to reach Libaspur petrol pump, Jhandewalan and that one person who has booked the truck will meet him and the goods Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 2 of 16 have to be taken from Libaspur to Ghaziabad.Accordingly, he reached Jhandewalan petrol pump, GTK road Libaspur at 10:15 p.m. where one person aged about 40 years having dark complexion met him and told him that he has booked the truck.He made him and the conductor-Sanjay to eat and drink tea and eggs bhujia.Thereafter, they fell asleep.At about 4.50 a.m. when he gained consciousness, he found himself and Sanjay at GTK Road, Kundli.He informed the owner of the truck.On 6th April, 1997 on the basis of secret information, Khairati Ram and Kanshi Ram were arrested.Test identification parade of both the accused persons was conducted where they were correctly identified by the witnesses.In pursuance to the disclosure statement of the accused, a truck bearing a fake number plate was recovered from Baldev Singh.On 31st March, 1996 also it was in the name of Manmohan.PW1-Manmohan Singh unfolded that on 31st March, 1996 accused Kharati Ram came to his office at about 12 noon and he represented him that he was working as an orderly in some office in DESU and that a truck was needed to transport the goods from Delhi to Ghaziabad by a officer.A sum of Rs.200/- was paid by him as advance out of the transportation charges of Rs.1,000/-.He also instructed that the truck should be sent to petrol pump, Libaspur at 10 p.m. on the same day.As such, he sent truck No. URB-1320 at Libaspur petrol pump as per the instructions.He sent driver Munna and conductor Sanjay.Next day morning, he received a telephone call from his driver stating that he was given some intoxicating substance in tea and when he lost his consciousness, he was thrown on the road and the truck was taken Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 7 of 16 away by the person who had booked the truck.He also informed that the same person who came for booking met at Libaspur petrol pump.He identified Kharati Ram in Tihar Jail on 10th April, 1997 during test identification proceedings.A. 103/2003 Page 7 of 16PW2 Munna deposed that he was working as driver in New Delhi-Ghaziabad Transport situated at Shivaji Road, Azad Market.On 31st March, he was instructed by his owner to take truck of Manmohan Singh having registration No. URB 1320 at Libaspur petrol pump.Helper Sanjay accompanied him.His employer also instructed him that one person would meet him who had booked the truck for Ghaziabad to transport the goods.At about 10:30 p.m. he reached at Jhandewalan where he met a person who resembled as accused Kanshi Ram who was having bilty of the company.He brought tea and egg bhujia.After taking the same when he asked to proceed, Kanshi Ram replied that he will bring labour to load the goods in the truck.By the time, Kanshi Ram returned after about 10 minutes, he and Sanjay became unconscious.At about 5 a.m. when he and Sanjay regained consciousness, they found themselves lying on the road near GTK road, Kundli.He was also having injuries on Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 8 of 16 his head and face.He found that the truck was missing.He then informed his employer Manmohan Singh who came there and then they went to the police station where his statement was recorded.He identified Kanshi Ram during test identification proceedings.A. 103/2003 Page 8 of 16Munna and Sanjay were taken to H.R. Hospital where they were examined by Dr. A.Pathak-PW5 who deposed that they were brought with alleged history of consuming something and becoming unconscious.They were referred to EMO(M).He prepared MLC of both of them which is Ex.PW5/A and PW5/B.On receipt of DD No. 11A, Ex.PW9/A SI Gurnam Singh reached Jhandewalan petrol pump at Libaspur where he met complainant Munna and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and got an FIR registered.He also got the factum of booking of the truck verified from the office of transport at Bara Hindu Rao.Since the accused could not be traced, as such the case was sent untraced.Investigation of the case was transferred to Inspector Kharak Singh (PW16).He has deposed that on 6th April, 1997, on receipt of secret information, he organised a raiding party comprising of Inspector Chander Das, HC Dilbagh Singh, HC Surender and other Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 9 of 16 staff and the secret informer.On the pointing out of informer, both the accused Khairati Ram and Kanshi Ram were apprehended.They were arrested.From the personal search of accused Kanshi Ram, one HMT wrist watch, three tablets Serepax 30 besides his personal items were recovered.Similarly, from the personal search of accused Khairati Ram, one wrist watch and five tablets of Serepax, which were used by them for committing crime, were recovered.Both the accused persons made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/A and PW10/B and got recovered two trucks which was the case property of other cases.Proceedings for getting their identification was conducted and they were correctly identified by the witnesses during the test identification proceedings.Thereafter, they were taken on police remand.They took the police party to P.S. Geedar Bha.HC Sukhdev of Punjab Police was joined in the investigation.Then they took the police party to the house of Baldev Singh to whom the truck No. URB 1320 with changed number plate of HR-26-7761 was sold.The truck was produced by Baldev Singh which he had purchased for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the accused.It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/A. They also got recovered a jeep which was the Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 10 of 16 case property of some other case.Owner of the truck produced the papers.PW8 Baldev Singh purchased the truck in question and has deposed that Khairati Ram was known to him for last 30 years.Earlier, he used to ply a truck from Giddarwaha which he sold subsequently.Khairati Ram was also having a truck and he shifted to Delhi about 30 years ago.In January, 1996 his wife expired and after about one month Khairati Ram came for condolence and inquired about his truck and when he informed him that he has already sold the truck, he informed him that there was a dispute between two brothers who intend to sell a truck and he can get the same purchased very cheap.But he declined his offer then Khairati Ram left.After 5-7 days, Khairati Ram again came and took him to Dubwali to show the truck about which he had discussed earlier.Kanshi Ram was also present at Dubwali and he was introduced to him by Khairati Ram by stating that he was his friend and resident of Gurgaon.Khairati Ram Crl.He purchased the truck for Rs. 1,60,000/-.A sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid after 2-4 days after selling land to Kanshi Ram and agreement Ex. PW6/B was executed with Kanshi Ram regarding purchase of truck which was witnessed by Gurditta Singh and Harish Kumar.Balance sum of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid at the time of handing over the ownership documents of the truck after it was transferred in his name.He contacted both the accused persons number of times for handing over the documents and to receive the balance payment but they did not hand over the same to him.In the meantime, the police came and seized the truck from him at the instance of both the accused persons who were arrested by the police.The truck was seized by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/A. The agreement Ex.:SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 27 th January, 2003 and the order of sentence dated 28th January, 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No. 160/97 in case FIR No. 246/96 under Sections 328/379/468/471/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli, whereby the appellant along with his co-accused was held guilty of the aforesaid offences and was sentenced to undergo as under:(i) For offence under Sections 328/34 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days;(ii) For offence under Sections 379/34 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years;(iii) For offence under Sections 468/34 IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of ten days;(iv) For offence under Sections 471/34 IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine with simple imprisonment for ten days.On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered under Sections 326/379 IPC.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 3 of 16 submitted against both the accused persons.Charge for offences under Sections 328/379/468/471/34 IPC was framed against both the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. 103/2003 Page 2 of 16A. 103/2003 Page 3 of 16Prosecution examined 16 witnesses to substantiate its case.All the incriminating evidence was put to both the accused while recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of the prosecution.According to them, they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case.Vide judgment and order, as referred above, both the accused were convicted and sentenced separately.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, only accused Khairati Ram has preferred the present appeal.I have heard Sh.D. P. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Fizani Hussain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Kanshi Ram was the principal accused and he did not prefer any Crl.He was nowhere in the picture.Kanshi Ram had booked the truck.Thereafter also when the truck was sold, the payment was also made to Kanshi Ram.Under the circumstances, the appellant has been wrongly convicted in the case.Even otherwise, the appellant has remained in jail for more than the period for which he was awarded sentence.As such, he be sentenced to the period during which he remained as under trial in this case.A. 103/2003 Page 4 of 16Refuting the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, it was submitted by learned APP for the State that it was the appellant who had gone for booking of the truck.He was correctly identified in test identification proceedings.Moreover, after committing theft of truck belonging to Manmohan Singh, it was Khairati Ram who induced PW8-Baldev Singh to purchase the truck.In consequence thereof, the truck was purchased by him.Thereafter, at the instance of both the accused, the truck with forged number plate was got recovered.It was submitted that neither Manmohan Singh nor Munna Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 5 of 16 had any animosity with the accused for which reason they will falsely depose against him and identify him.Even Baldev Singh was on friendly terms with the accused- appellant as he was known to him for last 30 years.The accused had gone to his house for condolence as the wife of this witness had expired and at that time he asked him to purchase the truck and thereafter he took Baldev Singh to the place where the truck was parked and then the payment was made to Kanshi Ram.When the accused was arrested and his personal search was taken, tablets Serepax was recovered from his possession as well as from the co-accused.As per the testimony of the pharmacist, PW14 Rajbir Singh, Serepax is a sedative group tablet and is taken for sleep.If it is taken in large quantity then one can become unconscious.It was submitted that these tablets were given to Munna and Sanjay after mixing it with tea and egg bhujia, as a result, they become unconscious and then theft of truck was committed, which later on was recovered.Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the appellant and the co-accused were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and the impugned order does not suffer from any Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 6 of 16 irregularity/infirmity which calls for interference, as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.A. 103/2003 Page 5 of 16After completion of investigation he submitted the challan.PW10 HC Surinder Singh, PW13 HC Sukhdev Singh, PW15 Dilbagh Singh were the members of the raiding party in whose presence recovery of the truck was got effected by the accused persons.A. 103/2003 Page 9 of 16A. 103/2003 Page 10 of 16PW6/B was also seized by the police vide memo Ex.A. 103/2003 Page 11 of 16PW7-Sardar Gurditta Singh identified his thumb impression on the document Ex.PW6/B vide which Baldev Singh had purchased the truck from Kanshi Ram in persuasion of Khairati Ram for Rs.1,10,000/-.A. 103/2003 Page 12 of 16A. 103/2003 Page 12 of 16PW6 Harish Kumar was working as a stamp vendor and deed writer.He had sold the stamp paper Ex.Aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution amply proves the role played by the accused, inasmuch as, it was he who had gone for booking of the truck on 31st March, 1996 and paid a sum of Rs.200/- as advance towards transportation charges.On his instructions, the truck was sent by PW1 Manmohan Singh through his driver Munna and helper Sanjay.It has come in the examination of this witness that Khairati Ram was not known to him prior to the booking of the truck.There is no reason as to why he will falsely depose regarding the booking of the truck by this accused and would correctly identify him, not only during the test identification proceedings but also in Court.In pursuance to the booking of the truck by appellant, truck was sent by Manmohan Singh.According to Munna Lal, accused Kanshi Ram met him at Libaspur petrol pump Jhandewalan and asked him and Sanjay to take tea and egg bhujia.After taking the same, Crl. A. 103/2003 Page 13 of 16 they became unconscious and when they gained consciousness they found themselves at GTK Road, Kundli.He correctly identified Kanshi Ram, not only during test identification proceedings but also in the Court.No animosity, ill-will or grudge has been alleged against him for which reason he will falsely implicate him.A. 103/2003 Page 13 of 16Thereafter, on the basis of secret information, both the accused were arrested and in pursuance to their disclosure statement, truck bearing fake number plate, the case property of this case was got recovered from Baldev Singh to whom it was sold.The accused Khairati Ram was also known to Baldev Singh for the last 30 years and they were having good relation.The mere fact that the payment was made to Kanshi Ram does not lessen the liability of Khairati Ram because had he not persuaded Baldev Singh to purchase the truck, he would not have purchased the truck with forged number plate.The connivance of both the accused is manifest from the evidence on record.Not only in this case was the vehicle stolen after Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 14 of 16 administering stupefying substances, when they were arrested they were found in possession of number of Serepax tablets which according to pharmacist Rajbir Singh, if taken in large quantity, can cause unconsciousness.The entire evidence was correctly appreciated by learned Additional Sessions Judge and the appellants were rightly convicted for the offences against them.The impugned order dated 27th January, 2003 does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference.A. 103/2003 Page 14 of 16Coming to the quantum of sentence, although for all the offences the appellant has been convicted separately, but vide order dated 29th January, 2003, it was clarified that the substantive sentence of imprisonment were to run concurrently.That being so, the maximum imprisonment awarded to the appellant was of 5 years and fine.It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that he has remained in custody for more than the period which was awarded to him and therefore he be sentenced to the period during which he remained as under-trial in this case.Although this submission is not fortified by the material on record, but perusal of nominal roll goes on to show that the appellant Crl.A. 103/2003 Page 15 of 16 remained in jail from 26th April, 1997 to 15th January, 2001 i.e. 4 years and 10 days.Keeping in view the fact that the case pertains to the year 1996 and the appellant has suffered rigours of trial for more than 17 years and he has already spent a period of 4 years and 10 days in jail, ends of justice will be met if he is sentenced to the period during which he remained as under trial in this case.He is, however, directed to deposit the fine, if not already deposited, with the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks and place on record a copy of the receipt.A. 103/2003 Page 15 of 16With the aforesaid observations the appeal stands disposed of.Trial court record be sent along with copy of order.SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) JULY 26, 2013 AK Crl. A. 103/2003 Page 16 of 16A. 103/2003 Page 16 of 16 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,437,480 | Confinement amounts to pretrial detention.He undertakes to cooperate in trial 2 M.Cr.Matter is heard finally.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 27.10.2020, by Police Station- Isagarh, District- Ashoknagar, in connection with Crime No.457/2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34-B and 302 of IPC.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is aged about 55 years and is suffering confinement since 27.10.2020 on false pretext.C. No.6902/2021 as well as investigation and would available as and when required.He would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant.Looking to the period of custody and allegation in respect of present applicant as well as looking to his age, his case be considered for bail.2 M.Cr.Learned PL for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for its dismissal.It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each 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 :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending 3 M.Cr.C. No.6902/2021 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;3 M.Cr.The applicant would not move in the vicinity of complainant party and would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant.The applicant shall mark his appearance before the police station concerned on First and Fifteenth day of every month between 10.30 am to 2.00 pm till conclusion of trial.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2021.02.24 11:08:17 +05'30' | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,438,187 | ( Passed on 06 /04/2018) Per : S.K. Awasthi, J:The applicants had invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C.), for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) dated 8.11.2016, registered at Crime No.166/2016 at Police Station -Lalghati, District- Shajapur for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1986(in short the IPC)Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 was the Secretary and applicant No.2 was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dupara, Janpad Panchayat Mohan Badodiya,District -Shajapur.It was also alleged that the construction of shops had been done while making enchroachment on the Government land without seeking any permission and without layout plan.No tenders : 7: MCRC No. 11599 / 2016 regarding the same were called.The allotment of the shops has also been done without following the procedure of the auction and reservations for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Caste and physically handicapped persons.The shops were also allotted arbitrarily to the near and dears ones at a very low price of Rs. 2 - 3 lakhs per shop.It was alleged that a total misappropriation of Rs.One Crore has been made by the applicants.: 7:On 26.1.2013, Phukhand Adhikar Patra were distributed to the persons holding lands.Subsequently, permission for construction has also been granted by the Gram Panchayat.Thereafter, again on same set of facts, another complaint was made by few persons and show cause notice was again issued to the applicants and replies were filed.In its reply the applicants denied the allegation and stated that the applicant No.1 was appointed as Secretary of Gram Panchyat Dupada till 7.4.2015 and subsequently transferred to Gram Panchyat Dokargaon.It was also stated that he was aware about the construction of 9 shops and has not aware about the construction of rest of the shops.However, an order dated 20.10.2010 was passed by S.D.O. Shajapur and he has directed for registration of FIR against the applicants on the grounds that they have violated the rules and have constructed the said shops.Collector Shajapur to the Dy.However, after receiving the transfer order, he has passed the impugned order.Once the SDO has been transferred then he has no authority to pass any order after six days of his transfer order.Under these circumstances, the registration of FIR is illegal and accordingly deserves to be quashed.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants by contending that the SDO has duly conducted an enquiry in respect of the compliant made against the applicants and after that he has found that the applicants have willfully violated the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 and they are guilty of misappropriation of Government property.The applicants are also filed writ petition No. 7291/2016 and writ petition No.7433/2016 before this Court against the aforesaid order and this Court has declined to entertain the aforesaid writ petitions.Under these circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the application.I have considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,371,638 | And In the matter of : Pradip Kumar Chaudhuri & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Chinmoy Pal Mr. Ajay Lal Acharya For the Petitioners Mr. Pradyut Saha For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Lake Town Police Station Case No. 240 of 2013 dated 07.08.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioners are the uncles-in-law of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty,J ) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
52,373,263 | Taking advantage of the fact that there was nobody in the school, the appellant/convicted accused took the victim female child/P.W.No.1 to the store room of the Hostel of the Institute and committed rape on her.He threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody else.However, the victim female child/P.W.No.1 disclosed the incident to Caretaker named Kachole and the said Caretaker in turn had disclosed the same to some teachers in the Institute.The victim female child/ P.W.No.1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Belhe and then to Hospital at Narayangaon.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::Thereafter, she narrated the incident of sexual assault to her father P.W.No.4 Prashant.Then, police team headed by P.W.No.5 Narayan Sarangkar, API of Narayangaon Police Station came to the house of the victim female child/P.W.No.1 with Social Worker as well as police staff.Report of the victim female child/P.W.No.1 came to be recorded by him.Because of picnic of the school so alsoclosure of the school due to holiday, there may not be any studentin the Hostel and the appellant/convicted accused had anopportunity to commit the offence.Mrs.Nasreen S.K.Ayubi, Appointed Advocate for the Appellant.Mr.V.V.Gangurde, APP for the Respondent/State.challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28/09/2016 passed bythe learned Special Judge, under Protection of Children fromGaikwad RD 1/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtSexual Offences Act, 2012 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSOAct' for the sake of brevity), Khed, Rajgurunagar, Pune in SpecialPOCSO Case No.5 of 2014 (Old Special POCSO Case No.36 of2013) thereby convicting him for the offences punishable underSections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as 'the IPC' for the sake of brevity) as well as underSections 4,6,8, and 10 of the POCSO Act. For the offencepunishable under Section 376 of the IPC, he is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from direction to payfine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorousimprisonment for six months.For the offence punishable underSection 506 of the IPC, the appellant/convicted accused issentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years apartfrom direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergofurther rigorous imprisonment for two months.For the offencepunishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, he is sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from direction topay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorousimprisonment for three months.Similar punishment was alsoimposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 6 of thePOCSO Act. For the offence punishable under Section 8 of thePOCSO Act, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for three years apart from payment of fineof Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment fortwo months.For the offence punishable under Section 10 of theGaikwad RD 2/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtPOCSO Act, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine ofRs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorousimprisonment for two months.The learned trial Court haddirected that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::2 Facts in brief leading to the prosecution and resultantconviction of the appellant/convicted accused can be summarizedthus :(a) P.W.No.4 Prashant is resident of village Kalavan in Nashik District.His minor female child/P.W.No.1 is suffering from 80% permanent disability.said victim female child/P.W.No.1 was taking education in the school run by the said Institution by residing at Hostel of that Institution.The appellant/convicted accused used to work as a peon in the said Institute.On that day, pupils of the school went for tour to religious place Alandi.However, the victim female child/ P.W.No.1 did not accompany them because of her disability.OnGaikwad RD 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odt that day, it was a holiday for the school.Accordingly, Crime No.99 of 2013 came to be registered against the appellant/convicted accused.Gaikwad RD 4/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odt::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::(d) During the course of investigation, the victim female child/P.W.No.1 was referred to the Sasoon Hospital, Pune where she was examined by P.W.No.2 Dr.Daksha Bilagi, Chief Resident Doctor.The spot of the incident was inspected along with panch P.W.No.3 Sandip Aher by P.W.No.5 Narayan Sarangkar, API.Spot panchanama (Exhibit 22) came to be prepared.Statements of witnesses came to be recorded and ultimately the appellant/convicted accused along with co-accused came to be charge-sheeted.3 The learned trial Court framed and explained thecharge to the appellant/convicted accused and other co-accused.They abjured their guilt and claimed trial.4 Defence of the appellant/convicted accused was that oftotal denial and false implication in the crime in question.5 In Order to bring home the guilt to theappellant/convicted accused and other co-accused, the prosecutionhas examined in all five witnesses.6 After hearing the parties, by the impugned Judgmentand Order the appellant/convicted accused came to be convictedand sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of thisJudgment.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::represent the appellant/convicted accused at the cost of the State.The prosecution case reveals that thevictim was in company of her parents from 06/04/2013.However, neither the victim female child nor her parents lodgedthe complaint against the appellant/convicted accused.The reportwas solicited from the victim by P.W.No.5 Narayan Sarangkar, APIand, as such, possibility of false implication of theappellant/convicted accused cannot be ruled out.8 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supportedthe impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and resultantsentence.9 I have carefully considered the submissions soadvanced and also perused the Record and Proceedings includingthe oral as well as documentary evidence.10 Case in hand is the case of penetrative sexual assaultby the staff member of Educational Institute i.e. Bhausaheb BoraApang Kalyan Kendra, Ane.Therefore, let us examine evidence ofGaikwad RD 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtthe victim female child/P.W.No.1 in order to ascertain whether theprosecution has proved the charge.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::This oralevidence is not challenged by the defence.Apart from this oralevidence, the prosecution has placed on record report ofossification test, Medical Certificate in respect of orthopedicdisability of the victim female child/P.W.No.1 and admission form.Bony age of the victim femalechild/P.W.No.1 was found to be above 15 years of age and below17 years of age.In view of this evidence, the prosecution hasestablished that on the date of alleged incident i.e. on05/02/2013, the victim female child/P.W.No.1 was below 18 yearsage and as such, was a child as defined by Section 2(d) of thePOCSO Act.12 So far as the incident in question is concerned, thevictim female child/P.W.No.1 has categorically deposed that atabout 12.30 a.m. of 05/02/2013 the appellant/convicted accusedtook her to the store room of the Hostel and committed rape onher.Thereafter, he threatened her not to disclose the incident toGaikwad RD 7/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtanybody.Because of this incident, as stated by her, she was takento the Government Hospital at Belhe and thereafter to the hospitalat Narayangaon.Thevictim female child/P.W.No.1 has stated that she narrated theincident to her father and ultimately she lodged report (Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::13 By cross-examining the victim female child/P.W.No.1,defence has brought on record that her school had arranged a tourto Alandi on the day of the incident i.e. on 05/02/2013, but shecould not go on that tour as she is suffering from disability.Hercross-examination reveals that on 05/02/2013, the school wasclosed due to holiday.This material brought on record in cross-examination of the victim female child/P.W.No.1 goes to show thatthe appellant/convicted accused had every opportunity to committhe crime in question.It is thus seen that materialelicited from the victim female child/P.W.No.1 is cementing hertestimony in respect of commission of penetrative sexual assaulton her by the appellant/convicted accused.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::report by her was referred to the Sasoon Hospital, Pune where sheis examined by P.W.No.2 Dr.Daksha Bilagi, Chief Residential Doctor.As per version of this Medical Officer, the victim femalechild/P.W.No.1 had disclosed history of commission of rape by theappellant/convicted accused on the pretext of helping him in thestore room.Upon gynecological examination of the victim femalechild/P.W.No.1, P.W.No.2 Dr.Daksha Bilagi, Chief Residential Doctorfound hymen of the victim female child/P.W.No.1 was having tearof 6 O'clock position.The Medical Officer, as such, opined that thevictim female child/P.W.No.1 was subjected to the penetrativevaginal intercourse.Though, in cross-examination, it wassuggested to P.W.No.2 Dr.Daksha Bilagi, Chief Residential Doctorthat hymen can be ruptured by inserting finger or any otherobject, there was no other suggestion to suggest that it was thevictim who caused such injury herself.Thus, torn hymen of thevictim female child/P.W.No.1 supports her version regardingpenetrative sexual assault by the appellant/convicted accused onher.This witness was very candid in stating that heGaikwad RD 9/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtwas not able to lodge the FIR as his native place is far away fromNarayangaon Police Station.He stated that as police came toknow the incident, they came to his house and recorded thereport.The reason for delay in lodging the report has come onrecord from cross-examination of this witness.In cross-examination, it is elicited from this witness that as he was thinkingwhether to lodge a report or not because of fear of defamation ofhis family and defamation of his daughter, there was delay inlodging the report.This witness further admitted that from June2012 till annual examination, he had visited Hostel of his daughtertwice.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::16 Evidence of P.W.No.5 Narayan Sarangkar, API showsthat while investigating the Crime No.99 of 2013, he came toknow that the appellant/convicted accused had committed rape onthe victim female child/P.W.No.1 and thereafter accompanied bythe Social Worker and his staff member he went to the house ofthe victim female child/P.W.No.1 and got her report recorded.17 Delay in lodging the FIR in case of sexual offencecannot be used as a ritualistic formula in disbelieving theprosecution case.In sexual offence, the delay in reporting thematter is because of various reasons.Fear of stigma and adverseGaikwad RD 10/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odteffects on future prospect of the victim female child/P.W.No.1constitute some of such reasons.In the case in hand, evidence offather of the victim female child/P.W.No.1 shows that he wasfeeling that the lodgment of the report would amount todefamation of daughter as well as the family.The victim femalechild/P.W.No.1 was in custody of the Education Institution at thetime and after commission of the offence.The document atExhibit 105 which is admission form of the victim femalechild/P.W.No.1 supports the fact that she is handicap by both thelegs.Cross-examination of the victim female child/P.W.No.1reveals that she is unable to walk and she has to crawl for goingfrom one place to another.She is declared to be 80% permanentlydisable by the Medical Board.This Certificate is at Exhibit 104.Apart from orthopedic disability, the victim female child/P.W.No.1is also suffering from cerebral palsy with spastic nerves.In suchsituation, it was not expected of her to take recourse of law whilein custody of the Educational Institute where she was studying andresiding.Further her evidence shows that she had attempted todisclose the incident to the staff members of the Institute.Hence,delay in lodging the FIR is of no consequence in the instant case.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::18 In view of foregoing reasons, the prosecution hassuccessfully established the offence of aggravated penetrativesexual assault on the victim female child/P.W.No.1 by theappellant/convicted accused, who was staff member of theBhausaheb Bora Apang Kalyan Kendra at village Ane, where sheGaikwad RD 11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtwas admitted for education and was staying in the Hostel of thatInstitute.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::19 The learned trial Court had rightly convicted theappellant/convicted accused of offences punishable under Sections376 and 506 of the IPC as well as for offences punishable underSections 4,6,8 and 10 of the POCSO Act. However, the learnedtrial Court has committed error in sentencing theappellant/convicted accused separately on each count ignoring theprovision of Section 71 of the IPC.The incident in questionheld to be proved is only one incident, in which theappellant/convicted accused had taken the victim femalechild/P.W.No.1 in the store room of the Hostel and committedpenetrative sexual assault on her which amount to aggravatedpenetrative sexual assault as the the appellant/convicted accusedwas staff member of the Hostel where she was residing.Similarly, where several acts, of which oneGaikwad RD 12/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odtor more than one would by itself or themselves constitute anoffence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, theoffender shall not be punished with more severe punishment thanthe Court which tries him would award for any one of suchoffences.These legal aspects arecertainly missed by the learned trial Court while awardingseparate sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 376of the IPC and under Sections 4,6,8 and 10 of the POCSO Act.The impugned Order, therefore, needs to be modified.In theresult, the following Order :::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::(i) The Appeal is partly allowed in following terms.(a) Conviction of the appellant/convicted accused of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 4,6,8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act, 2012 is maintained.(b) However, sentence awarded to the appellant/ convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and for theGaikwad RD 13/14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: (224)APEALNo.3192018(J).odt offences punishable under Section 4,8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 :::(c) Needless to mention that sentence imposed on the appellant/convicted accused by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is maintained.(d) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.(e) On recovery of the fine amount, the same shall be paid to the victim as compensation.(ii) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:02:05 ::: | ['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. |
52,373,276 | This petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) is directed against the judgment dated 26th July 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2007 filed by the Petitioner.The Petitioner was named as accused in FIR No. 479 of 1993 registered at Police Station Sriniwas Puri under Sections 406/420/468/471/120 B IPC.The Crl.P. 468/2008 Page 1 of 13 said FIR was registered on the complaint made by M/s. R.M.B. Associates Limited, New Delhi.P. 468/2008 Page 1 of 13The Petitioner filed Criminal Misc.In the said petition the Petitioner was granted interim protection against his arrest by this Court and this continued till 2nd November 1999 when the petition was dismissed and the Petitioner was asked to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail.It is stated that on 3 rd December 1999 the learned MM enquired as to whether the Petitioner had been earlier on bail.The proceedings that transpired before the learned MM read as under:"03.12.1999 Present: APP with R.N. Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.Accused No.1 in person.He states that he is on bail under order passed by Sh.O.P. Gupta, Ld. MM vide order dated 27.3.1997 Ahlmad to report on 3.00 pm.P. 468/2008 Page 2 of 13(Ahlmad) 3.12.1999 3.12.1999 (3.25 PM) Present Ld. APP for the State with R.N. Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.In the morning accused No.1 Harjinderjit Singh appeared in person stating that he is on bail in this case, Bail order was passed by Sh.O.P. Gupta, Ld. MM, the report of Ahlmad indicates that no bail order was ever passed by Sh.O.P. Gupta with regard to accused No.1 nor bail bonds were ever accepted.Accused was supposed to be present in Court at 3.00 pm.Case recalled.It is now 3.25 pm.Accused Harjinderjit Singh is not present in the Court.He left the Court without intimation.Issue NBW against the accused No.1 Harjinderjit Singh.It is stated by Ld. APP that two more accused namely Harjit Kaur and Sweety Walia also absent today.The exemption application moved on behalf of Mrs. Harjeet Kaur and Sweety is rejected vide separate order.(KS. Mohi), MM rd 3 December 1999"Aggrieved by the issuance of the NBW, the Petitioner filed Crl Misc (M) No. 3837 of 1999 in this Court.In the circumstances the following order was passed by this Court in the said petition on 16th December 1999:P. 468/2008 Page 3 of 13"16.12.1999 Present: Mr. K.K. Sud, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Balgopal for the petitioners.Let copy of this order be given dasti.Crl M No. 11102/99 Allowed.Certified copies of the documents be filed as soon as they are available."On 28th April 2000 the complainants filed an application being Crl Misc.No. 1732 of 2000 in the aforementioned petition Crl Misc (Main) No. 3837 of 1999 pointing out that the Petitioner should be held guilty of the offences under Sections 193, 465, 466, 471 and 120 B IPC for making not only numerous false statements in the earlier petition before this Court but tampering with the judicial records as well.On 3rd December 2003 this Court passed an order directing the Registrar General to conduct a preliminary inquiry to the allegations.The report dated 26th April 2004 the Registrar General held that prima facie there was a tampering and replacing of two pages in the petition Crl Misc (Main) Crl.Further it was plain that the averments made by the Petitioner in the replaced pages were contrary to the record in the sense that the Petitioner stated that he was granted regular bail in terms of an order dated 21st April 1997 passed by the learned MM when in fact he was not.It was plain from the order dated 6th December 2001 passed by this Court in Crl Misc (Main) No. 3827 of 1999 that the Petitioner was never released on bail by the trial court.On 7th December 2004, after a perusal of the said report, this Court directed the Registrar General to file a complaint against the Petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) for the offences under Sections 193/465/466/471 IPC and any other offence that may be made out.P. 468/2008 Page 4 of 13I further sentence him rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence u/s 166 IPC with fine for a sum of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one Crl.P. 468/2008 Page 5 of 13 month.P. 468/2008 Page 5 of 13Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 13th December 2006 the Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2007 in the court of the learned ASJ." This was the only modification made by the learned ASJ to the order passed by the learned MM.Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner confined his arguments to the question of set-off of the sentence under Section 428 CrPC.According to him, the trial against the Petitioner in FIR No. 479 of 1993 is pending.An application was filed in the said proceedings on behalf of the Petitioner on 9th April 2001 seeking exemption from his personal appearance on the alleged ground that he was dead on the said date.On 18th April 2001 a certificate stating that the Petitioner had expired was submitted to the court of the learned MM thereupon the learned MM directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to verify Crl.The concerned MM thus directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to investigate the matter in terms of Section 156 (3) CrPC.It is stated that on 21 st July 2008 in connection with the above case the Petitioner was arrested in Jaipur and then remanded at Delhi on 1st April 2008 when he was sent to judicial custody.Thus the third case was registered as an FIR and the trial in the said case is also stated to be pending.P. 468/2008 Page 7 of 13 learned MM.The Petitioner will set liberty forthwith.A copy be sent to the concerned trial court as well as to the Jail Superintendent forthwith.S.MURALIDHAR, J APRIL 27, 2009 rk Crl.P. 468/2008 Page 13 of 13P. 468/2008 Page 13 of 13 | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,373,700 | 2 The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,374,374 | Heard finally.This is the first application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 18/09/2014 in connection with Crime No. 509/2014 registered at P.S. Kareli, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 294, 506/34, 325 and 302 of IPC.As per prosecution it is alleged that at the time of incident this applicant Brajraj said to have caught hold injured (deceased) Manoj and other co-accused persons have assaulted him by using the lathis.It is also on record that initially a report was lodged u/s 323, 324, 294, 506/34, 325 of IPC thereafter, during investigation injured Manoj died on 15/09/2014 (after 19 days) therefore, an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC has been added.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The only allegation against this applicant is that he caught hold the deceased Manoj.Trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the Objector as well as State submit that still charge sheet has not been filed therefore, pray for dismissal of the petition.On due consideration of the facts and contention raised on behalf of the parties, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,381,535 | ( Passed on 09/ 03/2018) The applicant has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 06/01/2018 passed in Session Trial no. 280/2016 by Special Judge, ( under SC & ST Act ) Ratlam, whereby the trial Court has framed the charges against the applicant under sections 120-B and 212 of IPC. 2 The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 07/11/2016 at about 20.30 pm, complainant Dharmendra Chawada along with his friends Durgesh, Daulat Chawada, Anand Chawada and Dharmesh @ Kalu Anda were smoking at the cremation area situated at Rajeev Nagar, Ratlam.At the same time, co-accused Ankit, Rahul and two other 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH unknown persons came there by motorcycle and taunted in filthy language to the complainant.When they stopped them, they started inflicting injuries to Anand, Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Kalu Anda and Daulat Chawada by means of knife, due to which, they succumbed on the spot.Complainant Dharmendra Chawada lodged FIR at police station - Industrial Area, Ratlam and the police registered the offence under sections 294 and 302 read with 34 of IPC against the co-accused persons.During investigation, the police arrested the co-accused persons and it came to know that after the incident, the applicant harbored the co-accused persons with intention to screening them from legal punishment even by knowing the fact that they have committed murder.Then, the police arrested the applicant in relation to the present crime and recovered the knives and mobilephones of the co-accused persons from his house.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court.3 Learned trial Court after perusal of the entire 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH material on record by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that prima-facie, the charge under section 212 of IPC as well as section 120-B of IPC is made out against the applicant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant for commission of the offence mentioned above.The applicant was not present at the place of the incident.Thus, on second count as well as, this application fails.Thirdly, another arguments were raised that the applicant is not named in the FIR.Neither he was present on the spot at the time of the incident, nor any allegation against him that he has inflicted any injuries to the deceased persons. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,388,349 | Record of the lower court is available.Heard on I.A. No.21870/2017, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant - Babloo S/o Kanhaiyalal Mali.The present appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-According to prosecution story, father of the complainant went missing, and subsequently, on next date, his dead body was found from a well on disclosure memo given by the co-accused Devkaran.In the disclosure memo, involvement of the present appellant was also disclosed and on the basis of which he was arrested and on his disclosure memo, a golden ring was recovered.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, there is a discrepancy in postmortem report.He further submits that the similar discrepancy is in the identification memo of the ring recovered on disclosure memo of the present appellant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Going through the record, it is apparent that it was a human error that a wrong date was mentioned on the postmortem report.There is a un-exhibited document available on record, which is a letter from the concerning doctor and checking from his duty-chart and postmortem register, it was informed that by an human error, a wrong date was mentioned on the postmortem report.This apart, no question was asked and no explanation was sought from the doctor, who performed the postmortem on the dead body.Similarly, a golden ring which was worn by the deceased, prior to his death, was properly identified by the complainant, who was son and any minor discrepancy in that, cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage.Taking into consideration all these facts in totality, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.The application is accordingly dismissed.C.C. as per rules. | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,394,464 | Now, in all the aforesaid matters, the concerned Additional Sessions Judges have cancelled the bail granted to the respective petitioners/applicant.The petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1202/2020 and 1249/2020 intend to invoke the constitutional powers of this Court, under Article::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (3) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; whereas the applicant in Criminal Application No.1091/2020 wants to challenge the order passed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::Facts, giving rise to Cri.a) The respective petitioners are accused, facing trial in Sessions Case Nos.45/2016 and 10/2014, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A etc of IPC.b) The cases appear to be part-heard.The said interim bail came to be rejected/not continued by order dated 4.9.2020 and 5.9.2020, contending that the petitioners had failed to move an application for continuing interim bail on 6.8.2020 as the duration of the::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (4) bail granted to them on 22.5.2020 was for 45 days only.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(4)Facts, giving rise to Criminal Application No.1099/2020 :-i. Applicant in this case is facing trial in Sessions Case No.39/2018 pending before the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 226, 341, 504, 506 and Section 212 of IPC.However, thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this case filed an application before Additional Sessions Judge at Exh.53 for cancellation of the temporary bail.It will not be out of place to mention here that it appears that they have used a wrong word as `Parole', when, in fact, it ought to have been bail since till date, present applicant-accused is not convicted.It was contended in the said application that at the time of releasing the accused on temporary bail, the State had objected on the ground that criminal background of the applicant;::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (5) yet he was released on bail.However, thereafter on 22.5.2020, the accused went under the influence of liquor to the house of witnesses, i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and threatened them to kill.They have lodged a report about the said incidence with Loni Police Station, which has been registered as non-cognizable case.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(5)He denied that he had gone to the place where the witnesses reside, under the influence of liquor and threatened them.After he was released, he went to his village, however, it was found by him that his wife and mother were not residing in the village.Therefore, he stayed with his relatives.Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 went, along with mob of 100-150 people.They barged into the house of relative of the accused and damaged the household articles.His relative has lodged report against those persons.In fact, the testimony of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been recorded and now the trial is at its fag end.The application has been filed with malafide intention to pressurize the court.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (6) iv.After hearing both sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the temporary bail granted to the present applicant.Hence, he is before this Court.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::Heard learned Advocate Rupesh Jaiswal for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned Advocate Shri KB Jadhav holding for Advocate AD Shinde for the applicant in Cri.Heard learned APPs Ms. RP Gour; Shri SW Mundhe and Shri AM Phule in respective matters.Further, heard learned Advocate Shri KM Nagarkar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the Criminal Application.Directions were issued to State High Power Committee to lay down parameters for::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (7) release of the prisoners in the outbreak of Corona Virus (COVID-19).::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::When the purpose for which the said arrangement was made and it is still persisting, then the learned Judge ought not to have insisted that the petitioners/accused should come to the Court again and get the said period of the temporary bail extended.It ought to have been an automatic extension of temporary bail period. .Stae opf Maharashtra (LDVC/OCR/237/2020) with companion matters, decided on 5th October, 2020, wherein, in similar cases, interim bail was granted in pending Sessions Case by the learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Barshi and the application was then rejected as there was no extension in between.State of Mah (Criminal Application No.1524/2020 in WP No.685/2020 with other connected matters, decided on 14th September, 2020), wherein it was held that, there would be automatic extension.The Minutes of the High Power Committee dated 11th May, 2020, Para 5(i) thereof, were not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Therefore, those orders are wrong and erroneous and deserve to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::Per contra, learned APPs, opposing the Writ Petitions, submitted that though the High Power Committee had given directions in its Minutes dated 11th May, 2020 in respect of under-trial prisoners for such offence/s for which maximum::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (9) sentence is above seven years; yet the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice with Justice KK Tated in the case of Peoples Union Civil Liberties & Anr.State of Maharashtra and Ors.(PIL-CJ-LD-VC-2 OF 2020 with connected matters, dt. 26th May, 2020), had opined that the relevant Courts are not supposed to act as mere post offices and allow application/s without application of mind.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir had absolutely not applied his mind when he had granted the temporary bail.Both the writ petitioners were facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 etc. of IPC, wherein prescribed punishment is either death of imprisonment for life and it appears that both the cases are part-heard; the petitioners are in jail since more than five years, which pre-supposes that their earlier bail applications were rejected and, therefore, the said order, releasing them on temporary bail, itself was illegal and, therefore, it could not have been extended without application of mind.Further, if the wordings of the order, of which they want to take benefit, are read as they are, then it says that the interim bail will remain::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (10) in force for a period of 45 days or till such time the State of Maharashtra withdraws its Notification issued under the Epidemics Diseases Act, 1897, whichever is earlier.However, they have not filed any such application and, therefore, there cannot be automatic extension of period of temporary bail.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(9)::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::Learned Advocate Mr. KB Jadhav appearing for the applicant in the Criminal Application, vehemently submitted that merely on the basis of non-cognizable complaint lodged by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the learned Judge has cancelled the bail granted.The applicant was released on bail in view of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex court and High Power Committee.It does not contemplate any cancellation of bail.The story put forward by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was false.Further, when the testimonies of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already been recorded, there was no question of giving threats to them.In fact, the story, that has been put-forth by Respondent Nos.2::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (11) and 3, appears to be concocted as they got knowledge about release of the applicant on temporary bail.The application filed by them was with malafide intention, which ought not to have been considered by the learned Trial Judge.The impugned order, cancelling the bail is wrong and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(11)Learned APP Mr.If the said order of releasing him on bail dated 19.5.2020 is considered, then it can be seen that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not touched the merits.After coming out of the jail, the applicant alleged to have threatened Respondent No.2 & 3 and they have taken precaution by lodging report.Definitely, there is threat to::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (12) their lives.There is breach of terms of conditions imposed in the order of bail granted to the applicant and, therefore, the order of cancellation of bail, in view of the conduct of the applicant, is perfectly legal and correct.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(12)At the outset, it will have to be observed that in all the aforesaid matters, the learned Additional Sessions Judges have not considered merits of the cases before releasing the accused persons on temporary bail.It was the concern, which was expressed in PIL in the case of Peoples Union Civil Liberties & Anr.State of Maharashtra and Ors.(PIL-CJ-LD-VC-2 OF 2020 with connected matters, filed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Justice KK Tated.It has been specifically observed, -"Even though High Power Committee has delineated categories of under-trial prisoners, who would be entitled to release on temporary bail, we are of the opinion that the relevant Courts are not supposed to act as mere post offices and allow the applications without application of mind.We have no doubt in our mind that in the light of the guidelines issued by High::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (13) Power Committee, the relevant Courts, to the best of its ability and with the resources available at its disposal, have seen striving to take appropriate steps to dispose of as many applications for bail as possible in accordance with law and in the light of the guidelines of the High Power Committee.No direction, as such, would be required to be made since we hope and trust that no application for bail shall be kept pending unnecessarily." Thus, whatever was to be done by the respective Courts in regard to grant of temporary bail to the under-trials, was after due application of mind and in accordance with law.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::State of Maharashtra decided on 15th May, 2020, after taking into consideration the merits of the matter, had rejected the application for temporary bail.Further, in Bail Application No.573/2020 (Ajay s/o Santosh Gaikwad Vs.The State of::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (14) Maharashtra decided on 3rd August, 2020) and Bail Application No. 588/2020 ( Rasul Pirahemad Palav Vs.The State of Maharashtra decided on 23 rd July, 2020) this Court has also rejected the bail applications for temporary bail on merits.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::He could not have molded or altered the wordings as per his own convenience or wish.He has not referred as to which Minutes of the High Power Committee were considered by him.But certainly, when the order was passed in both the matters, the Minutes of meeting dated 11.5.2020::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (15) were issued and circulated to the concerned.Attention is, therefore, drawn on Para 5(i) of the said Minutes, which reads as under, -::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(15)" 5 ...............................The undertrial prisoners shall report to the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing, every 30 days..."Therefore, his order ought to have been subjected to those directions, which requires, initial period of 45 days, will have to get extended periodically in Blocks of 30 days each till such time the said Notification is issued (in the event said Notification is not issued within first 45 days).::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (16) Therefore, it implied that the High Power Committee was in favour of an automatic extension.The constitutional powers are, therefore, required to be exercised in favour of those petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(16)Now, turning towards the Criminal Application, it can be said that though the order of granting bail to the applicant was wrong and::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (17) erroneous; yet cancellation of that order is on different ground.But then, present Respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that on 22.5.2020, the accused-applicant had gone to the village of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and under the influence of liquor, he had abused and threatened them to kill.The applicant is already facing the trial under Sections 302, 307 etc of IPC.The fear and apprehension in the mind of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be seen.Further, they have immediately lodged the report with the police which has been unfortunately treated as non-cognizable.The applicant had filed his say that, in fact, Respondent Nos.2 and 3, along with 100-150 people, had assaulted him and caused damage to the household articles of his relative.Surprisingly, he has not given name and address of his relative and he has not explained as to why he himself or his relative had not approached the police to lodge the report.Absolutely no documentary or oral evidence was produced by the applicant in support of his say.The said relative, who had nothing to do with the dispute between Respondent Nos.2 and 3::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (18) and present applicant, would not have quietly accepted the alleged damage that would have been caused by 100-150 people.The story put forward by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, appears to be appealing and, therefore, based on the NC case No.356/2020 registered by Respondent No.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has invoked his powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., which is perfectly justifiable.The rights of the witnesses are definitely required to be protected and in such situation they are more important than the alleged rights of accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(17)::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(18)No fault can be found in the order of cancellation of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kopargaon.Case is not made out to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (19) Cr.P.C. The Criminal Application deserves to be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(19)For the aforesaid reasons, following order is passed, -i) Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1202/2020 and 1249/2020, are hereby allowed.ii) The order dated 4.9.2020 passed below Exhibit-91 in SC No.45/2016 and order dated 5.9.2020 passed below Exh.Sessions Judge-2, Udgir, stand set aside.Sessions Case No.10/2014, both passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Udgir, stand revived and the said order is extended periodically in the Blocks of 30 days::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: (20) each till such time the said Notification, under the Epidemics Diseases Act, 1897, is issued.In other words, in the event the said Notification under the Epidemics Diseases Act, 1897, comes to an end, the petitioners shall surrender before the concerned Court.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::(20)iv) The Criminal Application stands rejected.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 06:15:14 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,408,853 | This is the third repeat application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.1180/2019 registered at police station Chandan Nagar, district Indore for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467 & 468 of the IPC and section 292-C & 292-D of the M.P Municipal Corporation Act. The first and second applications were rejected on merit on 18.02.2020 & 04.03.2020 vide MCRC No.7253/2020 & MCRC No.9850/2020 respectively.Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.For the sake of repetition, as per the prosecution story vide letter dated 19.12.2019, the Building Officer, Zone No.16, Indore Municipal Corporation requested SHO of Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore for registration of an FIR against Sanjay Dubey, Govind Kushwaha and the present applicant disclosing commission of offence punishable u/s.292-C and 292-D of the Act of 1956 and u/s. 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C. As per contents of the above letter, the applicant and two others as they are indulging intoThe Police have registered the FIR and started the investigation.As of today, the prosecution has collected a photocopy of the agreement to sell dated 20.2.2019 executed between Arif Ali Shah, Sanjay Dubey, and Govind Kushwaha in respect of land bearing Survey No.89/1/1/4 area 2.000 hect.In the said agreement to sell, it is mentioned that there are as many as 100 plots measuring 600 sq.ft.each are available for sale.Under the said agreement to sell, now the applicant and two others have started selling the plots to the individuals.The prosecution has also collected other agreements to sell in respect of Plot No.59 of the same land i.e. Survey No.89/1/1/4 executed by Sanjaykant Dubey in favour of Kalu Rathore and agreement in respect of Plot No.80 of the same land executed by Sanjaykant Dubey in favour of Smt. Asha Sisodia.The investigation is going on and original documents are yet to be recovered.He further submits that based on the agreement to sell with Arif co-accused Sanjaykant Dube had-3- MCRC No.22611/2020 executed 4 agreements to sell and received the sale consideration.In those agreements present applicant has neither signed as a vendor nor as a witness.Sanjaykant Dube has been granted default bail by the trial Court.The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed.There is no progress in the trial due to lockdown.Since the co-accused Govind Kushwaha has also been enlarged on bail on 07.07.2020 in MCRC No.18534/2020, therefore, the present applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity and subsequent development.Since three accused have already been granted bail, therefore, the-4- MCRC No.22611/2020 present application is also liable to be allowed with conditions and undertakings.(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar hk/ Nair Date: 2020.07.29 14:02:12 +05'30' | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,413,187 | Heard, case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.168/2005, Police Station Jeerapur, District Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under Sections 302, 302/149, 395/397and 120B of IPC.As per prosecution case, on 29/04/2005 a telephonic information was given by Advocate Laxminarayan at police- station Jeerapur, that dead body of two unknown persons were found at Chappiheda road, near Khejdiya, beside the well of Rambabu.On investigation, it was found that the deceased persons were Banwarlal and Champalal, who were travelling along with their friends on 28/04/2005 to attend marriage at Kachikedi.On their way to Kachikedi, both of them were murdered.One Kannaiyalal was arrested and on interrogation, he disclosed that as per the instructions of Siyaram Dangi, he arranged Sidhu Soundiya and Bhagwansingh to commit murder of Banwarlal and Champalal.Under these circumstances, counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.02.28 11:17:58 +05'30' | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,414,028 | Though he had issued a circular stating that, every member should complete their work during office hours, the material on the record shows that, there was heavy work given to deceased Kishor.The deceased was required to attend the court upto 5:00 p.m. and thereafter he was required to do his office work.In spite of working upto 10:00 pm he was unable to complete his work and was attending the office even on holidays.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal at admission stage & heard finally.Both the applications are for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 0268/2017 registered with M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable u/s 306, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.3. Heard Shri.Joydeep Chatterji & Shri.Nilesh S. Ghanekar, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri.V. M. Kagne, learned APP for State and Shri.S. P. Brahme, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::The FIR and police papers disclose that, deceased Kishor Parashar, aged 45 years, husband of informant, was serving as a Clerk in the office of Dy.Director of Education, Aurangabad.Accused no. 1 - Vaijnath Khandke was Dy.Director (Education) while accused no. 2 - Vidya Ghorpade is a Clerk in the same department.On 08.08.2017, deceased Kishor along with his wife Deepali left the house at 10:00 a.m. Deceased Kishor left his wife at the house of his sister and went towards the office but the inquiry by Deepali revealed that he had not reached the office.He was not accessible on mobile.At 03:00 p.m. when daughter Ruchika reached the house, she saw two-wheeler of her father at the parking but the house was closed.On breaking open the house, it was revealed that Kishor had committed suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan.On the next day, Deepali lodged the FIR that her husband used to be under tremendous mental tension as he was overburdened with the work of four tables and was required to work upto 10:00 p.m. everyday.His salary was stopped by accused no.1 - Vaijnath and he was always threatening and intimidating him.Accused no.2 - Vidya was not efficient and she was getting all her work done from Kishor.Kishor was excellent in his work but due to overburden, stoppage of increment and humiliating treatment in the office, he committed suicide.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::Per contra, learned APP and advocate Shri.S. P. Brahme argued that, the applicants by their behaviour created situation so as to create unbearable pressure by mental harassment and deceased Kishor was left with no option but to commit suicide.After carefully considering the arguments and the judgments cited and the papers produced, we find that the power of quashing FIR can be exercised in sparing manner where there is a clear case of abuse of process of court and no material to allow the prosecution to be continued.In State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal" [AIR 1992 SC 604], seven criteria are given for exercising powers.Following two are material.(i) The allegations taken at their face value do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::It should be left to the trial Judge to decide the merits and demerits of the facts alleged at the time of taking cognizance, framing of charge or final disposal.The facts herein indicate that, there was no direct abetment and the applicants cannot have any intention that the deceased should commit suicide.Even when the accused persons have no such intention, if they create situation causing tremendous mental tension so as to drive the person to commit suicide, they can be said to be instigating the accused to commit suicide.It is akin to act imminently dangerous as described in Section 300(4) of IPC.As held in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3837, if it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 ::: 6 APPLN4724.2017 society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::The applicants relied on Dadarao Dakore Vs.In this case, a clerk had committed suicide due to heavy workload which he was unable to carry out.He had left behind a suicide note.There was no proximity of time between alleged instigation and date of incident.The FIR against the superior Executive Engineer was quashed.In this case, the accused had abused and abetted the deceased on a petty quarrel and after two days, the deceased committed suicide.It was held that there was no evidence of goading and encouragement.Hence, the acquittal was held proper.The deceased was a salesman and he was allegedly harassed for not recovering dues from the customers.No specific role was attributed to any of the accused.There was vague evidence about creation of mental tension.Hence, the FIR was quashed.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::In Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao & Ors.Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr decided by Division Bench of Nagpur Bench on 05 August, 2016 (Criminal Application (APL) No. 332 of 2016), a judicial officer committed suicide leaving behind a note disclosing names of District Judge and other superior colleagues that they were responsible for his suicide as he was harassed by them.Hence, the accused were acquitted.In State of Kerala & Ors v Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors.2015 CJ(SC) 1275, the deceased had left behind a suicide note alleging that two colleagues from CBI had cheated him and put him in deep trouble.The respondents were junior to the deceased.Considering the vague allegations, it was held that there was no abetment.In Praveen Pradhan Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr.(2012) 9 SCC 734, it was observed that there can be no straight- jacket formula to determine which act amounts to instigation and which does not.It is further observed that in a particular case there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 ::: 8 APPLN4724.2017 direct nexus with the suicide.Inference has to be drawn from the circumstances to determine whether a situation was created to totally frustrate the person and drive him to commit suicide.The applicant Sunita was not performing her duties as a Counselor faithfully.Due to her irresponsible performance, the image of the medical college was damaged.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::In Dr. Shivanand v. State 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1401, the Division Bench of this Court held that the allegations against Medical Superintendent that he did not allow him to resume duties and he harassed the deceased by non-payment of TA bills and Water bills and expenses for repair of official vehicle were not sufficient to hold that there was instigation to him.It was held that the petitioner was acting in his official capacity.Considering the guidelines and applying them to the facts of the present case before us, we find that the only allegations against Vidya Ghorpade - Clerk, applicant in Criminal Application No. 5174 of 2017 is that she was not good in her work and she was giving all her work to the accused.The material shows that, she was sr.clerk and was also holding additional charge of Asst.Even accepting these allegations at the face value, we find that the act would not amount to abetment for the simple reason that the deceased had no compelling reasons to perform her work and if he would have refused to perform her work, nothing could have happened to him.As far as Vaijnath Khandke, the applicant in Criminal Application No. 4724 of 2017 is concerned, he was a Dy.Director of ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 ::: 10 APPLN4724.2017 Education.One circular was issued by the Dy.Director that everybody should produce his report of work done and if no such report would be given, his payment would be stopped.The documents on record show that, for years the work of deceased Kishor was appreciated with highest gradings 'A' or 'A+'.After arrival of Khandke as Dy.Director in October-2016, Kishor was heavily burdened.He could not get time to even write the worksheet.Besides, there are allegations that Khandke, who was the Dy.Director and could have ruined the service career of Kishor was humiliating him by taunts.Stoppage of salary for the month of July-2017 must have been a big blow to deceased Kishor when he had an excellent career.He was working day and night and taking sincere efforts, still he was awarded with stoppage of increment.One would mentally get completely depressed.In the circumstances, we find that the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 ::: 11 APPLN4724.2017 allegations made against Vaijnath are capable of description of persistent mental harassment and ill-treatments of such nature that the deceased would find himself in depressing circumstances and would be frustrated.We make these observations only for the purpose of deciding this application and it should not influence the trial Judge at any stage.In view of this, we hold that, this is not a fit case for invoking powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. with respect to Vaijnath Khandke.In the result, we pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 :::(i) Criminal Application No. 5174 of 2017 filed by Vidya Ghorpade is hereby allowed.FIR bearing Crime No. 0268/2017 registered with MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable u/s 306, 506 r/w 34 of IPC is quashed to her extent.(ii) Criminal Application No. 4724 of 2017 filed by Vaijnath Khandke is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:19:54 ::: | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
524,182 | This petition unfurls a tale of woe of a person shown as an accused in a crime, not being able to get through the process of trial for over six years, in spite of his having approached this Court thrice, inclusive of this petition, due to the lack of promptitude or even routine action by the investigating police, notwithstanding the fact that the law enforcing agency had been sphereheaded by two orders of this Court, reminding them of their duty to society, and the procedural mandate, they were bound to necessarily follow.Now the facts :- Petitioner Krishnappa is Accused No. 11 in Crime No. 156 of 1986, registered at Keelamangalam Police Station on 30-12-1986, on a first information report preferred by Ramesh, in respect of an occurrence, that had taken place at about 7 a.m. on the same day at Thotta Perur village.From the file he was able to understand, that Balasubramaniam had taken steps to arrest all accused as mentioned in the first information report.The stand taken by each one of these police officials will have to be now noticed.He was holding office at Dharmapuri, when this Court issued directions in Crl.He claims to have received the order, only through his superior officer D.I.G. of Police, on 27-4-1989, though this fact has not been specifically stated in the counter affidavit.He issued a memo to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri, on the same day, to discuss with him the above matter.He further found, that P. K. Balasubramaniam, who was investigating the case earlier had failed to hand over the C.D. file.In the monthly crime meeting held between March and September, 1989 he had issued necessary instructions to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police to take stern action against officers, who have not handed over the C.D. and to take effective steps to collect them from the officers concerned, not only in respect of this case, but also with regard to all other cases in which investigation had not been completed for similar reasons.He further instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam Police Station to register a case on 27-5-1989 itself, against Balasubramaniam, the initial investigating officer.Again on 1-6-1989 he gave VHF message, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam to register a case against the erring Inspector of Police.On 1-6-1989 Crime No. 135 of 1989 under section 379 Indian Penal Code, was registered against Balasubramaniam.On 28-6-1989, Shanmughanathan sent a memorandum to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur directing him to entrust the investigation in Crime No. 156 of 1986, to some other competent Inspector of Police, for immediate investigation and for filing the final report.He claims to have sent memorandums, over again on 22-8-1989 and 1-9-1989, to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, to take immediate action in the said matter.On 8-9-1989, the Assistant Superintendent of Police sent a reply to him in detail, in which he stated, that the then Inspector of Police, Balasubramaniam who has investigated the case on 30-12-1986, had arrested the accused and had them remanded.However, he did not complete investigation and the said Inspector of Police was suspended in 1988, on a grave charge.He had not handed over the case diary, not only in this case, but also in 9 other cases.In spite of instructions to the Inspector of Police, Royakottai to get the case diary returned, by the then Inspector of Police, the former reported, that he could not take up further investigation, since the latter had not written and completed the case diary, and the case was in the FIR Stage.Shanmughanathan would further claim in his counter affidavit, that on 26-10-1989 he sent yet another memo to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur to direct the concerned Inspector of Police, and lay a charge sheet, soon in his crime.He also requested the Assistant Superintendent of Police to deal with the delinquent officer, who was under suspension, under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, for not writing the case diary.On 11-3-1990, he sent another memo to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur to report the stage of this Crime.He was relieved from Dharmapuri about 17 days later, and he was able to notice from the case file, that memorandums were sent to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur on 5-6-1990 and 28-8-1990, to find out the present stage of this case.He further found from the file, that the delinquent Inspector of Police had been departmentally dealt with, for not having handed over the C.D. file, by awarding a punishment of stoppage on increment for one year, without cumulative effect.According to Shanmughanathan, as soon as he had received the order of this court, he had immediately directed the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur, to strictly comply with the directions.He had further chosen to send reminders, through letters and wireless messages.In conclusion, Shanmughanathan has stated in his counter affidavit, that he has great regard for this court and had not at any point of time, disobeyed court directions.He has further assured, that remedial measures will be taken to prevent such lapses in future.In any event, if this court were to find him guilty of any lapse or contempt, he was offering his unconditional apology.He has specifically denied, having taken away the case diary.He was arrested in yet another crime, when he was investigating it, due to political turns.He was only holding additional charge of Keelamangalam police station on 30-12-1986, as the then Inspector of Police was on leave.He took up investigation in crime No. 156/1968, examined witnesses and apprehended all the accused.The first information report, remand report, mahazars and other records were promptly forwarded to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Hosur.He was arrested on 22-8-1988, by C.B. CID., Vellore and was released on bail on 29-8-1988, by Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.Thereafter the condition was modified and he was permitted to stay at Pudukkottai.There was a further condition, that he should not enter Dharmapuri District limits.From August, 1988 till date, he had never stepped into the limits of Keelamangalam or any other police station in Dharmapuri District.On the contrary, it was the respondent (Sub-Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam) who was sending the case diary to him, on two occasions, through a police constable.On 23-4-1989, Elumalai (p. C592) came to meet him at Pudukkottai with the case diary in Crime No. 156/1986 and returned with the same.Again the same constable met him on 5-5-1989 with the case diary and went back with it.Only in 1990, after this court, was seized of the matter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, to bolster their claim.Only in the departmental enquiry against him, he was made aware, that Crime No. 135/1989, under S. 379, IPC was registered against him and later action was dropped as the case diary had been recovered.He has further stated that the entries in the Keelamangalam Police Station general diary from 23-4-1989 to 5-5-1989 will clearly show, that the case diary in Crime No. 156/1986, was not taken by him as alleged, but the same was available, with the respondent.He has further pointed out that the then Inspector of Police Keelamangalam in his visiting notes has ordered disposal of Crime No. 156/1986, along with several other cases.Hence he took necessary steps to collect the C.D. file.The crime was registered under sections 147, 148, and 307, IPC.There appears to be two factions in the village.In Crime No. 155 of 1986, the gravest offence of registration, was murder.After investigation, a final report was filed in the said Crime No. 22-12-1987 by P. K. Balasubramaniam, the then Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam Police Station.He was in charge of investigation in Crime No. 156/86 as well.But for reasons best known to him, he did not choose to complete investigation and forward a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate.We are now concerned in this petition with crime No. 156 of 1986, in which the overtact attributed to the petitioner is, that he beat the first informant with a stick along with others and kicked him as well.The petitioner at the time of occurrence was working as a Teacher in a Primary School at P. Chettipalli village.On becoming aware, of the involvement of the petitioner, in this crime.The District Educational Officer, by an order dated 14-3-1987, placed the petitioner on interim suspension, with retrospective effect from 31-12-1986, the date of his production for remand, before the committal Magistrate.This order of suspension, is stated to be in force, till this day.The petitioner, after patiently waiting for about two years, with a fond hope, that investigation would be completed and a charge-sheet laid before the Court, to facilitate his getting exonerated, being disappointed, chose to approach this Court, by preferring Crl.M.P. No. 7816 of 1988, invoking the inherent powers, pleading for directions to the respondent/police, to file a final report.Bashkaran, J., noting about the suspension of the petitioner, coupled with the inaction of the respondent/police, on the basis of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, that directions may be given to the respondent to file a final report, since the respondent had not chosen to turn up in spite of two messages, ordered as follows :-Not only the Investigating Officer but even his superior officers seemed to have turned a blind eye to the direction of this Court, which in effect reminded them of their sacrosanctity."It appears on the facts stated in this petition that Crime No. 156 of 1986 has been registered by the respondent against the petitioner and others for offences under sections 147, 148 and 307 Indian Penal Code in respect of an incident which is said to have occurred on 30-12-1988 at 7-30 a.m. at Thottapelur.I find that on an earlier occasion in Crl.It is very clear that there is abject neglect on the part of the prosecuting agency in not only having disobeyed the order of this Court but else in not having filed the final report as yet.However keeping in view, that the rights of the victim, in a case of attempt to murder, must be equally protected, 1 furnished an opportunity, to higher officials, to get at the case records immediately from the erring Police Officer, and issue directions to any other competent police officer to continue investigation and file the final report.Copies of this order were forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam, Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Director General of Police, Madras and the Public Prosecutor of this Court.A copy was forwarded to the Director General of Police, for monitoring further action.That directions issued on the second occasion, by this Court, also, fell on deaf ears, will be evident from further narration of facts, which follow hereafter.Petitioner Krishnappa, almost suffocated by the Order of suspension, which prevented his entry into the Primary School, for over three years, helpless and dejected, preferred this petition on 16-11-1989, pleading for quashing further investigation in Crime No. 156 of 1986, in so far as it concerned him.The Additional Public Prosecutor was unable to furnish any information about the fate of this investigation, and pleaded for some more time, for verification.A chance was afforded to the prosecution to obtain information and the petition stood adjourned to 6th January, 1992, when it was heard in part.On 6-1-1992, a counter affidavit was filed by K. Peria Gounder, the present Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes), Keelamangalam Police Station.The learned Government Advocate was unable to furnish details of action, taken by the investigating agency, between 18-11-1988 and the date of hearing.There was no alternative other than issuing notice for contempt to the then Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, It was felt, that in the event of this Court arriving at conclusion, that due to laxity in investigation, the petitioner may have to be exonerated, the victim of the offence should not be placed at a disadvantageous position, and he may have to be duly compensated.He has prayed for appropriate directions to set right the great injustice done to him.On instructions by the Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri, Vivekananda, Sub-Inspector of Police Keelamangalam registered Crime No. 135/1989, under S. 379, IPC, on 1-6-1989, against Balasubramaniam, Inspector of Police.For the orders of Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri and Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur, directing him to obtain the concerned C.D. from Inspector of Police Balasubramaniam, for completion of investigation and filing of final report, he had sent a reply to the Assistant Superintendent of Police on 1-9-1989, stating as follows :-"I could not continue further investigation since the C.D. file is not available and the case is only in the FIR stage.In spite of the effective steps taken by me to collect the C.D. duly written by Thiru R. K. Balasubramaniam, he did not hand over the C.D. file and when I personally met him at Krishnagiri, he assured me that he will send the C.D. file by 10-9-1989 and on receipt of the C.D. file I will complete the investigation and file a final report by 15-9-1989."He claims, that he did not make further investigation, since the predecessor Inspector of Police, did not complete investigation.If he started to investigate the case afresh, without knowing the stage of previous investigation, it would cause material prejudice to the prosecution as well as the accused.On 9-9-1989, he sent P.C. 911 to Pudukottai to collect the C.D. file.However, he was informed on 12-9-1989 by P.C. 911 that Balasubramaniam was not available at Pudukottai.Again on 29-11-1989 he sent P.C. 484 to Pudukottai, who informed him that Balasubramaniam had gone away to Madras.Again he deputed the same constable on 2-12-1989 to go on special duty to Pudukottai and remain there till the arrival of Balasubramaniam and collect the C.D. file.The C.D. File was collected on 19-12-89 and handed over to him.Meanwhile this court had stayed investigation by an order dated 18-11-1989 passed in Crl.He had made sincere efforts to get at the C.D. file duly written by Balasubramaniam, but still, the matter unfortunately got delayed for reasons earlier stated by him.He has tendered an unconditional apology.14. P. Kumaresan, the Present Inspector of Police, Royakottai submitted, that a perusal of the case diary disclosed, that except the arrest of A.1, investigation had been completed by Balasubramaniam, who had examined nearly 16 witnesses, including official witnesses.Injured Siddaramaiah had sustained ten injuries over his person including a grievous injury on his right wrist.Apart from the injured, there were two other eye witnesses.He has prayed for vacating of the stay order, so that he will be in a position to arrest A.1, and file the final report, under section 173, Cr.P.C.He further pleaded, that there was no wilful disobedience to the orders of this Court by any of the Police Officials, and the unfortunate involvement of Balasubramaniam, Inspector of Police, who commenced investigation in yet another crime as an accused, had led to his mismanagement, in investigation.He urged this Court, to drop contempt action.At my instance, Shri N. T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel addressed arguments on the possibility of awarding compensation either to the accused in the crime of the victim, in a given set of circumstances.I have carefully examined the contentions advanced by either counsel and meticulously scrutinised the averments made by the petitioner in his petition for halting this prosecution and the contents of the counter affidavits, of different police officers.But there we have a case where the subordinate police officers have told their superiors, that they would not either investigate the case or even for registration of a crime, they have to be reminded over and over again, by the highest police chief of the District concerned.This attitude of the subordinates, if had been put an end to, even at the budding stage, melancholy experienced all round by everyone concerned in this petition, would not at all have surfaced.M.P. No. 15046 of 1989 shall stand vacated and the final report which is stated to be ready shall be filed before the concerned Magistrate by the respondent, within ten days from to-day. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
524,215 | Deceased Vijaya @ Jeeva is the daughter of PW1-Mahalingam and PW2-Soundaravalli.Accused-Raja and deceased Vijaya got married and their marriagewas love marriage.Initially, marriage was not to the liking of the parents ofdeceased Vijaya and later both the families reconciled.Accused and deceasedwere living happily for about one year.PW1 gave 4 sovereign jewels to hisdaughter Vijaya.While accused and deceased were living together, accused wasfrequently demanding money and jewels and subjected her to dowry harassment.About few days prior to the occurrence, accused was demanding TVS-50 vehicle.Accused was also allegedly proclaiming that if TVS-50 is not given to him, hewould kill his wife and marry another woman.Demanding TVS-50, accused hadbeaten Vijaya and Vijaya had gone to her parents house.PWs.1 and 2 pacifiedVijaya and sent her back stating that they would get TVS-50 for the accusedwithin a week.On 04.4.2003 Vijaya died of burn injuries.Accused also sustained burninjuries in his arms.PWs.4 and 5 [Selvaraj and Jegannathan] saw the accusedcoming out with burn injuries.Accused did not say anything about the burninjuries sustained by them.PWs.1 and 2 learnt about death of their daughterand went to the house of accused at 6.30 P.M. and saw body of Vijaya with burninjuries.Since, it was late in the day, PW1 went to Kabisthalam Police Stationon 05.4.2003 and lodged Ex.P1-Complaint, on the basis of which, a case ofsuspicious death was registered in Cr. No.130/2003 U/s.174 Cr.P.C.[Ex.P7].PW4-Inspector of Police arrested the accused who was taking treatment in thehospital for his burn injuries.Superintendent of Police, Bapanasamhad taken up investigation.Scene of occurrence was inspected and PW15-Dy.Superintendent of Police prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar, Exs.P9 and P10-Rough Plans.MO10-Kerosene tin was seized under Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazar.Since death was suspicious death of a married woman within 7 years ofmarriage, RDO, Kumbakonam had taken up investigation.RDO had conducted enquiryand Inquest.P8 is the report of RDO.After Inquest, body was sent toautopsy.PW10 Dr.Parthasarathy has conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P6-postmortem certificate opining that the death was due to burn injuries.As narrated above, as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, theyhave witnessed the appellant/accused, who came out of his house with burninjuries and partly burnt lungi.Since the deceased was flamed with fire, theywere not able to put off the same.When the deceased wandering here and thereand fallen down, then only they poured water on her, but she died.In Ex.P5-A.R.Copy of accused, the accused stated before P.W.9-Doctor that while heburning the sugarcane leaves, he sustained burn injuries.There is no delay inpreferring the complaint.R.MALA,J This appeal is directed against the verdict of conviction inS.C.No.135/2006 whereby the Appellant/Accused was convicted for dowry harassmentU/s.498(A) IPC and U/s.302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 3 years RI and lifeimprisonment respectively and also imposing fine.On thebasis of report of RDO, case was altered from Sec.174 Cr.P.C., to Sec.302 IPCunder Ex.P11-Alteration Report.After examination of witnesses and oncompletion of investigation, PW15-DSP filed final report U/s.498-A and 302 IPC.To substantiate the Charges against the accused in the trial court,prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and Exs.P1 to 11 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked.Accused was questioned U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence andcircumstance.Accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty and stated thata false case is foisted against him.Upon analysis of evidence and on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, learnedSessions Judge held that prosecution has established that deceased was subjectedto dowry harassment.Learned Sessions Judge took the view that accused has noacceptable explanation for the death of his wife.Learned Sessions Judge alsoheld that accused had not satisfactorily explained the burn injuries sustainedby him and on those findings, convicted the appellant/accused U/s.498-A and 302IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that absolutely thereis no evidence as to demand of dowry and evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is unacceptable.The learned counsel would further submit that the accused himself had sustainedburn injuries would clearly show that the accused went to the rescue of hiswife but sustained burn injuries due to bursting of a stove.Taking us throughEx.P.1 - Complaint, the learned counsel submitted that there is an inordinatedelay in lodging the complaint and registration of the F.I.R. and serious doubtshas arisen as to the prosecution version, the benefit of doubt should be givento the accused.Countering the arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that the occurrence being happened in the house of the accused, it isfor the accused to explain the death of the deceased and that the accused hasnot come out with proper explanation as to the death of his wife.Taking usthrough the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorwould further submit that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would show that the demandof dowry has been proved by their evidence and that, since the death was due toburn injuries, in the absence of any explanation by the accused, the learnedSessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC andthe conviction warrants no interference.The first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for theappellant is P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined to prove the demand of dowry, but, thereis no independent witness has been examined and hence there is no iota ofevidence for incriminating the accused under Section 498(A) IPC.While perusingthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is true that the marriage between accused Rajaand deceased Vijaya @ Jeeva is love marriage.The deceased left her parentalhome and gone to the accused home and then panchayatdars performed theirmarriage.P.Ws.1 and 2 have not given consent for marriage.There is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,who are none other than parents of the deceased.Even they were facing thelengthy cross examination, nothing against them has been culled out.P.W.3-Kaliaperumal has deposed in his evidence that after the accusedRaja demanding dowry, the deceased Vijaya came to his house and intimated thatthe accused has demanded money and he compromised both P.W.1 and the accusedand settled the matter.After the accused joined with his parents-in-law, for taking licence, Rs.1,500/- paid by P.Ws.1 and 2 to theappellant/accused.Though he is Uncle of P.W.1, his evidence is cogent,natural, trustworthy and reliable.SinceP.Ws.1 and 2 were not able to fulfil the demand of the accused, theappellant/accused tortured his wife.Hence, we confirm the findings of the learned trial Judged regardingthe conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offenceunder Section 498(A) IPC.Now, we have to decide whether the death of the deceased is homicidalor accidental.It is pertinent to note that P.W.10-Dr.Parthasarathy hasconducted autopsy and issued Ex.P6 Post mortem certificate and opined that thedeceased died 24-36 prior to postmortem due to extensive burns and shock whichare antemortem in nature.So, the death of the deceased is due to burn injuriessustained by the deceased.Here, P.Ws.1 to 3 are not eye witnesses.Theirhouse is adjacent to the house of the accused.P.W.4-Selvaraj and P.W.5-Jegannathan have deposed before the trial Court that when they were at 'TVMandram', they heard the news that the house of the accused was burning and theyrushed to the place of occurrence and at that time the accused came out of hishouse with burn injuries and partly burnt lungi; immediately they entered thehouse and saw that the deceased has flamed with fire and they were not able toput off the fire.They further deposed that the deceased wandering here andthere and fallen down and then only, they poured water and put off the fire, butshe died.While considering the cross examination of P.Ws.4 and 5 nothingagainst them has been culled out.Hence, their evidence is natural, cogent,trustworthy and reliable.Even though, there is no witness as to say that theaccused/appellant has poured kerosene and set fire on her, P.Ws.4 and 5witnessed that the accused came out of his house with burn injuries and partlyburnt lungi.The deceased sustained extensive burn injuries and wandering hereand there and fallen down and died.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is adelay in preferring the complaint.But, while considering Ex.The occurrence had taken placeon 04.04.2003 at 4.30 P.M. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the residents of half kilometreaway from the place of occurrence.They received the information and reachedthe place of occurrence and they have not seen any inmates of theappellant/accused house.Because of non availability of bus facility, P.W.1gone to the Police Station on the very next day i.e. on 05.4.2003 at 7.30 A.M.and lodged Ex.P1-Complaint, on the basis of which, a case of suspicious deathwas registered in Cr. No.130/2003 U/s.174 Cr.P.C.[Ex.P7].Evidence of neighbours PWs.4and 5 is only to the effect that they heard the noise and went to the house ofthe accused and saw the deceased burning.They also saw the accused with burninjuries.Evidence adduced by the prosecution do not form a complete chain establishingthe guilt of the accused.There is nothing to establish that the accusedintentionally poured kerosene and set ablaze to his wife.Upon analysis ofevidence on record, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant-accused U/s.302 IPC cannot be sustained.While considering his subsequent conduct of the accused, sinceaccused came out of the house with burn injuries, he rushed to KumbakonamGovernment Hospital, where, P.W.9-Dr.Arulraj, admitted the appellant/accused andgave treatment and issued Ex.P5-Accident Register Copy.In that, the accusedstated before P.W.9-Dr.Arulraj, that on 04.04.2003 at about 4.30 P.M., when hehas set fire on the sugarcane leaves, he sustained injuries which is a falsestatement given by the accused before P.W.9 Doctor.Arulraj accepted the suggestion.But, while considering Ex."113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.(i) the marriage of the accused and deceased has been taken place on07.07.2000, but the death of the deceased has occurred on 04.04.2003, withinseven years of her marriage; andUpon analysis of evidence, it is clearly proved that since thedeceased was not brought TVS 50 from her parental home, the appellant/accusedgot wild and he poured kerosene and set fire on her, which resulted to the deathof his wife Vijaya @ Jeeva.So, we are of the opinion that the accused isguilty under Section 304(B) IPC instead of 302 IPC.In the result, the conviction of the appellant-accused U/s.302 IPC inS.C.No.135/2006 dated 18.12.2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge,Thanjavur is modified.Appellant-accused is convicted U/s.304 (B) IPC andsentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. Conviction of the appellant-accusedU/s.498(A) IPC and the sentence and fine of Rs.5000/- imposed on him standconfirmed and this appeal is partly allowed.1.The principal Sessions Judge, Tanjore2.The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bapanasam.3.The Inspector of Police, Kabisthalam P.S.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
524,307 | He also stated that the charge that he had illegally detained a suspected accused from 23.00 hours on 28.11.2005 to midnight of 30.11.2005 in Keeriparai Police Station without a remand and not produced him before the court in connection with Crime No.482 of 2005 on the file of Aralvaimozhy police station was illegal.He claimed that at the relevant time, he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch dealing with only white collar crimes and he was not involved in that case.He was also on night round duty on the relevant date.It was one Eswaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was the Investigating Officer, assigned to investigate the case.5.However, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case.The only question that arise for consideration was whether the petitioner can be suspended and retained in service for the purpose of facilitating the departmental enquiry.6.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.12591 of 2009, it was averred that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram sent a report stating that the police personnel were responsible for illegal detention and torture of Mohammed Masood.both the petitions W.P.No.26863 of 2008 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in G.O.2(D) No.592, Home (Police-1A) Department, dated 30.9.2008 and G.O.2(D) No.593, Home (Police-1A) Department, dated 30.9.2008 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire from service on the date of his superannuation dated 30.9.2008 and consequently grant him all attendant benefits.W.P.No.12591 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the second respondent in PR No.143 of 2009, dated 5.6.2009 and to quash the same.Heard both sides.The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person.Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay.2.Subsequently, the petitioner has come forward to file an another writ petition being W.P.No.12591 of 2009, challenging the charge memo, dated 5.6.2009 framed by the Director General of Police.When the writ petition came up on 08.07.2009, even without admitting the writ petition, a direction to the respondents to take notice and this court granted an interim stay of the charge memo.This was on the ground that the present memo related to the earlier charges and therefore, prima facie it was a case for staying the operation of the order.Subsequently, when this writ petition came up on 5.11.2009, this court directed the other writ petition also to be posted along with the earlier writ petition as requested by the counsel.The District Collector, Kanyakumari had recommended appropriate action against 11 police personnel including the petitioner.The petitioner was held responsible for illegal detention and for beating the detenu.Since the petitioner was about to retire, he was placed under suspension on grave charges either contemplated or pending.Since the petitioner had rushed to this court and obtained a stay order, the Government passed an order retaining him in service and also subsequently, framed the charge memo as per the order of the Director General of Police.The charges framed against the petitioner revealed serious misconduct on his part.As found from the charge memo, dated 5.6.2009, the two charges are as follows:"(i)Highly reprehensible conduct in having illegally detained the secured suspected accused Mohamed Masood S/O Abdul Jabar, Chanthai Nadupettai, Kadayanallur, Kalyani @ Kalyanasundaram and Krishnamoorthy from 23.00 hrs.on 28.11.05 to 30.11.05 midnight in Keeriparai P.S. without remanding them before the court in connection with Aralvoimozhi P.S. Cr.No.482/2005 U/s.395, 397 and 427 IPC registered on 28.11.2005 at 01.30 hrs.(ii)Highly reprehensible conduct in having beaten and tortured the secured suspected accused namely Mohamed Masood, S/O Abdul Jabar, a resident of Chanthai Nadupettai, Kadayanallur Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District while he was detained from 28.11.05 to 30.11.2005 midnight in Keeriparai Police Station under the guise of interrogation in the dacoity case in Aralvoimozhi P.S.Cr.7.The counter affidavit filed in the other writ petition also sets out the same facts.One Rathinasamy, Head Constable, who was involved in the incident was also not allowed to retire on reaching the age of his supeannuation.8.The learned Government Advocate also brought to the notice of the court a letter, dated 10.12.2009 sent by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, CID addressed to the Principal Secretary to Home Department, stating that after conducting sustained investigation, a comprehensive charge sheet was filed by the CB CID on 10.11.2009 in Kadayanallur Police Station Crime No.391 of 2006 under Sections 342 (man missing), 344, 193, 218, 302, 506(ii), 201 IPC read with 34 IPC against all the 12 persons including the petitioner who was accused in the said case.The case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and summons were issued to all the accused.The Tribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry and quashed the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings.The Tribunal seems to have ignored this well accepted principle."16.As long as the order has been passed under FR 56(1)(c) and served on the petitioner, the petitioner will have to face the enquiry.However, there will be no order as to costs. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
524,399 | Immediatelythereafter Ram Prasad went back to his room and a cry washeard from Mst.Rajji that Ram Prasad had put kerosene oilon her and set her alight.Mannulal, Holke and othersimmediately arrived on the scene and put out the fire, butbefore that happened, Mst.Rajii was extensively burnt.She kept on, accusing Ram Prasad with the deed, but RamPrasad, according to the witnesses, did not say anything inprotest.On the other hand, when he was questioned by thepanchas as to why he had done so, he retorted that Mst.Rajji was his wife and what had they to do with the matterand added that they might even get him hanged.Rajjiwas -then taken on cycle to the police station housealthough the hospital was on the way.Evidence shows thatMst.Rajji insisted on being taken to the police stationhouse first.There she made the statement which is Ex. P-7, in, which she charged Ram Prasad with her condition andstated also,,524that he had put kerosene oil on her and set her clothes onfire.Later she was removed to the hospital whereseparately to two doctors in attendance (Dr. Mrs. Ghosh andDr.M. L. Gupta) she again stated that she was burnt by herhusband who had put kerosene oil on her.Dr. Ghosh noted onthe bed head ticket "homicidal burn by husband'.I.N. Shroff and M. N. Shroff, for the appellant.O.P. Rana, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byHidayatullah, J. The respondent Ramprasad against whom theState of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal by specialleave was tried in the Court of Session under s. 302 of theIndian Penal Code.He was convicted by the Sessions Judgeunder s. 324 of the Code and sentenced to rigorousimprisonment for six months.The State Government therefiled an appeal against his acquittal under s. 302, IndianPenal Code and also 'an application for 523revision for the enhancement of the sentence passed on him.The High Court convicted him under s. 304 Part II andsentenced him to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment;concurrently the application for revision was dismissed asinfructuous.The State Government has now filed this appealand contends that the conviction of the respondent shouldhave been under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thatthere has been failure of justice in the case requiringinterference from this Court.The facts of the case are as follows : Ram Prasad was livingwith his mistress Mst.Rajji at Mannaur in District Panna.Evidence shows that they were having quarrels for some timeprevious to the incident which took place on May 24, 1963.On that date, Ram Prasad intended leaving Mannaur for aplace called Harsa, because his cattle used to be stolen atMannaur.Rajji was unwilling to go with him unless hefirst reported the matter to the police station house beforetaking her to Harsa; alternatively, she wanted that heshould leave her at Mannaur and give her some cattle for hermaintenance.To either course Ram Prasad was unwilling.Matters came to a head on the night of.the 24th when RainPrasad ordered a van in which he began putting his luggagewith a view to leaving for Harsa.Rajji then went tosome of the village panchas and brought them over forintercession.It is these panchas who have now appeared aswitnesses to the incident that took place immediatelyafterwards.To all the panchas Mst.Rajji again narratedthe story of her grievance and Ram Prasad insisted on takingher away.As Rain Prasad would not give in, nor wouldRajji, the panchas could do nothing further and some of themwent away to their lodging which were close to the residenceof Ram Prasad.Evidence then shows that Ram Prasadapproached Mannulal (P.W.4) with a lantern in one hand andan aluminium bowl in the other.He asked for some keroseneoil, because oil in his lamp had run down, but Mannulal didnot give any as he had none to spare.The nextday, Mst.Rajji died Prosecution produced the panchas aswitnesses to the earlier transaction in which Mst.Rajjiand Ram Prasad had disagreed over going to Harsa and also inproof of the statement of Mst.Rajji that Ram Prasad hadput kerosene oil on her and set her clothes alight.Theyhave also through the same witnesses proved the conduct of-Ram Prasad when Mst.Rajji accused him of having committedthe outrage.The prosecution has further relied upon thestatements made by Mst.Rajji in Ex. P-7 and to the twodoctors who have deposed in the court.The High Court and the court below have agreed in holdingRam Prasad responsible for the outrage.They have acceptedthe three dying declarations as well as the evidence of theeye witnesses in support of the prosecution case. 'Theyhave only ,differed as to the offence disclosed by thisevidence.We issued notice to the respondent to show cause against theappeal of the State Government.Although he received thenotice, he did not make any arrangement for his ownrepresentation in this Court.We accordingly invited Mr. O.P. Rana to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of therespondent at State expense.We allowed Mr. Rana to arguenot only about the nature of the offence but also on meritswith a view to point out to us any circumstance proving thatthe conviction itself was wrong.In so far as the quarrel between Ram Prasad and Mst.Infact the record bristles with evidence on this point.Alltheevidence which has been brought to show that Ram Prasadwas intending to leave for Harsa and Mst.Rajji wasresisting him could not be false, because the panchas werecalled and they attempted to intervene.The real dispute isas to whether it was Ram Prasad who poured kerosene oil onMst.ed four witnesses.Rajji herself who went to summon him to the houseof Ram Prasad and it was from him that Ram Prasad asked forsome kerosene off.The fact that kerosene oil was asked foris admitted by Ram Prasad himself and the question ariseswhy was it necessary for Ram Prasad to have asked forkerosene oil at that moment and why immediately afterwardsMst.Rajji was found with her clothes burning.No doubt,Mannulal did not give any kerosene oil but it seems to usthat the lantern which Ram Prasad carried in his own handhad some kerosene oil in it.It was possible for him tohave extracted some oil from the lantern.This was noted by the Sessions Judge who triedthe case.It, therefore, stands to reason that kerosene oil was infact employed before the clothes were set on.fire and theshort question.Rajji who putkerosene oil on herself and set herself alight.On thispart of the case, there is the evidence of Mannulal to whichwe have already referred.A similar statement was made byHolke (P.W. 3) and Soni (P.W. 6).Jhalluwas declared hostile and was crossexamined with reference tohis previous statement before the police.We find that inhis statement to the police he did not mention the fact towhich he deposed in the Court of Session and it makes usdoubtful whether what he stated in the Court of Session wastrue. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,113,634 | CRR No. 2429 of 2010 Mr. Mohinoor Rahaman ...for the petitioner Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.Perused the impugned order and other materials on record.In connection with G.R. Case No. 820 of 2005 arising out of Taltala P.S. Case No. 50 of 2005 under Sections 498A/406/448/120B of the Indian Penal Code, on completion of investigation, police submitted final report praying for discharge of the accused from the case.The report contains following reasons for submission of final report, which are quoted below :-"Instant case was recorded on the basis of a court petition wherein the victim house wife complained physical & mental torture against her husband & his relatives, including criminal breach of Trust in report of Stridhan property.Both the cases the accused persons are mostly common and nothing new surfaced in the instant case from previous one.None was arrested in this case.Upon receipt of such final report, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of notice to the defacto complainant.In response to such notice, the defacto complainant appeared in court and filed a naraji petition.The learned Magistrate, after hearing the defacto complainant and considering the police report in final form, directed further investigation by the 2 Officer-in-Charge, Taltala Police Station.Hence, this criminal revision.The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order impugned is wholly illegal and erroneous and inasmuch as over the self-same incident earlier, another F.I.R. was lodged for the self-same offence and the said case has ended in charge sheet and the trial has commenced by framing of charge.Accordingly, he submitted that allowing the order to give effect would be completely an abuse of process of court.I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.Perused the materials on record.It appears that the Investigating Officer of this case submitted the final report basically on the grounds that the accused in both the cases are almost same and the over the self-same issue, another F.I.R. was lodged and same has ended in charge sheet.It was the further reason for final report that no new fact has been disclosed in the F.I.R.Now having gone through the F.I.R., I find that the opinion of the Investigation Officer is not at all correct which would be evident from the following allegations made in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the second F.I.R. in connection with which the learned court has passed the order of further investigation.That the local police started a case thereon but was very slow and hesitant to proceed with any sorts of investigation but tried to persuade the petitioner to settle all disputes with the accused persons.Then when the opposite party applied for anticipatory bail in the City Sessions Court, Kolkata, she under the deepest pressure of the police had to sign on a compromise and by showing that he obtained an order as prayed for.The petitioner states that immediately thereafter the opposite parties became more virulent and aggravated and daring and often called at the marital home and openly threatened to throw her with her two sons out of the flat on the pavement and abused her in most filthy and provocative languages and assaulted her and her two sons mercilessly by kicks and blows.The petitioner immediately then reported the matter to police but without any effect.That on the above backdrop the petitioner has been utterly shocked and surprised to be served with a lawyer's letter dated 23.12.2003 on 25.12.2003 and note its contents.By the said letter the said Lawyer, Sri Susanta Dutta has claimed that she had been given 'Talak' by the accused no. 1 on 25.09.2003 and that she had assured him to vacate the said marital home which she hasn't done and so threat has been hurled upon her to vacate the same.The true copy of the said letter has been annexed hereto and marked with the letter "B".The petitioner states that on 23.12.2003 evening at about 7 P.M. the accused persons in a flock entered into the said flat, deeply coerced her and abeted her to commit and threatened her to forcibly oust her with her children from the said flat and also threatened all of them with dire consequences, loss of lives and bloodshed unless she would immediately vacate the flat and also not deny their story of talak.The petitioner refused to bow down to their threats and demanded return of her Stridhans stated above when the accused persons became wild and maddened with anger and flatly refused to return any a drop the Stridhans to the petitoiner."I do not find any merit in this criminal revision and same stands dismissed.Criminal section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for, as early as possible. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,123,238 | ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per: K.K.SONAWANE, J.)It has been alleged that first informant Mrs. Farhin W/o Wasim Bargir, on 10-01-2019 approached to the Police of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, District Latur and filed the report that her marriage was solemnized on 25-12-2011 with Mr. Wasim Bargir at Latur.It has been alleged that after the marriage, the father-in-law and sister-in-law used to scold the complainant that there was no proper arrangement in the marriage.The inmates of matrimonial home used to maltreat and harass the complainant on account of domestic work.They humiliate and insult her by saying that she could not do the work in proper manner.The complainant attempted to disclose about her persecution to husband, but, he assaulted her by::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 4 903-CriA-1804-19 kicks and fists.The husband also gave threats that she should not disclose these facts to anybody else; Otherwise, she would be allowed to go to her parents' house.Initially, the complainant-wife did not disclose the fact of maltreatment to her parents.Lateron, she disclosed about ill-treatment to her parents.Thereupon, they convinced the complainant-wife for better future marital life.The father also told the complainant-wife that the marriage of her two sisters are remained to be performed.Therefore, the complainant-wife maintained silent.According to complainant, after fifteen days of marriage, the spouses started residing in Pamne Nigdi Pradhikaran Luk Building, Near Anand Hospital, in the flat on rent, that time her in-laws and one divorced sister-in-law were accompanied with them.After applicant-husband had been to office, the other inmates of matrimonial house used to torture and insult the complainant-wife on account of trifle reasons of not cooking, washing cloths properly, etc. They sarcastically used to say that they did not like her.The husband was also not paying attention to the grievance of complainant.In contrast, he used to beat and abused her.The applicants gave threats of desertion to the complainant wife.The husband used to come home in an inebriated state.He was also arranging wet parties with friends at home and asked the complainant-wife to prepare meal.The mediator of marriage Mr. Haji Jatkar and his wife came to matrimonial home of complainant.She ventilated the grievance to them, but, they also reprimanded and abused her in presence of inmates of matrimonial home.According to the complainant-wife, applicants also insisted her to bring Rs.25 Lakhs from her parents to purchase house property and for satisfaction of::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 5 903-CriA-1804-19 demand she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::It has been alleged that, in the month of May, 2012, the husband left the complainant-wife to her parents house at Latur.Thereafter, applicant-husband got employment in America, and hence, after giving understanding by the parents of complainant-wife, the applicant-husband took her with him at America.When the spouses were in America, the complainant begotten one daughter, namely, Myarah.The applicant-husband also harassed her physically and mentally for the reason that she delivered a female child.The applicant-husband also beaten the complainant severely and in December, 2015 he abandoned her at parents home and made demand of Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs.The applicant-husband also abused the father of complainant-wife in filthy language, humiliate and manhandled him.It has been alleged that when applicant-husband left the complainant wife at the house of parents, he threatened her to bring money otherwise she would not be allowed for cohabitation.Thereafter, applicant-husband went to America.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for parties.The point of controversy in both the proceedings are centered on the issue of quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding bearing::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 3 903-CriA-1804-19 Crime No. 0019 of 2019 on the similar and identical facts and circumstances, therefore, both these allied proceedings are dealt with together for its decision on merit by this Common Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::The applicants preferred present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") seeking relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 0019 of 2019 registered at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC").The applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019) are the distant relatives of husband of first informant.In September, 2016, applicant - Shaikh Javed had been to Latur and demanded the amount.He gave threat of dire consequences to the complainant-wife and her father.Since, then complainant-wife is residing with her parents.Eventually, she approached to the Police and filed the present report for penal action against the applicants.Pursuant to FIR, Police of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur District Latur registered the crime and set the penal law in motion.Pending the investigation, the applicants moved the present application::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 6 903-CriA-1804-19 to quash and set aside the F.I.R. and prayed to absolve from the charges pitted against them in aforesaid crime.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::Learned counsel for applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019) submits that applicants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.There were no unlawful demand of money on the part of these applicants.There was no any specific allegations against applicants for cruelty as contemplated under Sections 498-A of IPC.The applicants Haji Saipan Jatkar and Vahida W/o Haji Jatkar have no any concerned with the marital life of applicant-husband and complainant-wife.They are only the mediators and residing separately.They are not the relatives of husband of complainant-wife.They have no any reason to cause interference into the marital affairs of the spouses.All the allegations are general and vague in nature.The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.It would unjust and improper to compel these applicants to face the agony of trial.Hence, learned counsel urged to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against the applicants.The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2019 vehemently submits that the allegations made against the applicants are all false, baseless and concocted one.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.According to learned counsel, the complainant was not interested for cohabitation with applicant-husband.There were no unlawful demand of money.There was no any specific allegations against applicants for::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 7 903-CriA-1804-19 cruelty as contemplated under Sections 498-A of IPC.They have no concerned at all with the allegations made in the FIR.The applicant- Mrs. Asma Javed Shaikh and applicant No.5 - Javed Shaikh both were in employment residing at Pune, whereas, the applicants No. 2 and 3 - in-laws were residing separately at Sangli.The applicants No. 2 to 5 have no any concerned with the marital life of applicant No. 1 and complainant.They have no any reason to cause interference into the domestic affairs of the spouses.All the allegations are general and vague in nature.According to learned counsel, the span of marital life of spouses was near about 7-8 years, but up-till 2019, there was no complaint against the applicants.But, due to difference of opinion, in a fit of rage, the present FIR came to be filed.The complainant-wife also suffering from mental ailment.He submits that the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.It would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face the agony of trial.Hence, learned counsel urged to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-first informant opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of applicants and submit that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on behalf of complainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of applicants.There was unlawful demand of money from applicants for purchasing house property.There were allegations of physical assault as well as abuses in filthy language on::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 8 903-CriA-1804-19 the part of applicants to the complainant.The respondent No.2 filed the affidavit-in-reply on record and submitted that applicant-husband has created his matrimonial bio-data on web-site at USA, wherein he has declared his status as divorced and he is having no issue.There is possibility that applicant-husband may perform second marriage.The applicant-husband also filed petition for divorce in the Court of USA and succeed in getting ex-parte decree of dissolution of marriage by playing fraud.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::10. Having given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, we find that there is no scope for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2019) as it appears from the FIR that prima facie case is made out against them.There are specific allegations cast against husband, in-laws and brother-in-law about cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of I.P.C. There was unlawful demand as well as physical and mental torture to the complainant following marital discord.It is also worth to mention that the applicant-husband attempted to get ex-parte divorce from the Court at USA.He has also pretended himself as divorced person and seek marriage proposal from brides by creating his matrimonial bio- data and displaced it on web-site.All these circumstances prima facie made out the offence as alleged against applicants.It cannot be said that the present criminal proceeding against applicants (in Criminal::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 9 903-CriA-1804-19 Application No. 1128 of 2019) is abuse of process of law.However, the allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant-wife and applicant- husband against each other are to be tested on the anvil of merit in detail trial before concerned Court of Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::In regard to allegations made against applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019), we find that during crucial period of co- habitation of complainant with husband, these applicants were not available at matrimonial home of complainant and they are the only mediators for settlement of marriage between spouses.Moreover, they are not the relatives of husband of complainant-wife as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC.The entire allegations about cruelty are against husband and in-laws.There was reference that these applicants instigated the husband and in-laws for mental and physical harassment to the complainant-wife, but all the aspersion against them are vague, and general in nature.There were no specific instances or details of participation of applicants in the alleged act of cruelty available on record for adverse inference about their involvement into the crime.There are no specific allegations attributing overt-act of applicants to maltreat and harass the complainant.The allegations against applicants are also stray and omnibus in nature.Therefore, it would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face agony of trial before criminal court following marital discord between spouses.It is worth to mention that the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Schindia and another Versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: 10 903-CriA-1804-19 1988 SC 709, categorically elucidated in paragraph No. 7 as under:::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::Moreover, if the allegations in the FIR against the applicants are taken at their face value and accepted the same in its entirety would not constitute any offence or make out case against applicants, in such circumstances, there would not be any propriety to allow the prosecution to proceed further into the matter.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 :::11 903-CriA-1804-19In the instant case, it would be unjust and improper to allow the prosecution to proceed against applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019).It would be an futile efforts and would cause injustice to them, if they are compelled to face agony of trial before the Court of law.It would also dissipate the precious time of Court of law as the possibility of ultimate conviction is totally bleak.The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that these applicants may not be forced unnecessarily to go on litigations before the Criminal Court.Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicants (in Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019) deserves to be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :ORDER i. The Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2019 is dismissed.The Criminal Application No. 1804 of 2019 is hereby allowed.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 06:25:20 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,123,467 | Sureswara ravished her and threatened her with dire consequence.The Police immediately acted on the said complaint and arrested Sureswara.brother late Sureswar Das committed suicide being instigated by a section of monks of ISKCON at the instigation of the petitioner Bir Chandra Das.The incident started on June 29, 2000 when one Basanti Devi lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station against Sureshwar Das.According to the said complaint, Basanti was a resident of Orissa.Her husband died in August 2009 due to lack of medical treatment and negligence of Adri Dharan Das, a monk of ISKCON where her husband was working for twenty years.After her husband's death she was getting rupees two thousand per month as compensation.Adri Dharan Das also agreed to pay a sum of rupees two lacs which was not paid despite promise.On June 29, 2009 when she came to collect her monthly maintenance Adri Dharan refused to pay and asked her to go to Gurusadaya Dutta Road, Kolkata and collect money from Sureswara Das.Accordingly, Basanti went there and met Sureswara.While doing so, he left a suicidal note involving some of the monks including Bir Chandra.Since then the brother of Sureswara, Anil Kumar was moving one after the other complaint as against the persons named by Sureswara in his suicidal note.Anil filed an application under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code against Basanti Devi for lodging a false complaint. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,123,597 | This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 45/2016 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Tikamgarh for offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 294, 506-B/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants contends that as per allegation, the applicants cut down branches of Mahua tree.However, it is said that recovery is to be made from them.The applicants are ready to surrender the said branches of Mahua tree to the police custody during investigation without prejudice their defence.In view of the above, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Pushpendra, Bhajju and Babu shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with a separate surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.The applicants are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the applicants during currency of bail.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,981,320 | In short, the prosecution case is that complainant Rajendra Agal, a Journalist by profession, who had published an article in his fortnightly magazine `Aks' and had made number of complaints against the petitioners to Lokayukta and other high Officers, lodged a report with the police that on 7th August, 2008, some unknown person purporting himself to be Vikram Singh made a telephone call to him saying that since he had highlighted the scam of Rs. 15 crore, those persons had given him contract to eliminate him.But, since he knew that he was very good man and belonged to a very good family, he did not want to kill him, however he was bound to do it, because he had received 5 lakhs from that person.He wanted to meet the complainant and suggested him that he should take precaution.He further suggested that if he met and talked him, he will solve his problem and instead eliminate the person, who gave contract for his killing.It is said that complainant recorded the said conversation and at that time switched on the speaker of phone whereby other persons namely Mohar Singh, Brijesh Sahu, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma & Constable Laxman Yadav, P.S.O. could also hear the same.According to complainant, it was a real threat because he had published big scams in which petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, the then Director of Health and Family Welfare and Ashok Nanda, a close friend of Yogiraj Sharma were involved.According to him, he suspected the hands of these persons behind this deal.During investigation statements of complainant Rajendra Agal, Mohar Singh, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma and Constable Laxman Yadav, who was appointed complainant's Personal Security Officer were recorded.For the Applicants : Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate.For the respondent no.1/State : Shri J.K.Jain, Dy.Advocate General.For the respondent no.2 : Shri Mrigendra Singh, Advocate with Shri Hitendra Singh, Advocate.Date of hearing : 24/09/2010 Date of order : 01/10/2010 (O R D E R) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J, Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against them in respect of Crime No. 462/2008, registered by Police Station, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal under Sections 387, 507, 115 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against them and three other accused persons.Script of the tape recorded conversation was seized by the police.Statements of the aforesaid witnesses and the script repeated the same (3) M.Cr.C. No. 5326/2009 narration which was mentioned in the written report submitted by the complainant and in the F.I.R. recorded by the police.Call details of Mobile No. 9009119303 from which call was made were obtained from the concerned Company and was found that the said mobile stood in the name of accused Mohar Singh.Mohar Singh was arrested and the said mobile was recovered from him.Accused Pradeep Shrivas was also arrested and from his possession a country made 315 bore Katta and two cartridges were seized.In a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded on an information by Pradeep Shrivas, it was disclosed by him that accused Veerkant Nigam had offered him Rs. 5 lakhs for killing complainant Rajendra Agal and Veerkant Nigam had obtained Rs. 2 lakhs from petitioner Ashok Nanda (Contractor) and had given Rs. 40,000/- to him.Since he could not commit murder of Rajendra Agal, Veerkant Nigam demanded his money back, therefore, he gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to him from his account.He also disclosed that the mobile with which he talked to Rajendra Agal was with Mohar Singh.Another memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by accused Veerkant Nigam in which it was disclosed that contractor Ashok Nanda had given a contract of Rs. 5 lakhs for eliminating the complainant.He had received Rs. 2 lakhs and out of that he paid Rs. 40,000/- to Pradeep Shrivas, but since he could not kill the complainant, he demanded his money back and Pradeep Shirvas gave him a cheque of Rs. 30,000/-.The said cheque was seized from the possession of accused Veerkant Nigam.Police also seized a report lodged by complainant on 22.8.2007 against petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma accusing him that on that day in the premises of (4) M.Cr.C. No. 5326/2009 J.P. Hospital he abused and intimidated him, however, no offence was registered on the said report.Copies of number of complaints made by complainant to Lokayukta against Dr. Sharma disclosing his corrupt practices were also seized.All these documents were filed with the charge sheet.In addition to above evidence, police also recorded statements of Udaybhan Singh and Radheshyam Agrawal, who disclosed that two boys were inquiring whereabouts of complainant.Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is absolutely no legal evidence against the petitioners.At the most, the complaints made by Rajendra Agal to Lokayukta and the article published by him against the petitioners could indicate a motive on the part of petitioners, but merely motive could not be a sufficient ground for their prosecution.In the conversation between said Vikram Singh and the complainant there was nothing to indicate that petitioners were involved in the case.The involvement of the petitioners was indicated by prosecution only on the basis of confessional statements of accused Pradeep Shrivas and Veerkant Nigam, but that cannot form part of the legal and admissible evidence in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C. No. 5326/2009 prosecuted. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,981,337 | (a) P.W.1, Philominal, is the second wife of Rethinasami Udaiyar.The first accused is the sonof the said Udaiyar through his first wife.P.W.6 is the personwho accompanied P.W.5 on the date of occurrence.The said Rethinasami udaiyarhad lot of landed properties.He gave a part to his second wife and anotherpart to A-1, while he retained 11 acres of land.He died in 1990, before whichhe executed a Will, and the Will came into force on his death.Out of this 11acres of land, P.W.1 sold 3 .acres of land to a third party, and she also madearrangements to get a joint patta which was also issued.A-1 on coming to knowabout the sale of a part of the property, covered under the Will, and also theissuance of joint patta, wanted to sell a part of the property, and the proposedpurchaser insisted upon that the document must be signed by P.W.1. A-1 made ademand on her for signing the document; but, she was not willing.On so manyoccasions, the dispute and quarrel in that regard arose.On the previous daynamely 1.2.1999, at about 10.00 P.M., P.W.1 along with the children had thedinner.P.W.5, her brother, accompanied by P.W.6, came over there, and afterthe dinner was over, they were staying that night in the house of P.W.10, whichis situated nearby.They made unlawful entryinto the house, and in that course, the accused cut not only P.Ws.2 and 4 butalso caused instantaneous death of two children of P.W.1 namely Margret Maryaged 16 years, and Rani Arokiammal, aged 19 years.This was witnessed byP.Ws.1, 5 and 6 also, while P.Ws.2 and 4 were injured.(b) Immediately after the occurrence, the injured persons were taken toAnnal Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, where P.W.7, theDoctor, attached to the said hospital, examined P.W.2 at about 3.15 A.M., whilehe examined P.W.1 at about 3.45 A.M. Following the same, the Doctor gave thewound certificates which are marked as Exs.P5 and P6 respectively.He alsoexamined P.W.4, and the wound certificate in his regard is Ex.An intimationwas given to the concerned Police Station.On the strength of Ex.P1, the complaint, a case cameto be registered in Crime No.50/99 under Sections 324, 326, 307, 302 and 506(ii)of I.P.C. Ex.P27 is the First Information Report, which was sent to theJudicial Magistrate concerned.(c) P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR,took up investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and arranged for thephotographs to be taken.The Investigating Officer also made an inspection of the spot inthe presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P28, the rough sketch.Then, he conducted inquest on both the dead bodies inthe presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P29, the inquestreport, in respect of Margret Mary, and Ex.P30, the inquest report, as regardsRani Arokiammal.He also recovered the material objects from the place ofoccurrence."1) A vertically oblique wide gaping cut wound noted over the whole of left sideforehead on its lateral half extending on to the left side from to parietalregions of scalp measuring 14 x 4cm x Bone deep Brain matter was found comingout through the cut fractured gap of left side from to parietal bone.2) A curved cut wound over the left side back of Neck posterior to the left earmeasuring 6 x 3 cm x bone deep through which Brain matter was found coming outand was found cut.On dissection:- the underlying vessels, nerves, neck muscleswere found out.On opening the skull - subdural and sub arachnoid haemorrhagenoted over both sides cerebral hemispheres with bilateral basal subdural thickblood clots.Intra cerebral haemorrhage in both sides.Theadmissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.Pursuant tothe same he produced an aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.Theadmissible part is marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same M.Os.3 to 5, aruvals,produced by him, were recovered under a cover of mahazar.On 23.2.1999, A-4 andA-6 to A-9 were arrested.All the materialobjects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead bodies, andalso the weapons of crime recovered from the accused pursuant to theconfessional statements, were subjected to chemical analysis by the ForensicSciences Department, which resulted in Ex.P14, the Chemical Analyst's report,and Ex.P15, the Serologist's report.It is reported that A-1 is on bail.(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the learned I AdditionalSessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, made in S.C.No.143of 2001, whereby the appellants, four in number, who were arrayed as A-1 and A-3to A-5 respectively, along with five others ranked as A-2 and A-6 to A-9, weretried for the following charges.2.On trial, A-1 was found guilty under Sections 148, 449, 307, 302, 302r/w 114 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years RigorousImprisonment, three years Rigorous Imprisonment, seven years RigorousImprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence, lifeimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence, lifeimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence and two yearsRigorous Imprisonment respectively.3.A-3 and A-4 were found guilty under Sections 148, 449, 302 (2 counts)and 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 2 years RigorousImprisonment, 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment, life imprisonment along with a fineof Rs.1,000/- and default sentence for each count and 7 years RigorousImprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence for each countrespectively.4.A-5 was found guilty under Sections 148, 449, 302 and 307 of I.P.C. andsentenced to suffer 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment, 3 years RigorousImprisonment, life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and defaultsentence and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- anddefault sentence respectively.5.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants havebrought forth this appeal.6.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:Accordingly, P.W.21, the Photographer, tookphotographs.Following the same, both the dead bodies were sent to theGovernment Hospital for the purpose of autopsy along with the requisitions,Exs.P8 and P9, respectively.(d) P.W.8, the Reader and Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine,K.A.P.V. Government Medical College, Tiruchirappalli, on receipt of therequisition Ex.P8, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Margret Mary and foundthe following injuries:"1) A transversely placed cut wound noted over the left side of chin measuring 4cm x 2 cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of symphysis menki and left side ramusof mandible.2) A wide gaping cut wound noted over the whole of front of neck transverselyplaced measuring 12 x 6 cm x cervical vertebrae deep exposing the cut portionsof great vessels of both sides of neck, nerves, muscles, thyroid cartilage withcut fracture of C2 C3 C4 cervical vertebrae - larynx, Trachea were also foundcut through and through.3) A curved wide gaping cut wound over the back of Right side of Neck and theadjoining occipital region of scalp measuring 8 x 4cm x bone deep withcorresponding cut fracture over the underlying occipital bone and cut fractureof the transverse process of C4 C5 cervical vertebrae - The underlying muscles,vessels and nerves were also found cut.An oblique incised cut wound noted over the lower third of back of Rightforearm measuring 6 x 4cm x bone deep with cut fracture of both the bones ofRight forearm.Abrasions noted over:Lateral to Right Knee - 2 x 1cm2.below the Right knee - 2 x 2cmA wide gaping cut wound over the ulna aspect of left wrist and palm measuring10cm x 8cm x bone deep exposing the cut portions of carpal bones, metacarpalbones, lower ends of ulna and radius outside along with the cut portions ofblood vessels, nerves and tendons, muscles of hand and palm.An oblique wide gaping cut wound noted over the base of all fingers of lefthand exposing the cut portions of metacarpal bones, phalanges, vessels, tendons,nerves and muscles outside.An incised wound over the middle of dorsum of left hand measuring 2 x 1cm xbone deep with cut fracture of the underlying metacarpal bones.An incised wound below the lateral end of left clavicle, elliptical in shapemeasuring 4 x 2cm x muscle deep with a linear tailing abrasion from its medicalend for about 10cm in length.A cut wound over the back of dorsum of all the fingers of Right hand withcut fracture of the underlying metacarpal bones and phalanges."The Doctor has issued Ex.P10, the postmortem certificate, with her opinion thatthe deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiplecut injuries about 12 to 18 hours prior to postmortem.(e) The same Doctor, P.W.8, on receipt of the requisition, Ex.P9,conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rani Arokiammal and found the followinginjuries:Extra dural blood clotof about 200 cms noted over the left side posterior crenial fossa.Lacerationof the whole of left side frontal, parietal and temporal lobes of brain withsurrounding softening."The Doctor has issued Ex.P11, the postmortem certificate, with her opinion thatthe deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiplecut injuries about 12 to 18 hours prior to postmortem.(f) Pending the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A-1 on8.2.1999. A-1 gave a confessional statement, which was recorded.A requisition, Ex.P2, was given by theInvestigating Officer to the Judicial Magistrate for the conduct of testidentification parade.On completion of investigation, theInvestigator filed the final report.7.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges wereframed.Following the procedural formalities, the appellants along with theothers faced the trial.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecutionexamined 23 witnesses and also relied on 31 exhibits and 19 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused werequestioned procedurally under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which theyflatly denied as false.On the side of defence, 4 witnesses were examinedincluding the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy.D1 is the requisition givenby the Investigating Officer to the Magistrate for recording the dyingdeclaration of P.W.2, while Ex.Oncompletion of the trial, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced on eitherside, and found the appellants/ A-1 and A-3 to A-5 guilty and awarded thepunishments as referred to above, while A-2 and A-6 to A-9 were acquitted of allthe charges levelled against them.Hence, this appeal at the instance of theappellants before this Court.8.The learned Counsel advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants,made the following submissions:(i) In the instant case, though it was a case of double murder along withthe charges for attempt to murder, the prosecution has miserably failed toadduce even the sufficient evidence; but, the lower Court was carried away bythe fact that it was a case of double murder.Even on the same evidence adducedthrough P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 were injured witnesses), thelower Court was not ready to believe that part of the case, wherein A-2 and A-6to A-9 were accused of.Under the circumstances, the lower Court should nothave believed the rest of the evidence in which the witnesses have implicatedthe appellants before this Court.(ii) So far as the eyewitnesses are concerned, it is highly improbablethat they could have seen the occurrence proper.In the trial Court, theprosecution relied much on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who were injuredwitnesses.P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.1, and P.W.6 is the person whoaccompanied P.W.5 that day.So far as P.Ws.5 and 6 are concerned, theirevidence has got to be rejected for the simple reason that even as per theirevidence, at the time of occurrence they were staying in the house of P.W.10which is situated 150 feet away, and on hearing the distressing cry, they cameto the spot.Thus, both could not have seen the occurrence at all in thedarkness.(iii) As regards P.W.1, not even one injury was caused to her.Thus, there was a quarrel and dispute allalong.According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was verywell available in the house at the time of occurrence; but, not even A-1 or anyone of the accused attacked her.This would be indicative of the fact thatP.W.1 could not have been present at the place of occurrence at all.(iv) P.W.1 has participated in the identification parade; but, she hasidentified only A-4, though she has identified a few of the accused before thetrial Court.If she was not able to identify any one of the accused except A-4,her evidence in respect of the appellants before the Court should have beeneschewed by the Court.Thus, she has not attributed anything about A-1, who,according to the prosecution, had the motive to commit the crime.(v) So far as P.W.2 is concerned, she is an injured witness.According tothe prosecution, there was a dying declaration given by P.W.2 and recorded bythe Judicial Magistrate, D.W.4, on 2.2.1999, the very day of the occurrence.This wouldclearly indicate that she has not seen anybody.The records would go to showthat she identified only A-3 on 17.3.1999 during the identification parade.But, at the time of trial, she has identified A-3 and A-4, after a period ofthree years.P.W.2, though she has been called as injured witness, who couldnot speak about the identity of the accused at the time of the dying declarationrecorded by the Judicial Magistrate on the very day of the occurrence, hasidentified A-3 and A-4 after a long time.Thus, her evidence should have beenrejected by the Court.(vi) Insofar as P.W.4, though he has identified A-3 in the trial Court, hehas not identified anybody at the time of the identification parade; but, he hasidentified A-3 before the Court, after a lapse of three years.Thus, hisevidence is nothing but highly improbable and should have been rejected by theCourt.According to P.W.10, asniffer dog was brought to the place after the occurrence, and A-1 also came tothe place of occurrence after the occurrence was over.Had A-1 participated inthe commission of the offence, there was no need for him to come to the place ofoccurrence immediately after the occurrence was over.From the evidence ofP.W.23, the Investigating Officer, it would be quite clear that P.W.11 at theearliest has given a statement that A-1 was very well present at the place ofoccurrence.P.W.21 was the photographer, through whom both the dead bodiesalong with the scene of occurrence were photographed.According to him, he cameto the place of occurrence at about 2.30 A.M., and at that time, A-1 was alsopresent at the place.This would indicate that it was nothing but a falseaccusation against A-1 and cast a doubt whether A-1 who is in inimical termswith P.W.1, could have participated in the crime.(viii) The lower Court found A-1 and A-3 to A-5 only guilty and the restof the accused were acquitted of all the charges.In the instant case, noquestion of application of Sec.148 of I.P.C. would arise.(ix) Further, so far as A-1 was concerned, he was standing outside thehouse, and hence, Sec.449 of IPC could not be applied.(x) So far as the charges under Sec.307 are concerned, A-1 and A-5 werefound guilty under Sec.307 of IPC, while A-3 and A-4 were found guilty underSec.307 (2 counts) of IPC.P.Ws.5 and 6 were not pointing to anyparticular person who caused that particular injury.So long as P.Ws.1, 2 and 4who actually sustained injuries, were unable to speak about the person or theassailant who caused the said injuries, then they could not be found guilty inrespect of those charges.(xi) So far as A-5 is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that A-5was identified by anybody.Even the role played by him is not spoken to byanybody.Thus, all would go to show that A-5 had no role to play in the entireincident, nor was there any evidence as to his presence.Under thecircumstances, all the charges against him would also go.(xii) The lower Court being carried away by the incident in which twopersons were done to death, and two persons were severely injured, has come tothe erroneous conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case.Following the registration of the case by P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police,attached to Somarasampettai Police Station, the case was taken up forinvestigation by P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, who went to the spot.Afterthe inspection of the spot, he conducted inquest on both the dead bodies andprepared two inquest reports.Following the same, the dead bodies weresubjected to autopsy by P.W.8, the Doctor.She has given two certificates inrespect of these two persons, wherein she has opined that they died out of shockand haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries about 12 to 18 hours prior topostmortem.The fact that they died out of homicidal violence and the contentsof these certificates were never questioned by the appellants/accused at anystage of the proceedings.Hence, it has got to be recorded that both MargretMary and Rani Arokiammal died out of homicidal violence.12.Though there were nine accused, who were charged on different counts,the lower Court was not prepared to accept the prosecution case in respect of A-2 and A-6 to A-9 and acquitted them of all the charges, but was ready to believethe case of the prosecution in respect of A-1 and A-3 to A-5, who are theappellants before this Court, and found them guilty.Needless to say in a caselike this, where number of charges were levelled against number of accused andthe evidence was adduced before the Court by the prosecution, a duty is castupon the trial Court to cause proper marshalling of the evidence, consider thesame and take a correct decision.Hence, the first contention put forth by thelearned Counsel for the appellants that while the trial Court has disbelievedthe evidence of the same witnesses namely P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, in respect ofA-2 and A-6 to A-9, it should have rejected their evidence outright cannot becountenanced.Though attractive at the first instance, the said argument willnot stand the scrutiny of law, and hence, it is rejected.During night hours,only after hearing the distressing cry, they came to the spot.It would bequite clear that they could not have either seen the assailants or witnessed theoccurrence as put forth by the prosecution.Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and6, in the opinion of the Court, do not require further consideration.14.So far as P.W.2 was concerned, she is shown not only as an eyewitness,but also as an injured witness.The only reason on which her evidence has gotto be rejected in toto, is the earliest document which is Ex.A reading of Ex.D2 wouldclearly indicate that she could not further speak about any of the assailants.She has not even spoken anything about A-1, who is her step brother.This, inthe opinion of the Court, would be suffice to reject her testimony.It could bewell commented that even assuming that she was very well available at the timeof occurrence, she could not speak about the same, and on that evidence, no oneof the accused can be found guilty.15.In the instant case, only the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 are available tothe prosecution.P.W.1 is the person against whom A-1 has got inimical terms.According to her, she was in thehouse at the time of occurrence.It was she who first saw A-1 with an aruval.So far as A-1, A-3 and A-4 areconcerned, P.W.1 has identified A-4 at the time of the identification parade.So far as A-1 is concerned,no identification by P.W.1 or P.W.4 is necessary because he was also a member ofthe family as the son of the said Udaiyar through the first wife.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, giving graphicnarration of the entire incident, in the opinion of the Court, would be suffice,and has inspired the confidence of the Court.Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and4 has got to be necessarily accepted.16.Now, the Court has to consider the contentions put forth by the learnedCounsel for the appellants.The first contention put forth by the learnedCounsel for the appellants is that A-1 could not have been present at the placeof occurrence.At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that their evidencewould go to show that A-1 was available in the place of occurrence subsequent tothe time of occurrence.Therefore, even assuming that A-1 was present at theplace of occurrence, after the occurrence was over, it would have been a scenecreated by A-1 as if he had not participated in the crime.In such circumstances, thecontention put forth that A-1 could have been implicated falsely has got to bediscarded in the face of the evidence of the eyewitnesses.17.In the instant case, P.Ws.1 and 4 have clearly spoken to the fact thatit was A-1, A-3 and A-4, who have entered into the house and cut both MargretMary and Rani Arokiammal, and they were done to death instantaneously.So faras A-1 is concerned, he was the person who abetted in the commission of thecrime by instigating the other accused.The learned Counsel for the appellantswould submit that he has not instigated others to commit murder, but only to cutthem.It remains to be stated that at the time of occurrence i.e., at about12.30 A.M., they were armed with deadly weapons; that they have come to thespot; that A-1 has identified the persons inside the house; and that his wordswould be suffice, which has resulted in the murder of two girls aged 16 and 19years respectively.At this juncture, the act of A-1, in the opinion of theCourt, was a merciless one for the simple reason that the animosity could havebeen only against P.W.1, who refused to sign the document, and it cannot, at anystretch of imagination, be against the two persons, who were young girls, aged16 and 19 years respectively, and who were done to death.Under thecircumstances, the act of A-1 instigating A-3 and A-4 to commit the offence,would attract the penal provisions of Sec.302 read with 114 of I.P.C. In viewof the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 under Sec.302 and 302read with 114 of I.P.C. and on A-3 and A-4 under Sec.302 (2 counts) of I.P.C.have got to be sustained.In such circumstances, the culpabilitycannot be fixed.A-3and A-4 were found guilty under Sec.449 of IPC and rightly too.In view of the evidence available, finding A-5guilty of all the charges would be unsafe.Hence, A-5 is acquitted of all thecharges levelled against him.23.For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1under Sections 302, 302 read with 114 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. are confirmed.Sofar as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed on themunder Sections 449 and 302 (2 counts) of I.P.C. are sustained.The sentencesare to run concurrently.The conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 underSections 148, 449 and 307 of I.P.C., are set aside, and he is acquitted of thesaid charges.The conviction and sentence imposed on A-3 and A-4 under Sections148 and 307 (2 counts) of I.P.C. are set aside, and they are acquitted of thesaid charges.The fine amounts paid by A-1, A-3 and A-4 in that regard will berefunded to them.So far as A-5 is concerned, the conviction and sentenceimposed on him are set aside, and he is acquitted of all the charges levelledagainst him.The fine amounts paid by A-5 will be refunded to him.24.In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extentindicated above.Hence, the Sessions Judgeshall take steps to commit A-1 to prison to undergo the sentence.The bail bondexecuted by A-5, shall stand terminated.1)The I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruchirapalli.2)The Inspector of Police Somarasampettai Police Station Somarasampettai Trichirapalli District (Cr.No.50 of 1999)3)The Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
198,135,990 | Heard on I.A. No.6996/2017, which is second application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Gopal S/o Motilal Nai.The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix went with the present appellant with her concerned.They got married also.However, the trial Court assessed the age of the prosecutrix below 16 years.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.After going to the record of the lower Court and the impugned judgment, the application is allowed.It is directed that, if the appellant furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and also on payment of fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA) | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,768,673 | In Re: Madhurita Ghosh .. Petitioner.Mr. Sushil Kumar Mahata, Ms. Maitrayee Mahata .. For the Petitioner.Md. Asraf Ali .. For the State.Ms. Madhuri Das .. For the de facto complainant.The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Nimta Police Station Case No. 106 of 2013 dated 25.04.2013 under sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has come to this court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the victim.The application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,777,179 | According to the Petitioners, the said 24 cartons were meant for delivery to the seven Angadias (Petitioners 3 to 9) having been despatched by some parties in Gujarat.The grievance of the Petitioner is that the GDOs do not disclose the number of cartons seized.According to the Petitioners, after their seizure on 1st March 2014, the 24 cartoons were loaded on a tempo and taken to the Power House, Ring Road godown of the Respondent.It is stated that the Petitioners 3 to 9 then approached the DT&T but were not permitted to even have a look at the goods.It is stated that the goods were next moved to Vyapar Bhawan, Indraprastha Estate.But this was not responded to.W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 2 of 12It appears that on 9th/10th May 2014, some of the seized goods kept at 13th floor of the Vyapar Bhawan in the custody of the Respondent was stolen.This led to registration of FIR No. 183 of 2014 under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Indraprastha Estate Police Station.(iii) The method of bringing in jewellery and cash by road and rail had been deployed regularly for quite some time, obviously with the help of some officials of the DT&T and even the police.It remained either undetected or was allowed to continue.The provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act (DVAT Act) were being flouted with impunity.Invoices containing names of senders/receivers; iii.Description, value and quantities of goods dispatched by senders to respective parties in Delhi; and iv.Booking receipts."The said documents were examined by the DT&T. Keeping in view the value of the goods, it was decided to constitute a committee of senior officers of the DT&T to examine and verify the claims of the Petitioners.This was done by the CTT pursuant to the powers under Section 67 and Section 79 (1) (d) and (i) of the DVAT Act. It is stated that in order to ascertain the identity of the owners of the goods, teams were constituted to verify the particulars in respect of the following three consignees /dealers in Delhi:i. Kashvijeel Pvt Ltd, 153 Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura.Malhotra Jewellers, 1227, Darya ganj, Delhi.W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 6 of 12Radhey Shyam Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.According to the DT&T, the verification report revealed that no purchases were made by any of the above dealers from any of the dealers/consigners in Gujarat.Therefore, it was concluded that the identities/details of the consigners and consignees, as provided by the Petitioners, were false.However, the Petitioners declined to participate in the hearing as they questioned the very constitution of the Committee.This Court has been shown the files of the DT&T which contain the letters written by the Petitioners through their counsel raising objections to the constitution of the Committee and on that basis declining to participate in the proceedings of the Committee.Thereafter, proceedings were fixed for 11th November 2016 on which date neither the Petitioners nor their counsel appeared.The above stand of the Petitioners resulted in a stalemate with the Committee not being able to proceed with its deliberations.With members of the Committee either retiring or being transferred, the Committee had to be re-constituted time and again.The Petitioners not having challenged the judgment dated 12th February W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 10 of 12 2016 passed by this Court negating their pleas, could not have turned around to question the constitution of the committee.Having submitted the documents in their possession to the DT&T pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Petitioner ought to have cooperated with the DT&T and enabled it to complete the exercise of verifying those documents and giving a finding thereon.In the earlier round of litigation, this Court had passed a detailed judgment in W.P.(C) No.3799/2014 (Hari Rai and Ors.For the purposes of the present W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 1 of 12 petition, the factual background, as noticed in the above order, requires to be noted.The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 1 of 12This writ petition has been filed by nine Petitioners in rather unusual circumstances.Of the nine Petitioners, the first two are thelawalas (cart pullers) and the other seven have described themselves as 'Angadias, i.e., persons engaged in the business of arranging transportation of goods through road and rail.The subject matter of the writ petition concerns the seizure by the Respondent, Commissioner of Trade and Taxes (CTT) in the Department of Trade and Taxes (DT&T) of 24 cartons containing gold and silver jewellery as well as cash worth nearly Rs. 4 crores found loaded on two thelas (goods carts) at around 10.30 am on 1st March 2014 from the railway parcel van of the Ahmedabad Express which arrived at the Old Delhi Railway Station.An inventory was stated to have prepared of the goods on 11th March 2014, during which the Petitioners were not asked to participate.It is stated that on 18th April 2014 one M/s Shaswat Jewels (P) Ltd. whose W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 2 of 12 goods were purportedly carried by Bharat Kumar Praveen Kumar & Co., i.e., Petitioner No.9, made a request for release of the goods by furnishing the relevant documents like registration certificate of the dealers in Gujarat who had dispatched the goods and the dealer in Dealer in Delhi who was to receive such goods.On 16th May 2014, the seven Angadias along with one Nippon Gold made a joint representation to the Joint Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes to release the goods to them and also compensate them for the goods that were stolen.It is stated that with this letter the booking receipts, inventory of goods with items and value thereof and copies of the bills were enclosed.The Petitioners also sought copies of the statements recorded of the persons by the DT&T during or after the seizure and statements given to the police while lodging the aforementioned FIR including the copy thereof.An order dated 20th May 2014, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement-II Branch of the DT&T, declining the application dated 16th May 2014 by the Petitioners for release of the goods and to compensate the Petitioners as regards the stolen goods.Thereafter the present petition was filed praying that the Court should summon the entire record W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 3 of 12 relating to the seizure, quash the GDOs dated 1st March 2014 and the order dated 20th May 2014 declining the Petitioners' application for release of the goods."W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 3 of 12(iv) There was no infrastructure with the DT&T to deal with the contingency where goods valued at around Rs. 4 crores were required to be detained and kept in the custody of the DT&T. As far as the goods seized were concerned, some portion of the same had already been stolen leading to the registration of a criminal case.All that the Court can order at this stage is to direct the DT&T to examine the claim of the Petitioners for release of the goods and communicate to them a decision in that regard in accordance with law within eight weeks from their producing the complete documentation to the satisfaction of the DT&T. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by such decision it would be open to them to avail of appropriate remedies in accordance with law.Likewise, in regard to the stolen goods, the Petitioners are free to pursue the remedies available to them in accordance with law.The documents placed in sealed covers, to the extent they concern the criminal investigation, shall be handed over by the Registry to Mr. Surender Dalal, Inspector, Crime Branch, Rohini, who is present in the Court, after obtaining appropriate W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 5 of 12 acknowledgment.The other documents in sealed covers pertaining to the DT&T shall be handed over to any senior officer of the DT&T on his producing the necessary authorisation and the Registry will obtain an acknowledgment from the said officer.W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 5 of 12The Crime Branch will pursue the investigation of aforementioned FIR to its logical end as expeditiously as feasible."From the short affidavit filed by the Special Commissioner, DT&T in the present petition on 28th September 2018, it appears that pursuant to the above order, the Petitioners on 31st March 2016 submitted their representations through their advocate to the DT&T enclosing the following documents:"i. List of goods carried by each angadia;It is in the above circumstances that the present petition was filed by the present Petitioners (who were Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 in the earlier petition) seeking the following reliefs:"a) summon the entire case records relating to seizure made on 1.3.2014 and the proceedings till date including the statements/inventories prepared by the W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 7 of 12 Respondent No.1 from time to time;W.P.(C) 9308/2018 Page 7 of 12b) direct the Respondent No. 2 to produce their case records and inform this Hon'ble Court as to the status of the criminal investigation against FIR No. 183/2014;c) quash the Goods Detention Orders dated 1.3 .20 14;d) direct Respondent No.1 to release the goods to the Petitioners in the wake of the documents already placed on record with them as the period of one year provided within Sec. 34(2) has lapsed long ago;The Petitioners have further filed CM No.40819/2018 specifically seeking the setting aside of an order dated 13th August, 2018 constituting the Committee, since according to them, this is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law.They instead raised needless objections thereby frustrating the work of the Committee constituted by the CTT. | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,772,979 | Learned PL for the respondent No.1-State has informed in the Court that notice to respondent No.2 has already been served.None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Heard on I.A. No. 16705/2018, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against impugned judgment dated 14.09.2018 in Special Case ATR No. 67/2015 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 Distt.-Khandwa M.P. whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354 & 354-A of IPC.Prosecution story in brief is that on 04.04.2015 at between 1 pm to 1.30 pm, appellants have entered into the house of prosecutrix and misbehaved with her and outrage her modesty and also threatened her by caste due to which she sustained injureis on her writs, thereafter she informed to the police.On the basis of such information, P.S.-Kotwali vide crime No. 267/2015 registered the offence against the appellants.After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have granted ad- interim bail by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2018 and were on bail during trial.He further submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous family dispute between the parties.If they are not released on bail then their future will be spoiled with the company of harden criminals inside the jail.There are fair chances to succeed in the case.Final hearing 2 CRA-7302-2018 of this appeal will take time.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellants may be allowed and period of their remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and they may be released on bail.Learned PL for the respondent/State has opposed the application.After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact and circumstances of the case and the facts that this appeal is of the year 2018 and will take long time to conclude but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to the appellants and grant bail to them.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellants-Kamlesh and Mukesh be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellants shall appear and mark their presence before Trial Court on 17.10.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given in this behalf, during the pendency of the matter.List this matter for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2019.05.20 15:17:23 +05'30' | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,777,313 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 27.10.2014 relating to Crime No.591/14 registered at Police Station Motinagar, District Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 201 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against her.She is unmarried girl and if she is not released on bail then, her marital future will also be affected adversely.It is alleged against the co-accused Narayan Patel that he assaulted the victim Tejram on his head causing a fracture on his head.The deceased died due to head injury.Thereafter, so many persons are implicated in the case.It is not alleged against the applicant that she assaulted the victim on the head of the deceased.Actually, she was not aware that the co-accused Narayan Patel would assault the deceased in such a manner.The common intention of the applicant cannot be presumed with the main accused.No offence under Sections 307 or 302 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Sections 34 or 149 of the IPC.Under these circumstances, she prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Kallo Bai @ Malti be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, Sagar to appear before the committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 307 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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,977,776 | All the proceedings have been initiated by the said authorities, by filing of several F.I.Rs with the Naihati police station.The company, due to uncertainties in the economic situation in the jute industry, became 'sick'.This order was challenged in appeal by the Regional Provident Fund authorities before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.By an order dated 24th February, 1999, as modified by the subsequent order dated 1st October, 1999, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was inter alia pleased to uphold the order passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court, in relation to Nuddea Mills Company Limited, being the petitioner company herein.In the 1988 Amendment Act there is no provision for exemption of the liability of the employer to pay the statutory dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the 1988 amendment, being a latter legislation, notices the existence of SICA.The 1988 amendment to the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, instead provides that the Central Board was empowered to reduce or waive damages in relation to an establishment which was a 'sick' industrial company and in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation had been sanctioned by BIFR under the provisions of SICA, subject to the terms and conditions of the scheme.Here also, the learned single Judge of our High Court took note of the Division Bench's order dated 24th February, 1999, passed in favour of the petitioner company herein.However, notwithstanding the observations made by the Division Bench in the said Judgment and order dated 24th February, 1999, the learned single Judge, in the facts of the Universal Paper Mill's case, inter alia, held as follows: | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,780,502 | (12/1/2018) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-6 dated 04/08/2017 passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Bhopal directing to impound the Passport bearing No. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,784,741 | Jan Sudhar Smiti (hereinafter referred to society) is a registered society involved in the management, operation and maintenance of Jan Suvidha Complexes like providing toilets and lavatories to the slums and Jhuggi Jhopries cluster colonies.Petitioner No. 1 is the President and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the members of the governing body.Complainant was erstwhile secretary of the society and had filed a complaint in the court of learned ACMM on 8.12.2005 which culminated into registration of the impugned FIR No. 621/2005 at Police Station Shahdara.Office bearers and members of the society had Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 2 of 32 various internal problems relating to governance of the society and management of funds of the society deposited in the bank and these disputes arose during the period when petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Chand Gupta and complainant Subhash Chand Roongta were the President and the Secretary of the Society.On 8.3.1996 the executive body held a meeting and unanimously resolved to enroll the desirous persons as members of the society for doing social work and for that purpose petitioner No. 1 was given absolute discretionary authority to enroll new members.The minutes of the said meeting were also signed by the complainant.A meeting was held on 20.5.1996 in which seven new members were enrolled as members and in the same meeting Smt. Saroj Sharma and S. Panna Lal, the new inducted members, were unanimously nominated as acting Vice President and acting Secretary respectively.This meeting was also attended and signed by the complainant.On 26.7.1996, in another meeting of Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 3 of 32 the governing body three new members were admitted in the presence of the complainant.Complainant also filed an affidavit on 26.7.2000 indicating that there was no dispute amongst the members of the society.9. Allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 7 of 32 that minutes of various meetings of the society were recorded in the minute book by the complainant in his own writing and the minutes of meetings dated 21.10.1995, 20.5.1996, 26.7.1996 and 8.10.1996 have been tampered with by the petitioners by filling the portion of the minutes in between the place where he finished writing and where he had put his signatures by inserting certain lines.No such proceedings had taken place nor petitioner No. 1 was so authorised by the complainant to add to the minutes to fabricate proceedings.Petitioner No. 1 had produced these documents when the elections were to be conducted by Justice Avadh Bihari (retired) and used these forged minutes of the meeting to appoint new members whose names were subsequently added unlawfully and took over the control of the society.Earlier, in 1996, petitioner had stated that minute Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 8 of 32 book was misplaced.Later on when the elections were conducted, during the litigations between the parties since 2000, when elections were conducted by the order of the court, the minute book was suddenly produced by petitioner No. 1 and was claimed to be genuine.It is alleged that the petitioners have tampered with the minute book and also with the records kept with the registrar of societies.The tampering has been done by adding few lines and names of the new members in the space between the last line of the minutes and the place where signatures of the complainant appear.The new members so appointed had also put their signatures subsequently beneath the signatures of the complainant.The petitioners and the other accused persons in conspiracy with each other have used the forged minute book as genuine and succeeded in illegal induction of new members.It is also argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that FIR has been used as a tool by the complainant for his ulterior motive and to hinder the smooth functioning of the society.The FIR does not disclose any offence under Sections 420/469 IPC as neither an act of delivery of property, or inducement for the benefit by conversion into valuable security by an act of deceit, or fraud to induce any other person, have been alleged in the FIR.It is also emphasised that Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 12 of 32 offence under Section 465 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioners in the FIR.In the meeting held on 8.3.1996, duly attended by accused petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Chand Gupta and complainant Subhash Roongta, it was resolved to induct new members in the society and President was authorised to enroll new members as some social workers wanted to join the society.Petitioner No. 1 happened to be the President of the Society at the relevant time.It was in the Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 14 of 32 meeting dated 20.5.1996 that seven new members were enrolled; two of them were made acting vice president and acting secretary respectively.These minutes were signed by the complainant on the same day and below his signatures the other members who had attended the meeting including the new enrolled members signed the minutes.It is pertinent that in the meeting on 15.6.1996, minutes of meeting held on 20.5.1996 were approved.This meeting was also attended by the complainant, who signed the same, besides other members.Complainant, as per his own case, had written the minutes and has only disputed the entry of names of seven persons, allegedly made subsequently by the petitioner.In the minutes dated Crl.There is no evidence on the record to suggest that petitioners had fraudulently enrolled ten new members in the society with a view to deceive, or dishonestly induce complainant to sign the minutes, which, he would not have done, if he was not so deceived and the said act of omission was likely to cause any damage or harm to him in body, mind, reputation or property.There is no dishonest concealment of facts by the petitioners from the complainant.Petitioner No. 1 prima facie enrolled ten members in view of the powers vested in him by the governing body in the meeting of the society held on 8.3.1996, bonafidely.As discussed above, prima facie there is nothing to indicate that minutes of the meeting were forged and fabricated by subsequently entering the names of ten members as newly enrolled members.It cannot be said that the minutes were fraudulently used as genuine by the petitioners for the simple reason that complainant was present in the meetings whereby the minutes recorded in the relevant meetings dated 8.3.1996 and 20.5.1996 were approved in his Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 19 of 32 presence and under his signatures.ARUNA SURESH, J.This petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 1 of 32 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 621/2005 registered at Police Station Shahdara on 20.12.2005 for offences under Sections 420/465/468/471/34/120B Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC') as well as order of the trial court dated 21.7.2007 whereby he took cognizance of the said offences and summoned the petitioners as accused persons.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 1 of 32This became bone of contention and disputes arose between the parties.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 2 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 3 of 32On 4.10.2000 petitioner No. 1 filed a criminal complaint against the complainant.Petitioner No. 1 also filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction being suit No. 118/2001 tilted as Ramesh Chand Gupta & Anr.v. Subhash Chand Roongta & Ors.on 29.3.2001 along with an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 4 of 32 Another suit was filed by the society on 15.2.2002 seeking declaration and permanent injunction being suit No. 380/2002 (new No. 178/03/02) titled as Delhi Jan Sudhar Samiti v. Ramesh Chander Gupta & Ors.before this Court.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 4 of 32Justice Avadh Bihari (retired judge of this Court) was appointed as Court Officer by the High Court vide its order dated 12.3.2003 with the consent of the parties for finalisation of membership of the society and for conducting the elections.The court officer/local commissioner submitted its report dated 10.1.2004 and conducted elections of the governing body of the society on 31.1.2004 and accordingly submitted the results to which objections were filed by the society through the complainant.The objections were dismissed by the learned ADJ vide his order dated 10.12.2004 and the results of the elections were accordingly declared by the learned ADJ.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 5 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 5 of 32The society thereafter filed a civil miscellaneous main No. 106/2005 titled as Delhi Jan Sudhar Samiti v. Ramesh Chand Gupta & Ors on 15.1.2005 against the said order of the learned ADJ.Vide order datedSuit No. 380/2002 filed by the society through the complainant was dismissed having become infructuous due to appointment of new governing Crl.The civil litigation was initiated and pursued by the complainant in the name of the society against the members of the society including the petitioners.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 6 of 32This was done in conspiracy with the new members, appointed after elections were conducted by Justice Avadh Bihari (retired) appointed officer by the Court.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 7 of 32Since the offences of forgery and cheating have been committed in connivance with each other, to Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 9 of 32 cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves, petitioner and other accused persons have committed offences under Sections 420/464/465/467/468/471/120B IPC.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 8 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 9 of 32Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has made following submissions:(a) In the documents alleged to be forged, the complainant admitted that there were gaps between the written matter and his signatures and his handwriting has been admitted by the civil court and the court had passed orders on the same.(b) The allegation that minute book was misplaced and thereafter he started to keep minute book with himself raised by the complainant are false as in earlier civil litigations no minute book was reported as misplaced and neither did complainant placed minute book on record which is stated to have been maintained by him.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 10 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 10 of 32(c) Factum of prior civil litigations has not been disclosed in the FIR and disputes between the parties are related to the functioning and elections in the society and are purely of civil nature.(d) The charge sheet was filed and the same does not constitute or make out any offence committed by petitioners against complainant as alleged in the FIR.The FIR and subsequent chargesheet are without collateral evidence for supporting allegations against the petitioners and upon the evidence gathered during investigation the prosecution had himself submitted that there is no evidence per se against the accused.(e) The civil proceedings were already initiated by complainant against the petitioners and during the course of these litigations the present FIR was registered on the same crux of the disputes contained in the civil litigations thus attracting sections 40 to 42 of Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 11 of 32 the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as Act').M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 11 of 32(f) The order of issue of summons against the petitioners is passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate without application of mind and perusal of facts.The impugned order suffers from perversity, illegality and infirmity, as the factum that civil disputes inter-se the parties were decided against the complainant and upheld till the Supreme Court, is not considered at all.It is urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that, FIR has been lodged because of retribution and absurd and improbable allegations have been levelled against the petitioners therein.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 12 of 32Mr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that civil litigation has no bearing on the criminal litigation i.e. the FIR in question as, by virtue of Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Act, the judgments passed in the civil cases inter se the parties have no relevancy.Therefore, judgments in the civil suits cannot be taken into consideration by the Court as relevant fact for deciding the present petition on merits.The dispute was amongst the members of the society and the complainant, who has since resigned from the membership of the society, because of differences among themselves regarding the mannerism in which the management of the society and the society funds Crl.Petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Chand Gupta has not disputed that the names of the members were inserted by him in the minutes book in his own hand.Why the space was left in between the last line written by the complainant and his signatures is a mystery and probably this mystery could not be solved; that the Investigating Officer filed a closure report before the learned MM.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 13 of 32Below this seven members including the complainant and petitioner No. 1 had appended their signatures against their names.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 14 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 28 of 32Complainant seemed to be heavily stuck or became eccentric to the elections as well as to the present constitution of the governing body of the society.He did not participate in the election.Since complainant had some disputes in governance, he filed the civil suit as well as objections to the finalisation of the list of members and to the manipulated records of minutes book by Crl.However, in this case it is manifest that complainant filed the complaint on account of personal rancour, predilections and prejudices.Chagrined and frustrated litigant should not be permitted by the Court to give vent to his frustration by invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court in the manner in which the complainant has done in this case.Invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court under the circumstances is misuse of process of law.Under these circumstances, from the evidence as placed on record, the contents of the FIR, the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and the allegations in the complaint, it is clear that disputes are essentially of civil in nature which have been given a cloak of criminal offence.I find it a fit case and to secure the ends of justice that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the impugned FIR and the proceedings conducted therein are quashed.Hence, petition is allowed.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 31 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 31 of 32FIR No. 621/2005 under Sections 420/465/468/471/34 read with Section 120 B IPC, Police Station Shahdara and consequent summoning order dated 21.7.2007 are hereby quashed.Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court as well as to the State.(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE February 06, 2009 jk Crl.M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 32 of 32M.C. No. 3671/2007 Page 32 of 32 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,987,141 | R.Karthikeyan [Legal Aid Counsel]For Appellant in Crl.A.No.163 of 2004 [A3]:Mr.K.Ethirajalu [Legal Aid Counsel]For Appellant in Crl.A.No.522 of 2004 [A4]:R.Karthikeyan [Legal Aid Counsel]For 2nd Appellant in Crl.P.W.2 is his brother's son.P.W.4 is his brother's daughter.P.W.6 is his neighbour.On 28.11.1996, P.Ws.1 to 6 were in the house of P.W.1 at Samurayanpatti Village.By about 8.00 a.m. a Mahindra Maxi Cab Van, green in colour, bearing Regn.TN 22 X 2889 came to the house of P.W.1 and the same was stopped in front of P.W.1's house just out side the compound wall.All were dressed neatly and they gave a look of high officials.Three of them did not enter into the house and they waited on the varanda.Six of them entered into the house.They had shown certain forms normally used by the office of the income tax department and the letter pads.By the appearance of the accused and from the way in which they talked and the documents namely forms from the income tax department which they had shown, P.Ws.1 to 6 believed that they were really from income tax department.Therefore, they allowed them to search the entire house.Three persons who were waiting out side did not allow anybody to enter into the house.Similarly, the six persons who entered into the house; who made house search did not allow the inmates to go out.They also found a cash of Rs.95,000/- in the steel bureau.They took them and brought the same to the drawing hall.One of the persons displayed the jewels and the cash on the table in the drawing hall.Then, he entered the details of the jewels and the cash in a form.They gave a copy of the form to P.W.1 as though it was an official document for seizure of the jewels and cash from the house of P.W.1 and also the letter pad [Exs.P.2 and P.1].Then, they put all the jewels and cash in a suitcase and brought the van to the portico.They told P.W.1 to come to the office of the income tax department in Chennai on 05.12.1996 for enquiry.They got into the van and went away with the looted jewels and cash.Few minutes thereafter, P.W.1 contacted his auditor Mr.Archunaraj [P.W.14] at Coimbatore over telephone.When P.W.1 told about the raid conducted , P.W.14 wanted P.W.1 to rush immediately to his office at Coimbatore along with the documents handed over by those persons during the occurrence.On seeing the letter pads and the forms of the income tax department, P.W.14 found that the said forms were not meant for income tax raid.From this, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.14 realised that the jewels and cash belonging to P.W.1 had been looted by unscrupulous elements.P.W.14 advised P.W.1 to go to police station.P.Ws.1 and 2 returned to Kumaralingam Town and preferred a complaint at 4.00 p.m. on 28.11.1996 at Kumaralingam Police Station.P.3 is the complaint.P.W.20, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kumaralingam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.147 of 1996 for offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.P.32 is the FIR.He forwarded the FIR and the complaint to the court immediately.He also forwarded Exs.P.1 and P.2 which were given by the culprits to P.W.1 and produced by P.W.1 along with Ex.P.3 complaint.P.W.21 was the then Inspector of Police.On 28.11.1996, he took up the case for further investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence.At 5.30 p.m. he visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P.7] in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness.He also prepared a rough sketch [Ex.P.6] showing the place of occurrence.At the request of P.W.21, P.W.19, the Finger Print Expert attached to Coimbatore Finger Prints Bureau visited the scene of occurrence.When he examined a room in the ground floor of the house of P.W.1, he found five finger prints i.e. two finger prints on the steel bureau and three finger prints in the window in the first floor of the house.In the bathroom, precisely on the porcelain flush tank cover, he noticed yet another finger print.On the steel bureau which was kept in yet another room in the ground floor, he noticed two finger prints.He took photographs of the said finger prints in scientific manner.Out of the eight chance finger prints, few chance prints did not tally with the finger prints of the inmates and thus they were the finger prints of strangers.In this regard, on 30.11.1996, he submitted his report under Ex.P.W.21 examined P.Ws.1 to 6, P.W.11 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.On 29.11.1996, he examined few more witnesses and recorded their statements.On some reliable information, he proceeded to Chennai and at 8.00 p.m. at D.No.2/1 Thanikachalam Mudali Street, Peruambur, Chennai, he arrested Accused-Murugan [absconding accused].On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness and the same was reduced into writing.In the said statement, he disclosed that he had hidden jewels and cash of Rs.7500/- in bureau at his house.He further disclosed that he would identify the accused Amanullah [A1 in S.C.No.61 of 1997].Accordingly, at 9.30 p.m. on the same day, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced Items 3 to 28 , as many as 25 items of gold jewels [M.O.2] and cash of Rs.7,500/- [M.O.3].P.W.23 recovered the same in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness under cover of Ex.P.9 mahazar.Then, he took P.W.23 to Madurai Sami Mada Street and identified the accused Amanullah [A1].P.W.23 then arrested accused Amanullah [A1] at 10.45 p.m. Accused Amanullah also gave confession voluntarily and the same was reduced into writing in the presence of the same witnesses.In the said statement, he disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash of Rs.3250/-.Accordingly, from his house he produced 5 items of gold jewels [items 29 to 33A in M.O.2].P.W.23 recovered the same in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness under cover of Ex.P.11 mahazar.A2 gave a voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing.In the said statement, he disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash.Accordingly, from his house at Madurai Sami Mada Theru, Sembiam, Chennai, he produced 4 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.7900/-.They were all recovered under Ex.P.13 mahazar.Jewels are Items 34 to 37 [M.O.2] and cash of Rs,7,900/[ [40 hundred rupees and 78 fifty rupees currencies] is Item No.38 [M.O.3].Then, on information, P.W.23 proceeded to house at D.No.741/5, Arulappa Street, G.K.M.Colony, Chennai, where P.W.23 arrested accused Amirthalingam [A3] at 2.15 p.m. He also gave a voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing.In the said statement, he disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash.Accordingly, he produced 7 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.7,050/- P.W.23 recovered the same in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness under cover of Ex.P.15 mahazar.The jewels recovered from A3 are Items 39 to 45 [M.O.2] and cash of Rs.7,050/- [15 hundred rupees and 111 fifty rupees currencies] recovered from A3 is Item No.46 [M.O.3].On such arrest, accused Ravi also gave voluntary confession.P.W.23 recorded the same in the presence of P.W.16 and another in which the accused had disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash.Accordingly, from house bearing D.No.178-A, G.A.Road, Tondaiyarpet, Chennai, he produced 9 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.7,300/- At 5.15 p.m. P.W.23 recovered the same in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness.The jewels so recovered from Accused Ravi are items 47 to 55 [M.O.2] and cash [11 five hundred rupees , 14 hundred rupees and 8 fifty rupees currencies] is item No.56 [M.O.3].Thereafter, P.W.23 proceeded to the house at D.No.741/5, Cross Street, Washermenpet, Chennai and arrested accused Vendan [A4] at 6.15 a.m. on such arrest, A4 also gave voluntary confession in which he disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash.P.W.23 reduced the same into writing in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness.Accordingly, A4 led the police to the above address and produced 12 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.6000/- .P.W.23 recovered the same under cover of Ex.P.19 mahazar in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness.The gold jewels are Items 57 to 68 [M.O.2] and cash of Rs.6000/- [ 54 hundred rupees and 12 fifty rupees currencies] is item No.69 [M.O.3].Then, at 8.00 a.m. he proceeded to the back side of Kilpauk Police Station and arrested the accused Surendran [A5].On such arrest, A5 gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness and the same was reduced into writing.In the said statement, A5 disclosed that he would produce 4 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.7500/- which were hidden in the house at D.No.576, Sakthi Street, Chennai.Accordingly, he produced 4 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.7500/- in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness.P.W.23 recovered the same under cover of Ex.P21 mahazar.The gold jewels are Items 70 to 73 [M.O.2] and cash of Rs.7500/- [15 hundred rupees currencies] is item 73A [M.O.3].Then taking all the accused and the seized articles, he returned to Kumaralingam Police Station.On 02.12.1996 at about 3.00 a.m. accused Ganesan [A6] voluntarily appeared before him at the police station.Bill is Ex.P.W.23 thereafter examined P.W.16 and one Sundararaj who were witnesses for the arrest of the accused and for the recovery of material objects and recorded their statements.P.W.23, thereafter, forwarded the accused for judicial remand and the properties to the court.Thereafter, P.W.24, the then Inspector of Police took up further investigation.On 03.12.1996, on information he proceeded to Sethur, Rajapalayam Taluk and from the house bearing D.No.48, Pillaimar Street, Sethur, he arrested accused Perumal @ Sivaperumal [A7].On such arrest, A7 gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.17 and one Radhakrishnan.P.W.24 reduced the same into writing.In the said statement, A7 disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash.Accordingly, at 8.00 a.m. A7 produced a Tamil Nadu Police Sannad [Form No.47 GBP Ms.112 POL.B.36.9006-82 order No.320 Certificate issued under Act XXIV of 1859].Then, he produced cash to the tune of Rs.5150/- from his house.P.W.24 recovered the same under Ex.P.26 mahazar in the presence of P.W.17 and another witness.The Sannath Form recovered from A7 is Ex.P.25 which is a certificate issued on 17.09.1987 certifying that A7 had been appointed as a member of District Police Force and he is invested with the powers, functions and privileges of a police officer.The said certificate has been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Railways Chennai.The cash of Rs.5,150/- [25 hundred rupees and 53 fifty rupees currencies] recovered from A7 is item 77 [M.O.3].P.W.24 in turn recovered them under Ex.P.28 mahazar in the presence of P.W.17 and another witness.P.W.24 recovered the same under cover of Ex.P.27 mahazar.Items 86 to 94 are the gold jewels so recovered.P.W.24 thereafter, examined the attesting witnesses P.W.12 and one Radhakrishnan and recorded their statements.Then, P.W.24 returned to the police station along with A7 and the properties seized and sent the accused to court for judicial remand.In continuation of his investigation, on 06.12.1996, on reliable information, P.W.24 proceeded to Thiruvarur Aathukkulam South Bank and at Door No.56, Pillayar Koil Street, where he arrested the accused Sheik Hussain [A8] in the presence of P.W.18 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed that he would produce the jewels and cash to the tune of Rs.4,160/- The said statement was reduced into writing.In pursuance of the said statement, A8 produced 10 items of gold jewels and cash of Rs.4,160/-.Accordingly, they were all recovered under cover of Ex.P.30 mahazar in the presence of P.W.18 and another witness.Items 95 to 104 in M.O.3 are the gold jewels [M.O.2] and item No.105 is cash of Rs.4,160/- [M.O.3].On 10.12.1996, P.W.24 gave a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to depute a Magistrate for conducting test identification parade.Accordingly, on 20.12.1996, P.W.13, the then Judicial Magistrate No.III at Pollachi conducted test identification parade in Central Prison at Coiombatore.During test identification, the accused Murugan [Asbconding], Amanullah [A1], Shathurudeen [A2], Amirthalingam [A3], Ravi [absconding], Vendan [A4], Surendran [A5], Ganesan [A6], Perumal @ Sivaperumal [A7] and Sheik Hussain [A8] were put up for identification by P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 6, 10 , 11 and one Sakthi Balan.In the said identification parade, P.W.1 identified all the accused except Amanullah [A1] and Surendran [A5] on all the three occasions.P.W.6 identified all the accused except Amanullah [A1] and Surendran [A5].P.W.10 identified accused Amnullah [A1], Sathurudeen [A2], Ravi [absconding], Ganesan [A6] and Sheik Hussain [A8].He did not identify the other accused.The other witness one Sakthibalan [not examined during trial] identified the accused Amanullah [A1], Murugan [absconding], Sheik Hussain [A8] and Ganesan [A6].P.W.11 identified the accused Murugan [absconding], Amanullah [A1] Sathurudeen [A2], Ganesan [A6] and Sheik Hussain [A8].He submitted a report under Ex.P.5 regarding the identification of the accused made by the witnesses.P.W.24, thereafter, examined P.W.10, P.W.11 and one Sakthibalan and recorded their statements.He proceeded to the lodge where the accused stayed on the previous night of the day of occurrence and recovered the lodge ledger under Ex.P.4 mahazar and examined P.W.10-Kabilan, the Manager of the lodge and recorded his statement.The finger prints of the accused were sent to P.W.19 for comparison with the chance finger prints lifted from the place of occurrence.P.W.19 compared the finger impressions of the accused Murugan [absconding], Surendran [A5], Amirthalingam [A3], Ravi [absconding], Ganesan [A6], Sathurudeen [A2], Vendan [A4], Amanullah [A1], Perumal @ Sivaperumal [A7] with S1 to S6 which were lifted from the house of P.W.1 as narrated above.On such comparison, P.W.19 found the finger impression of Vendan [A4] tallied with S3 to S5 lifted from the place of occurrence.The chance prints S1, S2 and S6 did not tally with the finger prints of the above accused.On 11.12.1996, the finger prints of accused Sheik Hussain [A8] were taken and sent for comparison.P.W.19 compared the same with S1, S2 and S6 and found that the chance print S6 tallied with the finger print of the said accused.S1 and S2 did not tally with his finger prints.He submitted a report in this regard on 11.12.1996 along with enlarged photographs of the finger prints and chance prints lifted at the house of P.W.1 for comparison.P.W.24 examined P.W.19, the finger print expert and recorded his statement.P.W.22 has stated that Exs.P.1 and P.2 are not forms used by the office of the income tax department, but, they are not used for the purpose of income tax raid.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.While questioning so, A6 gave a written statement of explanation, in which, he has stated that he did not know the other accused previously.As directed by D.W.1, he took the van in question from Chennai to carry the passengers who hired the van and went to Udumalpet.He would further state that from Udumalpet, as directed by the passengers, he took the van to Samurayanpatti Village and stopped in front of a house and he was waiting inside the van without knowing as to what was going on inside the house.The passengers alone went into the house.After some time, they returned and they wanted him to proceed to Madurai.Accordingly, he went to Madurai.The passengers got down at Madurai and paid the hire.On 29.11.1996, in the morning newspaper he found that there was a news item alleging that the van in question was used by the culprits to commit the crime by impersonating themselves as Income Tax Officials.D.W.1 in turn told him to surrender the van in question to the police immediately.Accordingly, he proceeded to the nearest police station at Thirupathur [near Madurai].Thirupathur police in turn contacted Kumaralingam Police.Then, Thirupathur police wanted A6 to go to Kumaralingam Police Station.On his way, he gave telegrams [Exs.D1 and D2] to the higher police officials informing them that he had already produced the van in question and surrendered before Thirupathur Police.On the same day, he reached Kumaralingam Police Station where he was asked to wait.Then, on 02.12.1996, suddenly, the police arrested him as an accused in the case.A6 has further stated that he had no knowledge about the change of registration number of the van in question.In support of his defence, A6 has examined two witnesses and exhibited two documents.D.W.1 is the Manager of Subam Travels in which A6 was working as driver.D.W.1 has deposed that on 26.11.1996, the proprietor of yet another travel agency by name Jeeva Travels, approached him and wanted him a maxi cab for hire since there were passengers to go to Coimbatore.He paid a sum of Rs.500/- as advance.Thereafter, D.W.1 sent the van bearing Regn.No. TN 22 X 2989 [M.O.1] as per the booking order.A6 Ganasan was the driver of the van.On 27.11.1996, he instructed A6 to take the vehicle to the address of the passengers at Perambur, Chennai to take them to Coimbatore.D.W.1 has further deposed to the fact that on 29.11.1996 he found a news item in the newspaper about the occurrence.Therefore, he gave the telegrams to the Inspector General of Police, Chennai and the other police officials in this regard with the help of Jeeva.At that time, A6 was not even present.On 27.11.1996, A6 was asked to take the van to Perambur to carry the passengers to go to Coimbatore.Absolutely, there is no evidence that he had any premeeting of mind with the other accused to know that the rest of the accused were proceeding to commit a crime.In the lodge at Udumalpet, he was found by P.W.10-Kabilan.It is needless to point out that from Madurai one has to come via Thirupathur.Therefore, he surrendered at Thirupatthur Police Station in Sivaganga District.That is how, on the next day i.e., on 30.11.1996 , A6 gave telegrams which has been spoken to by D.W.2, the Assistant Post Master.Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeals under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement dated 27.01.2004 made in S.C.No.61 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur.For Appellant in Crl.A.No.656 of 2004 [A2]:Philip Ravindran Jesudoss For Appellant in Crl.A.No.177 of 2004 [A5]:Mr.A.K.S.Thahir for Mr.A.S.BilalFor Appellant in Crl.A.No.407 of 2004 [A6]:K.SumathiFor 1st Appellant in Crl.A.No.524 of 2004 [A7]:A.No.524 of 2004 [A8]:Mr.M.G.L.SankaranFor Respondent in all Criminal Appeals:The appellants are A2 to A8 in S.C.No.61 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur.They stand convicted for offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 395 and 450 of IPC.They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 120-B of IPC; to undergo R.I. for 6 months for offence under Section 147 of IPC; to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 395 of IPC; and to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 450 of IPC.No default sentence imposed.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A2 to A8 in S.C.No.61 of 1997 have come forward with these criminal appeals.Totally there were 11 accused in the said case.But, one of the accused by name Thangapandian @ Sankaranarayanan was absconding and therefore, the learned Magistrate split up the case as against him and committed the case against the rest of the 10 accused.On committal the case against the rest of the 10 accused including these appellants was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet, who framed charges against all the 10 accused.The case was thereafter transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur.After framing of charges, two accused by name Murugan and Ravi in the said case were absconding.Therefore, the case against the said two accused was split up.In the mean while, the absconding accused by name Thangapandian @ Sankaranarayanan was secured and the case against him was also committed by the learned Magistrate and the same was in turn made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, accordingly, framed charges.Since the accused denied the charges, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial.On completing the trial in both the cases, the learned Judge delivered a common judgement on 27.01.2004 convicting the appellants [A2 to A8 in S.C.No.61 of 1997] as well as the appellant in Crl.Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in S.C.No.61 of 1997, they have preferred the present appeals in Crl.As against the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in S.C.No.11 of 2003, he has preferred Crl.Since all these appeals have arisen out of a common judgement, I had an occasion to peruse the records and evidence, both oral and documentary, in both the cases.On the side of the defence, there were 2 witnesses examined and 2 documents exhibited.Insofar as the case in S.C.No.11 of 2003 is concerned, there were only 18 witnesses examined and 7 documents exhibited.No one was examined on the side of the defence and no document was exhibited.NO material object was marked.Some of the prosecution witnesses in S.C.No.61 of 1997 by name Kannadi Mani @ Ramasamy [P.W.6], Dhanam [P.W.7], Thangaraj [P.W.8], Palraj [P.W.12], Kayalvizhi [the learned Judicial Magistrate] who conducted test identification parade [P.W.13], Subramaniam, S/o.But, curiously, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidences, both oral and documentary, let in , in both cases including the defence witnesses cumulatively to deliver a common judgement holding the accused involved in both the cases guilty of charges framed against them.It is shocking to note that the evidences which were let in in one case were used against the accused in the other case to hold him/them guilty.The accused in one case had, therefore, no occasion to cross examine or challenge the evidence let in in the other case and vice versa.Instead, I propose to deal with the appeals relating to S.C.No.61 of 1997 and the appeal relating to S.C.No.11 of 1997 separately strictly confining to the evidence let in in the respective case.Accordingly, I propose to deliver a judgement in Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2004 separately.This judgement governs Crl.He was residing at Samurayanpatti Village.He had two brothers by name Jothikannan and Senthilmurugan.All the three were living as a joint family.A6 also gave a voluntary confession.P.W.23 reduced the same into writing.In the said statement, A6 disclosed that he would produce the van bearing Regn.[This portion of the confession, though not admissible, the trial court has erroneously admitted the same.].On the basis of the said disclosure statement, A6 produced the van bearing Regn.P.W.23 recovered the same in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness under cover of Ex.P.23 mahazar.Trip Sheet is Ex.P.W.24 then forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand.Then, he examined an officer from the income tax department [P.W.22] and recorded his statement.On completing the investigation, he laid the final report on 31.01.1997 against all the accused for offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 450 and 395 of IPC.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges against the appellants.Since the appellants denied the charges, the trial court proceeded with the trial.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 24 witnesses were examined and 34 documents exhibited, besides 4 material objects.As I have already narrated , P.Ws.1 to 6 have vividly narrated about the occurrence during trial.They have identified A2 - Sathurudeen, A3 Amirthalingam, A4 Vendan, A7 Siva Perumal @ Perumal and A8 Sheik Hussain.They have not identified the rest of the accused.P.Ws.1 to 6 have identified the properties recovered from the appellants as stolen articles and also the van involved in the crime.On the date of occurrence, she was not at home.She came to know about the occurrence later.She has identified the jewels [M.O.2] as the jewels stolen away from her house.P.W.8 is a resident of the same village and he has got a tea shop at Udumalpet Palani Road According to him, on 28.11.1996 from 5.00 a.m. he was in his shop.He has identified M.O.1 as the van.P.W.9 is running a petty shop in Samurayanpatti Village.On the date of occurrence , at 8.30 a.m., the accused - Amanullah [A1] who was already known to him came to his shop.He has further deposed that he enquired him as to why did he come there.At that time, the van in question was passing through the shop.Accused Amanullah [A1] made some signals to the inmates of the said vehicle.The vehicle proceeded towards Udumalpet.Then, the accused Amanullah [A1] left by bus.He has identified M.O.1 van.P.W.10 is an important witness for the prosecution.P.W.10 is the Manager of the Lodge known as "Anandha Lodge" at Udumalpet.He has stated that on 27.01.1996, accused Amanullah [A1] came to his lodge and booked two rooms stating that 10 persons who were his friends had come to stay.He allotted room Nos.103 and 205 for them to stay.The persons who came along with accused Amanullah [A1] appeared to be very smart portraying the look of police officials.The van in question bearing Regn.TN 22 X 2889 also came, in which, the said persons came to the lodge.He has identified M.O.1 as the van used for the said occurrence.P.4 is the Ledger.A2 - Sathurudeen entered his name as Thirugnanasambandam in the ledger giving his address as Pallivasal Street, Dindigul.He has identified A1, A2, A3, A4 and A6 as the persons who stayed in the lodge.He has further deposed that he had identified them in the test identification parade.He has also spoken to about the booking of rooms.He had seen the vehicle and has identified the same in court.He has identified A6 Ganesan, A2 Sathurudeen and A8 Sheik Hussain in court.He had earlier identified them in the test identification parade also.P.W.12 has turned hostile.According to the case of the prosecution, on 29.11.1996, the Sivaperumal @ Perumal sold 84 sovereigns of gold jewels for Rs.31,400/-.But, he has disowned the same.P.W.14 is the auditor who has spoken to about the telephonic talk with him by P.W.1 and his verification with the income tax officials.P.W.15 has spoken to about the observation mahazar.P.W.16 is a witness for the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries of material objects in pursuance of the confession statements of the accused about which I have already made extensive reference in the previous paragraphs.P.W.17 has also spoken to about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries of material objects in pursuance of the confession statements of the accused about which also I have already made a detailed reference.P.W.18 has spoken to about the arrest of the accused - Sheik Hussain [A8] and the consequential recovery of materials objects from him.P.W.19 is the Finger Print Expert.P.W.20 has spoken to about the registration of the case.P.W.21, P.W.23 and P.W.24 are the investigating officers.While so, at 12.00 noon on 29.11.1996, A6 contacted him over phone from Madurai.Immediately, D.W.1 instructed him to surrender before the police.When A6 asked D.W.1 whether to come to Chennai to surrender or to surrender at the nearest police station, D.W.1 instructed A6 to surrender at the nearest police station.A6 accordingly surrendered before Thirupathur Police along with the van which D.W.1 came to know later.18. D.W.2 is the Assistant Post Master at Thirupathur Post Office in Sivaganga District.He has stated that on 30.11.1996 two telegrams were booked in the name of one Ganesan and they were addressed to higher police officials.D1 and D2 are the copies of the said telegrams.Having considered the above , the trial court, rejected the explanation offered by A6 and the evidences of D.W.1 and 2 and convicted all the accused including A6 Ganesan and sentenced them as narrated in the earlier paragraph of this judgement.The Advocates on record in Crl.A.Nos.656, 163 and 524 of 2004 did not make appearance despite the fact that the cases were listed for final hearing on many occasions.Bailable Warrants issued against the appellant in Crl.A.No.656 of 2004 and the 1st appellant in Crl.A.No.524 of 2004 could not be executed and their whereabouts are not known.Similarly, when the appeal came up for hearing on 09.02.2011, the learned counsel who was on record for the appellant in Crl.A.No.163 of 2004 had reported no instruction and he had given his consent for change of vakalath.But, the learned counsel on record for the other appellants were ready with the cases.In view of the same, this court appointed a reputed Advocate Mr.R.Karthikeyaran, who is having a vast experience in the criminal side as Legal Aid Counsel to defend the appellant in Crl.A.No.656 of 2004 and the 1st appellant in Crl.Similarly, yet another reputed Advocate Mr.K.Ethirajulu, who is having a vast experience in the criminal side was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel to defend the appellant in Crl.Both the above said Legal Aid Counsel after collecting the papers from the court have meticulously prepared and argued the appeals.As a matter of fact, the argument went on for few days.I have heard the legal aid counsel, the learned counsel for the other appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the records carefully.As far as A2 Sathurudeen, A3 - Amirthalingam, A4 Vendan , A7 Sivaperumal @ Perumal and A8 Sheik Hussain are concerned, P.Ws.1 to 6 have clearly identified them in court.Such identification is duly corroborated by the other sources.The identification of A2, A3, A4, A7 and A8 made by these witnesses in court, since they were earlier identified by the eye witnesses in the identification parade, is duly corroborated by the above test identification proceedings.Therefore, there can be no difficulty in making full reliance of the identification of A2, A3, A4, A7 and A8 made in court by the eye witnesses.Insofar as the identification of A-5 Surendran is concerned, the witnesses could not identify him during test identification parade as well as before the court.But the recovery of stolen jewels from this accused has been duly proved by the prosecution.As I have already stated, A2, A3, A4, A7 & A8 were duly identified in court and they were the persons who indulged in the crime.On the arrest of these accused, they gave individual voluntary confessions in pursuance of which the jewels and cash which were stolen away from the house of P.W.1 were recovered.Though the attesting witnesses to the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries made pursuant to their confessions have been extensively cross examined, nothing could be brought on record to doubt their veracity.Therefore, in my considered opinion, the arrest of A2, A3, A4, A7 and A8 , their disclosure statements and the consequential recoveries of material objects namely stolen articles and cash from their possession have also been duly proved by the prosecution.Regarding the arrest of A5, according to P.W.22, he has arrested A5 on 01.12.1996 at 08.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.16 and one Sundarrajan.On such arrest, he made voluntary disclosure, in which, he disclosed that he would produce a portion of gold necklace with white stone, yet another portion of gold jewels with white stones and a gold thali gundu and also a sum of Rs.7500/-.Based on the said confession, the above said articles were recovered from him at his house on 01.12.1986 at 8.30 under Ex.P.W.16 has vividly spoken about the same.Though he has been subjected to lengthy cross examination, nothing has been brought on record to discredit his evidence.The jewels recovered from him have been identified as stolen articles by P.W.1 and other witnesses.Thus, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that A5 was found in possession of stolen articles soon after the occurrence.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that two witnesses namely P.W.16 and one Sundararaj have been used as omnibus witnesses for the arrest of Murugan [absconding accused], Amanullah [A2], Amirthalingam [A3], Ravi [absconding], Vendan [A4], Surendran [A5] and Ganesan [A6] and the alleged consequential recoveries made from them pursuant to their confessions; P.W.17 and one Radhakrishnan for the arrest of Sivaperumal @ Perumal [A7] and the consequential recovery made from him pursuant to his confession; P.W.18 and one Nachimuthu for the arrest of Sheik Hussain [A8] and the consequential recovery made from him pursuant to his confession and, therefore, their evidence cannot be given any weightage.In my considered opinion, the said argument is only liable to be rejected.It is quite natural for the investigating officer to take witnesses when series of recoveries are to be made.The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.He has further spoken to about the recovery of material objects.P.W.23, the investigating officer has also spoken to about the same.A6 has not disputed his staying in the lodge along with the other accused.On the next day morning, he proceeded to Samurayanpatti as instructed by the passengers who engaged him.A6 was all along waiting in the van.After the passengers returned, according to A6, they wanted him to go to Madurai.Accordingly, he proceeded to Madurai where the rest of the accused got down and paid the hire charges.It is the further defence of A6 that when he was returning form Madurai, he saw a new item in a daily newspaper about the occurrence.At this juncture, the further conduct of A6 assumes importance.Immediately, by about 12.00 noon he contacted D.W.1 over phone.He also wanted him to surrender.When A6 asked him as to whether to come to Chennai to surrender or to surrender at nearest police station, D.W.1 instructed him to surrender at nearest police station.A6 was asked to stay in the police station for some time.On the next day, according to A6, Tirupathur Police after instruction from Kumaralingam Police instructed him to go to Kumaralingam Police Station.The Inspector of Police has also deposed that while surrendering A6 produced the trip sheet and other relevant documents relating to the van.But, this version of the prosecution cannot believed in view of the two telegrams given as early as on 30.11.1996 to the higher police officials by this accused.Thus, the number [TN 22 X 2889] has been mentioned even in the first information [Ex.P.3] itself.Therefore, A6 is bound to explain as to how the number of the van had been changed.He has explained the same in his statement filed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Changing the second digit in the registration number of the vehicle, namely 8 into 9, is very easy.As it is demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant/A6, even if a small black strip of paper is pasted, the digit '8' will appear to be digit '9'.Probably, without the knowledge of A6 , the other accused with a view to misdirect the witnesses and the police would have played mischief.In such view of the mater, he is entitled for acquittal and so the appeal in Crl.A.No.407 of 2004 deserves to be allowed.The learned counsel for the appellants/A2 to A5, A7 & A8 would submit that assuming that the prosecution has proved that these accused have got involvement in the crime even then, the offences said to have been committed by the appellants/A2 to A5, A7 and A8 would not fall under Section 395 of IPC and instead, it would fall only under Section 419 of IPC.But, it is in evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 that some of the accused intimidated the witnesses not to raise any hue and cry and at that time they had pistols in their pockets.However, the witnesses had not actually seen any pistol.But, at the same time, it is the evidence of the eye-witnesses that they were not permitted to leave the house and they were wrongfully restrained.Section 390 of Indian Penal Code defines 'robbery' as follows:-Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.-Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carving away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily cause or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.-The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."It is in evidence that P.Ws.1 to 6 were wrongfully restrained and the accused did not allow them to leave the house.Had they been so allowed to leave the house, they would have sought the help of the others or contacted their auditor.By wrongfully restraining them, the accused had committed theft.Since the prosecution has proved that A2 to A5, A7 and A8 gained entry into the house of P.W.1 in order to commit an offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC for which life imprisonment is awardable, offence under Section 450 of IPC has also been clearly established.Similarly, the offence under Section 120-B of IPC has also been established.Thus, I hold that the conviction of A2 to A5 , A7 & A8 for offences under Section 120-B, 450 and 395 of IPC does not require any interference at the hands of this court.Now, coming to the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel for A5 would submit that during relevant period , he was working as a last grade servant in the Income Tax Department and, therefore, leniency may be shown in the matter of punishment.Fine, if any, paid by the appellant/A6 shall be refunded to him.The bail bond executed by the appellant/A6 shall stand discharged.(ii) Criminal Appeal Nos.656, 163, 522, 177, and 524 of 2004 are partly allowed in the following terms:-(a) The conviction of the appellants/A2 to A5, A7 & A8 for offence under Section 147 of IPC and the sentence imposed by the trial court thereunder are set aside.(d) The substantive sentence imposed on the appellants/ A2 to A5, A7 & A8 shall run concurrently. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,714,352 | as (Allowed) C.R.M. 9544 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.09.2017 in connection with Asansol (South) P.S. Case No.263 of 2017 dated 26.06.2017 under Sections 364/326/307/354B/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Krishna Nonia & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. A. Bhattacharyya. ...For the Petitioners.Learned Advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials in the Case Diary and bearing in mind the nature of allegations including the injuries suffered by the victim as transpiring from the medical papers which are simple and in the light of the aforesaid submissions, we 2 are of the opinion that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may be granted.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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. |
1,987,194 | This case tells the sad tale of Freudian Furry, that cut short the blooming life of an innocent hapless little girl only at the age of 10 years.The appellant, admittedly, was an armed Constable attached to the 4th armed battalion of West Bengal Police, posted to Raiganj.He used to live in the quarters allotted to him in the police barrack.On the fateful day i.e., on 26.10.95 at about 6.00 PM, as per the prosecution case, the appellant was standing in front of the shop of P.W. 10-Madhusudan Chakraborty.P.W.9 viz. Kaushalwa Roy Was also there, when the victim girl named Biva Rajak came to that shop to purchase 'khaini' for her father.The appellant purchased some 'Chanachur" and requested the shop-keeper to supply 'khaini' to Biva first.As soon as 'khaini' was purchased, Biva started for her home, but the accused accompanied her and within the hearing of P.W.9 and P.W. 10 requested Biva to take some 'chanachur* and to accompany him to his quarters.Biva did not agree.Then the appellant caught hold of Biva by her hand and tried to drag her.But Biva could manage to disengage her hand.At that point of time there was loadshedding.As such P.W. 9 & P.W. 10 could not say what happened thereafter.But Biva-the victim girl and other relations searched for her at the shop and to other places.Lastly the victim's father lodged a missing diary at Raigunj PS.Serious tension was prevailing at the locality.The suspicion of the local people fell on the convict-appellant who was last seen in the living company of the victim girl.The lower part of the dead body was completely naked and blood was oozing out stilt from her private part.The post-mortem examination disclosed, that the girl was raped and strangulated to death.The convict-appellant had also some scratching wounds on his face and shoulders and bleeding injury on the middle finger of his left hand.He also received a toxide injection.JUDGMENT D.P. Sarkar-II, J.Ultimately, police came and took the convict-appellant to the police station for interrogation.Before the members of the public and the police the convict appellant admitted all the facts and disclosed that the dead body of the victim girl was thrown into the pond at the back of his quarters.Pursuant to such statement, the dead body was recovered.Blood an bloodstained earth were collected from the wall made of cement and sand from the balcony of the convict.The police also seized some other articles under different seizure lists in presence of the witnesses.During investigation the police examined as large number of witnesses, drew up sketch map of the place of occurrence: collected the postmortem report and forensic reports and finally submitted charge-sheet against the convict appellant under sections 363/366/376/302/201 of the IPC.The learned Sessions Judge at the time of trial framed charges accordingly and on completion of the trial was pleased to find the convict-appellant guilty to the charges, and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to death for the offence under section 302 IPC.No separate sentence was passed for the offence under section.363/376/366/201 IPC.On being aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentence of death the present two appeals have been filed by the convict-appellant-one from the jail custody and other in regular course on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned trial court committed error in appreciating the evidence on record and in the application of law.According to the convict appellant he was absolutely innocent and ought to have been acquitted by the learned trial court.Therefore, the minor contradictions or inconsistencies as pointed out by the learned advocate for the convict appellant can hardly overcome the solid evidence that has been adduced before the learned trial court against the convict.We could also know from their evidence that the convict requested the victim to go to his quarters and to take some 'chanachur'.In short, it is clear from the evidence of those two witnesses that the victim was last seen living in the company of the convict.Latter on, the dead body of the victim girl was recovered from the pond at the back side of the quarters of the convict and that also in pursuance to the statement made by the convict to the police in presence of the public.This statement to the police leading to the recovery of the dead body of the victim is admissible in evidence.In the aforesaid back ground, the question becomes very relevant as how could the knowledge that the dead body was thrown into that pond? This fact provides a very strong circumstances specialty when coupled with the fact that he was seen in the company of the victim last.Again, the recovery of the under garments and the chappals of the victims girl from the quarters of the convict could not be explained satisfactorily by the convict.How those articles came to his room?The convict also could not explain the injuries on his person for which he received treatment at 8.00 PM.Even for the sake of argument, if we accept that he was assaulted by the public, yet we cannot think what promoted any member of the public to bite on the middle finger.There is no mark of punching, no other mark of injury caused by assault.Naturally, the explanation as given by the convict for the presence of those injuries on his person is absolutely untrustworthy,The post-mortem report shows that the victim girl was raped and then strangulated.The F.S.L. report disclosed the sample of blood collected from the balcony of the convict was human blood.There is no explanation how human blood found place in the balcony of the convict.If the factual evidence be arranged methodically it presents an unbroken chain of circumstances irresistibly pointing the needle of guilt to the present appellant as the sole author of the crime.i) Firstly, that the victim was last seen living in the company of the convict.ii) Secondly, that the victim was not traceable even on extensive search since that time.iii) Thirdly, the dead body of the victim girl was recovered from the pond at the back of the quarters of the convict in pursuance to the statement made by the convict to the police.iv) Fourthly, no trustworthy explanation could be offered by the convict regarding the injuries found on his person.v) Fifthly, sample of blood collected from the balcony of the convict was found to be human blood by the FSL.vi) Sixthly, the convict on the self-same night at about 8.00 PM attended the chamber of a private doctor (PW 11) and got treatment for the injuries on his person including the bleeding injury on the middle finger of his hand.vii) Seventhly, the recovery of the under-garment and hawal chappals of the victim girl, identified by her father, from the bed-room of the convict-appellant for which the convict could not give any explanation as to how those articles came into his room.Of course, it 19 submitted by the convict that those articles were planted by the police into his room or by somebody else as the room was open, when he was taken to the police station for interrogation.The convict also tried to assail the evidence of PW 9 & 10 on the ground that they falsely and out of grudge deposed against him.Because, the convict one day found PW 9 & 10 in a compromising position and as he threatened to disclose that fact, out of that grudge they made statement falsely implicating him.This suggestion is wild and unreasonable.Because if actually PW 9 & 10 were found in a compromising position within the knowledge of the convict, these two PWs would try to oblige the convict, lease the convict disclosed the fact to the other public.The learned Judge put the questions to the convict in an elaborate form and not in specific form.Both the Criminal Appeals and the Death Reference Case are, accordingly disposed of. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
225,098 | The accused-appellants belong to Sakkanwali Village, Police Station Sadar Muktsar, District Muktsar, Punjab.The deceased Harbans Singh was the neighbour of the appellants.There was a dispute on the demarcation of the Shamlat land.Some portion of this land is claimed by the accused-appellants and some of the land was being claimed by Harbans Singh, the deceased.The Shamlat land has not been demarcated nor a particular portion of the land was in exclusive possession of either the appellants or the complainant party.As per the First Information Report lodged by Harvinder Kaur at 10.30 P.M. on 23rd February, 1996, the prosecution story unfolded is, that on 23rd February 1996 at about 5.30 P.M., the complainant Harvinder Kaur (PW-1) along with Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2), wife of Jaspal Singh, were making cow-dung cakes in the Shalmat land.Harbans Singh after providing fodder to the cattle was talking to Jaspal Singh.In the meantime, Mohinder Singh (A-1) and Nasib Singh (A-3), armed with licensed 12 bore double barrel guns, Naginder Singh (A-6) armed with dang, Sukhdev Singh (A-5) armed with kassia, Beant Singh (A-2) armed with kirpan and Nirbhai Singh (A-4) armed with kassruli came to the spot.Mohinder Singh (A-1) raised lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson for grabbing and making addition of the land of the accused with that of the land of the complainant party.Then Mohinder Singh fired shot from his licensed gun at Harbans Singh, which hit him on the left side of the chest.When the complainant (PW-1) ran towards her husband to save him, Nasib Singh (A-3) fired a shot from his double barrel 12 bore gun, which hit her on the ankle of left foot.At that time Mohinder Singh fired another shot, which hit on the interior side of the right thigh of Harbans Singh, the deceased.At the same time Naginder Singh (A-6) gave dang blows to Jaspal Singh and Nasib Singh again fired shot on the right leg of Jasvinder Kaur.An alarm was raised which attracted Gurbans Singh and Mander Singh sons of Gurdev Singh, Pritam Singh and Gurmit Singh sons of Bhag Singh, Madan Singh son of Avtar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh son of Mehar Singh, residents of Sakkanwali Village.When they tried to intervene and rescue the members of the complainant party, Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh fired shots at them hitting the right flank of Madan Singh and left leg of Pritam Singh.Similarly, Sukhdev Singh, Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh caused injuries to Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Gurmit Singh.After causing the aforesaid injuries, all the accused ran away with their respective weapons.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each for causing grievous hurt with blunt weapon to Jaspal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.(ix)Mohinder SinghNasib SinghNirbhai SinghBeant SinghU/s 325 r/w S.Thereafter, Gurmit Singh arranged for the vehicle and took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar.However, Harbans Singh succumbed to his injuries on his way to the hospital.The remaining injured were got admitted to the Civil Hospital at Muktsar.The inquest report of the dead body of Harbans Singh was prepared in the presence of Jaspal Singh and Mander Singh.After the investigation the accused persons were arrested and prosecuted.Appellants Mohinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Naginder Singh had taken the plea of alibi stating that on the date of occurrence they along with Bachittar Singh and Harmanjit Singh had gone to the village Jharriwala to see a match for the grand daughter of Naginder Singh and had returned late in the night.As such they were not present on the date at the place of occurrence and had been falsely implicated by the complainant side.The other appellants while admitting the incident asserted that Harvinder Kaur had given wrong version of the facts, in fact, Nasib Singh was present at his house.Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh came to know that Harbans Singh (deceased), Jaspal Singh (PW-9), Gurdev Singh, Mander Singh armed with gandasas along with some other persons were placing cow-dung cakes in their plot/land to take forceful possession of the land and when Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh went to the spot to make enquiries, the aforesaid persons attacked them and caused injuries.Nasib Singh, Gurmail Singh and Angrez Singh intervened to save Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh.Gurmail Singh and Angrez Singh caused injuries to the complainant's side.It was further asserted that in the meanwhile, some other persons collected there and Nasib Singh in self-defence of his property and person fired shots which hit the complainant's side.The prosecution has mainly based its case on the eye witnesses' account of the incident deposed by Harvinder Kaur (PW-1), Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2), Jaspal Singh (PW-9) and Pritam Singh (PW-10), the injured witnesses.Dr. M.G. Sharma (PW-3) had examined Mukhtiar Singh and Jaspal Singh.On 23rd February, 1996, Dr. Tarlochan Singh (PW-15) examined Harvinder Kaur (PW-1), Gurmit Singh, Pritam Singh, Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2) and Mander Singh.The doctors found the injuries on the person of the persons examined by them.At the instance of the accused Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh, licensed guns were recovered from their possession.After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted all the accused persons as under:(i)Mohinder SinghBeant SinghNasib SinghNirbhai SinghSukhdev SinghNaginder SinghU/s 148 of the I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, each.(ii)Mohinder SinghU/s 302 of the I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for committing the murder of Harbans Singh.(iii)Beant SinghNasib SinghNirbhai SinghSukhdev SinghNaginder SinghU/s 302 r/w S.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for committing the murder of Harbans Singh.(iv)Nasib SinghMohinder SinghU/s 307 I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each, for attempting to murder Harvinder Kaur, Jasvinder Kaur, Modan Singh & Pritam Singh by causing gun shot injuries.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, each for attempting to murder Harvinder Kaur, Jasvinder Singh, Modan Singh and Pritam Singh by causing fire arm injuries.(vi)Beant SinghSukhdev SinghU/s 326 I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each, for causing grievous hurt to Gurbans Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, each for causing grievous hurt to Gurbans Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.(viii)Naginder SinghSukhdev SinghU/s 325 I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each for causing grievous hurt with blunt weapon to Jaspal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.(x)Beant SinghSukhdev SinghU/s 324 I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each for causing simple hurt to Mander Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.(xi)Mohinder SinghNasib SinghNirbhai SinghNaginder SinghU/s 324 r/w S.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, each for causing simple hurt to Mander Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.(xii)Naginder SinghBeant SinghNirbhai SinghSukhdev SinghU/s 323 of I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, each for causing simple hurt to Jaspal Singh, Mander Singh, Jasvinder Kaur, Gurmit Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.(xiii)Mohinder SinghNasib SinghU/s 323 r/w S.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, each for causing simple hurt to Jaspal Singh, Mander Singh, Jasvinder Kaur, Gurmit Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.The entire sentence was directed to run concurrently.However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused convicts during investigation or trial was directed to be deducted from the period of their substantive sentences.Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence an appeal was preferred in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.It was urged before the High Court that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, which was lodged at 10.30 P.M. whereas the alleged incident took place at 5.30 P.M. on 23rd February, 1996 and the report to the Illaqa Magistrate had reached at 5.00 A.M. on 24th February, 1996, which goes to show that the complainant party had consumed time in coining up a story of their choice in connivance with the police.That non-explanation of the injuries on the person of Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh, dented the prosecution case and because of non-explanation of the injuries by the witnesses on the person of the accused, it can be inferred that the complainant's side was suppressing the genesis of fight.That there was a discrepancy between the eye-witnesses' version and medical evidence.That the plea of alibi taken by Sukhdev Singh, Naginder Singh and Mohinder Singh was proved by the defence and as such they could not have been convicted.It was lastly submitted that their presence at the spot was not unnatural as the houses of the appellants were adjoining to the place of occurrence and unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the murder of Harbans Singh and cause injuries to other persons, cannot be inferred.The High Court recorded the findings that in the circumstances of the case, merely because there was some delay in lodging the FIR, it cannot be said that the prosecution had manufactured a story to falsely implicate the appellants, particularly so when the occurrence was admitted by the appellants, maybe with the denial of the presence of Mohinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Naginder Singh at the spot.The so called delay would at best call for more care and caution while scanning the entire evidence so that there would not be chances of false implication.The element of delay in registering the complaint or sending the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution was worthy of credence.The High Court found the eye- witnesses' version credible and trustworthy.As for non-explanation of the injuries on the appellants Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh, the High Court has found that there were no injuries on their person by gandasa, which was claimed in defence.According to the High Court, the injuries were superficial in nature except one on the person of Beant Singh which was in the shape of diffused swelling and the doctor had opined that there was no visible injury mark seen, which showed that no injury was caused by the blunt side of the gandasa otherwise it would have left some mark of violence.The effect of the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused had to be judged from the entire factual position, and having done so, in view of the High Court, the prosecution had not suppressed the genesis of fight.The High Court opined that the appellants in the shape of aggressors formed an unlawful assembly causing the murder of Harbans Singh and caused injuries to nine persons.As per the High Court, there was no discrepancy in the medical evidence and the eye-witnesses' account for the injuries caused by the use of firearm.The distance between the assailants and the injured, as per the prosecution witnesses was 7-8 karams, whereas according to the medical evidence the shots fired were not from more than a distance of 4 ft. from the muzzle end of the gun.This is on account of blackening around the wound.The High Court has held that the witnesses are rustic villagers from whom accuracy about the exact distance cannot be expected.All the four injured witnesses examined have categorically stated in one voice that Mohinder Singh along with Nasib Singh armed with licensed guns came and fired at Harbans Singh, the deceased.On perusal of the site plan, it is clear that the place of occurrence is of very small in dimension.Five persons from the complainant's side including the deceased were present on the plot, whereas the other five persons, who had received injuries, had also reached the spot after hearing the commotion.From the appellants' side, six persons entered the said plot.Thus, in all 16 persons were present at the time of incident and in such a situation it would not be possible for the witnesses to make the correct assessment of the distance, from where the shots were fired and in these circumstances the gun fires and the resultant injuries thereof, witnessed by the witnesses present and injured, cannot be disbelieved.Coupled with the fact that the licensed guns of the accused persons were recovered at the instance of the accused and the user of the same being confirmed by Forensic Science Lab, the witnesses' version cannot be disbelieved.It was obvious that two guns had been used in the occurrence.The plea of alibi was disbelieved by the High Court on the grounds that the onus to prove the same heavily rests on the accused which they failed to discharge.On these findings, the High Court has reached an irresistible and unequivocal conclusion that the appellants' conviction as recorded by the learned trial court on different counts deserves to be upheld and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by special leave is preferred before us.It may be mentioned that the accused appellant Mohinder Singh has been released by the State considering his age and his appeal is not being pressed by the counsel for the appellant.The other accused-appellant Nasib Singh has been informed to have died, by the counsel for the appellant and as such his appeal stands abated.Thus, we are considering the appeal as regards Beant Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Naginder Singh.To prove the fact that Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh have received injuries, the defence has examined Dr. APS.Kochar, District T.B. Officer, Civil Surgeon Office, Faridkot.The doctor stated that he had examined Beant Singh at 10.30 P.M. on 23rd February, 1996 at Faridkot and found four injuries on his person.The injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.Injury No.4 was declared as simple.On X-Ray examination report, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were also found as simple in nature and injury No.3 was grievous in nature.On the same day at 11.00 P.M., he examined Nirbhai Singh and found three injuries on his person.Injury No.1 was caused by a sharp weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were simple and after getting X-Ray examination report injury No.3 was found to be grievous in nature.On cross-examination, it was admitted by him that he attached no X-Ray report on his record.Similarly X-Ray report and skiagraph report were not on the judicial file.Injury on the person of Beant Singh could possibly be caused as a result of falling on the hard surface.Injury No.1 on the person of Nirbhai Singh could be caused with the blade of a razor.Injury No.2 could be caused if the nail struck at a hard surface.This principle applies to a case where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that if far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries.All the three aforesaid judgments have approved the statement of law enunciated in Lakshmi Singh's Case (supra).In the present case, there is a creditworthy evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW-10 viz., Harvinder Kaur, Jasvinder Kaur, Jaspal Singh and Pritam Singh, who have vividly described the incident and the part played by each of the accused-appellants.All the four witnesses are injured witnesses and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted.The evidence led by the defence at best shows minor injuries suffered by Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh which would not dislodge the prosecution case, which is established by the evidence of creditworthy witnesses and non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution, if any, sustained by the accused-appellants would not result in disbelieving the prosecution version.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined four eye-witnesses.Harvinder Kaur (PW-1), w/o Harbans Singh (deceased) has deposed that on the relevant day, her husband and Jaspal Singh were present at the place of incident where they were preparing cow-dung cakes.She saw the accused-appellants proceeding towards the shamlat land.Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh were armed with licensed 12 bore guns, Naginder Singh with dang, Sukhdev Singh with Kassia, Beant Singh with Kirpan, Nirbhai Singh with Kassruli.Mohinder Singh raised a lalkara that they would teach us a lesson for adding their land with our land.Mohinder Singh accused fired from his 12 bore gun towards her husband Harbans Singh which hit him on the left side of his chest.She ran towards her husband and Nasib Singh fired at her by his gun which hit her on her left ankle.Mohinder Singh fired another shot which hit her husband on his right thigh while lying on the ground.Naginder Singh-accused gave dang blows to Jaspal Singh by hitting him but she could not tell the place of injuries on the person of Jaspal Singh.Nasib Singh then fired from his 12 bore gun hitting Jasvinder Kaur on her right leg above her right ankle on the front side.Nirbhai Singh-accused caused injuires to Jasvinder Kaur with kassruli.They raised alarm.On hearing noise Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Gurmit Singh, Pritam Sikngh, Madan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh came to the spot to rescue them from the accused.At that time Mohinder Singh fired from his gun hitting on the right flank of Madan Singh and left leg of Pritam Singh.Then Naginder Singh, Beant Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Nirbhai Singh with their respective weapons caused injuries to Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Gurmit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.She has further stated in cross-examination that she was present at the spot 25-30 minutes prior to the occurrence and she had seen the accused at a distance of 7-8 karams.The accused persons came carrying guns with them.The other accused were also with them and they came together.Mohinder Singh accused fired with the gun from a distance of 7-8 karams at Harbans Singh.Nasib Singh was at a distance of 7-8 karams from Jasvinder Kaur when he fired.Nasib Singh and Mohinder Singh had fired from 7-8 karams at Madan Singh and Pritam Singh.Further, Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2), another injured eye-witness, fully supports the version given by PW-1 of the incident.She specifically stated that Nasib Singh fired from his 12 bore gun towards her which hit her on her right leg above the ankle and the pellets hit her on abdomen and Nirbhai Singh gave kassruli blows on her left foot.He had specifically deposed that accused-Naginder Singh gave three dang blows to him, first blow hit on his shoulder and second blow was received by him on the back side at right hand.Pritam Singh (PW-10), another injured eye-witness, had supported the statements of the eye-witnesses in toto.The cross-examination of these witnesses could not show any contradiction or discrepancy in their version in regard to the participation of the accused-appellants in the crime and the part played by them.The ocular version of the witnesses find support from the medical evidence of Dr. Kirandeep (PW-4) who has conducted the post-mortem on the deceased Harbans Singh.Statement of Dr. M.G. Sharma (PW-3), who examined Mukhtiar Singh and Jaspal Singh and statement of Dr. Tarlochan Singh (PW-15), who examined Harvinder Kaur Gurmit Singh, Pritam Singh, Jasvinder Kaur and Mander Singh, fully corroborated the ocular version of the eye-witnesses.The prosecution has established that all the accused-appellants came to the spot of incident together.All the accused-appellants were carrying deadly weapons.Two of them had carried 12 bore guns.Immediately on reaching the spot Mohinder Singh one of the accused had opened fire followed by firing by another accused-appellant Nasib Singh and in the same transaction the accused-appellants had caused several injuries to various persons, not only to the persons who were present at the spot but also to the persons who had reached the spot after hearing the commotion. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,512,513 | Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE ac/-Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2018.05.02 10:52:56 +05'30'On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.The applicant will not leave India without previous h permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.ig A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House H Officer for compliance. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,513,844 | Criminal Application is allowed accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 22:08:19 :::Smt. S. S. Jachak, learned A.P.P. waives notice for the respondent.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 22:08:19 ::: | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,514,512 | Heard SriAshvni Mishra, counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant,Karanpal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 110 of 2019, under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Qwarsi, District- Aligarh.Co-accused, Boby, has already been granted bail vide order dated 24.05.2019 passed in Criminal Misc.The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Rohit | ['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. |
22,516,839 | Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as under:2] One Baburao s/o.Bhagwanrao Pawar was resident of village Jamga, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur.He resided in the house along with his wife, sons, daughters-in-law and their children together.Gram Panchayat election was held in the year 2007, and it was fought amongst two groups; one headed by Baburao and other by accused persons.Results of election were declared on 09.09.2007, in which four members from the panel of Baburao were elected and 3 members from the panel of accused were elected.On account of this election, quarrels used to take place between these two groups.Tense situation continued during the election process of Sarpanch, and ultimately, election was required to be conducted in presence of Tahsildar with Police Bandobast.The persons from the group of accused alleged to have kept grudge in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 11 mind against Baburao and his family members.Said Baburao had arranged dinner in his house on 09.01.2008 and had invited relatives and persons from village for dinner.The dinner was ready and persons from the house of Baburao with invitees were to start to take the meal.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::Meanwhile, Baburao and persons in the house heard noise from outside the house.Then Baburao and persons in the house came out and noticed that, 30 to 40 persons had come in the courtyard with weapons in the hands like sticks, rods.Persons were uttering words " हानी तर आपली हातातली गराम पंचायत घालवली, िनकालाचया िदवशीच याना खलास करायला पािहजे होते.Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, the son of Baburao.Other persons from the mob were giving blows to Gyandeo, Vijaykumar the brother of Baburao; Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, the sons of Baburao; Bhagwat, the son of Vijaykumar.Then Baburao and other persons in the house intervened to separate fighting.Meanwhile, persons from the mob rushed against them and restrained them from interfering in the event.In ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 12 the event, Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Shahuraj, Sheshrao and Bhagwat were lying on the earth.The assailants then ran away.Baburao and others injured shifted to the Hospital at Nilanga.Finally, Baburao lodged a complaint.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::Investigation was carried out by various Police Officers attached to concerned Police Station.API Shri Thorat prepared panchnama of the place of incident, recovered sticks and iron rods, then blood mixed earth from the place of incident, and proceeded to Nilanga Hospital where he drew inquest panchnama of the dead body of Gyandeo.He made arrest of 10 accused persons, seized their clothes, recorded memorandum statement of these 10 accused persons, and in pursuance to memorandums, recovered weapons from the places pointed out by those accused under the panchnama.He, subsequently, made arrest of accused Vilas, Ashok, Namdeo on 14.01.2008 under the panchnamas.He also recovered clothes from the persons of those accused under the panchnama.On ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 13 15.01.2008, he recorded memorandum statement of Balaji and Govind, and recovered weapons under the panchnamas at their instance.On 18.01.2008, he recorded supplementary statements of injured persons.On 20.01.2008, he recorded memorandum statement of accused Namdeo s/o.Shivaji, Vilas s/o.Kadaji and Ashok s/o.Kadaji, and recovered weapons under the panchnama as produced by them.On 21.01.2008, he recovered weapon that was produced by accused Ashok s/o.Vishwanath under the panchnama.On 31.01.2008, he forwarded seized Muddemal to C.A., Aurangabad by a letter.He, then, handed over investigation to API Anant Kulkarni, who made arrest of accused Nagnath s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, Komalbai and Vimalbai.Further investigation was carried out by API Laxman Kendre, who on 04.02.2008 recovered stick under the panchnama that was produced by accused Waman s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::He forwarded letter to MSEB office and sought information about supply of electricity on the date of incident in village Jamga, more particularly in the house of the complainant.He received letter from the concerned office.On 05.04.2008, he submitted charge sheet against 14 accused, showing accused No. 15 to 37 absconding.On ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 14 20.05.2008, he recovered sticks and rods under panchnama that were produced by accused Vishwanath Pawar, Udhav Pawar and Vaijinath Pawar, who were on anticipatory bail.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::He recorded memorandum statement of accused Pandurang s/o.Vishwanath Pawar and recovered sword produced by him under the panchnama.SPOT PANCHNAMA FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.2/2008 REGISTERED ON 10-01-2008 Offence U/Sse.302, 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, of I.P.C. Sec. 4, 7, (1) 26(3) 27(3) Indian Arms Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act.Name of the Informant :-1) Baburao Bhagwanrao @ Bhavan ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 40 Pawar, R/o Jamga, Tal.Nilanga, Dist.He demonstrated the spot of incident.He narrated facts of incident.Accordingly, we, the panchas, accepted the same and agreed to act as panchas.The complainant, who was present at the spot, stated his name to be Baburao Bhagwanrao @ Bhavan Pawar, R/o Jamga, Tal.Nilanga, Dist.He narrated the incident before the panchas.In the year 2007, elections of Gram panchyat were held.In that election, our panel got majority.My daughter-in law was elected as Sarpanch of the village ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 41 Gram panchayat.Being aggrieved by the said election, rival group, headed by viz Shivaji Kadaji and his associates was having grudge in their mind, from the date of election till election of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch.They deliberately created hurdles in the day to day work of Gram Sabha.As the Sarpanch of village was from our family, they decided to kill the family members.The accused namely Shivajii Kadaji Pawar and other 35 to 36 persons, by holding weapons like sword, knife, sickle, sticks, iron bars and axe in their hands and giving slogans, suddenly, on 09-01-2008 at about 7.15 p.m, came to our house.They pelted stones.They asked all family members to come out of the house.They threatened that they will not leave any body from his family to remain alive.They will finish entire family.On the call, we, the family members, viz, sons, daughter-in-laws, brothers, sister-in-laws, and the relatives, who were gathered on account of a function known as "Kanduri", came out of the house, in the court yard.All accused assaulted my son namely Dnyadeo with the help of sword, knife and sickle in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 42 court yard and committed murder of my son.They also assaulted my son Sanjay Bhau Vijaykumar and nephew Shahuraj with sword and sickle, causing serious injuries.Myself, my family members and relatives were also beaten.The area of said residential house is 95 X 75 feet, towards East-West and North South.Said spot is adjacent to the tar road, at the distance of 22 feet and one room, constructed with brick and cement, consisting of 25 X 18 size, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 43 having door of tin-shutter, which is used as front hall, wherein, sags of grains have been kept.The said room is also having a door of small shutter, wherein, an arrangement of electric light has also been made.Adjacent to the said room, a heap of sand has also been noticed.From the said spot, it is said that, open space of informant is situated at a distance of 50 feet, where a stones were lying scattered.The room which was constructed by cement and bricks is also having 20 feet open space towards Eastern side.was fixed, as if a wall to the said house.A wooden frame, having a latch and a lock affixed and two folded wooden doors, has also been affixed.While inspecting and entering in the tin shade house, from the door, three sides of wall made up with tin, were noticed.One wooden almirah was found kept adjacent to the door and near a partition of tin which runs towards North side.Looking at that place, it is at a distance of 10 feet, in front of the door of tin shed house, towards the West and at a distance of 20 feet, behind the room built by brick and cement.At the said place, there are many big stains of blood.The said place looks like as if it has been dug into by feet of a person.Next to it, is the a agricultural field of Ganesh Shankar Pawar.The crop of harvested tur dal was seen lying.In front thereof, there is residential house constructed in bricks and cement belonging to Raosaheb Bhalrao Suryawanshi.The abovesaid place of incident seems to be in the courtyard of the residential house of the informant Baburao Bhagwanrao Pawar which consists of 95 X 75 plot which is situated at village Jamga.414.11crapl 48 The abovesaid panchnama is written, from the beginning to the end, in the presence of the "panchas" and same is read over to them, which is true and correct.[Emphasis supplied] 20] The prosecution has examined Dnyanoba Kadaji Sagare as PW-14, who acted as panch.He stated in his evidence before the Court that, he came to know about murder of Gyandeo and then came to Jamga.Police had called him for panchanama at the house of Baburao Pawar.Baburao, Dilip, Chandrakant, Kamlakar Jadhav etc. were present.Baburao showed them the spot of incident.At the spot of incident, 5 sticks and 2 iron rods were noticed.There were plates, small-plates and the pot having cooked Mutton.One bulb was in the roof of courtyard.There was also bulb in the shop which part of the house.It appears that, Tanaji Nagorao Gade and Satyanarayan Pandurang Dapake were the panchas for the said seizure panchanama.He stated that, on 10.01.2008, he was present in Sub District Hospital, Nilanga when there was post mortem of deceased Gyandeo.He has taken the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 56 clothes on the person of deceased in his custody after the post mortem.The clothes were bunian, pant, sweater, nicker, and one white big handkerchief.Those clothes were in Aurad Police Station.He submitted report to that effect to the Police Station.Nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the evidence of this witness before the Court.However, he stated before the Court that, the clothes of Vilas Kadaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar were not seized in his presence.However, he has not stated that, clothes on the person of Gyandeo were not seized in his presence.Ramji Pawar, and 10] Balaji s/o.Apparao Pawar.27] He further stated that, he had seen clothes seized by Police.Each panchanama shown to him bears his signature.Content of each panchnamas, which are at Exhibit 77 andDuring his cross examination, the defence has brought on record that, he is in blood relations of the complainant Baburao.He has specifically denied suggestion that, he was not able to identify accused persons.He has denied the suggestion that, Police prepared ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 59 false panchnama and obtained his signature.He further denied suggestion that, since he being relative of the complainant his signatures are obtained on the panchanama.28] The prosecution did examine PW-5 Subhash Vishwanath Solanke, his evidence is at Exhibit-111, to prove memorandum statement given by the accused Balaji Apparao Pawar and accused Govind Ganpatrao Shahapure.In his evidence, he stated that, accused Balaji Apparao Pawar has given memorandum statement that, he has concealed stick in his house and he would hand over the same.The said memorandum was reduced into writing by Police.It bears his signature and also signature of other ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 60 panch Shahajirao.Contents of the said memorandum panchanama are true and correct.He stated that, the accused Govind Ganpatrao Shahapure has also given memorandum statement stating that, he has concealed stick in his house, and he would hand over the same.Police reduced into writing said disclosure in his presence.He identified the contents of the said memorandum panchanama and also he bears signature and signature of other panch Shahajirao.According to this witness that, the accused Balaji Pawar removed one stick which was under the wooden flanks and same was handed over to the Police in presence of the panchas.He further stated that, accused Govind Shahapure also removed one stick from beneath the matrix on the wooden bed and same was seized by Police in their presence under the panchanama.He identified his signatures and also the stick.In his cross examination, the defence has brought on record that, this witness was relative of the deceased Gyandeo.He has denied suggestion that, the sticks were seized in the Police Station itself.In his evidence, he stated that, accused Ashok Pawar gave memorandum in his presence and showed willingness to hand over one stick from his house.He identified the memorandum panchnama.He stated that, Yuvraj Solunke was another panch.He stated that, the accused entered in the house and handed over one stick to Police.The said stick was at the corner of the room behind row of earthen pots.Nothing useful has been brought on record by the defence so as to disbelieve his version in the examination in chief.He stated that, on 13.01.2008, he had been to Civil Hospital, Latur.Four injured persons were under medical treatment in the said Hospital.He has taken clothes of injured persons from the said Hospital to the Police Station, Aurad Shahajani and he handed over those clothes to PSO, ASI Shri Chavan.He further stated that, those clothes were seized under the panchnama.Accordingly, he submitted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 62 report to the Police Station.In his cross examination he stated that, he denied suggestion that, report prepared by him was not true.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::He stated in his evidence that, on 20.05.2008, police had called him in the village.He was coming to his house from the field.He reached near the bridge and the Police called him there.Police seized weapons there.In his cross examination, he stated that, he know Pandurang Pawar.Pandurang stated in his presence to police that, he will produce the sword and police reduced into writing his disclosure.It bears his signature.He went near the bridge.From there below the bridge from the earth below the cement pipe Pandurang removed sword and Police seized it.Panchanama shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.Therefore, he denied suggestion given by defence that, Police called him for panchnama for being rival of Pandurang.He denied the suggestion that, their signatures were obtained on the Panchnama in the village.He further stated that, he denied suggestion that, he is deposing due to political rivalry with Pandurang.In his evidence, he stated that, on 04.02.2008, he was at village Jamga.On that day, police had called him.Waman Dadarao Pawar was with the Police.Dayanand Pawar was also with them.Police took him at the house of Waman.Waman produced there a stick from his house.Police seized stick under the panchanama.He signed said panchanama as witness.He identified his thumb impression.The defence has brought on record in cross examination that, this witness is a relative of the complainant Baburao.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::He stated that, on 20.05.2008, he was taken by Police to the house of Vishwanath Pawar.Police took inspection of his house.Vishwanath Pawar handed over one stick to Police which was kept by the side of grain store.Police affixed chit on the stick with his signature and seized it under the panchanama.He identified the said panchanama and his signature [Exh. 212].He further stated that, Police took him to the house of Vaijinath Pawar and inspected the house.Vaijinath Pawar produced one stick kept under the cot.Police affixed chit on it with his signature and seized stick under the panchnama.He identified his signature and contents of the said panchanama [213].He further stated that, Police took him to the house of Udhav Pawar.Udhav produced iron rod before the Police.Police affixed chit of his signature on the rod and seized it under the panchanama.He identified said article No.5 i.e. iron rod.In his evidence before the Court, he stated that, on 14.01.2008 Police had called him in Police Station, Nilanga.There was one accused.He identified the said accused before the Court.Accused told his name as Mahadu Ganpatrao Shahapure.He further stated that, accused stated before them that, he himself and other 30 to 35 persons went to the house of Baburao Pawar at Jamga and committed murder of son of Baburao by assaulting with sticks and he is ready to produce the stick with which he had assaulted.Police accordingly recorded statement of the accused and obtained his signature on it.He identified statement of the accused Madhav which was shown to him and also signature of PW-15, accused and other panch.He stated that, accused put thumb impression on it.The said memorandum is at Exh.228 likewise he also identified the memorandum at Exh.230 given by accused Manik Pawar.It appears that, in pursuant to the memorandum statement of Manik Pawar, he shown willingness to produce the stick.It further appears that, accused Abhimanyu Pawar also gave memorandum statement and showed willingness to produce the knife used by him.Accordingly, the statement was recorded by Police and signature of this witness was obtained.He identified his signature and memorandum statement.He further stated that, accused Pandhari Pawar gave memorandum statement before him and at his instance iron rod was recovered.He further stated that, accused Tukaram Pawar also gave memorandum statement and showed readiness to produce stick and accordingly said stick was recovered at the instance of the said accused.He further stated that, accused Shivaji Pawar stated before the police in his presence and showed ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 67 willingness to produce the sword used by him in the assault.Accordingly, Police recorded his memorandum and obtained signature of this witness on it.The memorandum shown to him and obtained his signature.He further stated that, accused Madhav Shahapure gave memorandum and accordingly his memorandum was recorded by the Police.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::Accused Madhav Shahapure showed his house and from a room beneath black box removed a stick and handed over the same to the Police.Likewise, accused Satyanarayan gave memorandum and iron rod was recovered at his instance.He further stated that, Abhimanyu Pawar was also gave memorandum, same was seized under the panchanama and in pursuant to his statement at his instance he showed willingness to hand over knife and accordingly knife article No.51 was handed over by the accused Abhimanyu Pawar to Police.He further stated that, memorandum of Tukaram Pawar was recorded, he signed the same at his instance, police recovered a stick.Accused Shivaji Pawar produced sword from the tin sheet roof of the house.He also stated that, thereafter they went to the house of Manik Pawar from the house of Madhav Shahapure.Manik Pawar went in the house and brought ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 68 one stick.He also stated that, police seized the said stick and drawn panchanama and obtained signature of this witness.He identified the panchanama.The defence brought on record through his cross examination that, complainant is his relative.37] Whether the death of deceased Gyandeo was homicidal, accidental or suicidal will have to be ascertained from the medical evidence.The probable cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to puncture of left ventricle of heart.In his evidence, he stated that, on 10.01.2008, he was on duty in S.D.H. Nilanga.His four sons are married.His house is located in Survey No.48/B at village Jamga.On 07.09.2007, elections of the Grampanchayat was held.Two panels contested the said election.One panel was headed by him and another was led by accused Shivaji.His panel ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 77 was elected in that election.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::In that election, 4 candidates out of 7 from his panel were successful.Three candidates of accused Shivaji's panel out of 7 were elected.Since the said elections, relations between him and group of accused No.1 are strained.Thereafter, there was dispute in Gram Sabha.Then Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao was assaulted by Madhav Shivaji Pawar by sword on the face.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow to Vijaykumar on shoulder.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted by iron rod to Vijaykumar.Vilas and Haridas Pawar each assaulted Vijaykumar by stick and iron rod.Accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by stick.Accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj on back right side by sword.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted on right shin by Katti to Sheshrao Baburao Pawar.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted on left hand wrist of Sheshrao Pawar by sword.Devidas Pralhad Pawar ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 80 assaulted by stick to Bhagwat Pawar on the head.Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted him by stick on the back.Other accused persons assaulted other persons in their family.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Then Gyandeo, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat were taken to the Hospital.He himself and other persons were accompanying them.Injured were taken to Hospital at Nilanga.Doctor examined injured persons.Sanjay, Baburao Pawar, Shahuraj Baburao Pawar, Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao Pawar were referred by Doctor to Latur for further treatment.He himself and other guests accompanied them to Latur.Sheshrao and Bhagwat were referred to Latur Hospital on next day for further treatment.43] PW-16 further deposed that, they received phone at Latur from the Nilanga Hospital that, during treatment Gyandeo Baburao Pawar died.He instructed guest to file application at Aurad Police Station regarding incident.Accused Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted by stick on his back and other persons beat other persons from his family.He further stated that, he cannot assign any reason why above facts are not mentioned in his complaint.He further stated that, at the time of incident about 30-40 persons had come to his house for assault.On that day, three persons from his village and two guests had come to his house for dinner.At that time, 5 to 6 persons from his house were present.At the time of incident, three persons from his village and two guests who had come to his house for dinner, had intervened the quarrel.Assailants assaulted aforesaid 5 persons causing them concealed ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 84 injuries.They were assaulted by sticks.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the complainant is his real brother.He stated that he became unconscious at the spot due to assault and regained consciousness in the hospital at Latur after four days.Then he came to know that injured Gyandeo died.In his examination in chief, he stated that, complainant Baburao is his father.Varsha is his wife.She is acting as Sarpanch of the village.Election of the Gram Panchayat was held in the Year 2007, between two panels headed by his father and another by Shivaji Pawar.Panel of his father was elected in the election.On the day of result of election, Shivaji Pawar and his persons assaulted persons from rival group.On 24.11.2007, Tahsildar conducted election for the post of Sarpanch in Police Bandobast, and in that election, his wife was elected as Sarpanch.Since then there are strained relations between complainant's group and group of Shivaji Pawar.Persons from the side of Shivaji Pawar used to threat to kill the complainant's persons and they will not allow to conduct the work.He further stated that, deceased Gyandeo was his real brother.It was next day of Vel Amawasya.Dinner of Chicken Mutton was arranged at his house.His evidence is at Exhibit-In his examination in chief, he stated that, deceased Gyandeo was his cousin.Incident took place on 09.01.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. at his house in the courtyard.It was next day of Vel Amawasya.On that day, Chandrakant Solanke, r/o.414.11crapl 106 Sawangira and villagers Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole were invited for dinner at his house.He further stated that, while they were about to sit for dinner, mob of 30 to 40 persons came towards his house while abusing and saying 'Babya, Gyana, Vijya.Heritage from their house will not be saved.Mob came in the courtyard with weapons.He further stated that, first of all Gyandeo came from out of house.They others followed Gyandeo.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow above the navel of Gyandeo.Due to assault, Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and Gyandeo fell down.He then went to rescue Gyandeo.Devidas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head.He sustained bleeding head injury.He moved aside.He further stated that, thereafter, 15 to 16 persons from the mob assaulted by sword, stick, iron rod to Vijaykumar, Shahuraj, Sanjay, Sheshrao and others from ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 107 his house, guests, Vijaykumar, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Sanjay also sustained bleeding injuries.He himself and other injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital.He himself, Gyandeo and Sheshrao were admitted in Nilanga Hospital.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::He further stated that, other injured were referred to Latur Hospital for further treatment.On the next day morning, he learnt at Nilanga that, Gyandeo is dead.Police recorded his statement.He was cross examined by Advocate Shri T.V.In his cross examination nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record by the defence.In his examination in chief, he stated that, deceased Gyandeo was his real brother.Mob was pelting stones on his house.Then mob came in his courtyard.In his examination in chief, he stated that, he is brother of the complainant Baburao.They all are three brothers.Vijaykumar is their third brother.414.11crapl 119 They reside separately in one Wada.Their tin-sheet rooms are adjoining to each other.Incident occurred on 09.01.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. On that day, there was Mutton dinner arrangement on account of next day of Vel Amawasya at the house of complainant Baburao.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assautled Sheshrao by Katti on right leg shin.Remaining persons assaulted female members of the complainant.He identified the assailants Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Vilas Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Vimalbai, Udhav, Devidas, Tukaram, Satish.Injured were admitted in Nilanga Hospital for treatment.This witness was accompanying them.He further stated that, in Nilanga Hospital, Gyandeo, Sheshrao and Bhagwat were treated.Vijaykumar, Shahuraj and Sanjay were referred by the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 122 doctor to Latur Hospital.Accordingly, they carried them to Latur Hospital and admitted them there.Baburao and other guests were with him while going to Latur.At Latur they came to know that, Gyandeo died at Nilanga during the course of treatment.In his cross-Dhondiram Raosaheb Pawar is a Teacher since 1991 in Zilla Parishad, and since 1999 he is serving at Lambota.He resides at Nilanga.He went there.She know accused.They are from her village.She is Sarpanch of village Jamga.She was elected three years before.In the election, panel of her father-in-law was elected.On the day of election, Shivaji Pawar and his persons had assaulted.Two months after the election, she was elected for the post of Sarpanch.On the day of election for Sarpanch, Shivaji Pawar and his persons obstructed in the Gram ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 132 Panchayat office and said that, they will not allow to hold election.Therefore, the meeting could not be held and they went in Tahsil office and informed Tahsildar about it.On the next day, Tahsildar, his colleagues and police came in the village and conducted election for Sarpanch.On 24th election was over and she was elected as Sarpanch.Shivaji Pawar and his companions were threatening them not to allow to work in the Gram Panchayat office and they will ruin heritage of their family.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::It was next day of Vel Amawasya festival.Incident took place at about 7.00 to 7.15 p.m. On that day, there was non-vegetarian dinner at their house.Maroti Jadhav, Chandrakant Solanke and villagers Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Bhingole Tatyarao were also invited for dinner at their house.Then Waman Dadarao Pawar inflicted stick blow on her back.Then she did not understand what happened thereafter.Bhagwat is his cousin brother.He stated that, incident took place on 09.01.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. On that day, this witness, Baburao, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Shahuraj, Gyandeo and other females were at the house.On that day, it was next day of Vel Amawasya and so dinner of chicken was arranged at their house.For the dinner, guests Chandrakant ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 136 Solanke, Maroti Jahdav and villagers Waman Pawar, Anant and Tatyarao Bhingole were invited.While they were sitting for dinner, mob came in the court yard and were saying that, they will ruin their heritage, they will cut them into pieces and the mob then started stone pelting.About 30 to 40 persons were in the mob.As regards assault on himself, P.W.24 Sheshrao Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Shivaji Pawar inflicted three blows of sword on his left leg, accused Ashok Pawar inflicted Katti blow on the left leg.88] P.W.25 Vijaykumar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault by accused on himself, P.W.25 Vijaykumar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar and Venkat Pawar caught hold him, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 153 sword blow on his face, Madhav also inflicted sword blow on his navel, Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right thigh, Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on head, Udhav Pawar inflicted iron blow on left shoulder, Hari Pawar inflicted iron blow on the back.Due to the assault, his intestines came out.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::89] P.W.26 Sanjay Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating Satish, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on himself, P.W.26 Sanjay Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that the accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted him by Jambiya like sword on the right side waist due to which his intestines came out.414.11crapl 154 since 19.05.2007 till 2008 at Police Station Aurad Shahajani Police Station.He stated that, he received complaint of Baburao Bhagwanrao Pawar at 4.00 p.m. Then, he registered crime and retained investigation with him.On that day, he visited the spot of incident and prepared its panchanama.He further stated that, spot of incident was courtyard premises of house of complainant at village Jamga.Panchnama was prepared in presence of two panchas.Panchnama shown to him is the same.He seized simple earth and blood stained earth in separate papers, five sticks and two iron rods under the spot panchnama.Labels bearing signatures of PW-29 and panchas were affixed on those sticks and iron rods.Sticks and iron rods shown to him are the same.On that day, he went to Sub District Hospital, Nilanga and prepared inquest panchnama of dead body of Gyandeo.Inquest panchnama Exh.62 shown to him is the same.Then dead body was sent for post mortem along with police Constable Songir.He further stated that, on that day, he arrested 10 accused under arrest panchnamas.He seized clothes from the person of arrested ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 155 accused in presence of panchas under panchnama.Arrested accused were Balaji Apparao Pawar, Madhav Ganpat Shahapure, Manik Ramji Pawar, Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Ashok Vishwanath Pawar, Govind Ganpat Shahapure, Pandhari Manik Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar.Panchnama of seizure clothes of these accused shown to him are the same.It bears his signature and panchas.He recorded statements of three witnesses.He further stated that, on 12.01.2008, he issued letter to Special Executive Officer for recording statement of injured persons.He also recorded statements of injured by going in Latur Hospital.On 13.01.2008, he recorded statements of 2 injured persons.On 14.01.2008, accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Madhav Ganpati Shahapure, Manik Ramji Pawar, Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, Pandhari Manik Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure gave memorandum of statement.He recorded it in present of witnesses.In pursuance of their statements, weapons produced by them from respective places were seized under panchnama.Memorandum bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.On 14.01.2008, he arrested three accused namely Vikas Kadaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar and Dnyandeo Shivaji Pawar under arrest panchnamas.It bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.He seized clothes panchnama.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::Panchnama shown to him are the same and bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.He again said that, panchnamas bear signatures of Ganganbone.He knows his signature.He further stated that, on 15.01.2008, he recorded memorandum of Balaji Apparao Pawar, Govind Ganpat Shahapure, in presence of panchas.It bears signature of PW-29 and panchas.In pursuance to these memorandums, accused produced weapons from the places pointed out by them and he seized those weapons under the panchnama in presence of panchas witnesses.Panchanamas bear signatures of PW-29 and panch witnesses.He affixed labels bearing signature of PW-29 and panchas on the seized weapons.He further stated that, on 18.01.2008, he recorded supplementary statement of injured persons.Memorandums shown to him are the same.It bear signatures of PW-29 and panch witnesses.Then, he seized weapons produced by those accused from the places pointed by them under panchnamas in presence of panchas.Panchnama shown to him are the same.It bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.On 21.01.2008, he recorded memorandum of accused Ashok Vishwanath Pawar.He seized weapon produced by accused from the place pointed out by him, under the panchnama in presence of panchas.Panchnama Exh.125 shown to him is the same.It bears signature of PW-29 and panchas.Lables bearing signatures of PW-29 and panchas were affixed on the weapons seized.On 31.01.2008, he sent seized muddemal to C.A. Along with letter.Office copy of that letter shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.He was cross examined by Mr. T.V.Jamdar advocate for the accused.In his cross examination, he stated that, on the very day i.e. on 10 th January, 2008, he ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 158 recorded supplementary statement of the complainant.He has denied suggestion that, panch witnesses on all panchnamas were from relations of the complainant only and that those panchas were provided by the complainant.He also denied suggestion that, he shown false spot of incident and that none of the accused gave memorandum and none of the accused produced weapons in pursuance to such memorandums and that he prepared false memorandums and panchanamas.He further stated that, he has recorded statement of persons referred in the complaint.He specifically denied suggestion that, he posed false witnesses at the instance of complainant and that conducted improper investigation and examined only the persons who are relatives of the complainant.He denied suggestion that, he manipulated panchnama regarding seizure of clothes of accused persons.In his evidence, he stated that, API Thorat handed over investigation to him.On 02.02.2008, he collected injury certificate of injured and P.M. Report.Panchnama shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.Lable bearing signatures of PW-30 and panch was affixed on the stick.He further stated that, he took Waman Pawar to Police Station, arrested him and seized clothes on his person under the panchnama.Panchnama shown to PW-30 is the same.It bears his signature.He further stated that, on 29.02.2008, he sent letter to MSEB office, Nilanga whether on the day of incident and at the time of incident there was electricity supply at village Jamga.The office copy of said letter shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.It bears signature of PW-30 and panch witnesses.Accused Pandurang Vishwanath Pawar gave memorandum in presence of panchas, and he seized sword produced by him in pursuance of memorandum, under the panchnama in presence of panch.Memorandum and panchnama shown to him are the same.It bears signatures of PW-30 and panch witnesses.He stated that, on 16.06.2008 he arrested 13 accused.Accused Vishnu Pawar, Vinayak Pawar, Maroti Pawar, Chandraharsha Pawar, Satish Vaijinath Pawar and Pandurang Maroti Bhingole gave memorandum before him in presence of panchas, and each accused produced weapon from different places in pursuance to memorandum, and he seized those weapons under panchnamas in presence of panch witnesses.Arrest panchnamas shown to him bears his signature and panch.He stated that, accused Komalbai had produced knife / batai before him which recovered under panchnama in the presence of panch.Likewise, accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted P.W.22 by iron rod.The said fact is deposed by P.W.16 Baburao and also P.W.22 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 191 and also other eye witnesses.The trial Court convicted the appellants - accused No.1 Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o.Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code, and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years.The appellants - original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, original accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, and original accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:26 ::: 414.11crapl 9 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and accused No.13 Namdeo are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Hundred each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of one month.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:26 :::According to appellant - Shahuraj, the original complainant Baburao Pawar died due to heart attack.The appellant - Shahuraj is son of the deceased Baburao and also injured person in the incident, has filed Criminal Appeal No.601/2012 against 32 acquitted accused, and also against accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar for enhancement of their sentence.The State of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 against 35 accused.Since all the three Appeals are arising out of common Judgment and Order dated 30 th June, 2011 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 10 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No. 14/2008, same are heard together and being decided by the common Judgment and Order.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::" Uttering these words, the persons from the mob started assaulting the family members of Baburao.A person from the mob namely Shivaji s/o.On 16.06.2008, he made arrest of 13 accused persons and recorded memorandum of those accused and recovered weapons under panchnama that was produced by them.Finally, he submitted supplementary charge sheet against subsequently arrested accused, showing two accused absconding.5] The trial Court framed charge against the accused at Exh.5 for the offences levelled against them.The contents of the charge came to be read over and explained to the accused, to which they did not plead guilty and ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 15 claimed to be tried.The defence of the accused is of total denial and about their false implication in the case.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::6] The trial Court framed points for its consideration, and after recording evidence and hearing the parties convicted the accused No.1 Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o.Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand only each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years.The accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand only each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and accused No.13 Namdeo are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Five ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 16 Hundred only each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of one month.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::The trial Court ordered that, all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.Accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji and accused No.13 Namdeo were in jail during trial, and therefore, the set-off is given to them under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.It appears that, accused No.1 Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.2 Madhav s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.3 Pandhari s/o.Manik Pawar, accused No.4 Tukaram s/o.Shivaji Pawar, accused No.5 Abhimanyu s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.6 Manik s/o.Ramji Pawar, accused No.7 Satyanarayan s/o.Madhav Shahapure, accused No.8 Balaji s/o.Apparao Pawar, accused No.9 Govind s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.10 Ashok s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo s/o.Shivaji Pawar, accused No.14 Waman s/o.Dadarao Pawar, accused No.15 Dhondiram s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.16 Vishwanath s/o.Vithal Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath s/o.Vithal Pawar, accused No.18 Udhav s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::414.11crapl 17 Shivaji Pawar, accused No. 19 Pandurang s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.20 Satish s/o.Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.21 Maroti s/o.Madhav Pawar, accused No.22 Vishnu s/o.Madhav Pawar, accused No.23 Chandrahar s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.24 Vinayak s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat s/o.Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.26 Narayan s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.27 Suresh s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.28 Pandurang s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.29 Haridas s/o.Manik Pawar, accused No.30 Prakash s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas s/o.Pralhad Pawar, accused No.32 Satish s/o.Baburao Pawar, accused No.33 Nagnath s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.34 Vimal w/o.Shivaji Pawar and accused No.35 Komal w/o.The accused Nos. 2 to 12, 14 to 35 named above were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code.Accused Nos. 2 to 10, 12, 14 to 35 named above were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 324 of I.P. Code.Bail bonds of accused No. 2 to 4, 6 to 10, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 18 14 to 21, 23 to 27 and 29 to 35 named above stood cancelled due to order passed by the trial Court.Accused No.5 Abhimanyu s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.22 Vishnu s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::Madhav Pawar and accused No.28 Pandurang s/o.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30 th June, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No. 14/2008, three separate Appeal are filed by the convicted accused, by the State and the original complainant.7] The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.414/2011, submitted that, the Court below has not at all properly appreciated the evidence on record causing miscarriage of justice.It is submitted that, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.It is submitted that, it is doubtful if the so called eye witnesses could discern the overt acts in the darkness.There are manifold contradictions and omissions which ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 19 completely demolished the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses.It is further submitted that, the injuries on the deceased were not possible by the weapons allegedly used.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::This is demonstrated from the evidence of the Doctor.It is also submitted that, blood group on the clothes of accused and weapons do not tally with the blood group of the injured.The blood group on the sword seized from accused- Shivaji and on the clothes is "O".Shivaji did not assault PW-25 Vijaykumar, whose blood group is "A".It is further submitted that, the weapons allegedly used have not been seized.Blood group of deceased is "O' but blood of group "O" is not detected on the soil seized from the spot.8] The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, in fact, it was not possible for the alleged eye witnesses to watch accused and his overt acts since according to the prosecution case, mob of 40 accused gathered at the alleged spot of the incident.According to the prosecution case, 39 accused formed unlawful assembly and villagers from the village also gathered near the spot of incident.It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Masalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 held that, when the prosecution alleges unlawful assembly of more than 5 persons, in such a case it would be unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of one witness, but there should be more than two witnesses for incident.It is submitted that, the prosecution case suffers from inherent contradictions, omissions and improvements, and therefore, the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellants.The learned counsel invited our attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and also the medical evidence and submits that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses if examined in the light of the admissions given in their cross examinations, and the portion marked in police statement, it unequivocally indicates that, the presence of the appellants was doubtful, and also there are no corresponding injuries traced out in the medical evidence so as to sustain conviction of the 1 AIR 1965 SC 202;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relying upon the grounds taken in the appeal memo, relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act and also notes of evidence would submit that, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.9] The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses [PW-22-Shahuraj] injured eye witness that, Vilas Kadaji had assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by stick on his left shoulder and stomach.However, the injury certificate at Exh. 301 of said injured Shahuraj Pawar does not at all show any injury on the left shoulder and stomach of injured Shahuraj Pawar.Moreover, the injuries shown is 'incised wound penetrating' by hard and sharp weapon.Manifestly, the stick is not hard and sharp weapon.It is also submitted that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 ::: 414.11crapl 22 [PW-25 Vijaykumar] injured eye witness that, Vilas Kadaji had assaulted Vijaykumar by stick on his head.However, the injury certificate [Exh.303] of said injured Vijaykumar, does not at all show any injury by stick on the head of the said Vijaykumar.The injuries caused to him are all 'Incised penetrating wounds' caused by hard and sharp weapon, and none are on the head.Considering above mentioned medical certificates, the prosecution evidence of injured eye witnesses PW-22 and 25 in respect of accused No.11 - Vilas is clearly falsified by the medical evidence i.e. Injury certificates.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:27 :::10] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused in Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 submits that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses / injured eye witnesses that, Ashok Kadaji had assaulted Sheshrao Pawar by 'Katti' on the right leg shin of Sheshrao Pawar.However, the injury certificate of said injured Sheshrao Pawar, does not at all show any injury on the leg of injured Sheshrao Pawar.It is further submitted that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses / injured eye witnesses that, Prakash Kadaji had assaulted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 23 Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod on his back.However, the injury certificate of said injured Shahuraj Pawar does not at all show any injury by iron rod on the back of the said Shahuraj Pawar.The injury caused to him is incised wound caused by hard and sharp weapon.Considering above mentioned medical certificates, the prosecution evidence of injured eye witnesses in respect of accused Nos. 12 and 30 is clearly falsified by the medical evidence i.e. injury certificates.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::11] The learned counsel Mr. R.S. Shinde appearing for the respondent - original accused Nos.4, 12, 30 & 34 further submitted that, if the entire evidence on record is considered, the presence of the accused Nos.4, 12, 30 & 34 is doubtful, and therefore, they deserves to be given benefit of doubt.12] The learned counsel Mr. T.M.Venjane appearing for the respondent - accused Nos. 2, 5 to 10, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 33 and 35 submits that, none of the witnesses have named these accused in their deposition before the Court.It is further submitted that, when the presence itself is not established, further question of any overt act on behalf of the said accused would not arise.Therefore, he submits that, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, giving benefit of doubt deserves no interference.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::It is submitted that, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 25 supplementary statement of the complainant was not considered by the trial Court, and same was not read in the evidence, and therefore, this Court may not rely upon the said supplementary statement.Therefore, the learned counsel submits that, the Appeal filed by the State and also the complainant may be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::It further appears that, trial Court instead of giving importance and due weightage to the substantive evidence in the nature of eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence chose to acquit accused Vimalbai holding that the recovery of the weapon from her is not believable.In the present case, there is evidence of 11 eye witnesses and out of said witnesses, as many as 6 witnesses i.e. P.W. 22 to 26 sustained injuries.The injured witnesses Vijaykumar, Sanjay and Sheshrao, sustained grievous injuries, and in particular Vijaykumar sustained as many as 7 injuries, which could have caused his death in case he would not have got timely treatment.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::414.11crapl 26 Upon perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that, trial Court totally ignored the prosecution case that, the accused more than 5 in numbers went to the house of the complainant Baburao with the deadly weapons.They were aggressors.They were giving slogans.Sum and substance of their slogans was that, they will see that, not even a single member of the family of the complainant is left alive.In furtherance of their common object to cause grievous hurt to the members of complainant's family, accused went to his house entered in the courtyard with deadly weapons committed criminal trespass with afore mentioned object and actually committed various offences.Therefore, it was the duty of the trial Court to address all the issues - points arose before it, and render the findings thereupon.However, as already observed, the trial Court even did not make an attempt to find out that, whether the accused persons gathered together with deadly weapons, they were more than 5 in numbers, they were aggressors inasmuch as they all went to the house of the complainant in the evening, they were giving slogans that, they will ensure that, not a single member from the family of the complainant is left alive.The accused had knowledge that, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 27 such deadly weapons carried by some of the accused, would be used for commission of offence, which would result into grievous injuries, and also death and as a matter of fact, Gyandeo died during attack, and 6 persons were injured.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::414.11crapl 28 414 (b) in an appeal from a conviction-(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or16] Since we are deciding three Appeals, one filed by the convicted accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 30 accused No.13 Namdeo; another Appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the remaining accused and for enhancement of the sentence of the three convicted accused, and the original complainant has filed statutory Appeal under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code it is permissible for this Court to appreciate the entire evidence on record and pass the appropriate order as permissible within the ambit and scope of Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::17] We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the convicted accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.602/2012, and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in Criminal Appeal No.601/2012, with the assistance of the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the entire evidence, relevant provisions and also Judgments of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.Since three Appeals are arising out of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 31 the conviction of three accused and acquitted of remaining accused by the trial Court, we propose to re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record.At the outset it would be relevant to reproduce herein below charge framed against the accused by the trial Court:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::i] That, you accused No.1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayanand S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on 09.01.2008 at about 7=20 p.m. at the house of the complainant Baburao S/o Bhagwanrao Pawar situated at village Jamaga, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to assault the complainant and his family members, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.ii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, viz., to assault the complainant and his family members, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 32 committed the offence of rioting, punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::iii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, viz., to assault the complainant and his family members, committed the offence of rioting, and at that time, were armed with sword, knives, dagger, large sickle (Katti), rods and stick, which are sharp cutting instruments and used as weapon of offence, was likely to cause death, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.iv] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, viz., to assault the complainant and his family members, committed house trespass by entering into the house of the complainant Baburao Pawar, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 33 which is used as a human dwelling and as a place for custody of property, having made prepared for causing hurt to them by means of sword, knives, Katti, dagger, rods and sticks or to put them under fear of hurt or assault or wrongful restrain and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 452 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::v] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, assaulted complainant's son Gyandeo alias Dnyanoba, by means of sword and knives and committed his murder intentionally or knowingly caused his death, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.vi] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 34 common object of said assembly, assaulted the complainant's sons Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, his brother Vijaykumar and nephew Bhagwat by means of sword, knives, dagger, Katti, rods and sticks and caused them grievous injuries, with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of above persons or either of them, you would have been guilty of murder, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::vii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Baburao, his sons Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, his brother Vijaykumar and nephew Bhagwat by means of sword, knives, dagger, Katti, rods and sticks, sharp cutting instruments and which used as weapon of offence was likely to cause death, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 35 Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::viii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Baburao, his sons Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, his brother Vijaykumar, nephew Bhagwat and other family members, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.ix] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, intentionally abused and insulted the complainant Baburao Pawar and his family members and thereby gave provocation with intent to or knowingly that such provocation would cause them to break the public peace and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 36 cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::x] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, you all have contravened the proclamation issued by the District Magistrate, Latur under Sections 37 of the Bombay Police Act, prohibiting formation of an assembly and to be armed with deadly weapons etc., and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.xi] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, possessed weapons like sword, knives, dagger, katti without requisite licence, despite issuance of such proclamation by competent authority in this area, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 read with 25 of The Arms Act, 1959 and within the cognizance of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 37 Court of sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::These Appeals raise various points for consideration and determination firstly, what are the facts -circumstances prior to occurrence of incident, which laid to actual incident.Whether each member of the assembly had knowledge that, by the acts of members of assembly, carrying deadly weapons, would result in grievous hurt to the persons from the complainant's family and other persons present at the spot of the incident.Thirdly, whether the accused persons went to the house of the complainant i.e. place of incident, with deadly weapons so as to cause grievous hurt to family members of the complainant's family.Fourthly, whether the accused formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant so as to finish the complainant's family, assaulted the deceased Gyandeo and other persons by weapons like sword, knife, katti, sticks, stones, iron rod and fist blows.Fifthly, as a result of the assault - attack by the accused persons, there was death of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 ::: 414.11crapl 38 Gnyandeo and other 6 witnesses sustained injuries dangerous to their life.Sixthly, whether each accused member of the unlawful assembly present at the place of occurrence, in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt so as to finish each member of the complainant's family, can be held responsible for the commission of murder of Gyandeo and other injuries on persons.Seventhly, whether the ingredients of the provisions of Section 302, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504, 141, 142, 143, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code are attracted in the light of the evidence brought on record through eye witnesses, medical evidence and other evidence.Eightly, whether each accused whose presence in the unlawful assembly is established by the prosecution, can be held responsible for the commission of offence of murder of Gyandeo and said accused can be punished for life under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of I.P. Code.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::Ninethly, whether the prosecution has proved the spot of occurrence and also there was sufficient light so as to watch the incident by the prosecution witnesses.18] These are the afore mentioned broad points -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:28 :::414.11crapl 39 aspects arise for the consideration - determination of this Court for which entire re-appreciation of the evidence is necessary.19] The prosecution has proved spot of incident and spot panchanama through PW-14 Dnyanoba Kadaji Sagare.His evidence is at Exhibit-224 and also Investigating Officer.It would be apposite to reproduce herein below relevant portion of the contents of spot panchanama duly translated by the official Translator of the High Court Registry in English, which reads thus:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::Mr.M.D.Thorat, A.P.I., Police Station, Aurad (Sha.) called us, the panchas, to act as panchas, in front of the house of Baburao Bhagwanrao @ Bhavan Pawar, R/o Jamga, Tal.Nilanga, Dist.Latur for preparation of a panchnama in connection with Crime No.2/2008 for the offence u/s. 302, 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, of IPC u/s 4, 7, (1) 26(3) 27(3) Indian Arms Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act. On the spot, the complainant was present.The complainant also shown the spot of incident where deceased Gyndeo, injured Vijaykumar, Shesharao and Shahurao Bhagwat were lying.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::in the newly occupied area having its face on West side, adjacent to the road towards South-North corner.The house of Baburao Pawar is situated in his own land bearing Gut No. 48(b).::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::It was noticed that, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 44 in the kitchen room an earthen kiln was kept.Besides this, in the said tin shed compartment, towards Southern side, two big pots of grains (Kangis) were also noticed.In the same compartment, a cradle was affixed for the use of minor children.Towards the same line of compartments, two rooms have also been constructed towards Southern side.On the South West side, there is a bath room and water tank.Out of two rooms towards Southern side, one has six tins on roof.It is having a cot and T.V. In the same line of compartment, West sides two rooms have been constructed.Out of these two rooms, one room consists of 8 tins on roof, wherein, an iron cot along with household articles are kept.In the room towards Southern side, there is an iron cot, a row of pots, a house of deities and other goods & chattels are kept.In the said three tin compartments, few plates & dishes containing non-veges items were kept ready for being served at the dinner with informant and other male members and invitees.This is the position of the house as was seen.The informant present here has told where the deceased ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 45 Gyandev was lying injured.Next to the tin-shed house's door towards the North, there is a big wooden log, used for heating water, which faces the West.Towards the West, in the open court-yard, at the distance of 20 feet, there is the spot where injured Vijay Kumar was lying.At the said spot, at many places, it appears that blood was spilled and stains thereof appear in the shape of blood being clogged there.The door of the brick cement house faces the North and 5 feet from here, is the place where the sand is put and spread where injured Shahuraj Pawar was lying and was found in injured condition.The injured was found lying where the sand was spread.The dried blood can be found on the sand.At the place of incident five sticks, two iron rods are seen lying, as also, small stones are seen lying in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 46 courtyard and in the tin shed house.An electric wire taken from the house adjacent to the tin shed house and a big bulb hanging from it can also be seen.Towards the West side of the plot of Baburao Pawar and near the Eastern road, there is a horizontal water tank and a vertical water tank.Next to the vertical water tank, an electric cement pole, with a Gram Panchayat bulb, can also be seen.At the place of incident, in the court-yard and on terrace, five sticks - both long and short -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::of the place of incident have been taken by a photographer from Aurad (Sh) city.The four directional boundaries, as seen; from the place where the dead / injured was found, are :-Towards the East : Residential house of the informant viz. Baburao Pawar and in front of it, there is a plot owned by ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 47 Baburao Bhagwanrao Pawar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::Towards the West : Open space in front of the informant's house as well as a living room built by brick and cement and in front of it, a tar road running towards North South, from Nilanga to Sonkhed.Towards the South : Residential house of Dilip Bhagwanrao Pawar and there is an open Court yard in front of the house.In front of it, residential house of Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao Pawar.Towards the North : Open plot belonging to the informant Baburao Pawar upt 30 feet.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::Near the shop by the side of road, there was bulb on electric pole.At two places on the earth, blood was noticed.Police collected blood mixed earth in two bags.Lables bearing signature of PW-14 and another panch were affixed on the sticks and iron rod.Police had brought with them cameraman and he ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 49 snapped photographs of the place of incident.Police prepared panchnama at the spot and obtained his signature.Panchnama now shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.Sticks, iron rods shown to him are the same, which bears their signatures lables.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::Through his cross examination defence tried to bring it on record that, this witness is relative of the complainant Baburao.It is true that, this witness has admitted that, the complainant is his brother in law.Place of incident is a plot admeasuring 95 x 75 sq. ft.The plot is located in the land of Baburao.The construction is at two places in that plot.Incident took place in the portion on backside of shop and front side of the house.The said vacant portion where incident took place admeasuring 25 x 18 sq. ft.Pot containing cooked Mutton was inside the house.There was only one pot.There were ten dinner plates and 10 small plates.He has specifically denied the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 50 suggestion that, blood lying on the earth was of crock.He further stated that, Police collected blood mixed earth only.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::He also stated that, he noticed sticks, also iron rods, however, he does not know length of such sticks and iron rod.In his cross-examination, he reiterated his version in examination in chief that, the spot panchanama is prepared in his presence and he has signed the same.According to the prosecution case, the incident had taken place after 7.00 p.m. and there was sufficient light to witness the incident, and according to defence, there was dark.Prosecution did examine PW-8 Shailesh Narayanrao Patil, who was working as Junior Engineer with MSEDCL, Nilanga, Unit Rural 2 at the relevant time.Police had addressed one letter dated 29.02.2008 to his office.It is the same, shown to him.It is his signature on that letter.He had given reply to that letter.It is the same shown to him.It bears his signature.He did bring the Daily Load Record Register.He has given reply to the letter ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 51 of Police after referring the entry in DLR Register.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::In his cross examination, nothing has been brought on record by the defence so as to disbelieve his evidence.Therefore, prosecution has proved that, there was electric supply available on the date of incident at the relevant time.As per the prosecution case, panel supported by accused persons did loose in the Gram Panchayat elections inasmuch as they could not get the requisite strength of elected members to have their control.There was an attempt on the part of the accused even on earlier occasions to create dispute, and as a matter ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 52 of fact threats were extended by them that, they will not allow to hold Gram Sabha.It has come on record through the prosecution witnesses that, though the election of the post of Sarpanch was scheduled to be held on 23.11.2007, however, it was postponed on next day i.e. on 24.11.2007 due to tense situation created by the accused persons not allowing to hold the election on scheduled date.It is also relevant to mention that, accused persons are resident of the same village, and therefore, the witnesses knew them.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::Therefore, the question of holding identification parade for identifying them was not necessary, when the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the accused persons on the spot.21] The prosecution examined Dattatraya Narayan Gosavi as PW-9, who was working as Gramsevak at village Jamga at the relevant time.The complaint was read over to him.The complaint was relating to the incident occurred in the village Jamga.Police demanded Form No. VIII regarding house of Baburao Bhagwan Pawar.Accordingly, he issued extract to ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 53 the Police.He specifically denied the suggestion in the cross examination that, he did not issue VIII-A extract, as per the original to the Police.He further stated that, at the relevant time daughter in law of the complainant was Sarpanch of the village Jamga.Therefore, the prosecution has proved that, the house where incident had taken place is belonging to the complainant Baburao.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::In his evidence, he stated before the Court that, on 10.01.2008, he had been to Nilanga.On 09.01.2008 at 11.00 p.m. he received telephonic call that, there was an attack on the house of his relative, and the relatives had come to Nilanga, and so, he came to Nilanga.He came to Nilanga on 10.01.2008 at Sub District Hospital at Nilanga.He was called by Police at 7.30 a.m. for panchanama, as he was relative of the complainant.The other panch Shahuraj Patil was also called by police.They both panch witnesses ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 54 went near the dead body of the deceased Gyandeo @ Dnyanoba.They saw the dead body and injuries on the dead body.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::23] He further stated that, he saw the injuries on the head below left ear.It was cut injury admeasuring 2 inch.He saw the hair at the backside of the head were smeared with blood.He saw that, the eyes and the mouth of the deceased were half-opened, and there was saliva coming from the mouth.He saw injury on the left side of the chest, and it was 2 ½ inch in the length and 0.75 inch deep.It was bleeding injury.He saw 2 injuries on the stomach.Each injury was of 1 inch.He saw the back of the deceased, and there were 2 injuries on the back, and those injuries were 1 inch length and depth.The private part of the deceased was intact and there was no bleeding or semen.There was abrasion on the shoulder.There was abrasion on right knee.24] He further stated that, the panchnama was written in their presence.It was read over to them.The photographs of the dead body were taken by the photographer.Then he himself, Shahuraj Patil signed said ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 ::: 414.11crapl 55 panchnama.The panchnama shown to him is the same.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:29 :::Upon perusal of his cross examination, it appears that, defence tried to bring on record that, he is close relative of the complainant except said admission, nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record by the prosecution so as to disbelieve evidence of said witness.The inquest panchnama is also proved by the prosecution through Investigating Officer and Shahurao Baburao Patil.The panchanama to that effect has been prepared.He identified the contents of the said report before the Court and also his signature.He stated that, the contents of the said report are true and correct.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::It appears that, clothes of the deceased Gyandeo, which were seized were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Maharashtra, Old Nizam Bungalow Cantonment, Aurangabad.The description of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 57 clothes - articles contained in parcels was Sando Banian [cut] wrapped in cloth labelled - A1, full pant [cut] wrapped in cloth labelled - A2, Sweater wrapped in cloth labelled -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::A3 belongs to the deceased Gyandeo was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Maharashtra.The result of the analysis of the said article A1 to A3 is those were soaked with blood.It further appears that, in presence of PW-2 Govind Keshavrao Birajdar the Police seized clothes on the person of the accused.This witness in his evidence stated that, on 10 th January, 2008, he had been to attend funeral of the deceased son of the complainant.The Police called him at Aurad Shahajani Police Station so as to seize clothes on the person of accused.He himself and Hanmant Sagre had been to the said Police Station.They reached at the Police Station at about 4.45 p.m. The Police seized clothes on the person of accused in their presence.He stated the names of accused whose clothes were seized in their presence, which are as follows: 1] Mahadeo Ganpati Shahapure, 2] Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar, 3] Tukaram s/o.Shivaji Pawar, 4] Abhimanyu s/o.Ramsaheb Pawar, 5] Ashok s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, 6] Govind s/o.Ganpati Shahapure, 7] ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 58 Satyanarayan s/o.Madhav Shahapure, 8] Pandhari s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::He saw blood stains on the clothes seized.The Police seized clothes of those accused by preparing separate 10 panchnamas.The panchnamas were commenced at 5.00 to 5.15 p.m. and were completed till 10.20 p.m. He can identify the clothes seized in his presence, if shown to him.He further stated that, the police prepared 10 separate panchnamas of seizure of clothes.However, he stated that, accused namely Govind Shahapure, Satyanarayan Shahapure, Pandhari Pawar, Manik Pawar and Balaji Pawar, their clothes were seized.It was not mentioned in panchanama at Exh.81 to 86 that, their clothes were blood stained.However, according to this witness, panchanama at Exh.81 to 86 are false, therefore, the evidence of this witness so far at Exh.77 to 80 and blood stains found on the clothes which were seized appears to be correct.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::Weapon was by the side of stream, and the said stream was by the side of land of Narsing.Weapon was the sword.Police seized the sword.He signed on the panchnama.This witness was declared hostile by the learned APP.He signed on the said ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 63 panchanama.He further stated that, the sword shown to him at Article No.2 is the same.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::He further stated that, this witness has also deposed about the memorandum statement of the accused Satyanarayan Shahapure and Manik Pawar and stated that, Satyanarayan disclosed that, he along with other went to ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 66 the house of the complainant Baburao and committed murder of his son.He identified his signature on the said memorandum and also thumb impression of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::He denied suggestion that, none of the accused gave memorandum nor produced any weapons in his presence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::35] The prosecution did send 27 sealed clothes parcels to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Old Nizam Bungalow, Cantonment, Aurangabad, forwarding letter to the Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Aurad Shahajani, District Latur.Upon perusal of result of analysis, it appears that, on almost all articles blood was found.Therefore, result of the analysis shows that, blood stains were found on the articles, which were sent to the C.A.36] It further appears that, result of the analysis is that, exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27; same blood is human.Exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21 and 24 are ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 69 stained with blood of Group 'O'.Exhibits 5, 6, 11 and 14 are stained with blood of group 'A'.Exhibits 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 27 are stained with blood of group 'B'.Selection of blood stains on exhibit 26 and grouping thereof reveals that some of the stains are of blood group 'A' and some of blood group 'O'.Group of blood detected on exhibits 3, 4, 12, 13 and 18 cannot be determined as the results are inconclusive.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::On that day, at 11.50 a.m. the dead body of Gyandeo @ Dnyanoba s/o.Baburao Pawar was brought by Police Station, Nilanga by Head Constable Hundekar for post mortem along with inquest-panchnama.He carried post mortem on the dead body of Gyandeo @ Dnyanoba and ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 70 found following injuries on his person:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::i] C L W at left Temporal Region Size 3 x 2 x 1 cm ii] Deep incised wound at left anterior axillary region, at 5th and 6th Inter costal space with 3 x 2 x Deep dimension iii] Deep incised wound at epigastric region 3 x 2 x Deep.igiv] Deep incised wound at left hypochamdric region size 3 x 2 x Deep.v] Deep incised wound at left infrascapular region.Size 3 x 2 x Deep.vi] Parallel wound deep of samedimension, 5 Cm on left of 5th wound.He also found following internal injuries on the dead body:i] Fracture of 5th and 6th left rib.ii] Tear at Ventricular region.iii] Left Ventricle get punctured with 1.5 Cm dimensions iv] Deep incised wound at left lung paranchyme on back.v] Stomach get punctured of dimensions 2 Cm.He expressed his opinion that, cause of death ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 71 was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to puncture of left ventricle of heart, and accordingly, he issued P.M. Notes.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::38] During his cross examination, he stated that, C L W injury No.1 can be caused by hard and blunt object, and it is not caused by sharp weapon.He further stated that, if blow is given by weapon like sword on ribs, then there is possibility of cutting of ribs.If sword blow is given horizontal on chest, then ribs of both sides would be cut.There are four chambers in heart.He further stated that, puncture injury to heart was due to piercing of weapon.Upon reading the injuries mentioned in column No.17 of the post mortem, and also evidence of PW-27, it is abundantly clear that, Gyandeo died homicidal death.39] It is also necessary to find out from the Medical evidence about injuries sustained by as many as six eye witnesses to the incident.In his examination in chief, he sated that, on 09.01.2008, he was attached to Sub-District Hospital, Nilanga as Medical officer.On that day, he examined injured Sheshrao S/o Baburao Pawar, who approached suo-::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::motu and found following injuries on his person:-i] Clean Incised wound over left dorsum of forearm, horizontal, near wrist.Size 3 x 1 x 1 Cm.ii] Clean Incised wound over left forearm near wrist lower one-third, oblique, dorsoventrally on radial side.Size 8 x 1.5 x 1.5 depth Cms.It was bleeding.iii] Clean Incised wound on medical aspect of injury No.2, left forearm.iv] Contusion over wrist joint left.Size 3 x 4 x 1 Cm Movements were painful and restricted.All these injuries No.1 to 3 were caused by hard and sharp object.Injury No.4 was caused by hard and blunt object.All these injuries were simple in ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 73 nature and caused within 6 hours.Patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Latur for orthopedic opinion.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::Accordingly he has issued injury certificate at Exhibit-This witness identified the said certificate, which bears his signature.40] This witness then examined injured Shahuraj S/o Baburao Pawar and found Incised wound penetrating over right renal angle over back, oblique.Size 4 x 1 Cm penetrating depth not recorded as deep.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.Patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Latur for further treatment.He identified the said certificate and stated that, same bears his signature.He further stated that, then he examined Sanjay S/o Baburao Pawar and found Incised penetrating injury over right iliac fossa.Size 5 x 2.5 Cm. penetrating.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.He identified ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 ::: 414.11crapl 74 the said certificate and stated that, it bears his signature.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:30 :::Then he examined Vijaykumar S/o Bhagwanrao Pawar and found following injuries on his person :(i) Incised penetrating wound over right back, oblique, Size 10 x 5 Cm muscle deep.(ii) Incised penetrating wound over infra-scapular region, right back.(iii) Incised penetrating wound, over left scapular region.Size 3 x 2.5 Cm x muscle deep.(iv) Incised penetrating wound, infra-scapular region, right side.Size 3 x 1.5 Cm.X muscles cut.(v) Incised penetrating would, left lower back, para-spinal region.Size 2 x 1.5 Cm.x deep muscles cut.(vi) Incised would, left zygomatic arch.Size 4 x 1 x ½ Cm.(vii) Penetrating incised wound with intestinal ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 75 coils protruding out of injury, over supra umbilical region, extending to epigastric region.Size 6 x 4 Cm.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::(viii) Abrasion with C.L.W. over upper lip over nose and upper lip.Size 1 x ½ x ½ Cm.(ix) Abrasion over left elbow.Size 1 x 1 x ½ Cm.Injuries No. 1 to 5 and 7 are grievous in nature.Injury Nos. 6, 8 and 9 are simple in nature.Injury no. 9 caused by hard and blunt object.He identified the said certificate and stated that, it bears his signature.He further stated that, then he examined patient Bhagwat S/o Vijaykumar Pawar and found clean lacerated wound over left frontal region, Size 10 x 2.5 Cm.It was caused by hard and blunt object, within 6 hours.It was simple in nature.He identified the said ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 76 certificate and stated that, it bears his signature.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::41] He was cross-examined by Advocate Mr. T.V.Jamdar for some of the accused.In his cross examination he stated that, he recognized injury of Shahuraj as grievous injury, as it is penetrating injury and on vital part.It was grievous injury because it endangers human life.He has also further stated details about the injuries sustained by Sanjay, Vijaykumar and Bhagwat.If his evidence is perused in its entirety including examination in cross, his evidence is not shattered in any manner.42] The prosecution examined P.Ws.16 to 26 as eye witnesses of the incident.PW-16 in his evidence stated that, he resides in the house along with his four sons, four daughters-in-law, mother, grand-children.On 23.11.2007, Sarpanch was to be elected.On that day, accused No.1 and his group raised dispute saying that election of Sarpanch will not be allowed to be held.For conducting election of Sarpanch, Naib Tahsildar had come.For the post of Sarpanch, Varsh w/o.Shahuraj Pawar was the candidate from his panel.Finally, on the next day of election of Sarpanch was conducted in Police Bandobast on 24.11.2007, and in that election his daughter-in-law Varsha Shahuraj Pawar was elected as Sarpanch.He further deposed that, in the Gram Panchayat, accused picked up quarrels with him and his panel saying that, they will not allow to hold Gram Sambha and they will not allow them to work as Sarpanch.They made complaint about it to Tahsildar.He further deposed that, incident took place on 09.01.2008 at about 7.00 to ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 78 7.15 p.m. On that day, there was next day of Yal Amawasya Festival, and he had arranged chicken-dinner.He had invited Chandrakant Solanke, Maroti Jadhav, Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar and Tatyarao Bhingole for dinner at his house.These persons had arrived at his house.He had discussion with these persons about the terror and threats by accused on account of elections.His son Gyandeo and female members of family prepared food for dinner.After cooking food, he himself and above persons sat for dinner under tin-shed roof.At the time of dinner, they heard loud noise from outside.Abusing and stone pelting started.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Then he himself, Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, Dilip, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Sanjay, aforesaid guests, Anuradha Pawar, Varsha Shahuraj, Santoshibai Sanjay Pawar, Babita Sheshrao Pawar came in the courtyard.About 30 to 35 persons from outside came in his courtyard.Amongst those persons, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar was holding sword, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar was holding sword, Madhav Shivaji Pawar was holding sword like Jamibya, Ashok Kadaji Pawar was holding Katti, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar was holding knife, Dayanand Bhingole was holding sword.Other persons were holding sticks and iron rods.All these persons rushed on ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 79 the person of Gyandeo.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold to Gyandeo.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Then, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near bemby of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back side and ribs on right of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.Other accused assaulted Gyandeo by sticks and iron rods.They prepared the application.PW-16 put his signature on it, and then, they went to Police Station, Aurad along with said application and submitted it in the Police Station.He ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 81 further deposed that, he went to Nilanga Hospital.He saw there the dead body of Gyandeo.Then, post mortem was conducted on the dead body of Gyandeo.Then, he went to village Jamga for effecting spot panchnama at the call of Police.Police prepared the spot panchnama of the place shown by him.Again he came to Nilanga Hospital.After conducting post mortem, Doctor handed over dead body of Gyandeo to him.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::It appears that, some questions were asked to him about who contested the Grampanchayat elections.However, nothing useful to defence was brought on record from the said information about elections.It further appears that, the defence did ask certain questions about preparation of the application which was submitted to the Police Station.It appears that, this witness has stated that, names of the accused mentioned in the said application were as per his say.It appears that, the defence did ask the question about the contents of the said application, and whether the aspects like accused did not allow to conduct ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 82 Gram Sabha were incorporated in the said application or not.However, nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record by asking such questions by the defence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::igPW-16 in his cross examination further stated that, at the time of complaint, he had stated before the Police that, accused Shivaji Namdeo Pawar was holding sword.He had not stated before the Police that, Vimalbai was having Katti in her hand.He further stated that, while writing the complaint that, accused Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar had given sword blow on right side abdomen of Gyandeo.However, he cannot assign any reason why it is not mentioned in the complaint.He further stated that, accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo.The accused Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the backside near ribs on right of Gyandeo.He further stated in the complaint that, accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar had given sword blow on mouth of Vijaykumar, and accused Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 83 blow on the shoulder of Vijaykumar.Accused Udhav Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod.Accused Vilas and Haridas each assaulted Vijaykumar by stick.Accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod.Accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by stick.Accused Shivaji Pawar had given blow with sword on back to right side of Shahuraj.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao Pawar on right shin by Katti.Accused Shivaji Pawar had inflicted sword blow on left hand wrist of Sheshrao Pawar.Accused Devidas Pawar gave stick blow on the head of Bhagwat.There were no visible injuries on their person.Their family members and the persons who come for dinner were raising hue and cry.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Other persons from the village did not come at the place of incident on hearing hue and cry.Witness volunteers that villagers did not come at the spot of incident on seeing the mob of assailants.He further stated that, when accused persons went away from the spot of incident, 5 to 50 persons from the village had come there.His daughter in law Varsha Pawar had sustained invisible injuries.They did not resist the assailants.He further stated that, all accused in collusion with each other assaulted them.He can tell names of all accused.He specifically denied suggestion that, at the time of incident, there was dark at his house due to load-shading.He stated that, four persons amongst assailants were holding sword, one was holding knife, one was having katti, two were holding iron rods and 8 to 9 persons were holding sticks.However, he clearly stated that, he does not know what other 22 persons were holding, as the mob of assailants was large.He has specifically denied suggestion that, no incident took place as narrated by him and only with view to extract money from accused, he has ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 85 filed false case.He specifically denied suggestion that, incident had not taken place at his house and that blood was not lying in his house.He specifically denied suggestion that, on the day of incident, no dinner programme was arranged at his house and that nobody guest or friends in the village had come to his house for dinner.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::In his cross examination, he stated that, Pandurang Vishwanath Pawar is in service in Pharmacy College at Nilanga as Store Keeper since many years and he resides at Nilanga along with his family.Dhondiram Pawar is serving as Teacher since many years in Zilla Parishad, and he resides at Nilanga along with his family.Ashok Vishwanath Pawar is serving in Police Department and he resides at Latur since many years.Govind Ganpat Shahapure is also a Teacher.Vishwanath Vithal Pawar, Maroti Madhav Pawar, Vishnu Madhav Pawar, Chandrahans Vishwanath Pawar, Vinayak Raosaheb Pawar, Narayan Maroti Bhingole, Suresh Maroti Bhingole, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 86 Pandurang Maroti Bhingole, Nagnath Raosaheb Pawar, Madhav Ganpat Shahapure, Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, Manik Ramji Pawar, Balaji Apparao Pawar all are agriculturists.Komal Maroti Pawar is household woman.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Satyanarayan Shahapure resides at other village.He know all these persons as they hail from his village.Komal Maroti Pawar has no concern with the incident in question.All aforesaid persons are also having no concerned with the incident.In his cross examination, he stated that, accused Pandhari and Haridas are real brothers inter se.Both these are nephews of Waman Limbaji Pawar, who had come to his house for dinner.Accused Pandhari has no concern with the incident.He further deposed that, it is not true to say that, he falsely implicated accused Haridas at the instance of witness Waman Pawar.He specifically denied suggestion that, accused Waman Pawar did not assault him by stick, and that accused Haridas Pawar did not assault Vijaykumar by iron rod.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::414.11crapl 87 47] PW-16 was re-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor for State.In his re-examination, he stated that, on the next day of incident, Police had come to him and recorded his statement.He was also cross examined by the Advocate for accused Nos. 1, 4, 11 to 13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 30 to 32 and 34, he stated that, complaint was given on 10.01.2008 at 4.00 a.m. Funeral was performed on 10.01.2008 at 2.00 p.m. Spot panchnama was conducted on 10th January, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. Police recorded his statement on 10.01.2008 at 10.00 a.m. At that time, condition of his mind was not good.While recording his supplementary statement, he stated that, accused Satish, Tukaram and Udhav had caught hold Gyandeo when Shivaji assaulted him by sword.He stated that, he cannot assign any reason why Police did not record to that effect in his supplementary statement.He specifically denied suggestion that, police did not record his supplementary statement.It appears that, this witness was re-examined.In his re-cross examination, he denied suggestion that, he did not state before the Police about assault by Haridas by iron road, and accused Waman Pawar assaulted by stick.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::414.11crapl 88 48] Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-16, it clearly appears that, the accused persons who were aggressors came to the house of complainant holding deadly weapons in their hands and giving slogans that, they will see that, no family members of the complainant is left alive, entered the house of the complainant and by use of deadly weapons like sword, knife, katti, sticks and iron rod assaulted son of the complainant Gyandeo and other persons including his family members, who were present in his house at the relevant time.It has also come in his evidence that, some of the accused pelted stones at his house.It has also come on record that, because of hearing of noise of the accused persons, villagers did not dare to come to the house of the complainant for their rescue.It further appears that, the accused persons were armed and gathered at the spot of occurrence and formed unlawful assembly, and assaulted Gyandeo and other persons who were present at the spot of incident so as to achieve common object of assaulting / causing grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::414.11crapl 89 It is abundantly clear from the reading of the evidence of the complainant that, in his examination in chief, he named accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar was holding sword, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar was holding sword, Madhav Shivaji Pawar was holding sword like Jamibya, Ashok Kadaji Pawar was holding Katti, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar was holding knife, Dayanand Bhingole was holding sword and other persons were holding sticks and iron rods.It is specifically stated by him that, all these persons rushed on the person of Gyandeo.He further attributed overt act to the Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar, who caught hold to Gyandeo.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Then Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near bemby of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back side and ribs on right of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo and other accused assaulted Gyandeo by sticks and iron rods.Then Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao was assaulted by Madhav Shivaji Pawar by sword on the face.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow to Vijaykumar on ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 90 shoulder.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod.Vilas and Haridas Pawar each assaulted Vijaykumar by stick and iron rod.Accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by stick.Accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by stick on back right side by sword.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted on right shin by Katti to Sheshrao Baburao Pawar.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted on left hand wrist of Sheshrao Pawar by sword.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted by stick to Bhagwat Pawar on the head.Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted him by stick on the back.Other persons assaulted other persons in their family.Therefore, upon careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is abundantly clear that, he named and attributed specific role to the accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, Madhav Shivaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar, Dayanand Bhingole, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar, Vilas and Haridas Pawar, Prakash Kadaji Pawar, Waman Dadarao Pawar and other accused.He has specifically stated the manner in which each of the accused assaulted Gyandeo and other persons including six injured ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 91 eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::49] Upon careful perusal of his examination in cross, his evidence in the examination in chief has not been shattered in slightest manner, on the contrary, he has reiterated his assertions in the examination in chief during his cross examination.In his cross examination in para No.10, he has stated that, Komal Maruti Pawar has no concerned with the incident in question.He has specifically stated that, the names of the accused mentioned in para No.10 of his cross examination have no concerned with the incident.Therefore, upon considering the evidence of PW-16 complainant, we find that, his evidence is fully trustworthy, reliable, truthful and not shaken in the cross examination.His evidence on all points - aspects is truthful and deserves acceptance.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::414.11crapl 92 50] The learned counsel Mr. Joydeep Chatterji appearing for the accused Nos.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and accused No.13 Namdeo, submitted that, so far Namdeo is concerned, his name is not mentioned in the First Information Report, and he deserves to be given benefit of doubt, cannot be accepted.The First Information Report is not an encyclopedia.In his evidence before the Court, PW-16 has named Namdeo and also specific overt act is attributed to him.It appears that, he was one of the main assailant, who inflicted blows by sword on the deceased Gyandeo and also other injured persons.51] The prosecution witness Nos.22 to 26 are injured witnesses.Their evidence assumes significance inasmuch as some of them have sustained grievous injuries, which would have caused their death, if timely treatment would not have been given to them.52] There are in all eleven eye witnesses to the incident who are examined by the prosecution.We have already discussed in detail about the evidence.Of P.W.16 -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::414.11crapl 93 complainant.As per the prosecution case, all the eye witnesses sustained injuries.So far as P.W.22 to 26 are concerned, they are injured eye witnesses.This is the witness in whose evidence, there are no omissions, contradictions or improvements; therefore, we propose to discuss his evidence at this juncture.Deceased Gyandeo was son of the complainant Baburao.The incident took place on 9 th January, 2008 in the house of Baburao.On that day, in the house of Baburao, he himself, Shahuraj Pawar, Sheshrao Pawar, Sanjay Pawar, Gyandeo Pawar, Bhagwat Pawar, Maroti Jadhav, r/o Sawangira, Chandrakant Solanke r/o Chandori, Waman Limbaji Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole, Dilip Pawar, Varsha Pawar, Babita Pawar, Popatbai Pawar, Pinkubai Pawar, Urmilabai Pawar, Jijabai Pawar, Trivenibai Pawar, Santoshbai Pawar, Mahadeo ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 ::: 414.11crapl 94 Pawar were present.On that day, there was dinner at the house of the complainant on the eve of 'Vel Amwasaya' and the above persons were present for dinner.The witness stated that at about 7 to 7.15 p.m., they had sat for dinner in room of tins.At that time about 30 to 40 persons all of a sudden came in the door of the house, saying that, "Marto, Hanto, Todto".Persons from the mob were pelting stones.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:31 :::Then the mob came in their court yard.Mob was comprising of 30 to 40 persons.On hearing shouts, Gyandeo came outside frist of all, and the witness followed him.Other persons in their house also came in the court-Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo; and at that time, Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar amongst mob inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow above the navel of Gyandeo.Then Gyandeo fell down due to sustaining of bleeding injuries.Madhav ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 95 Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on his face, due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his nose.Madhav then inflicted sword blow above his navel.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right thigh, Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head.Udhav Pawar inflicted iron blow on his left shoulder.Hari Pawar inflicted iron blow on back of this witness.He sustained bleeding injuries, his intestines were pierced out of his stomach.P.W.25 Vijaykumar pointed out persons from accused who assaulted him and Gyandeo, those persons disclosed their names as Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Vilas Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Satish Baburao Pawar, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Vimalbai w/o Shivaji Pawar.This witness volunteered that assailants Dayanand Maroti Bhingole and Madhav Shivaji Pawar were not present on that day in the court hall.He stated that police recorded his statement thrice.His statement was also recorded by Special Executive Officer.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::414.11crapl 96 In the cross-examination, P.W.25 Vijaykumar stated that accused Madhav Ganpat Shahapure was not present on the spot of the incident on that day.So also, accused Nos.2, 5 to 10, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 33 and 35 were not present at the place of incident at the time of incident.He further stated in his cross-examination that he knows accused Pandhari Pawar and he had no concern with the incident.P.W.25 Vijaykumar was further cross-examined by Advocate Mr.T.V. Jamdar appearing for some of the accused.PW-25 specifically admitted that 18 persons who are named as accused persons were not present at the time of incident.He identified accused persons who participated in commission of offence and present before the Court.He has stated further details in his cross-examination that before the police, he stated that Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on navel of Gyandeo.He further stated that he stated before the police that Satish Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, Venkat Pawar caught hold him, Madhav Pawar inflicted sword blow on his face ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 97 and above his navel and Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on his right thigh and Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head and Hari Pawar inflicted iron rod blow on his back.He further stated that after Gyandeo, accused assaulted him.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::While Gyandeo was being assaulted, he was caught hold by the accused.Then he became unconscious and fell down.He stated that in all 16 persons including females were present in the house when the accused came at the spot of the incident.They could not resist at the time of incident, they did not raise shouts.54] Upon perusal of the evidence of this witness, it appears that he has specifically stated the manner in which the accused entered in the house [court-yard], they were pelting stones, they were giving slogans, they were armed with deadly weapons and also sticks and they came prepared so as to assault the persons who were in the house of P.W.16 at the relevant time.He has stated the actual incident in a specific manner that Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo; and at that time, Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar amongst ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 98 mob inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow above the navel of Gyandeo.Then Gyandeo fell down due to sustaining of bleeding injuries.Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on his face, due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his nose.Madhav then inflicted sword blow above his navel.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right thigh, Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head.Udhav Pawar inflicted iron blow on his left shoulder.Hari Pawar inflicted iron blow on back of this witness.55] It appears from his evidence that he sustained bleeding injuries, intestines were pierced out of his stomach.He has specifically pointed out accused persons, who were present in the court, and identified them, who assaulted him and Gyandeo.It appears from the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the evidence of the Medical Officers P.W.27 Dr.Pralhad Solanke ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 99 and P.W.28 Dr. Shivanand Biradar supports the version of this witness.The version of this witness corresponds with the injuries stated in the injury certificate of Gyandeo and also other six injured persons.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.25 corresponds with the medical evidence.His evidence is fully trustworthy, reliable, truthful and not shaken in any manner in his cross-examination and the same can safely be accepted on all the points including forming an unlawful assembly by the accused persons, who are named in his evidence, in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant in order to finish every member of family of P.W.16 Baburao.The evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of the complainant in all material particulars.The evidence of the complainant and also P.W.25 Vijaykumar corroborates each other and also gets corroboration from medical evidence led by P.W.27 Dr.Pralhad Solanke and P.W.28 Dr. Shivanand Biradar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::56] The learned Counsel for the accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and Vilas Kadaji Pawar was at pains to argue that, in view of the judgment of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 100 Supreme Court in the case of Masalti (supra), where factions prevail in villagers and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type.In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable.Therefore, in his submission, in the present case, though evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar does not suffer from omissions, contradictions and improvements, the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, suffers from contradictions, omissions and improvements and, therefore, the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar alone is not sufficient so as to sustain the conviction of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::414.11crapl 101 57] As already observed, evidence of the complainant P.W.16 Baburao and P.W.25 Vijaykumar corroborates with each other and lends support from medical evidence and therefore,the evidence of the P.W.16 Baburao - complainant and also the P.W.25 Vijaykumar is fully trustworthy, reliable, truthful and has not been shaken, in any manner, in the cross-examination.There is also evidence of other nine eye witnesses.They filed application in that respect with the Police Station.One and half month thereafter on 23.11.2007 election for Sarpanch was scheduled.On that day, in the election of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 102 Sarpanch, Shivaji Pawar and his persons obstructed.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::Therefore, complainant's group filed application with Tahsildar.On that day, Chandrakant Bhagwantrao Solanke, r/o.Chandori, Maroti s/o.Dhanaji Jadhav, r/o.Sawangira and villagers Anant Pawar, Waman Limbaji Pawar, Tatyarao Balaji Bhingole were invited for the dinner.Uncles and other family members were also present.At about 7.00 p.m., they were about to sit for dinner.At that time, all of sudden, noise was heard from outside.Mob came there saying 'Babya, Vijya, Gyana come outside.They were saved on the day of election.Now they are to be seen.Their heritage will not be saved'.About 30 to 40 persons in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 103 mob came at their house.Persons in the mob were holding swords, sticks and iron rods.They all came from inside in the courtyard.Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, PW-22, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Dilip, Baburao, Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole, Chandrakant Solanke, Maroti Jadhav, Varsha Pawar, Babita, Santosi, Popatbai, Mahdeo Pawar came in the courtyard.Gyandeo was caught hold by Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow in the left chest of Gyandeo.He further stated that, Madhav Shivaji inflicted on the right side stomach of Gyandeo by Jambiya.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on above the navel of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the left ribs of Gyandeo by katti.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and fell down.Vilas Pawar beat him by stick on left shoulder and stomach.PW-22 also sustained bleeding injury.Thereafter, Vijaykumar, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Sanjya, Baburao and female members were also ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 104 assaulted by persons from the mob with weapons in their hands.Vijaykumar, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Bhagwat also sustained bleeding injuries.Then the injured were admitted in Nilanga Hospital.Vijaykumar, Sanjay and he himself were referred to Latur Hospital for further treatment.They learnt at Latur that, Gyandeo is dead.Police recorded his statement twice.[Emphasis supplied].::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::59] He was cross examined by Advocate Shri T.V.Jamdar.He stated that, post of Sarpanch was reserved for woman.In Gram Panchayat elections, in all 3 women were elected.Sushilabai Gaikwad, Usha Dinkar Katekar and his wife were elected.This witness stated in his examination in cross that, he was taken to the Hospital at Nilanga for treatment.He received first blow by stick on left shoulder and last blow by sword on the back.Upon perusal of his evidence in cross examination, nothing useful to the defence have been elicited.The learned counsel Mr. Joydeep Chatterji ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 105 appearing for the accused Shivaji, Namdeo and Vilas invited our attention to the portion marked 'A', 'B' and 'C' from the statement of this witness under Section 161 of I.P. Code and submitted that, this witness in the police station has not named Namdeo or no overt act is attributed to him, and therefore, Namdeo is entitled for benefit of doubt.In our opinion, he has specifically stated in his examination in chief that, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on above the navel of Gyandeo.Aforesaid version about Namdeo gets corroboration from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and also from the medical evidence, and therefore, contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Chatterji cannot be accepted that accused Namdeo deserves to be acquitted.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::Chandori, Maroti Dhanaji Jadhav, r/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::Gyandeo Pawar was caught hold by Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar, and Shivaji Pawar pierced sword on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimal Pawar assaulted Gyandeo by knife on ribs left side.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the left side back of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Pawar inflicted Jamibya blow on right side stomach of Gyandeo.Incident took place prior to 3 years.It was next day of Vel Amawasya.On that day, Chandrakant Solanke, Dhanaji Jadhav, Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole had come to his house for dinner.Incident occurred at 7.00 to 7.15 p.m. They were ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 108 about to sit for dinner.At that time, they heard noise of abusing of the mob.Mob came in his courtyard and persons from the mob pelted stone.Some persons from the mob were holding sticks, iron rods, swords, Jambiya, Gyandeo and Vijaykumar came out of house in the courtyard.He further stated that, others followed them in the courtyard.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Pawar and Udhav Pawar caught hold Gyandeo, and Shivaji Pawar pierced sword in the chest of Gyandeo.Namdeo Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow near the navel on left side of Gyandeo.Vimalbai inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji inflicted Jamibya like sword on the ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries due to assault and Gyandeo fell down.He further stated that, Shivaji Pawar inflicted 3 blows by sword on his left hand wrist.Ashok Pawar inflicted katti blow on left leg.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::About 16 to 17 persons in the mob assaulted Vijaykumar, Bhagwat, Shahuraj, Baburao, Dilip, Sanjay.Sanjay, Shahuraj, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat also sustained bleeding injuries.Then the injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital for treatment.He himself, Bhagwat and Gyandeo were ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 109 retained in Nilanga Hospital.He further stated that, other injured were referred to Latur Hospital for further treatment.On the next day morning, Doctor informed them that, Gyandeo is dead.Police recorded his statement.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::He was cross examined by Advocate Shri T.V.Jamdar.Relying upon his statement that, the portion marked 'A' read over to him, during his cross examination was not stated before the Police.The learned counsel Mr. Chatterji submitted that, when he did not state before the Police that, Shivaji actually assaulted by sword on chest and when this witness further stated that, he has not named Namdeo, both of them are entitled for benefit of doubt.As already observed, there is overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution in the nature of 11 eye witnesses before the Court naming accused Shivaji, Namdeo and also Vilas and attributing specific role to them and also there are corresponding injuries.The evidence of PW-25 remained unshaken and gets corroboration from the evidence of other eye witnesses, and also from the medical evidence, and therefore, the contention of Advocate Shri Chatterji stands rejected.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::In his examination in chief, he stated that, complainant Baburao is his father.Deceased Gyandeo was his real brother.Incident took place on 09.01.2008 in the courtyard.At that time, guests Chandrakant Solanke, r/o.Chandori, Maroti Jadhav r/o.Sawangira, villagers Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole, Waman Pawar and he himself, Baburao, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Dilip, Vijaykumar, Varsha, Babita, Santoshi, Anuradha, Urmila, Popatbai were present in his house.On that day, there was dinner arranged at his house on account of next day of Vel Amawasya.He further stated that, at about 7.00 to 7.15 p.m., they were about to sit for dinner.At that time, electric light was on.From the road in front of house, they heard shouts relating to abuses, 'Babya, Vijya, Gyana, Shahuraj, Gotya, Sheshrao, Sanjya, come out side.He further stated that, then they came outside from the house.Gyandeo came out of house first of all.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::414.11crapl 111 Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai inflicted knife blow on left ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow on right side stomach of Gyandeo by sword.He again say that, it was Jambiya like sword.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo.He further stated that, Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and Gyandeo fell down.He went near Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted him Jambiya like sword on the right side waist.His intestines were came out.He fell down on the earth.Other accused persons were assaulting other persons in the house.He regained consciousness after four days in Latur Hospital.Police recorded his ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 112 statement.Special Executive Officer also recorded his statement.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::He was cross examined by Advocate Mr. T.V.Jamdar on behalf of some of the accused.In his cross examination, he stated that, he had stated before the Police that, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar had caught hold Gyandeo and then Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, he cannot assign any reason why the police has not recorded in his statement.In his statement under Section 161 before the Police he narrated that, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar had inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo and Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted him by Jambiya like sword on the right side waist.Relying upon the portion marked 'A' and 'B' from his evidence, it was tried to be canvassed that, his evidence suffers from omissions and contradictions.However, in our opinion, the said argument deserves no consideration.This witness is injured witness ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 113 and sustained grievous injuries.Evidence of other eye witness and medical evidence corroborates his version.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::64] P.W.17 Chandrakant Bhagwantrao Solanke was examined by the prosecution, who was an eye witness of the incident.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the complainant Baburao Pawar is his maternal uncle.On the date of incident, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle Baburao for dinner.He has named the persons who had gathered in the house of Baburao for dinner.He has further narrated details about the elections of Gram Panchayat, which took place in the said village.He has stated further details about whose panel got elected and at the time of election of Sarpanch, there was dispute between the groups of complainant and accused Shivaji.He further deposed that on 9th January, 2008 in the night in all ten persons had sat at the house of the complainant for dinner.It was about 7 p.m. They heard shouts from the outside to the effect that "Babya, Gayna, Vijya, Sanjya, Yanchya Gharanyache purna Beej ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 ::: 414.11crapl 114 Budwayache Ahe." (i.e. Everybody from the families of Babya, Gayna, Vijya, Sanjya, has to be finished).At that time, stone pelting started at the house of the complainant.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:32 :::Then, in the court-yard of Baburao, accused Shivaji Pawar and other came.Then the witness himself, Gyandeo, Vijaykumar,Sanjay, Shahuraj, Shesherao, Bhagwat, Baburao, Maroti, Waman, Anant, Dilip, Varsha, Anuradha, Santoshi, Babita, Urmila, Popat came outside in the court-Gyandeo went ahead.At that time, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.Accused Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow by Jambiya like sword on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Accused Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.Gyandeo fell down due to oozing of blood from his injuries.P.W.17 Chandrakant Solanke further deposed that, then Namdeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by sword on right side stomach.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar on the stomach by Jambiya like ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 115 sword.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by stick on the back.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on right shoulder.Haridas Manik Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on the backside at lower portion.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::Due to assault, Vijaykumar fell down and his intestine had come out.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted Sanjay by Jambiya like sword on right side of abdomen.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao on left hand by 3 blows with sword.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted Sheshrao by Katti on left leg shin.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by sword on the waist at right side back.Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by iron rod on the back.Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted Bhagwat by stick on the head.Prakash Pawar assaulted him by iron rod on the back.Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted complainant Baburao by stick on the back.Remaining persons assaulted the female members from the side of complainant.65] He further stated that the injured were taken by him and Baburao Pawar and other relatives to the Nilanga Hospital.Doctor advised to shift Vijaykumar, Sanjay and Shahuraj to Latur for further treatment.Accordingly, they ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 116 were taken tot he Hospital at Latur.They came to know in the hospital at Latur that injured Gyandeo died during treatment at Nilanga Hospital.Accordingly, his statement was recorded on the next day of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::During his cross-examination by the Advocate of aforesaid accused, he stated that accused Komalbai Maroti Pawar has no concern with the incident.He was further cross-examined on behalf of the accused Nos.3, 14 and 29 wherein he stated that Haridas Manik Pawar is known to him.There were 30 to 40 persons in the mob.He specifically denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the incident.He was further cross-The defence tried to elucidate from his cross-examination that he did not identify all the accused.It is true that in his cross-examination, this witness stated that out of 37 accused persons, he identified 10 to 12 persons on the day of the incident and remaining persons were unknown to him and he could not identify those ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 117 accused who were pelting stones.He has reiterated his assertion in his examination-in-chief about the manner in which the accused came to the house of Baburao, giving slogans with deadly weapons, fully prepared and formed an unlawful assembly with an object to cause grievous hurt in order to finish the entire family of the complainant Baburao.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::His evidence in the examination-in-chief is not shattered in his cross-examination, in any manner.66] The learned Counsel Mr.Upon appreciating the evidence of P.W.17 Chandrakant in its entirety, as already observed, his ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 118 evidence remained unshaken.It appears from his statement that, police have narrated his version in the police statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. not in the manner in which he stated about the incident and, therefore, portion marked in his police statement cannot be considered as an omission.His substantive evidence before the court gets corroboration from the evidence of complainant and also from the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar and all other eye witnesses to the incident, coupled with medical evidence and therefore, in our opinion, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused Namdeo that, Namdeo could have been given benefit of doubt since this witness has not named Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and not attributed any overt-acts in his police statement.Therefore, evidence of P.W.17 Chandrakant Solanke on all aspects is reliable, trustworthy and truthful.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::67] Prosecution has examined Dilip Bhagwanrao Pawar as PW-18 who is an eye witness.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::For dinner, guests Chandrakant Solanke, Maroti Dhanaji Jadhav and guest from village Tatyarao Bhingole, Waman Pawar and Anant Pawar were invited.He himself and Vijaykumar, Bhagwat were also invited for dinner.Varsha Pawar is daughter-in-law of the complainant Baburao.She was elected as Sarpanch of the village.There was dispute between the panels headed by complainant and accused Shivaji on account of elections.In the election, 4 members from the panel of complainant Baburao were elected.He further stated that, on 09.01.2008, they (aforementioned persons) were taking dinner at the house of complainant Baburao.At that time, all of sudden they heard noise of abuses.Then stone pelting took place from outside on ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 120 the house of Baburao.Then in the court yard of Baburao mob of 30 to 40 persons came.Then this witness, Gyandeo, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat, Baburao, Chandrakant, Maroti, Tatyarao, Anant came outside in the court-yard.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::Gyandeo went ahead.Satish Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.Accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Shivaji inflicted left side ribs on Gyandeo by knife.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back left side of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow by Jambiya like sword on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and he collapsed.Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by Jambiya like sword two blows on the stomach and single blow on the face.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right leg.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on right shoulder.He ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 121 further stated that, Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by stick on the back.Haridas Manik Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on the back.Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Sanjay by Jambiya like sword on right side abdomen.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by stick on left shoulder.Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahurao by sword on the right side back.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted 3 blows by sword on left hand of Sheshrao.Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted Bhagwat by stick on the head.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::He identified the weapons used by the accused before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::He was the Chairman of Jamga Society for 25 years and elected unopposed and thereafter he retired from politics.Accused Pandurang Pawar is in service since 1987 in Maharashtra Pharmacy College, Nilanga as Store-Keeper.He resides at Nilanga along with his family.He had a son Umesh who is mentally retarded.Accused Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure is student for M.Sc.Softwear Engineering since 5 to 7 years.Manik Ramji Pawar runs grocery shop and also does agriculture at village Jamga.His house is at a distance of 700 to 800 ft. from his house.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::On the day of incident, Komalbai Maroti Pawar along with her husband and brother-in-law Vishnu Madhav Pawar had gone to village Bhutmugali due to death of her uncle.He stated that, accused nos.2, 5 to 10, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 33 and 35 have no concern with the incident in question.Bhagyashri D/o Vinayak Pawar is married with Manoj Mule.On the day of incident, Vinayak Raosaheb Pawar had gone to the hospital to see his daughter in Jyoti Hospital at Latur, whose abortion was carried there.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::414.11crapl 124 68] He was further cross-examined by Mr. V.S.In his cross examination, he stated that, complainant Baburao is his real brother.Accused Pandhari Manik Pawar has no concern with the incident.He did not see him at the time of incident.Haridas Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod.He did not assault this witness.He has specifically denied the suggestion that, Haridas Pawar was not present at the time of incident and he did not assault Vijaykumar by iron rod.He has specifically denied suggestion that, Haridas Pawar and Waman Pawar were not present and they did not assault anybody.He stated in his cross examination that, he did not state before police the portion marked A read over to him from his ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 125 statement.He further stated that, he cannot assign any reason why police recorded so in his statement.He further stated that, he did not state the portion mark B read over to him before the Police.However, in para 6 of the cross-examination, he has again reiterated his version about the accused, who actually participated in the commission of offence and also the manner in which they inflicted injuries on deceased Gyandeo and other witnesses.He has specifically stated that, Gyandeo had sustained three blows, one blow by Jambiya like sword and one blow by knife.Chest blow of Gyandeo and other blows by sword were also piercing.On the back of Gyandeo on left side, there was sword blow.Third blow was on the stomach i.e. four fingers above the navel.Knife blow was on left side ribs of Gyandeo.Blow by Jambiya like sword was on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Bhagwat had sustained stick blow on the head.Shahuraj was beaten by sticks and iron rod after he fell down.He was given 4 to 5 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 126 blows by stick and 4 to 5 blows by iron rod.Sheshrao had sustained 4 blows by Katti and sword.Sword blow was given on the left hand wrist by sharp edge.Blow by Katti was given on the left leg shin of Sheshrao.He had not sustained any other injury.Sanjay was assaulted by Jambiya like sword on the right side abdomen.He was given 4 blows by stick and 4 blows by iron rod.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::Vijaykumar was given 2 sword blows on the stomach and one blow by sword on the nose.Nose blow was by vertical sword.Nose and lips were cut.He had received other concealed injuries.He has specifically stated that, afterwards though villagers had gathered at the time of incident, none of them came for their rescue.They did not resist assailants.They did not attempt to flee away from the place of incident.At the time of incident, one female accused was there and 17 males were present.He has also stated details about the manner in which the incident had taken place.He has specifically denied ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 127 suggestion that, he is deposing falsely that, accused assaulted deceased and other injured by weapons.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::70] Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, the learned counsel invited our attention to Portion Mark at `A', `B', `C' from his (PW-18) statement under Section 161 before the Police and tried to submit that, his evidence before the Court is contradictory to his statement before the Police.We have carefully perused the evidence of PW-18, in his examination-in-chief and also his cross-His evidence is consistent and finds corroboration from other eye witnesses and also medical evidence.The statement before the police officer and the statement in the evidence before the Court are not so inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other that both of them cannot co-exist, and therefore, submission of learned counsel deserves no consideration.In our opinion, his evidence is not shaken in any manner.It appears from his evidence ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 ::: 414.11crapl 128 that, he wanted to convey that, the manner in which he stated before the Police about each accused and overt act attributed to them has not been recorded properly.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:33 :::However, the said portion marked cannot be taken to mean that, same are omissions.Therefore, his evidence is reliable, trustworthy, appears to be truthful and deserves acceptance.In his evidence he stated that, he was invited for dinner by complainant Baburao on the date of incident.At about 7 to 7.15 p.m. they were about to sit for dinner, at that time, from the outside of house of Baburao, they heard noise of abuses and there was stone pelting on the house of the complainant.Then they came out of room in the court yard.Gyandeo went ahead.Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Baburao, Chandrakant and this witness and family members in the house came in the court yard.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::414.11crapl 129 All of sudden, 30 to 40 persons from outside came in the court yard of Baburao.2 to 3 persons caught hold hands of Gyandeo.Shivaji Pawar then inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Two other persons came there.One person from them inflicted sword blow on the right side of navel of Gyandeo.Another person inflicted sword blow on the left side of navel of Gyandeo.Then wife of Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife-blow on the above side of waist (ribs) of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down.Then Vijaykumar was assaulted by the mob.Three persons had caught hold Vijaykumar.Sword blow was given on the stomach of Vijaykumar.One more person gave sword blow on the stomach of Vijaykumar.Other persons were also beating Vijaykumar.Sanjkumar was inflicted sword blow on the stomach and ribs.This witness again said that, one blow was given to him by Jambiya and another blow was given by sword.Then some persons rushed on the person of Shahuraj.He was given sword blow by the side of waist.Then ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 130 Sheshrao was assaulted.Three blows were given on the hand of Sheshrao.A stick blow was given to Bhagwat.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::Injured sustained bleeding injuries and they collapsed in the court-yard.Injured were thereafter shifted to Nilanga hospital.72] This witness was cross-examined by Advocate Mr. T.V. Jamdar on behalf of some of the accused.It appears that, defence cross-examined him on the aspect that, he is close relative of the complainant - Baburao.He stated in his cross-examination that, Varsha is the daughter of his cousin brother, who is daughter-in-law of complainant Baburao.He stated in his cross-examination that, it is true to say that, he was deposing for the first time today before the Court that, Shivaji Pawar assaulted Gyandeo by sword, however, in our opinion, it is quite possible that, this witness, who is relative of the complainant from some other village, did not know about the name of all the accused, and therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 131 merely because first time he stated before the Court that, Shivaji Pawar assaulted Gyandeo by sword would not affect credibility of his evidence.Therefore, his evidence also appears to be trustworthy.His evidence is clear, cogent and does not suffer from any omissions, contradictions or improvements and defence has not brought anything on record so as to disbelieve his evidence before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::In her examination in chief, she stated that, complainant Baburao is her father-in-law.Persons from the house and guests were about to sit for dinner, at that time, stone pelting started and abuses ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 133 started from outside of their house.Then mob and shout raising persons about 30 to 40 came in their court yard.Gyandeo went ahead of all.Thereafter, Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Baburao, this witness and other females came in the court yard.Guests who had came for dinner also came in the court yard.Gyandeo was caught hold by 3 persons amongst mob.Those were Satish Pawar, Tukaram Pawar and Udhav Pawar.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Accused Vimalbai gave knife blow on the back side ribs left side of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the left side back portion of Gyandeo.Gyandeo had sustained bleeding injuries and felled down.Persons from the mob then assaulted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 134 Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Bhagwat, Sheshrao and females.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::Injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital for treatment.Doctor advised to shift three injured to Latur for further treatment.Gyandeo, Bhagwat and Sheshrao were retained at Nilanga for treatment.Gyandeo died during the course of treatment.igThis witness was cross-examined by Advocate T.V. Jamdar for some of the accused.In her cross-examination, she reiterated her version in her examination-in-chief about the manner in which incident had taken place and also prelude about the incident.74] Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, the learned counsel invited our attention to portion mark `A', `B' from the evidence of this witness and tried to submit that, this witness has not named Namdeo in the said portion mark, and therefore, Namdeo is entitled for benefit of doubt.Upon perusal of the evidence of this witness, in examination-in-chief and also in cross-examination, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 135 she has named Namdeo Pawar and also overt act is attributed to him that, he inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo, and therefore, when her evidence finds corroboration from evidence of other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::In his examination-in-chief, he stated that, Baburao is his grand-father.Deceased was his uncle.Then persons in the house came outside in the court-yard.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::Gyandeo came ahead of all.Thereafter, Vijaykumar and other persons came in the court yard.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Tukaram Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left side of navel of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the left side of Gyandeo.Due to assault, Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down.Then mob assaulted Vijaykumar.Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 137 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted three blows by sword on the face of Vijaykumar.Other persons also inflicted blows on Vijaykumar.Vijaykumar also sustained bleeding injuries and he also felled down.Shahuraj was also assaulted on the back by Madhav Pawar by Jambiya.Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat were also assaulted.Then injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital.Doctor told in the hospital that, Gyandeo was dead.This witness was cross examined by Advocate Mr. T.V. Jamdar on behalf of some of the accused.This witness stated that, he did not state portion mark `A' read over to him from his police statement.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::77] In the present case, even if the portion marked in the police statement of the witnesses, and cross examination on it of said witnesses is considered, there are no material omissions, contradictions or improvements, which would eclipse evidence of eleven ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 141 eye witnesses coupled with medical evidence and other evidence led by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::78] P.W.21 in his police statement, in portion mark `A', `B', has stated that, he could not state about specific names of the assailants of all injured witnesses i.e. Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, but that is not helpful to the defence.The evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, whose evidence has already ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 142 been discussed.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::79] After exhaustively discussing evidence of 11 eye witnesses, in foregoing paragraphs, it would be appropriate in nutshell to state herein below the overt-acts attributed by the eye witnesses to the accused persons.P.W.16 Baburao deposed that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold deceased Gyandeo and Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on stomach of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back side and ribs on the right side of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on back of Gyandeo.P.W.16 stated that other accused assaulted Gyandeo with stick and iron rods.As regards assault on injured witness P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted with sword on the face of Vijaykumar, accused ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 143 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the shoulder of Vijaykumar, accused Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted by iron rod to Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::As regards assault on injured P.W.22 Shahuraj, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj with iron rod, accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj with stick, and accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj with sword.As regards assault on injured P.W.24 Shesherao, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted by Katti on right shin of Shesherao Pawar, accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted him with sword on left wrist.As regards assault on injured P.W.23 Bhagwat Pawar, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted with stick on the head of Bhatwat.As regards assault on himself, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted with stick on his back.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::414.11crapl 144 80] P.W.17 Chandrakant Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused as regards assault on Gyandeo stating that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow of Jambiya like sword on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.As regards assault on injured P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted with sword on the right side stomach of Vijaykumar, accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the stomach of Vijaykumar, accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with stick on his back, accused Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with iron rod on right shoulder, Haridas Manik Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with iron rod on back side of lower portion.As regards assault on P.W.26 Sanjay, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 145 accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Sanjay by Jambiya like sword on right side of abdomen.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::As regards assault on P.W.24 Shesherao, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao on left hand with three blows of sword, also on the waist at the right side back of Shesherao, accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao with Katti on leg shin, accused Prakash kadaji Pawar assaulted by iron rod on back.As regards assault on P.W.23 Bhagwat, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted him with stick on his head.As regards assault on P.W.16 Baburao, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted Baburao with stick on back.81] P.W.18 Dilip Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 ::: 414.11crapl 146 Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai inflicted knife blow on the left ribs of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on back side (left side) of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow on the right side of abdomen of Gyandeo with Jambiya like sword.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:34 :::As regards assault on P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with Jambiya like sword on the stomach and face, Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right leg of Vijaykumar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with iron rod on right shoulder, Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with iron rod on back of Vijaykumar.As regards assault on P.W.26 Sanjay, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted with Jambiya like sword on right side abdomen of Sanjay.As regards assault on P.W.22 Shahuraj, Dilip ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 147 Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with stick on the left shoulder of Shahuraj, Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted with iron rod on waist of Shahuraj, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted with sword on right side back of Shahuraj.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::As regards assault on P.W.24 Shesherao, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted by Katti on right leg shin of Sheshrao, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted three sword blows on left hand of Sheshrao.As regards assault on P.W.23 Bhagwat, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted with stick on head of Bhagwat.82] P.W.19 Maroti attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that 2 to 3 accused caught hold Gyandeo, Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, one person inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, two other persons came and one of them inflicted sword blow on the right side of navel of Gyandeo and another person ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 148 inflicted sword blow on the left side of navel of Gyandeo, and wife of Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::As regards assault on P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Maroti P.W.19 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Vijaykumar was assaulted by the mob, three persons caught hold Vijaykumar, sword blow was given on the stomach of Vijaykumar, one more accused person gave sword blow on his stomach and sword blows were inflicted on his stomach and ribs.As regards assault on P.W.22 Shahuraj, Maroti P.W.19 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that some accused persons rushed on Shahuraj and gave three sword blows on hand of Shahuraj.As regards assault on P.W.23 Bhagwat, Maroti P.W.19 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused gave stick blow to Bhagwat.83] P.W.20 Varshabai Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish, Tukaram, Uddhav caught hold Gayndeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 149 sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on back of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya (sword) blow on the navel of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::As regards assault on herself, this witness attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Waman Dadarao Pawar inflicted stick blow on her back.P.W.21 Mahadev Pawar attributed overt-acts to 84] the accused stating that accused Satish Vaijinath, Tukaram, Uddhav caught hold Gayndeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on back of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya (sword) blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on Vijaykumar P.W25, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 150 P.W.21 Mahadev Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar and Venkat Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted three blows of sword on the face of Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::He also attributes overt-act to accused Madhav Pawar in assaulting Shahuraj with Jambiya.85] P.W.22 Shahuraj Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on himself, P.W.22 Shahuraj Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with stick on left shoulder and stomach of Shahuraj, Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted with ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 151 iron rod on right side waist of Shahuraj, Shivaji kadaji Pawar assaulted with sword on the right side waist of Shahuraj.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::86] P.W.23 Bhagwat Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on himself, P.W.23 Bhagwat Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar stating that accused Devidas assaulted him with stick on the head.87] P.W.24 Sheshrao Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 152 Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::90] Maroti Dnyanoji Thorat was working as A.P.I.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::On 20.01.2008, he recorded ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 157 memorandums of accused Namdeo Shivaji, Vilas Kadaji Pawar and Ashok Kadaji Pawar in presence of panchas.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::Further accused have not given memorandum statement before him nor produced any weapon in pursuance to such memorandum.He denied suggestion that, he prepared false panchnama about seizure of weapons and clothes from the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::investigated the crime from 31.01.2008 to 18 th June, 2008 as API.He further stated that, he recorded statement of Gram Sevak Goswami and collected the Gram Panchayat extract of the place of incident.On 05.04.2008, he submitted charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 14 as there was sufficient evidence against them, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 ::: 414.11crapl 160 showing accused No.15 to 37 absconding.He stated that, on 20.05.2008, accused Vishwanath Pawar, Udhav Pawar and Vaijinath Pawar were released on anticipatory bail, and they produced sticks and iron rod before him and he seized the same under separate panchanamas.Panchanama shown to him is the same.Lables bearing signatures of PW-30 and panch were affixed on seized weapons.Then due to his transfer, he handed over investigation to PSI Naginwad.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::Nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record from his cross examination.He stated in his evidence that, he attached to Aurad Shahajani Police Station from 20.06.2008 to January 2009 as API.He received investigation in Crime No.02/2008 on 20.06.2008 from API Kendre.He had arrested accused Nagnath Pawar, Vimalbai Pawar and Komalbai Pawar.Accused Vimalbasi had produced knife before him which he seized under panchnama in the presence of panch.Panchnama shown to him, bears signature of PW-31 and panch.Thereafter, he submitted the charge sheet against above referred accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::93] We have discussed the entire evidence on record.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::Out of six injured witnesses, three injured witnesses i.e. Vijaykumar, Shahuraj and Sanjay, were examined by the Medical Officer, and the evidence of the Medical Officer suggests that nature of injuries sustained was grievous and dangerous to life.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::The Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh and Ors v. State of M.P.3 in para 9 held that in case the informant fails to name a particular accused in the FIR, and the said accused is named at the earliest opportunity, when the statements of witnesses are recorded, it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the accused.Further argument advanced by the defence is 3 AIR 2011 SC 255;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::And caused grievous injury to Shahuraj, Vijaykumar and Sanjay whereas, simple injuries to other three witnesses.There cannot be a room for doubt that the members of the said assembly had knowledge that use of such weapons would certainly result into casualties.The behaviour of the assembly while proceeding towards the house of complainant, as stated by the witnesses, was certainly ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 ::: 414.11crapl 176 violent, some of them were giving slogans that they would ensure that no member of the complainant's family is left alive.Apart from that, they were instigating and encouraging each other for commission of offence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::Therefore, if the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses is considered in its entirety, an inevitable conclusion is that each member of the unlawful assembly had knowledge that there would be commission of offence / casualties.The members knew that weapons which were carried by some of the members of the assembly, if used, certainly would result into death or grievous injuries and therefore, behaviour of the assembly prior to the incident and at the time of incident and the fact that deadly weapons were used, leads to only conclusion that they formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt, in order to kill every member of the family of complainant Baburao, and in furtherance of that common object, as a matter of fact, Gyandeo was assaulted with swords and other weapons and as a result, he died.Out of eleven eye witnesses, six are injured witnesses; three of them suffered grievous injuries, dangerous to their lives.The overwhelming medical ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 ::: 414.11crapl 177 evidence clearly corroborates the version / evidence of the eye witnesses.P.W.27 Dr.Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same once again.In order to hold that the assembly was unlawful, it is necessary to meet the ingredients of sections 141 and 142 of IPC.In the present case, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that there was assembly of more than five persons and the case in hand would be covered by the provisions of section 141 of IPC.Section 141 of IPC reads, thus:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-First.-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second.-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 ::: 414.11crapl 178 of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::98] Upon careful perusal of the provisions of section 141 of IPC, the present case is covered under "Clause Third".The assembly entered in the house of the complainant and thereby committed criminal trespass.They have also committed offence and therefore, ingredients of section 141 are met in the present case.The accused persons more than five in number, in furtherance of common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to members of complainant's family, so as to kill every member of the family of complainant Baburao, proceeded to the house of the complainant with deadly weapons, their behaviour prior to commission of offence and at the time of commission of offence was certainly in furtherance of common object.Their involvement was not passive.They knew the result of forming such an unlawful assembly.As a matter of fact, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 ::: 414.11crapl 179 members of the unlawful assembly who are named and overt act attributed to them, actually participated in commission of murder of Gyandeo and injured other eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::99] Section 142 of IPC reads, thus:Being member of unlawful assembly.--Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly."As already observed, members of the unlawful assembly were aware as to for what purpose they have assembled and were proceeding to the house of Baburao, they were aggressors, they formed an unlawful assembly knowing the object, joined the assembly and they continued their association till the actual offence was committed.Therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has proved that in furtherance of the common object, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and they proceeded to the house of the complainant Baburao so as to assault / cause grievous hurt, to finish every member of his family and succeeded in killing his son Gyandeo and injuring other six eye witnesses from his blood relation.The other ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 ::: 414.11crapl 180 witnesses have also received injuries but, those were not visible and the medical officer has not examined them.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:36 :::100] At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the provisions of section 149 of IPC which read.Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution igof the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."101] By applying the test / criteria laid down in the case of Masalti (supra) that in case of mob attack, in order to ascertain whether there was actual participation of each accused, the Court should ensure that two or more than two witnesses have actually deposed about the involvement of accused in commission of offence.If said test is applied in respect of accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant have in clear words stated his involvement and overt-acts.He assaulted deceased Gyandeo with sword on chest and to that effect, there is corroboration through medical evidence.All other eye ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 181 witnesses have also deposed that accused Shivaji assaulted Gyandeo with sword.After assaulting Gyandeo, he even assaulted other eye witnesses i.e. P.W.22 Shahuraj and other witnesses.Therefore, so far as Shivaji Kadaji Pawar is concerned, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and gets corroboration from the medical evidence.As already observed, P.W.27 Dr.Pralhad Solanke and P.W.28 Dr. Shivanand Biradar were examined as medical officers and they have deposed in their evidence about the injuries sustained by the deceased Gyandeo and other eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::As far as accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar is concerned, the eye witnesses namely, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.18, P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25, P.W.26, attributed overt-acts to Shivaji stating that he inflicted sword blows on the person of deceased Gyandeo, injured Sheshrao and Shahuraj.102] So far as accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar is concerned, again the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 182 complainant is consistent that Namdeo assaulted with a sword not only to the deceased Gyandeo but, even to other witnesses.Since the evidence of all the witnesses have been already discussed in detail, it is not necessary to repeat the same.Suffice it to say that, as regards accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar is concerned, eye witnesses namely, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.18, attributed overt-acts to accused Namdeo that he inflicted Jambiya blows to Gyandeo deceased and Vijaykumar - injured, P.W.20 attributed that he inflicted Jambiya blow to Gyandeo P.W.21 stated that he gave Jambiya blow to Shahuraj, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25, P.W.26 attributed overt-acts to accused Namdeo that he gave Jambiya blow to deceased Gyandeo.P.W.25 also attributed overt-acts to Namdeo that he gave Jambiya blow him i.e. P.W.25 Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::Suffice it to say that by applying the test in the case of Masalti (supra), there is overwhelming evidence regarding involvement of Namdeo Shivaji Pawar in the commission of offence.The eye witness account gets corroboration from the medical evidence.The other eye ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 183 witnesses have also stated about his involvement.Though it was argued by the learned Counsel for the accused that Namdeo is not named in the FIR or complaint, FIR is not an encyclopedia and evidence of eleven eye witnesses is before us and involvement of Namdeo is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.The eye witness account gets corroboration from medical evidence and other evidence on record.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::103] P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant and almost all eye witnesses have stated about presence of Vimalbai Pawar in the unlawful assembly.Not only that, a specific overt-act has been attributed to her that she assaulted on the ribs of Gyandeo with a knife.If medical evidence is perused carefully and in particular, Injury No.5 sustained by deceased Gyandeo, the evidence of prosecution witnesses about the overt-act played by Vimalbai Pawar gets corroboration from medical evidence.As far as accused Vimalbai Pawar is concerned, P.W.16, P.W.18, P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 184 P.W.25, P.W.26 attributed overt-acts to accused Vimalbai that she inflicted knife blow on the back of deceased Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::The trial Court acquitted her on the ground that there is no proper recovery of knife from her.In our opinion, it appears that the trial Court failed in its duty to take into consideration the substantive piece of evidence in the nature of eye witnesses and also the medical evidence.Merely because, there is no proper recovery of knife, that by itself cannot be a ground to ignore the evidence of eleven eye witnesses, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence and, therefore, her involvement as a member of the unlawful assembly and actual commission of offence has been proved by the prosecution mainly through the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant and other eye-104] Therefore, if the test in the case of Masalti (supra) is applied, the prosecution case against the accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and Vimalbai ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 185 Shivaji Pawar is fully established.It is relevant to mention at this juncture that P.W.25 Vijaykumar was seriously injured and he sustained injuries dangerous to his life.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::Therefore, his evidence assumes importance and his evidence does not suffer from any contradictions, omissions or improvements.Like in the same manner, evidence of P.W.21 Mahadeo, so far the above three accused are concerned, does not suffer from any contradictions, omissions or improvements.105] P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant, all of them have stated that the persons from the mob were pelting stones, then mob came in the court-yard, mob was comprising of 30 - 40 persons, on hearing shouts Gyandeo came outside first and P.W.25 Vijaykumar followed him.Other persons in the house also came in the court-yard.Accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Tukaram Pawar caught hold Gyandeo and at that time, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on left chest of Gyandeo.Almost all eye witnesses including P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 186 Baburao i.e. complainant are consistent in their deposition that the above mentioned three accused caught hold Gyandeo and then Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on left chest of Gyandeo.Therefore, involvement of these three accused in caught holding Gyandeo facilitated accused persons and in particular, Shivaji Pawar to give blow with sword on the chest of Gyandeo and also to other accused to assault Gyandeo and Vijaykumar.The other witnesses have also stated that after Gyandeo fell down, Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, Venkat Vaijinath Pawar caught hold P.W.25 Vijaykumar.Therefore, involvement of Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, Venkat Vaijinath Pawar in caught holding P.W.25 Vijaykumar is also stated by the prosecution witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::As regards accused Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, Satish Vaijinath Pawar and Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, P.WS.16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 attributed overt-acts to these accused that they caught hold Gyandeo thereby facilitating other accused to assault him.P.Ws.16, 17, 18 and 25 also attributed overt-acts to accused Uddhav that he assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod. P.Ws.21 and 25 attributed overt-acts to Satish ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 187 that he caught hold Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::As regards accused Vilas Shivaji Pawar, P.Ws.16 & 18 attributed overt-acts to Vilas stating that assaulted Vijaykumar and Shahuraj by stick, P.WS.17 & 25 stated that he assaulted with stick to Vijaykumar, P.W.22 stated that Vilas assaulted with stick to Shahuraj.As regards accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar, P.Ws.16, 17, 18 and 24 attributed overt-acts to Ashok that he assaulted injured Sheshrao with Katti.As regards accused Waman Dadarao Pawar, P.Ws.16, and 17 attributed overt-acts to Waman that he assaulted Baburao with stick on back and P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to Waman that he assaulted Varsha with stick.As regards accused Dayanand Maroti Bhingole (absconding), P.Ws.16, 17, 18, 20 to 26 attributed overt-acts to Dayanand that he assaulted deceased Gyandeo with sword.As regards accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar (absconding), P.Ws.16. 21 & 25 stated that Madahv inflicted sword/Jambiya blow to Gyandeo and Vijaykumar, P.Ws.17 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 188 & 18 attributed overt-acts to accused Madhav that he assaulted injured Gyandeo, Vijaykumar and Sanjay with sword like Jambiya.P.W.26 stated that accused Madhav assaulted Gyandeo and Sanjay with sword - Jambiya.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::P.Ws.20, 22, 23, 24 attributed overt-acts to accused Madhav that he assaulted Gyandeo with sword.As regards accused Haridas Manik Pawar, P.Ws.17 & 25 attributed overt-acts to accused Haridas that he assaulted injured Vijaykumar with iron rod.As regards accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar, P.Ws.16, 17, 18 and 23 attributed overt-acts to accused Devidas that he assaulted injured Bhagwat with stick.As regards accused Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, P.Ws.21 & 25 attributed overt-acts to accused Venkat that he caught hold injured Vijaykumar.As regards accused Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, P.Ws.21 & 25 attributed overt-acts to accused Vaijinath that he caught hold injured Vijaykumar.As regards accused Satish Baburao Pawar, P.W.21 Mahadeo Pawar attributed overt-act to accused Satish Baburao Pawar stating that along with other accused ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 189 he caught hold Vijaykumar.Even, P.W.25 Vijaykumar stated that Satish Pawar caught hold him.Vijaykumar identified the accused Satish Baburao Pawar along with other accused present in the court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::As regards accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar, P.Ws.16,17, 18, 22 attributed overt-acts to accused Prakash that he assaulted injured Shahuraj with iron rod.Therefore, their presence in the unlawful assembly and their overt-acts has been stated by the prosecution witnesses, which facilitated other accused to assault Gyandeo and also P.W.25 Vijaykumar.We have also observed that the mob formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to finish the members of complainant's family and, therefore, the provisions of section 149 of IPC are very much attracted and, therefore, each member of the unlawful assembly is equally responsible being part of the unlawful assembly.Therefore, the proselcution has proved beyond reasonable doubt involvement of Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Tukaram Pawar who caught hold Gyandeo and Satish Baburao Pawar, Venkat Vaijinath Pawar and Vaijinath Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar, which facilitated other ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 190 accused to inflict blows with their weapons.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::106] So far as accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar is concerned, there is evidence of P.W.21 that he was holding Katti and assaulted injured witness Shesherao.P.W.16 has also assigned specific role to him.Some of other witnesses have also deposed to that effect.107] In case of accused Venkat Pawar, the P.W.25 Vijaykumar attributed overt-act to accused Venkat that he along other accused caught hold this witness while Madhav Shivaji Pawar and Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blows to him.So also P.W.21 Mahadeo also attributed overt-act to accused Venkat that he caught hold Vijaykumar and facilitated inflicting of sword blows by by Madhav Shivaji Pawar.108] So far as accused Haridas Manik Pawar is concerned, P.W.25 Vijaykumar in his evidence stated that he assaulted by iron rod on his back.So far as accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar is concerned, P.W.16 Baburao has deposed that Devidas assaulted Bhagwat Pawar with stick.So far as accused Satish Baburao Pawar is concerned, P.W.21 stated that he caught hold P.W.25 Vijaykumar and also P.W.25 deposed to that effect.Other witnesses have also stated that Satish Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::The injuries suffered by the deceased Gyandeo and the injured witnesses are as, under:(1) Deceased Gyandeo:i] C L W at left Temporal Region Size 3 x 2 x 1 cm.ii] Deep incised wound at left anterior axillary region, at 5th and 6th Inter costal space with 3 x 2 x Deep dimension.iii] Deep incised wound at epigastric region 3 x 2 x Deep.iv] Deep incised wound at left hypochamdric region size 3 x 2 x Deep.v] Deep incised wound at left infra-scapular region.Size 3 x 2 x Deep.vi] Parallel wound deep of same dimension, 5 Cm on left of 5th wound.Internal injuries found on the dead body:i] Fracture of 5th and 6th left rib.ii] Tear at Ventricular region.iii] Left Ventricle get punctured with 1.5 Cm dimensions.iv] Deep incised wound at left lung ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 192 paranchyme on back.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::v] Stomach get punctured of dimensions 2 Cm.(2) Injuries suffered by Sheshrao S/o Baburao Pawar:i] Clean Incised wound over left dorsum of forearm, horizontal, near wrist.Size 3 x 1 x 1 Cm.ii] Clean Incised wound over left forearm near wrist lower one-third, oblique, dorsoventrally on radial side.Size 8 x 1.5 x 1.5 depth Cms.It was bleeding.iii] Clean Incised wound on medical aspect of injury No.2, left forearm.iv] Contusion over wrist joint left.Size 3 x 4 x 1 Cm Movements were painful and restricted.(3) Injuries suffered by Shahuraj S/o Baburao Pawar:Incised wound penetrating over right renal angle over back, oblique.Size 4 x 1 Cm penetrating depth not recorded as deep.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.Incised penetrating injury over right iliac fossa.Size 5 x 2.5 Cm. penetrating.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::(i) Incised penetrating wound over right back, oblique, Size 10 x 5 Cm muscle deep.(ii) Incised penetrating wound over infra- scapular region, right back.(iii) Incised penetrating wound, over left scapular region.Size 3 x 2.5 Cm x muscle deep.(iv) Incised penetrating wound, infra-scapular region, right side.Size 3 x 1.5 Cm.X muscles cut.(v) Incised penetrating would, left lower back, para-spinal region.Size 2 x 1.5 Cm.x deep muscles cut.(vi) Incised would, left zygomatic arch.Size 4 x 1 x ½ Cm.(vii) Penetrating incised wound with intestinal coils protruding out of injury, over supra umbilical region, extending to epigastric region.Size 6 x 4 Cm.(viii) Abrasion with C.L.W. over upper lip over nose and upper lip.Size 1 x ½ x ½ Cm.(ix) Abrasion over left elbow.Size 1 x 1 x ½ Cm.Injuries No. 1 to 5 and 7 are grievous in nature.Injury Nos. 6, 8 and 9 are simple in nature.Except injury no. 9 caused by hard and blunt object.(6) Injuries suffered by Bhagwat S/o Vijaykumar Pawar:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::414.11crapl 194 Clean lacerated wound over left frontal region, Size 10 x 2.5 Cm.It was caused by hard and blunt object, within 6 hours.It was simple in nature.109] So far as original accused No.2 Madhav Ganpat Shahapure, No.5 Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, No.6 Manik s/o Ramji Pawar, No.7 Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure, No.8 Balaji s/o Apparao Pawar, No.9 Govind s/o Ganpat Shahapure, No.10 Ashok s/o Vishwanath Pawar, No.15 Dhondiram Raosaheb Pawar, No.16 Vishwanath s/o Vithal Pawar, No.19 Pandurang s/o Vishwanath Pawar, No.21 Maroti Madhav Pawar, No.22 Vishnu Madhav Pawar, No.23 Chandrahar Vishwanath Pawar, No.24 Vinayak Raosaheb Pawar, No.26 Narayan Maroti Bhingole, No.27 Suresh s/o Maroti Bhingole, No.28 Pandurang Maroti Bhingole, No.33 Nagnath Raosaheb Pawar and No.35 Komal Maroti Pawar are concerned, P.W.25 Vijaykumar, who was seriously injured, has stated in his cross-examination that they were not present at the spot.Even, the complainant P.W.16 Baburao in his cross-examination has stated that these persons have no concern with the incident.Even during the course of argument, the learned A.P.P. and also the learned Counsel for the complainant have brought to the notice of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 195 this Court the evidence available against only 17 accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::Those 17 accused persons against whom evidence is available, which is discussed in foregoing paragraphs, are as follows:Shivaji Kadaji Pawar.Tukaram Shivaji Pawar,Vilas Shivaji Pawar.Ashok Kadaji Pawar.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar.Waman Dadarao Pawar.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole.(Absconding).Vimal Shivaji Pawar.Madhav Shivaji Pawar.(Absconding).Haridas Manik Pawar.Udhav Shivaji Pawar.Devidas Pralhad Pawar.Venkat Vaijinath Pawar.Satish Vaijinath Pawar.Vaijinath Vithal Pawar.Satish Baburao Pawar.Prakash Kadaji Pawar.Out of these 17 accused, Dayanand s/o maroti Bhingole and Madhav s/o Shivaji Pawar are absconding and their trial has been separated.110] We have discussed the evidence of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 ::: 414.11crapl 196 prosecution witnesses in detail and the overt-acts attributed to them qua each accused and also the medical evidence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:37 :::Upon re-appreciating the entire evidence, inevitable conclusion is that above mentioned accused persons named by witnesses formed an unlawful assembly, they were aggressors, they had knowledge, they went to the house of the complainant, some of them gave slogans that they will see that no member of the family of the complainant is left alive and in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to members of complainant's family so as to finish entire family, accused entered in the house of the complainant and in court-yard, they killed Gyandeo and injured Vijaykumar, Sanjay and Shahuraj grievously and three others with simple injuries.So far other family members of the family complainant are concerned, it is deposed by the complainant that other members were also assaulted, their injuries were not visible and therefore, they were not examined by the Medical Officer.In our opinion, when prosecution has alleged formation of unlawful assembly, and more than five accused assaulting by deadly weapons on Gyandeo, and also other witnesses were assaulted with common object to cause grievous hurt to the members of the family of the complainant Baburao, each member of the unlawful assembly irrespective of any overt act attributed to him/her, if prosecution has established his/her presence at the spot, and their participation is with the knowledge that, such deadly weapons carried either by the co-accused or by himself/herself in furtherance of common object, is sufficient to hold responsible such accused for ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 ::: 414.11crapl 198 commission of all the offences in view of the provisions of Sections 141, 142 and 149 of I.P. Code.The evidence of PW-16, PW-25 and other eye witnesses corroborates with each other in material particulars about formation of unlawful assembly by the accused persons and in furtherance of common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant, each member of said unlawful assembly is equally responsible for death of Gyandeo and injuries inflicted on the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, it becomes wholly irrelevant which member of unlawful assembly had assaulted by which weapon, and whether there is corresponding injuries found on the body of the victims because of blow given by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::It is a requirement of the society and the law must respond to its need.The greatest virtue of law is its flexibility and its adaptability, it must change from time to time so that it answers the cry of the people, the need of the hour and the order of the day.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::In the light of observations of the Supreme Court in case of Jai Kumar (supra), it is our duty to award appropriate sentence to the accused persons who were members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, indeed they participated in the commission of offence and their overt-acts are spelled out by as many as eleven eye witnesses examined by the prosecution.Judgment and order of acquittal reversed and all the accused were convicted by allowing government 10 2014(2) ACR 1756;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::Evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and defence taken by appellants were sufficient to establish fact that appellants had formed unlawful assembly having its common object to commit murder of deceased and in furtherance of common object of assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons.Therefore, Chhattisgarh High Court maintained order of conviction of the accused therein.In case of Manilal vs. State of Kerala,12 the Kerala High Court while explaining scope of section 149 of IPC, held that even if the identity of some of the accused forming part of the unlawful assembly is not established or even if 11 2014 CRI.L.J.4704;12 ILR2014(2)Kerala871; 2014(2)KLT800;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::414.11crapl 204 one or more of the accused are acquitted granting benefit of doubt, that does not absolve the other accused from being proceeded against under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.All accused persons came together armed with lathis and gun.All requisite tests to attract section 149 established by prosecution and the contentions raised by appellants therein were rejected and the Supreme Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the High Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::Out of eleven eye witnesses, six are injured witnesses, out of which, three suffered grievous injuries, dangerous to their lives.These witnesses have attributed overt-acts to afore mentioned 15 accused persons.However, it would be relevant to mention at this juncture that, it appears that the judgment in case of Masalti (supra), which is by the larger Bench consisting four Honourable Judges, was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Yadav (supra).114] In the light of detail discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No.14 of 2008 is not sustainable in law.We modify the order of the trial Court so far original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and original accused 14 (2011) 5 SCC 324;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::414.11crapl 206 No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar are concerned and also partly allow Criminal Appeal No.601/2012 filed by complainant Shahuraj Baburao Pawar and Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 filed by the State against order of acquittal, on the following terms:(i) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.34 Vimal w/o Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, who are responsible for death of Gyandeo, are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each, in default, R.I. for a period of two years;ii) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.34 Vimal w/o Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok Kadaji Pawar, accused No.14 Waman Dadarao ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 ::: 414.11crapl 207 Pawar, accused No.29 Haridas Manik Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas Pralhad Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, accused No.32 Satish Baburao Pawar, and accused No.30 Prakash Kadaji Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default, R.I. for six months;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:38 :::iii) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok Kadaji Pawar, accused No.29 Haridas Manik Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas Pralhad Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, accused No.32 Satish Baburao Pawar, and accused No.30 Prakash Kadaji Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:39 ::: 414.11crapl 208 default, R.I. for one year;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:39 :::iv) Original Accused No.14 Waman Dadarao Pawar is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R.I. for one month;v) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok Kadaji Pawar, accused No.14 Waman Dadarao Pawar, accused No.29 Haridas Manik Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas Pralhad Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, accused No.32 Satish Baburao Pawar, and accused No.30 Prakash Kadaji Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, R.I. for one month;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:39 :::vi) All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.vii) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, who are in jail, and remaining accused shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period, if already spent in jail.viii) All the afore mentioned accused, who are convicted and sentenced as above and who are not in jail, shall surrender forthwith.ix) Original accused No.2 Madhav s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.3 Pandhari s/o.Manik Pawar, accused No.5 Abhimanyu s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.6Manik s/o.Ramji Pawar, accused No.7 Satyanarayan s/o.Madhav Shahapure, accused No.8 Balaji s/o.Apparao Pawar, accused No.9 Govind s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.10 Ashok s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.15 Dhondiram s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.16 Vishwanath s/o.Vithal Pawar, accused No.19 Pandurang s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.21 Maroti s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:39 :::414.11crapl 210 Madhav Pawar, accused No.22 Vishnu s/o.Madhav Pawar, accused No.23 Chandrahar s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.24 Vinayak s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.26 Narayan s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.27 Suresh s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.28 Pandurang s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.33 Nagnath s/o Raosaheb Pawar, and accused No.35 Komal s/o.Maroti Pawar, are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged;x) Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.414/2011 filed by original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, against order of conviction and sentence, is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No.601/2012 and Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 filed by the complainant and the State respectively, against order of acquittal, are allowed partly and stand disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:39 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,521,103 | 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that on 23.09.2009 at about 2:30 p.m. in village Lalitpur, P.S. Tala, District Satna while prosecutrix went to collect the fire-wood, the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and committed rape forcefully.The prosecutrix was deaf and dumb.(Jabalpur: 24.07.2018) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 114/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.Near the place of incident Shankhu Bai sister of the prosecutrix was also collecting the fire-wood.When she came to the prosecutrix she found that the prosectrix was lying 2 CRA No. 1412/2008 and her hands and legs were tied.Thereafter, she narrated the entire story by sign language.On the next day i.e. on 24.09.2009 Shankhu Bai sister of the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Chouki Mukundpur police Station Tala and crime No. 133/2009 was registered.Prosecutrix was medically examined and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.The case was tried by the Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Satna.During the trial the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to trial.His defence was that he is innocent.Learned trial Court after completion of trial convicted the appellant and sentenced, as mentioned earlier.In this appeal, the aforesaid conviction and sentence has been challenged.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not want to press the appeal on merits and he continue his argument to the point of sentence, stating that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to minimum 7 years as the appellant has undergone near about 6 years of custody.It is further submitted that the appellant belongs to a poor family having burden of livelihood of other family members and he is also an uneducated rustic villager and labourer have no great sense of human value.After suffering of aforesaid imprisonment in jail there is no chance to repeat the same.Therefore, minimum sentence would meet the ends of justice.Learned Government Advocate submits that the sentence passed by the trial Court appears to be appropriate and as such no interference is required to be called for and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.After considering the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, so far the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC is concerned, it is based on the evidence of 3 CRA No. 1694/2013 prosecutrix (PW-4) and corroborated by her sister Shankhu Bai (PW-1).The evidence of both the witnesses have remained impeachable during the cross examination.The appellant is in jail.He is directed to be released forth with after undergoing the period of jail sentence awarded by this Court.A Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.(J.P. Gupta) JUDGE Amitabh Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2018.07.26 21:54:38 -07'00' 4 CRA No. 1412/2008 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2013 Juguntha Mudha Vs The State of M.P.Jabalpur dated 22.11.2017 Shri R.N. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Vivek Lakhera, Government Advocate for respondent/State.Today the case was listed for consideration on the application for suspension of sentence.However, with the consent of both the parties, the case heard finally.Judgment passed separately.Signed and dated. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,252,123 | From this, one can infer that the left side of the milk van has hit the tricycle from behind, may be, when the driver attempted to overtake the tricycle.He has further stated that the police prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex-P3) and rough sketch (Ex-P9) in his presence.This criminal revision has been preferred seeking to set aside the conviction made by judgment dated 01.02.2011 in C.A.No.171 of 2008 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence dated 19.02.2008 in C.C.No.3048 of 2006 passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2 The brief facts leading to the filing of this criminal revision are as follows:2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.02.2006, around 6.00 a.m., Velu (PW1) was transporting Parvathy (PW2) and the deceased Nagaiya by his tricycle from Pulianthoppu to Elephant Gate (West to East) via Elephant Gate bridge; while they were going down, they were hit from behind by a milk van bearing Registration No. TN 23 E 6555, driven by the petitioner resulting in the tricycle toppling, due to which, Parvathy (PW2) and Nagaiya sustained injuries and they were rushed to the Government Hospital for treatment, where, Nagaiya was declared brought dead.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 2.2 On the complaint lodged by Velu (PW1), M.Venkataraman (PW10), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.28/C2/2006 under Section 337 IPC (2 counts) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner and prepared the printed FIR (Ex-P8); he went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar (Ex-P3) and rough sketch (Ex-P9).On getting information from the Government Hospital that Nagaiya had died, M.Venkataraman (PW10), Sub- Inspector of Police handed over the investigation to Krishnamoorthy (PW11), Inspector of Police, who went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of Nagaiya and prepared the inquest report (Ex-P10).2.3 Post-mortem on the body of Nagaiya was done by Dr.M.A.Aravind (PW7), who, in his opinion as well in the post- mortem report (Ex-P5), has stated that the deceased could appear to have died due to multiple injuries.On 13.02.2006, the Investigating Officer sent a requisition to the Motor Vehicles Inspector to examine the milk van and received the report (Ex- P6).2.5 On the appearance of the petitioner, he was furnished with the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and charges were framed for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When questioned, the petitioner pleaded “not guilty”.2.6 To prove the case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and marked eleven exhibits.2.7 When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.2.8 On the defence side, no witness was examined nor any document marked.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 2.9 After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as follows:Provision under which Sentence convicted(i) 304-A IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment(ii) 337 IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment(iii) 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act Fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment 2.10 Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed C.A.No.171 of 2008 before the Court of Session and the same was dismissed on 01.02.2011, challenging which, the petitioner has filed this present criminal revision petition.But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1 2004 (7) SCC 659 7 satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.” 5 Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no finding by the Courts below that the petitioner had driven the offending van in a rash and negligent manner so as to make him liable under Section 304-A IPC.He placed strong reliance on the answer given by Janarthanan (PW4), in the cross-examination, to the effect that the milk van was being driven by the petitioner in a steady manner.He further contended that the tricycle carrying the passengers tried to suddenly turn right and that is why, the accident had taken place and not on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.He has further deposed that he saw the driver of the milk van and identified the petitioner in the dock.8 In the cross-examination, he was questioned as to whether he had any licence to transport passengers in tricycle, for which, he has stated that he did not have one.He has further specifically stated that since the milk van had forcefully hit his tricycle, it got toppled.He has further stated in his cross- examination that there was no vehicle moving in the front.To a specific question in the cross-examination as to how many people were there in the milk van, he has stated that the petitioner was on the wheels.It was suggested to him that for getting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, a case has been foisted on the petitioner, which, he denied.9 As regards Parvathy (PW2), she has stated in her examination-in-chief that she is a conservancy worker; on 11.02.2006 (Saturday), she was proceeding to work in the tricyclehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 driven by Velu (PW1); along with her, an old man was also travelling; at that time, a milk van hit the tricycle from behind due to which the tricycle toppled resulting in injuries to her; she fainted and when she regained consciousness, she found that she was admitted in Stanley Hospital.She has not properly identified the petitioner as the person who had driven the vehicle.11 The facts that have been proved beyond any doubt are:(a) On 11.02.2006, the deceased Nagaiya and Parvathy (PW2) were travelling in a tricycle driven by Velu (PW1)(b) When going down the Elephant Gate bridge, the accident had occurred in which Nagaiya lost his life and Parvathy (PW2) was injured.(c) The petitioner was driving the milk van.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 12 Dr.Alagappan (PW9) has, in his evidence, stated that while he was on duty in the emergency accident ward in Stanley Hospital on 11.02.2006, he examined one Parvathy (PW2) who told him that while she was travelling by a tricycle, a milk van had hit the tricycle, on account of which, she has suffered injuries; he gave her first aid and admitted her in Ward No.8 for thorough examination; he issued the Accident Register copy (Ex-P7).15 In the cross-examination of Janarthanan (PW4), he has stated that the tricycle was going on the left side of the road.He has also stated in the cross-examination that the petitioner/driver of the milk van was driving steadily.Even according to the evidence of Janarthanan (PW4), the tricycle was going onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 the left side of the road and it is not his case that the tricycle was going in the middle of the road.17 The evidence of M.Vijayakumar (PW8), Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport office, Chennai, shows that the left indicator of the van was found broken and the paint on the left side of the bumper was found scrapped.In the collision, the tricycle carrying the two passengers has toppled resulting in injuries to them.This, by itself, shows that the petitioner was coming down the bridge rashly and while trying to overtake the tricycle negligently, the left side bumper had hit the tricycle with impact, on account of which, the tricycle had toppled.18 It is seen that the deceased Nagaiya was aged about 70 years and the external injuries were only three abrasions.As stated above, the accident had occurred when the petitioner tried to overtake the tricycle while going down the Elephant Gate bridge.Parvathy (PW2) suffered only external and internal pain, for which, she was given first aid and later discharged.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 19 In such view of the matter, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A, 337 IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands confirmed.The sentence under Section 304-A IPC of six months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount and the default sentence shall remain the same.The trial Court is directed to issue warrant for securing the petitioner immediately.In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed.12.12.2018 nsd Index: Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No ToThe Inspector of Police, G-2, Yanakavani Police Station, Traffic Investigation, Chennai.The III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town.The V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 P.N.PRAKASH, J.nsd Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2011 12.12.2018http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
225,222 | The point involved in this revisional application is whether during pendency of the magisterial action over a complaint filed by the opposite party as complainant praying for direction for sending the petition of complaint to Officer-in-Charge of a police station for causing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC; a second complaint over same set of facts and allegations filed by same complainant is maintainable.The facts giving rise to the revisional application as it appears from the revisional application and its annexures is that, the opposite party filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short CMM), Calcutta which was registered as Case No. C/4941/01 and the opposite party complainant prayed for sending the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta for causing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC treating the complaint as FIR.It appears that in the said complaint which is annexure P-4 the opposite party complainant mentioned that previously on 27.8.01 she lodged written complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta but the police did not take any action and did not register any FIR.It is clear that the learned CMM on that date did not pass any direction for sending the complaint to the concerned police station for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC.Learned Magistrate fixed 21.11.01 for the report.The order of the learned Magistrate dated 21.11.01 which is annexure P-6 reveals that the learned Magistrate received the report of Investigating Officer (I.O.).The order of the learned Magistrate dated 6.12.01 reveals that as the police did not take any step for investigation considering the matter relating to company affairs and civil issue, he passed order for informing the de facto complainant as to whether the de facto complainant wants direction under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC or wants to initiate complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr. PC and fixed 22.1.02 for order.By order dated 22.1.02 learned Magistrate directed issue of fresh notice upon the informant.Thereafter, it appears that the learned Magistrate fixed 10.4.02 for further order as the de facto complainant was found absent.It is evident that, in the meantime on 5.12.01 the same opposite party as complainant filed another complaint in same tune like the previous one and again prayed for direction upon Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department for causing investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.PC treating the complaint as FIR.In the said complaint in paragraph 17 it was mentioned by the complainant that she has already lodged written complaint against the accused persons before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta which was received in the said office on 27.8.01, but police did not take any action.The complaint filed by the opposite party before the learned CMM was registered as Case No. C/4941/01 and the learned CMM by order dated 26.9.01 did not send the complaint to the concerned police station for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC treating the complaint as FIR.It transpires that the learned CMM on the other hand, called for a report from D.C.(D.D.), Lalbazar as to steps, if any, taken on the complaint lodged by the complainant petitioner which was received in his office on 27.8.01 and fixed 21.11.01 for the report.On 21.11.01 the learned Magistrate received a report from I.O. and learned Magistrate fixed 6.12.01 for appearance of the I.O. The order of the learned CMM dated 26.9.01 makes it clear that he did not send the petition of complaint to Officer-in-Charge of concerned police station for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC treating the complaint as FIR.The grounds for not entering into investigation has been stated above.It is further evident from subsequent orders dated 22.1.02,12.2.02 and 14.3.02 that the magisterial action over the complaint bearing No. C/4941/01 was not complete.In such a situation the courses open to the complainant was either to submit before the learned Magistrate for sending the complaint for investigation or to take cognizance on the complaint and to proceed from the stage of Section 200 Cr. PC.Order of learned CMM dated 12.2.02 reveals that on that date concerning the first complaint this complainant prayed for time, and on that date also, she did not inform the learned CMM that already in the meantime on 5.12.01 she has filed the second complaint being Case No. C/5890/01 and on the basis of said complaint learned CMM took cognizance and by order dated 21.2.02 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court issued process against the accused petitioners under Section 418 read with section 120B of IPC. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,526 | This appeal is filed by the convicted Accused, who took their trial undervarious offences under different charges on the allegations that on 10.1.1997 at6.00 P.M. near the house of Krishnammal (PW.1 in this case) in Kandasamipuramwithin the limits of Maniachi Police Station in Tuticorin district, all theappellants and the acquitted six accused armed with deadly weapons formedthemselves into an unlawful assembly with intention to murder the deceasedRajasekar (son of PW-1) and indiscriminately made murderous attack by inflictingmany fatal injuries as a result of which the victim Rajasekar instantaneouslydied on the spot itself and during the course of occurrence P.Ws.1 and 4 to 7also received injuries at the hand of the accused.2.The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellants/accused andthe acquitted accused are the residents of the village namely Kandasamypuramwithin the limits of Maniachi Police Station.The deceased Rajeswaran @Rajasekaran, the son of P.Ws.1 and 2, the husband of P.W.4 and son-in-law ofP.W.6, during the time of occurrence, was residing with his parents and he wasemployed in a wine shop belonging to one Kundamperumal at Ottapidaram.3.During December, 1996 the general election for the Tamil NaduLegislative Assembly took place, in which, Thiru Kundamperumal and one ThiruKrishnasamy contested the election opposing each other.The accused supportedthe candidature of Thiru Krishnasamy, whilst the deceased worked for his MasterKundamperumal.Thiru Krishnasamy ultimately became successful.On account ofthis, there was a deep animosity existing between the accused and the deceased.Following this animosity, there were frequent quarrels between them.4.On 3.12.1996 there was a petty quarrel among the children.On account ofthis a quarrel arose between one Shunmugasundari (PW.8) and one Athilakshmi.Thehusband of PW.8 by name Natarajan lodged a complaint before the police inrespect of this incident citing PW.1 and the deceased as witnesses to theoccurrence.5.On 09.01.1997, when P.W.4, wife of the deceased went to the ElectricityBoard to pay current bill, she was threatened by A-7 and Aadhilakshmi and oneSubbulakshmi stating that if anybody adduced evidence against them, they wouldbe killed.In the said quarrel, P.W.1 was kicked by A-13 and was dragged byother accused.6.On 10.01.1997 while P.Ws.1 and 2 were in their house, all the accusedcame there with deadly weapons.Among them A-1 to A-4 were armed with swords, A-5,7,8 and 9 were armed with Aruvals, A-13 armed with an iron rod, A-10 armedwith a knife, A-6 armed with a stone, A-14 also armed with a stone and A-11armed with a stick.At thattime, the deceased along with his wife P.W.4 was coming to his house along withP.W.5 (sister's son of P.W.4), after purchasing cloths for Pongal festival.Onreaching the house, the deceased shouted at his mother, P.W.1 as to why she didnot go to the Police Station for lodging a complaint against them.While thedeceased was conversing with P.W.1, all the accused surrounded him with deadlyweapons.A-11 first attacked the deceased with a stick on the back side of hishead.A-12 pushed down the deceased.Immediately A-1(1st appellant) cut thedeceased with the sword on his stomach; A-2 (2nd appellant) cut the deceasedwith aruval on his shoulder; A-3 (3rd appellant) cut the deceased with the swordon the right shoulder; A-5 cut the deceased with aruval on his chest; A-4 cutwith arvual on the right side chest of the deceased; A-8 cut the deceased withAruval on the flank; A-7 and A-9 cut the deceased with Aruval on the neck of thedeceased and A-10 cut the deceased with knife on his neck.A-13 attacked P.W.1with iron rod on her head.A-6 attacked P.W.6 with stone on the right leg.A-14attacked P.W.2 armed with stone on his backside.A-11 attacked P.W.4 armed withthe stick.A-13 attacked one Ebenezer, P.W.7, armed with an iron rod on hischest.Due to the injuries sustained, the deceased died on the spot.P.W.15, Inspector of Police of Puliyampatti Police Station was incharge of Maniachi Police Station.P.W.15 prepared an Observation Mahazar at about 12midnight and a Rough Sketch of the scene, which are marked as Exs.P.9 and P21respectively.Then P.W.15 on 11.1.1997 conducted inquest over the dead body ofthe deceased at 00.30 hours in the presence of panchayatdars and recorded thestatements of P.Ws.1,2,4,5,8 and 7 and other witnesses and recovered thebloodstained earth and sample earth, bloodstained stone and sample stone M.Os.10 to 13 under cover of a mahazar Ex.P.22 is the Inquest Report.12)A cut in the upper loin (right) - 7x0.5x2cmInternal: Heart spleen, Kidneys congested.2)Lungs: Right - congested - cut along upper lobe 10x0.5x23)A curvillinear cut in the congested liver 10x0.5x5cmThis injury, according to P.W.3 was simple in nature.10.Then P.W.3 examined P.W.2, who complained of pain on the neck and back.P5 is the concerned would certificate.11.Thereafter P.W.3 examined P.W.5, who also complained of pain on herchest.There was no external injury.Then P.W.3examined P.W.4, who complained of pain on the right hand and leg.The MedicalOfficer opined that the injuries were simple in nature and issued the woundcertificate Ex.P.W.6 was medically examined by P.W.3 and the injuredcomplained of pain in the waist.P.W.3 opined the injury as simple in nature andissued the wound certificate, Ex.12.P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, on his return to the Police Stationhanded over the case for further investigation to P.W.16, Investigating Officer.P.W.16 took up the case for further investigation and proceeded to the scene ofoccurrence and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1,4 and one Chinnathai.Onreceipt of the information, on 13.01.1997, he arrested A-12 (Arumugam) at 6.00p.m.in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 and oneAnthonysamy and recovered the bloodstained full-hand shirt and bloodstainedLungi M.Os.17 and 15 respectively.On 30.01.1997 P.W.16 recorded theconfession statement of A-1 and A-3 given by them in the presence of P.W.9 andthe admissible portions of which are marked as Exs.P.25 and 26 respectively.Pursuant to the confessional statement, P.W.16 recovered long aruvals (3 Nos),knife and sword in the presence of P.W.9 marked as M.Os.1 to 7 under cover ofMahazars Exs.P.W.16 thereafter was transferred.The period, if any, alreadyundergone shall be given set off.It is reported that the accused are on bail.The Sessions Judge concerned is directed to take steps to secure the presence ofthe accused and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period ofsentence.The Inspector of Police,Maniachi Police Station,Tuticorin District.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.) There were 14 accused before the trial court, of whom the appellantsherein, who were arrayed as accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 and the acquitted accusedarrayed as accused Nos.6, 10, 11, 12,13 and 14, took their trial inS.C.No.137/98 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge - cum - ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, of whom, the appellants herein i.e., the accused1 to 5 and 7 to 9 alone were found guilty for the offences punishable underSections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. , and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year under section 148 I.P.C., and sentenced toimprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C., and therest of the accused were acquitted.The accusedthreatened the witnesses and ran away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 wentto Maniachi Police Station along with P.W.2 by walk since there was no busservice at that time.7.P.W.13 (Sub-Inspector of Police of Maniachi Police Station), on thebasis of the complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No.3/97for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and 302 IPC.Ex.P.19 is the printed First Information Report.Since theInspector of Police P.W.16 has gone to the High Court in connection with someother case.8.P.W.3, the Medical Officer, who on receipt of the requisition given byP.W.15, Investigating Officer, conducted autopsy on 11.01.1997 at 11.00 a.m. andissued the post mortem certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he had noted the followinginjuries:"External:"1)A cut injury in the right upper chest close to the shoulder measuring 40cm x5cm x 3 cm exposing bones and muscles.2)A cut injury on the back of the right shoulder extending into the scapularregion measuring 20x3cmx5cm exposing the bone.3)A curvillinear cut - right mammary region 30cm x 1cm x 3cm4)A curvillinear injury(cut) from right hypochondrium into left lower chest - 45cm x 3 cm x 3 cm exposing, stomach, liver and intestines.5)Two linear cuts in the left upper chest measuring1)10x0.5x1cm 2)5x0.5x16)A cut in the jaw exposing mandible 10x0.5x3cm7)Two cuts in the forehead (left) measuring 3x0.5x0.5cm each8)A cut in the occipital region measuring 20x1x3cm exposing brain.9)A cut below No.8 measuring 10x1x3cm10)A cut in the lower face(left) 5cmx0.5x1cmA cut in the back between scapular- 5cmx0.5x0.5cm11)Two cuts in the right thigh measuring4)Parts of small and large intestines cut and torn off.5)Stomach lacerated and cut; Bladder empty.6)Hyoid bone, atlas, axis intact.1)A cut injury in the occipital bone 20x0.5x3cm.2)A cut below the above 10x1x3cm8)Brain congested".According to thedoctor, these injuries were likely to have been caused by the weapons likearuval and knife.According to P.W.3, the victim might have died about 12 hoursprior to the post-mortem.9.Thereafter P.W.15 noted the injuries on P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 to 6 and sentthem for medical examination and treatment.P.W.3, the Medical Officer examinedthem on 11.1.1997 and issued the wound certificate.P.W.3 found on P.W.1(Krishnammal) a cut injury measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on her head, 2 cmabove the forehead.A-12, Arumugam gave a statement Ex.P.23 inthe presence of P.W.9, which is inculpatory in nature.A12 requested the policeto send him for treatment for the injuries sustained by him.On the basis of thesaid statement, a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section324 IPC., in Cr.P.24 is the copy of the First Information Report.13.Thereafter, P.W.16, arrested A-6 at 11.p.m.On 29.01.1997 P.W.16 filed an affidavitbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti for securing A-1 and A-3under police custody and had them secured.Thereafter, on28.02.1997, a requisition has been given to send the recovered material objectsto chemical analysis.The chemical analyst and serologist reports weresubsequently received under Exs.On 08.03.1997, P.W.16 recorded thestatement of P.W.3, the medical Officer who gave treatment to the injuredwitnesses P.Ws.1,2,4,5 and 6 and issued Wound Certificates Exs.Therefore, on 9.5.1997 P.W.13 underthe oral direction of the Superintendent of Police and on the basis of the draftcharge-sheet prepared by the learned Public Prosecutor filed the final reportfor the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 readwith section 149 I.P.C.14.Since the offence is triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the samewas committed to the Court of Session.The trial Court totally framed eightcharges on the basis of the materials placed before it as against accused Nos.A-1 to A-5, A-7 to A-9 and also the other acquitted accused 6, A10 to A14) asfollows:As per the first charge: As against A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 and A13 for theoffence under section 148 I.P.C. and as against A6, A11, A12 and A14 for theoffences under section 147 I.P.C.As per the second charge: As against A1 to A5, A7 to A10 for the offencepunishable under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. As per the third charge: As against A1, A11 to A14 for the offence undersection 302 read with section 149 I.P.C.As per the fourth charge: As against A6 for the offence under section 323I.P.C.As per the fifth charge: As against A11 for the offence under section 323I.P.C As per the sixth charge: As against A14 for the offence under section 323I.P.C.As per the seventh charge: As against A13 for the offence under section324 I.P.C.As per the eighth charge: As against A13 for the offence under section 324I.P.C.15.The learned trial Judge on the basis of the oral and documentaryevidence produced by the prosecution questioned the appellants/accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the complicity of the offence andpleaded innocence.Even though some of the accused said that they have gotwitnesses to examine on their side they did not examine any witness.It may be notedthat all the accused i.e., both convicted and acquitted as well as P.Ws.1, 2, 4,5, 6 and 8 belong to Kandasamipuram.Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.1, 2,3,and 4 to 8 as eye witnesses only P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are the injuredwitnesses, supported the case of the prosecution.P.Ws.5 to 8 have turnedhostile to the prosecution despite the fact that P.Ws.5 and 6 were also injuredas fortified by the wound certificates Exs.As it is repeatedlymentioned above, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased andP.W.4 is the wife of the deceased.Among the witness, who are treated ashostile, P.W.5 is the elder sister's son of P.W.4 and P.W.6 is the mother ofP.W.4 and the mother-in-law of the deceased.A7 and A9 are brothers.17.A careful analysis of the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 4coupled with the other circumstantial evidence establish the present prosecutioncase and bring about all the key ingredients for proving the offences for whichthe appellants stand convicted.The presence of these eye witnesses cannot bebrushed aside because all of them are the injured witnesses as seen from Exs.Furtherthe occurrence is said to have taken place at 6-30 P.M. on 10.1.1997, thoughthere is marginal variation of time in the evidence of some of the witnessesdeposing that the occurrence took place at 7 P.M. Admittedly there was a shopnear the occurrence which was provided with lights.In fact, P.W.4 has statedthat at the time of occurrence street light was burning and that she was able toobserve the accused Arumugham and one Ganesan sustaining the injuries during theoccurrence being participated by a number of persons.Apart from that, P.W.10,who was a wireman in the Electricity Board, has deposed that there was noshutting down of energy in that village.Therefore, there was ample evidence toshow that there was sufficient visibility to witness the occurrence.More over,all the accused are not strangers to the witnesses.In the circumstances, theevidence given by P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 with regard to the material part of theevidence relating to the attack perpetrated by the appellants/accused areumimpeachable.18.Immediately after the occurrence P.Ws.1 and 2 after covering a longdistance of 8 km. by walk has given the complaint by about 10.15 P.M. itself.All the three witnesses speak about the motive part of the case in one voice andthe existence of the enmity between the deceased and the accused particularlyfrom the date of the general election.19.The learned trial Judge on the basis of the oral and documentaryevidence coupled with the compelling circumstances and after hearing thesubmissions made on either side, convicted the appellants herein (A1 to A5 andA7 to A9), finding them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPCand sentenced each one of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year andalso finding all the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with 149 IPC andsentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum ofRs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the TrialCourt, the appellants herein have preferred the present appeal before thisCourt.22.We have perused the materials available on record and carefullyconsidered the submissions made on both sides.A careful examination of the document Ex.P1 shows thatin the latter part of Ex.P1 it is unquestionably stated that Lakshmananreferring to A2 cut the deceased with a sword (long aruval).It may be notedthat in the printed FIR under col.No.7 requiring to state 'the details of knownaccused with full particulars' the name of A2 is clearly stated as Lakshmananson of Krishnan of Kandasamipuram.In the charge-sheet also A2's name ismentioned as Lakshmanan alias Lakshmana Perumal son of Krishnan alias Namakarar.Probably the name Thangaraj referable to A9 might have beenwrongly mentioned as A2's father's name.In that circumstances, that too afterwitnessing the brutal attack on her son, the deceased herein, P.W.1 might havebeen in a highly perturbed condition.The defence has not taken any effort to summon the woundcertificate of A12 and mark it on its side, had that certificate been of anyvital evidence.Further the defence has not constructed any defence theory oreven suggested its defence on that basis.It is pertinent to note that A12 inhis statement made under section 313 Cr.P.C., has not whispered anything abouthis sustaining any injury or about the medical treatment.In fact, to all thequestions addressed to him during the 313 statement including his arrest, A12except saying that 'it is false', no other answer was given by him about hisinjuries.He also stated to question No.32 in the 313 statement that there wasno witness on his side.However, he has filed a written statement before thetrial court denying his complicity in the occurrence and adding that he, on10.1.1997 at 6 or 6-30 P.M. received a cut injury and he came to the policestation where he was detained for three days without recording and registeringany case in spite of his request to do so and that he was not sent to anyhospital for medical examination.No doubt Ex.It may be noted that thestatement Ex.P23 was recorded by P.W.16 after he arrested A12 and while the A12was in his custody.In other words, the statement Ex.P23 was recorded in thecourse of the investigation while A12 was in police custody.P19, the printed first informationreport relating to Cr.This inordinate delay,is not properly explained and it cuts the very root of the prosecution case.26.As has been stated supra, while narrating the facts of the case, it isthe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on the night of 10.1.1997 at about 10.15 P.M.they, after the occurrence was over, went to the police station and P.W.1 gavean oral complaint which was registered as a case.Supporting this evidence ofP.Ws.1 and 2 P.W.13 states that he, on receipt of the complaint, registered itas Cr.No.3/97 and prepared the first information report, Ex.P19 and despatchedthe express report through P.W.14 to the Judicial magistrate, Kovilpatti and thecopies of the same to the other officials.P.W.14, by way of explanation to thedelay, has deposed in his evidence that he received Ex.P19 at about 10-30 P.M.and as there was no transport up to 9 A.M. of the next day to go to Kovilpattiand as he could not get any bus, he, by getting into a lorry, came to KurukkuSalai and afterwards he reached the Court of the Magistrate, Kovilpatti, whichis at a distance of 40 km from Kurukku Salai and at 5-30 P.M. he handed over thereport to the Magistrate.P.W.14 has swornin his evidence that he, on receipt of the wireless message, by 10-20 P.M. on10.1.1997 came to Maniachi and received a copy in Cr.No.3/97 registered undervarious sections inclusive of Sec.302 IPC., and took up the investigation andprepared an observation mahazar Ex.P.W.3, the Medical Officer, has deposed that, he on receipt of Ex.P2,conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased at 11 A.M. It ispertinent to note that even in Ex.P2, which was prepared before the inquest, itis mentioned under the heading 'subject' reading 'Maniachi Police StationCr.No.3/97 under various sections inclusive of section 302 IPC., the dead bodyof the deceased shall be examined by post-mortem'.This copy has been sent tothe Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti also.Therefore, even much earlier, theregistration of the case has been mentioned in many documents viz., Ex.P2, andEx.P3, the post-mortem certificate, which were registered much earlier beforeP.W.14 handed over the FIR to the Magistrate at Kovilpatti.The other submission with regard tothe contradiction of the description of the injury in the post-mortemcertificate, Ex.27.Though certain infirmities have been pointed out by the defence, theyare all very minor in nature and inconsequential.So no importance can beattached to the other submission relating to certain discrepancies, which wouldnormally occur in every case, in such circumstances as in this case.28.In fine, we find that it is the case of a brutal murder, in which thedeceased was attacked by the appellants along with other accused in the presenceof the father, mother, wife of the deceased, who were not strong enough toprevent the attack of the accused armed with deadly weapons.It may also be stated that the State has notpreferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused Nos.Aswe have stated already, the conviction of the 8th appellant, who is reported tohave died pending the appeal, his conviction has abated.The conviction andsentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, barring the 8th appellant, areconfirmed.Resultantly, the conviction under Section 148 IPC., and the sentenceof RI for one year imposed therefor and the conviction under sec.302 read withsection 149 IPC., against all the other accused and the sentence of imprisonmentfor life passed against each of the accused are confirmed and the directiongiven by the court below that the sentence shall run concurrently is alsoconfirmed.. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial court with thedefault clause is retained. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,252,844 | P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased.P.W.1 was residing with her father at Puliyampatti Govindankaattu Village.She has two children by name Ilavar Poovarasan and Girija.Some time before the occurrence, the accused had kept thorns just by the side of his house.P.W.1 objected to the same, because there was likelihood of thorns injuring the children.This resulted in a quarrel.But, the neighbours intercepted and persuaded the parties not to fight.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.Because of the said enmity, the accused used to throw a challenge on the deceased that one day or the other, he would die at his hands.[b] On 03.01.2008, at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased had gone to the nearby lake, to facilitate his grandchildren to answer nature's call.Accordingly, the deceased took his grandchildren, namely Poovarasan [P.W.2] and Girija to the lake.It is alleged that at that time, the accused came there and near the lake, strangulated the deceased with a rope by his neck.The deceased, died on account of strangulation.Poovarasan [P.W.2] and Girija rushed to the house of P.W.1 and informed P.W.1 about the same.P.W.1 immediately went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead.P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P7 is the FIR.[c] P.W.10 took up the case for investigation.P4 is the Post-mortem Certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of manual strangulation by neck.[d] On the same day, at 2.30 p.m., in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness, he arrested the accused near the bridge at Puliyampatti Village.On such arrest, the accused made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the rope.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.O.2 - rope.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.85 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Salem.He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC.By judgment dated 28.07.2009, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem.Panneerselvam, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.01.2008 at 10.00 a.m. He found the following injuries:"INJURIES:I : Abrasion : Dark reddish brown in colour seen over (1) 0.5 x 0.5 cm over the outer aspect of upper 3rd of right leg.(2) 2.5 x 2.5 cm over the outer aspect of middle 3rd of right leg.(3) 0.75 x 0.75 cm ; 0.25 x 0.25 cm ; 0.5 x 0.5 cm over right lateral malleolus.(4) 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm over back of lower aspect, lower end of left arm (5) 0.25 x 0.25 cm over back of left sole.II A faint transverse interrupted dark brown ligature mark over mid neck and extending on both sides measuring 13 cm long.It is situated 7 cm above the supra sternal notch and 8 cm below the mid chin and 10 cm below right mastoid process and 7 cm below left mastoid process.III (1) Contusion over left side of upper lip measuring 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm (2) Contusion over right side of lower lip measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm."P.W.10 recovered the same under a Mahazar.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over all the material objects, including the cloth recovered from the body of the deceased.On completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge u/s 302 IPC.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were exhibited, besides 7 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased has stated that by about 8.00 a.m. on the day of occurrence, the deceased had taken P.W.2 and Girija to the lake for facilitating them to answer the nature's call.She has further stated that around 8.30 a.m., P.W.2 and Girija came and told that the accused had strangulated the deceased.She has further stated that when she went to the place of occurrence, she found the dead body of the deceased.She also spoke about the complaint made.P.W.2 is the child witness, who was hardly aged about 8 years at the time of occurrence.He has spoken about the entire occurrence as an eye witness.P.W.3 has only spoken on hearsay information and his evidence is of no use to the prosecution.P.W.4 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his Final Opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of Observation and Rough Sketch; the arrest of the accused and consequential recovery of M.O.2 on his disclosure statement.P.W.8 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1; P.W.10 has spoken about the investigation done and others are official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did mark any document in his favour.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused for the lone offence u/s 302 IPC.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.2, the child witness.Admittedly, at the time of occurrence, he was hardly aged 8 years.But, in this case, during cross examination, P.W.2 has tacitly stated that before taking him to Court to depose, a Police Officer read out something which was written in a paper.He has further stated that he told the Court in chief examination as to what was told by the Police Officer to tell the Court.He has further stated that he has spoken only those facts which were tutored to him by the police.Apart from the said evidence, there is no other evidence available.In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.In the result, the appeal is allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,528,981 | On 1st Falgoon of 1415 B.S corresponding to 13.2.09 the accused called the defacto complainant in his fertilizer shop while none was present thereand then he took her in a room and committed rape on the pretext that he would marry her.Then he promised to marry her.When her menstruation came to an halt, the victim stated to the accused to marry her.But then the accused asked her to take contraceptive pill "Sukhi." She did not take it.& 9.12.11 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tehatta, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. 03 (01) 10 arising out of Sessions Case No. 35(10)09 convicting the appellant and sentencing him for a term of 7 years with a direction to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing the offence under section 376 and for a term of six months for commission of offence under section 417 of the I.P.C.In the background of this appeal, the fact in a nut shell is as follows:- The complaint shows that since last four months there was love affairs between the victim cum defacto complainant Beauty Khatun and the accused person.Thereafter, the accused also committed rape on her on several occasions.The defacto complainant became pregnant and the accused person then gave her "SUKHI" contraceptive to clear up her pregnancy but the defacto complainant did not consume the same.When the matter came to light, the defacto complainant and the parents told the accused to marry her but the relatives of the accused were not agreeable to such proposal.On the basis of the complaint, police caused investigation and charge sheet was submitted under section 376 IPC.The case was committed to the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Nadia, Krishnanagar by the ACJM, Tehatta, Nadia.On hearing both sides charge under section 417/376 IPC were framed against the accused person.The contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.As many as 12 witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution.But no D.W was given.However, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence case as appears from the trend of cross- examination of PWs and replies given in 313 Cr.P.C examination is the denial of prosecution case.The learned Court below after hearing both sides and going through the materials convicted the accused persons under sections 376/417IPC by the impugned judgment.The point for consideration is if the judgment is suffering from a material irregularities and call for any interference or not.Amongst other, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended mainly on the following points:-(1) The accused Rajibul had no fertilizer shop as the sketch map does not show the existence of the same;(2) There is nothing on record that Rajibul wanted to marry the victim; (3) The age of the victim girl has not been proved.(4) After making a reference to PWs 6, 1 and 3 the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case could not be proved by the prosecution.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand argued that the victim girl was too young to give consent.The evidence on record has supported the case of the prosecution.He has supported the judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below.I have given my anxious consideration to the materials on record and heard both the learned lawyers.I have perused the evidence on record and the exhibited documents and have taken stock of the arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties.To appreciate the case from a better angle some relevant pieces of evidence are required to be considered.Therein the complainant Beauty Khatun has stated that she was 14 years old.She had love affairs with the accused Rabijul.On the 1st Falgoon at about 8 p.m. at night Rajibul called her in their fertilizer shop and there was none else.The accused raped her in the shop and thereafter for several times he committed rape and promised to marry.When she became pregnant the accused gave her contraceptive pill, namely, "Sukhi" but she did not take the same.When the matter came to light, the accused gave proposal to marry her but he did not remain true to his words.PW 1 is the grand father of the victim girl.He has stated that he has no knowledge about this case.He stated that he has no knowledge about the victim girl's case.PW 4 is the mother of the victim.She has stated that she has no knowledge about the case.She has stated that she was married at the age of 13 years and one year thereafter her victim girl was born.PW 4, the mother of the victim girl is residing at the house of her father at village Sahebpara and her husband living separately at Dhoradoha and her daughter is residing also with her father.PW 4 has further stated that accused Rajibul and his father had no fertilizer shop at village Sahebpara.She said so probably because of the fact that her husband lives elsewhere and her daughter the victim lives with her father.PW 5 has been declared hostile.He is a grand father of the victim.PW 6 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl Beauty Khatun.He found no injury in any part of her body or sexual organs and the vagina was capacious of admitting two fingers without any mark of injury.He also opined that the she had frequent practice of sexual intercourse.PW 7 is the S.I. of Police who took part of investigation and submitted charge sheet.He did not examine the victim girl.PW 8 is another Doctor.He examined the accused and found that he was capable of sexual intercourse.PW 9 is the Magistrate.The victim girl claimed 6 she was 14 years old.She has stated before the Magistrate that on the fateful day the accused Rajibul called her over phone around 9 p.m. at their fertilizer shop.She declined initially but on repeated requests she went there and the accused proposed her to have sexual intercourse.She declined but forcefully the accused laid her on the floor and unclothed and committed rap for about 5 minutes.The incident came to the light.Then the accused promised to marry her.But ultimately she was advised by the accused to abort the foetus.The victim did not do the same.The victim stated that she left her "Chador" in the shop.The accused called her at night to take it back but she refused.With the ulterior motive the accused kept the "Chador" in a particular place of the room.When the victim came the accused took her inside the shop and again on the promise of marring committed rape on her.She echoed what she has stated in the petition of complaint exhibit 1 and also in his 164 Cr.P.C statement.She has stated that she read up to class VIII.She stated about the intercourse in a fertilizer shop by the accused which caused stoppage of menstruation.He also stated that the accused asked her to take contraceptive pill but she did not take it.Thereafter the accused was asked to marry but he declined.In cross-examination she has stated that there was love affairs between her and the accused.The victim has 7 stated in her cross-examination that she had sexual intercourse with the accused but she did not state the fact to her family or other person.Her evidence shows that she is a consenting party but whether her consent is valid consent in the eye of law is in a question.PW 12 is the SI of Police who conducted investigation of the case.So palpably the petitioner appears to be a minor on that day.Now a peculiar submission has been made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant by stating that in the meantime the victim girl has married one Najrul Sk. of village Dogachi Kulpara. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
22,531,549 | Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.The petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.56/2015 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 on the complaint given by the Sub Registrar, Aval Poonthurai.It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner herein had registered a false Document No.1966/1988 in favour of the second petitioner in respect of Grama Natham Land, which does not belongs to him.An enquiry has been conducted by the District Registrar on a complaint given by one Karupayee and during the course of enquiry, it came to light that the land was classified as Government Poromboke, which has been dealt with by the petitioners herein.After obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority, the Sub Registrar lodged a complaint against the petitioners based on which, a case has been registered as stated above.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue was already dealt with by the Civil Court and a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners in O.S.No.408/2010 on a suit filed by Karupayee challenging the validity of the Document No.1966/1988 and therefore the FIR is an abuse of process of court.The learned counsel also submitted that Karupayee's husband Palanisamy had initiated Insolvency Petition in I.P.No.106/2006, in which these petitioners were shown as creditors.Impersonation is also an offence under the Indian Penal Code.The finding in the Civil Court cannot have a bearing on the police investigation.If during the course of police investigation, it comes to light that the petitioners had impersonated someone else while registering the document, the Civil Court decree will not come to their rescue.Investigation by the police has to take its own course in order to find out the truth and that cannot be scuttled on the basis of civil court's findings.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the parameters for quashing the FIR.In the opinion of this Court, the facts of this case do not fall within the parameters laid therein.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.The Sub Inspector of Police Vellodu P.S. Erode District, Tamil NaduThe Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Aval Poonthurai Erode DistrictThe Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH,Jajr Order in Crl.OP No.11309 of 201502.06.2015 | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,993,701 | CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 1The prosecution case, in brief was that on 05.09.94, around 3:00 PM, the Appellant Rajender along with the Appellant Pappu @ Pandit, were urinating in Trilok Puri, near 19/350, under the influence of liquor.It was alleged that PW-2 Chander Mohan was passing by, and asked them not to do so.At this, the two of them, i.e. Rajender and Pappu, caught hold of PW-2; upon hearing the commotion, Vijay (hereafter, "the deceased") and others from the locality (mohalla) reached the spot, and pacified the attackers; upon this, Rajender, while leaving the spot, threatened Vijay and his brother (Bal Kishan, hereafter called "PW- 1") that they would be killed.The accused Rajender, under the influence of liquor, apparently had received injuries at that time.It was alleged that on 07.09.94, at about 1:00 PM in the afternoon, when Vijay was drinking water from a tap located opposite his house, and PW-1 as well as PW-2 were sitting outside on the floor, at their doorstep, the appellants reached there.It is alleged that the appellant Pappu asked the others to kill Vijay, pointing him out to them.Raj Pal caught hold of Vijay by both his hands, from behind him; Rajender, armed with a knife, and Anoop, with a sword, stabbed Vijay repeatedly; he started to bleed profusely.Thereupon, PW-1 and PW-3 raised an alarm; the appellant Anoop pointed his sword at them, and threatened that anyone approaching them would be killed.Likewise, submitted the APP, the IO was not asked why the blood soaked clothes of witnesses were not seized.The attack took place, and the deceased was taken to the hospital at 1:00 PM; the police reached soon thereafter, and it naturally took some time, for them to record the statements.That day several people were present at the spot, and had also intervened to stop the quarrel.On 07.09.94, the day of the incident, at the relevant time, the four appellants attacked Vijay, who was drinking water from a public tap.Rajender wielded the knife; Anoop Kumar attacked with a sword, Pappu exhorted the others also to attack.Rajpal held and detained the deceased, while others were beating or stabbing him.After attacking the deceased, the accused fled the spot.The deceaseds father and brother took him to the hospital; he was declared brought dead.The police, in the meanwhile reached the spot, and started the investigations.In his deposition, PW-1, the deceaseds brother deposed about the previous incident, of 05.09.94, and stated that Rajender too had suffered some injuries at that time.He (Rajender) while leaving the place threatened PW-1 and the deceased not to spare them.He deposed that his brother, Vijay was drinking water from the tap opposite to their house (on 7th September 1994).He (PW-1) and his father were sitting outside the door on the floor.At that time the four accused present in the court came there.He knew all them since earlier.The accused Pappu asked others to kill Vijay, pointing towards him.Anoop, showing the Talwar, warned that if anyone would come forward, he would be killed.PW-1 further deposed that he and PW-2 took Vijay to JPN hospital and got him admitted there; he was declared brought dead.He deposed that the police arrested all four accused persons (identified by him in the court) in his presence, at about 10 PM and effected their personal searches; the Accused were arrested from the bus stand.Rajender had a knife which was seized by I.O. The appellants then led the witnesses to CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 11 the spot and a Talwar was recovered from behind the wall near the Block 13, bus stand at the instance of Anoop, at 12:00 midnight.In cross examination, PW-1 deposed that there were houses on both sides of his house, and about 8-10 Jhuggies near the big parking in front of his house, and about 10-12 houses in the street where his house is situated.The house is situated in the middle of these houses.People used to pass through the street.In cross examination, he stated that the Theia of his father was at a distance of about 8 -10 minutes walk from their house.He admitted that people with families lived in all the houses near his house and were also living during the day of occurrence.None had gathered at the time of occurrence.He deposed having accompanied the deceased, to the PP for a few minutes.The police who met him there asked him take his brother to the hospital.He did not tell the police man the name of the culprit and the manner of occurrence.PW-1 stated having taken the injured in TSR.They hired the TSR after about minute of the occurrence.They reached the hospital by 1:30 PM.His clothes and those of PW2 had blood stains of deceased Vijay.PW-1 and PW2 did not pay the TSR fare to the TSR driver, it must have been paid by the third man who had gone with them but the witness did not remember his name.The witness claims to have named the culprits to the doctor, and also told about the knife and talwar and the spot of occurrence.The Police had recorded his statement in the hospital at about 3 PM.The police had recorded PW-2s statement too, in the hospital after his statement.He elaborated on the arrest of the appellants, stating that the four appellants were arrested on receipt of secret information while he and other witnesses were standing at block 25, near Nirankari Bhawan.He claimed to know three accused Anoop, Rajpal, and Pappu for a long time prior to the occurrence (of the incident).He claimed having seen the forth accused one or two times prior to the occurrence but did not know him by name.The witness deposed that about 50-100 persons had gathered at the previous occasion (5th September 1994).He denied the suggestion that till the admission of the deceased in the hospital they (PW-1 and PW-2) did not know the name of the accused.PW-2 stated that the police met him the day of the incident, at the hospital, where he was questioned and he stayed there.He returned home at 12:00 AM.His clothes were blood stained; he was wearing the same clothes when the police reached the hospital.They did not ask him about the blood nor did he produce the clothes to the police.He says that he and PW-CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 12 1 hired a TSR near the Police Post but was not able to recollect the person who had picked them up; he also deposed that a policeman was present in the PP and told them immediately to take the injured to the hospital.He says that the occurrence of 05.09.94 took place for about 5 minutes hardly and about 10-15 persons gathered at that time.The occurrence dated 07.09.94 ended within 2 minutes and people of the Gali gathered thereafter.He futher states that the place of occurrence was a thorough fare, with houses on both sides.On the front side of his house there was a 7 feet wide passage.PW-2 deposed that Pappu used to live near the rear side of his house and Rajender used to come to the Gali; he also knew Anoop as he used to go near his shop.He knew Rajpal accused as he was living in block No.18 earlier and was his distant relative.He stated that one churri was recovered from the right dub of the accused Rajender.Accused Anoop was interrogated and he stated that he had concealed the sword behind a wall at bus stand No.13 and he lead the police party to the said place and produced a talwar from behind the wall of the bus stand.In the cross examination, he stated that the SHO returned from the hospital at about 4 PM and ASI Vijay had received the DD in the PP at about 12:55 PM and he reached on foot from PP to the spot of occurrence.He stated that the photographer and finger print expert reached the spot together.He says that Vijays father was also joined during the investigation in between 4-5 PM at the spot of incident and he corroborated that there are several residential houses near the spot of the incident.The police returned to the Police Station the night after the arrest of the accused, at about 12 AM.He deposed that some secret information was received at about 10 PM at Nirankari Bhawan.He further states that the passersby refused to join the investigation.He stated having told the police, in his statement that a churri was recovered from the right "dub" of Rajender; he was confronted with his previous statement where he stated that this was done from the left "dub".PW-15 stated that the subsequent FIR 450/1994 was recorded on 08.09.94, at about 11:40 AM and that in DD No.11 and 12 the name of the assailants, name of the deceased, place of occurrence, and the name of the Complainant were not mentioned.31. PW-16 was the investigating officer in this case; he deposed that he along with his other staff including PW-1 and PW-2 went back to the spot of incident.He claims having received secret information about the accuseds presence, at 10:00 PM on 07.09.94 when he was present near Nirankari Bhawan, TrilokPuri that the accused in this case were present near CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 13 block no.13, bus stop of Trilokpuri.He claimed that Anoop disclosed having thrown away the Talwar behind the wall near the bus stand.He deposed having reached JPN hospital on 08.09.94 and conducted inquest on Vijays body.PW-2 Chandar Mohan was not feeling well when he came to the spot and accordingly left the spot at about 4/4:30 PM.The place where the witness received secret information was a thickly populated area, where people were coming and going at that time.He asked 4/5 persons to join the proceedings but they declined.The distance between the place of information and the place of arrest is about 150/200 yards.The secret informer did not accompany the witness to the place of arrest.No one was present at the bus stand when PW-16 arrested the accused.He stated that the Churri was recovered from Rajenders right side dub (of the pant).He did not seize Rajenders clothes.The witness confirmed that the seized knife was blood-stained.The sword was seized from Anoop, near a public park, and no residential houses were located.It was lying at the back of the park facing a wall.PW-1 met the witness in the hospital on the following day at about 10:00 AM; Chandra Mohan also met him there.Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP for the State in all the matters.This judgment will dispose of Crl.All four appellants ran away from the spot.PW-1 and PW-2 took Vijay, in a TSR to JPN Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.It is alleged that the police received intimation, by telephone, and a DD entry (Ex. PW-16/A) was made.ASI Vijay Pal proceeded to the hospital, where he collected the MLC of the deceased (Ex. PW-3/A).PW-16 recorded the statement of PW-1; the case was forwarded for registration of FIR, through endorsement, Ex. PW-16/B. Photographs of the spot were taken and investigation commenced.It was alleged that on the same day, at about 10:00 PM, upon receipt of secret information, the appellants were arrested, near No. 13 Block bus stand of Trilok Puri.It was alleged that the search of appellant Rajender led to recovery of a 12.1" churra with an 8" long blade.Appellant Anoop Kumar disclosed that he had thrown away the sword, behind the wall near the bus stand.He led the police party to a wall in Block 13 which led to the discovery of the sword, which was behind a wall.Inquest proceedings were held, and recorded as Ex. PW- 16/D. Brief facts Ex. PW-16/E were recorded and forwarded with a request for holding post mortem of the body.The post mortem report was received, as also the CFSL report.The police filed the charge sheet in court, which led to the appellants being charged with committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.Charges under sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, were framed against the appellants, Anoop Kumar and Rajender CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 2 Kumar.The prosecution relied on the testimony of sixteen witnesses; the main witnesses who deposed in the case, and whose testimonies were relied on by the Trial Court, to record the findings of guilt, were PWs 1 and 2, PW-11, the doctor and PW-16, Inspector Ashok Kumar.The Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the allegations against the appellants.It held that the prompt recording of the FIR, and the follow up investigation, within an hour, after the incident, ruled out any scope for manipulation or improvement.It was held that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were credible, and trustworthy for the court to hold the appellants guilty of the offences they were charged with.It was concluded that both PW-1 and PW-2 had witnessed the incident, and given an accurate and faithful narrative, which did not leave any doubt about the identity, events or sequence of the attack, and role of each accused.It was held that the medical evidence, in the form of the post mortem report, and the testimony of PW-11, the doctor, corroborated the eyewitnesss testimony.The court also believed the recovery of the weapons of offence, as alleged by the prosecution, and ruled that the accused/appellants made no attempt to explain their conduct, when opportunity was given to them; they also did not choose to lead any defence evidence.It was submitted that the entire story about the previous incident, of 05.09.94, when the accused Rajender is alleged to have got angry at the intervention of Vijay, and the subsequent attack, alleged to have been launched by them, is utterly unbelievable.It was submitted that the prosecution could not produce a single independent witness who was present on the previous day, even though its version was that several people from the vicinity intervened and quelled the fight, between Rajender and Chander Mohan.It was submitted, in this context that the previous incident was far too trivial to act as a motivation for such a serious attack upon the deceased.If such was the correct position, there ought to have been no reason at all for any of the accused to take exception and be motivated to avenge such a trivial fight.If in fact the prosecution were to be believed on that aspect, the murderous attack ought to have been launched against him and not against the deceased.If the allegations with regard to the previous incident of 05.09.94 were to be believed, that incident occurred at 03:00 PM in the afternoon.According to the prosecution, on that day, the altercation between Rajender and PW-2 was stopped at the intervention of the deceased and other members of the public.It was pointed out that the place where the alleged attack took place on 07.09.94, was a public one and in fact a thoroughfare, surrounded by residential buildings and blocks.Even in the afternoon, there were members of the public available at hand, on 05-09-1994, to stop the aggravation of a verbal altercation.This prosecution story was utterly unbelievable.However the Trial Court not only believed such an improbable version but proceeded to convict the appellants on the basis of such an inherently unbelievable story.Mr. Bhambani contended that the version of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot also be relied upon for the simple reason that they deposed to having witnessed the entire episode, but not to having taken any steps to save the deceased Vijay, who is alleged to have been inflicted with no less than 13 stab injuries inflicted with a knife and a sword.It was urged that the presence of PW-2 at the scene at that time, is suspect.Both PW- 1 and PW-2 had deposed that the latter used to vend vegetables, in a Thiya, about 8-10 minutes walk away from the scene of occurrence.Such being the case, the probability of PW-2 having been an eye-witness was remote.Further, submitted the amicus, PW-1 had deposed about intimating a police post (PP) which was at a very short distance away from the spot, when allegedly taking the deceased to the hospital.However, this was contradicted by PW-5, who mentioned that the said witnesses did not go there, on their way to the hospital.The learned counsel urged that even though PW-5 deposed that news of the incident was received and a DD was prepared at 12:55 PM, immediately after which the police party left for the hospital, the police made no effort to register the FIR; it was in fact recorded much later, i.e. three hours after the alleged time of occurrence, at 4:00 PM.This, taken with the circumstance that the IO deposed not having recorded the statement of any witnesses, in the hospital, contrary to the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 (who testified that their statements were taken down in the hospital), falsified the prosecution case.Therefore, urged the learned amicus, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside.Mr. Bhambani also argued that both PW-1 and PW-2 claimed to know the appellants; PW-2 mentioned that he recognized and could identify all of them; however, PW-1 stated that he knew the identity of three of them (ie.all except Rajender, whom he recognized by face).Yet, neither the MLC, nor the DD entry which are the first police records in the case, reveal the names of any of the alleged accused.These, coupled with the late recording of FIR, casts serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution story.Similarly, PW-2s credibility is further shaken, because he deposed having stayed on in the hospital till 12:00 midnight, on 07.09.94; however, PW-1 as well as PW-16 the IO, stated that the two witnesses had left the hospital.According to PW-1, before reaching the hospital, the police were intimated, at that PP; yet PW-5 confirmed that no such intimation was received, and that information about the attack was received differently.It was submitted that the alleged arrest of the four appellants from near a bus stand, and the recovery of the sword, with which Anoop Kumar allegedly assaulted the deceased, have not been proved.In this context, learned counsel argued that PW-5 deposed that secret information was received regarding whereabouts of the appellants, and the prosecution alleged that they were arrested at 10:00 PM that night.Yet, the same witness admitted that the so called informer was not even present at the spot of arrest, thus falsifying the version.Similarly, the sword was admittedly recovered from a public place, i.e. a park.This was around midnight.Besides the sheer improbability of such alleged recovery, there is in fact no disclosure statement, produced on the record, which connects any Appellant to the weapon.It is argued by learned amicus that besides the testimony of the two witnesses, who were CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 5 interested, there is no material to connect the Appellant Anoop Singh, with the crime.Concededly the prosecution story was that on that (the previous) day Rajender and Pappu were involved in the altercation.It was urged, that significantly, the prosecution was unable to establish that Anoop had in fact used the sword; there was no objective corroboration through fingerprint examination, etc. It was also argued that the prosecution case is utterly implausible, about the discovery of the sword, or that it was the weapon of offence, since the CFSL report Ex. PW-16/H clearly mentioned that the blood found on the sword, (marked as Parcel III; Bio-C) was not of human origin.The blood samples found on the articles seized, matched with the deceaseds blood group (A) only in respect of his undergarments, and the trouser as well as the belt he (the deceased) was wearing (Parcel 1, Bio A-1 and Bio A-2).Thus, the whole theory of an attack by Anoop, and the other accused, with deadly weapons, including a sword, which is said to have caused the fatal injury, was unbelievable.These pointed to a tainted prosecution.The learned amicus argued that the prosecution unfairly did not produce a material witness, i.e. the individual who allegedly accompanied PW-1 and PW-2 in a TSR to the hospital, when they went along with the deceased.According to their depositions, that stranger was unknown to them; yet he helped them in removing Vijay, accompanied them to the hospital and even paid the TSR fare.His testimony would have shed light to the surrounding circumstances; yet no effort was made to trace or summon him.Similarly, urged the amicus, PW-5s evidence showed that finger print experts had visited the scene of occurrence; yet their report was not produced, or made available.The learned amicus submitted that all the facts pointed to the prosecution fabricating the story and implicating the accused.Both PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that they were well aware of Anoop, Rajpal and Pappu.Anoop, in his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC stated that he was not present, and had been pulled out from his house.He also alleged false implication, since Pappu and Rajender were known to him.Similarly, it was submitted that in his response, Rajpal too alleged that PW-1 and PW-2 harboured a grudge against him, since he was acquainted with Rajender and Pappu.These statements, it was urged, received corroboration from the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, who stated their prior knowledge of the four accused.CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 6When the informant and some others belonging to his party went and protested as to why they were ploughing the land belonging to the informant the accused persons asserted that it was their land and, therefore, they would continue to plough the land in question.On this score there was some altercation and then accused Ram Das Yadav brought out the gun and fired which hit Mundrika and Mundrika died at the spot.Two other accused persons, namely, Ram Pravesh Yadav and Ramanand Yadav suddenly came and caught hold of Tapeshwar Yadav belonging to the complainant party and at that point of time Samundar Yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav came with gandasa in their hands and gave blows on the head of Tapeshwar by means of gandasa.It can also be developed at the spur of the moment but there must be pre- arrangement or premeditated concert.According to the prosecution version, PW-1/C was the personal search memo of Rajender; it clearly stated that nothing was found, upon his search.Yet, by PW-1/H, the churri was recovered from him.To compound this further, the weapon was 12.1 long with an 8 long blade and 4.1 handle; it was supposed to be recovered from the said Appellant, after 10:00 PM, i.e. over 9 hours after the alleged incident.It was submitted that the sheer improbability of such a recovery, has to be only mentioned, to emphasize that the story was false.If this circumstance were to be seen together with the alleged recovery - from Rajenders person, implying that he was carrying the knife all along, there ought to have been traces of the deceaseds blood.The prosecution story did not admit of use of any blunt weapon, since both eyewitnesses talked about attack with a knife, and a sword.He also stated that Rajpal caught hold of Vijay with his two hands from behind, Rajender, with a knife and Anoop with a talwar, stabbed Vijay repeatedly resulting in serious injuries to him.The witness and his father raised an alarm.A raid was carried out at block no.13 bus stand and on the pointing out of PW-1 all the four accused were arrested.He searched the accused Rajender which yielded a Churri, which was drawn in a sketch.In the cross examination, he deposed that ASI Vijay Pal met him at the spot at about 1.15 PM and stayed there only for 5 minutes.During this period he only enquired about the assailants from ASI Vijay Pal who informed him that the injured had been moved to the hospital.He also stated that he reached JPN hospital at about 2 PM and that he did not interrogate anyone in the hospital before collecting the deceaseds MLC.He left the hospital along with Bal Kishan and Chandar Mohan at about 3.30 PM.He stated that the police did not have the addresses of the four accused at the time of recording the FIR, and was confronted with Ex. PW-1/A, the previous statement, which did record that the addresses of Rajpal and Anoop were mentioned.He confirmed that the spot of the incident was surrounded by houses and that the distance between the house of the deceased and the first jhuggi of the park was about 12 feet.Immediately thereafter he handed over the inquest papers to the doctor.The Post Mortem report Ex. PW-11/A lists out the injuries found on the deceaseds body, and the probable cause of death:CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 14 "...Opinion: "Injury No.1,3,4,11,12,14 were caused by some blunt object/surface impact.Injury No.2,5,6,7,8,9,10,13 were caused by the sharp edged weapon.Injury No.13 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."The prosecution story hinges to a great extent on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, i.e. the brother and father of the deceased.Both stated that on 05.09.94, there was an altercation, between Rajender and Pappu, on the one hand, and PW-2 on the other.The latter had intervened and rebuked the two accused.The altercation apparently turned into some kind of scuffle.The deceased Vijay too had intervened, as had members of the public.That took place two days prior to the date of the incident, at 03:00 PM in the afternoon.The accused present (Rajender and Pappu) apparently threatened harm to the deceased, and PW-1, when they intervened and tried to pacify the assailants.On the day of the attack, i.e. 07.09.94, around 1:00 PM the four accused attacked the deceased, when he was drinking water from a public tap.Anoop attacked him with a sword; Rajender attacked him with a churri, Rajpal held him with both hands, while Pappu was exhorting the others.This was witnessed by PW- 1 and PW-2, who were near the spot.They however, could not rescue.The appellants argument was that the witnesses deposed falsely, because if indeed they were present, some attempt to rescue the deceased would have been made.However, PW-2 stated that Anoop had threatened them.Moreover, this alone cannot be a circumstance to discount their testimonies, because a sudden attack, of the kind alleged, can stun even bystanders, and the whole incident can be over within a few minutes, leaving such witnesses rooted to where they are.Furthermore, it is unnatural for such bystanders or witnesses not to intervene, for fear of personal harm or injury.There are, however, some fundamental problems with the eyewitnesss testimony.PW-1 states that they had intimated a PP on the way to the hospital.PW-1 and PW-2 mentioned that on the day of the previous attack, just two days before the main attack, several persons (10-20) were present, and had intervened to stop the fight.Yet, on the fateful day, the two witnesses depose that no one was present, even though it happened at a reasonably early hour, i.e. just before lunch time.This appears to be highly improbable, in a fairly crowded neighbourhood.The prosecution does not also suggest that this was a special day, or a holiday.Thirdly, PW-2 CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 15 stated that his Thiya was some distance away; according to him, it was 8-10 minutes walk, whereas PW-1 stated that it was 10-15 minutes walk away from the place of incident (which was near their house).Considering that PW-2 was a vegetable vendor, the chances of his being present at the spot, at such an early hour, seem doubtful.Fourthly, there are discrepancies between the version of various witnesses about the investigation and recording of statements.PW-2 deposed that:"I was interrogated by the police in the hospital.I stayed in the Hospital and PW1 had also gone with the police.I returned to my house at about 12 midnight." However, PW-5 deposed that:"The father of Vijay was also joined during the investigation in between 4-5pm at the spot of incident"Yet other versions were furnished by the IO, PW-16:"I along with my other staff including Balkishan and chandarmohan came back at the spot of incident.........I left the hospital along with Bal Kishan and Chandar Mohan at about 3.30pm Chandar Mohan was not feeling well when he came to the spot and accordingly left the spot at about 4/4:30."Lastly, the MLC PW-3/A mentions that the patient (Vijay) was accompanied by his brother to the hospital (PW-1) with a history of stabbing.It also says that the brother recognized the assailants; yet the names are not recorded in the document.However, PW-1 recognized and identified the assailants, and even deposed that the names were furnished to the doctor attending the deceased.It was suggested that according to the police witnesses, the FIR entry was made on 07.09.94, at 4:00 PM, even though the first intimation was received at 12:55 PM, and the police officials had reached the hospital, and even recorded statements soon thereafter.Though this by itself does not lead to inference of late recording of the FIR, there are however, other circumstances.PW-15 had stated that the magistrate in charge was intimated through despatch of special report at 4:30 PM, and the constable who took that, reached the police station at 6:30 PM.The document, in the form of despatch entry in the daily diary, marked as Ex. PW-15/C and the inward DD entry PW-15/D was sought to be relied on.This is despite the FIR having been registered at 4:00 PM the previous day.There is no reason why the police could not have handed over the body for post-mortem examination on the same day, i.e. 07.09.94, since the details of attack were known. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,370,420 | Let affidavit-of-service filed in Court be kept with record.Report filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the State be kept with record.Copy of the report be handed over to the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.It appears from the report that pursuant to direction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan, Jamalpur Police Station Case No. 217 of 2017 dated 10.08.2017 under Sections 2 448/452/323/324/307/354B / 384/380/504/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the private respondents.The investigation in the said case is in progress.Under such circumstances, I direct the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in a fair and impartial manner exploring all angles including the concerns of the petitioner and to conclude the same at an early date.Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ application are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.There will be no order as to costs.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,385,751 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Shaukat Shah and Jafar in Crime no. 336/17 registered by P.S.- Harda , District- Harda (M.P.) under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506/34 of I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, at about 8 a.m. on 11/04/17 Mahesh Dongar younger brother of the first informant Manoj Dongar had gone to the hand-pump to fetch water.When the first informant heard a commotion, he went to the spot.He saw that the accused persons Shaukat, Ahmed, Sonu, Rauf and Jaffar were abusing Mahesh.At that time, the accused Shabid dealt the blow with a Sabbal to the left hand side of the stomach of Mahesh.Rauf delivered a blow with a stick on the hand of the first informant Manoj.When Ramraj Nagoul and Santosh intervened in the matter, the accused persons beat them up.They threatened to kill them in future.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the F.I.R. though presence of Shaukat Shah and Jafar on the spot has been shown, no overt act has been ascribed to either of the two petitioners. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 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. |
199,390 | (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Thoppalan.The marriage between them took place 15 years before, and they were living happily.The deceased was not only doing coolie work, but also indulging in business activities with the accused in the sales of pigs and goats.On that count, the accused was to pay Rs.8000/- to the deceased and for a longtime, demands were made, but he was not making the payment.(b) On the date of occurrence i.e., 26.5.2005, the deceased accompanied by P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the place of the accused and was making demand.At that time, the accused not only refused to pay the amount, but also uttered the words "Do you require money".So saying, he took a coconut leafstalk (chekkumattai) and attacked him on different parts of the body.Then immediately P.W.1 took her husband to the house and gave native treatment for two days.But, he did not become all right.Then the matter was informed to the accused.The accused also joined P.W.1, and both of them took him to the private hospital at Kalpakanur where he was given initial treatment.But, they were advised to take him to the Government Hospital, Attur.When they took him to the Government Hospital, Attur, the accused instructed her not to reveal about the incident, and she took those words.He was admitted in the hospital and was given treatment by the Doctor.But, they were advised to take him to the Government Hospital, Salem.Accordingly, both of them took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Salem, where despite treatment, he died at 5.30 P.M.(c) After the death of Thoppalan, all the ceremonies were done, and the body was actually buried.P.W.1 did not go to the police station even after the ceremonies were over.She was advised that it would be fit and proper to go to the police station and give a complaint.Accordingly, after 13 days, she went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, on 10.6.2005, to P.W.16, the Head Constable.On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.499/2005 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P12, was despatched to the Court.A copy of the FIR was also served upon the Tahsildar of Salem.(d) P.W.17, the Tahsildar, proceeded to the spot.He was informed that the dead body was actually buried.Then in the presence of witnesses, the body was exhumed.He also conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALILNGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, made in S.C.No.169 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 201 read with 109 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.7000/- and default sentence under Sec.201 read with 109 IPC.2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:P16, the inquest report.Thereafter, an intimation was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy.(e) On the requisition given, P.W.12, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Thoppalan.He gave a postmortem certificate, Ex.P6, with his opinion that the deceased died of effects of blunt injury to the abdomen.(f) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared observation mahazars, Exs.P2 and P3, and also rough sketches, Exs.Pursuant to the requisition made, his statement was recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. by the judicial Magistrate.He also gave a confessional statement during police custody.The same was recorded.He also produced a coconut leafstalk, M.O.1, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.Then he was sent for judicial remand.On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 6 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 10.00 A.M. on 26.5.2005, and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined as eyewitnesses, and they have categorically spoken to the fact that they witnessed the occurrence when the accused attacked the deceased with the coconut leafstalk and thereby he sustained injuries, and he was taken to the house immediately, and treatment was given on the very day, and P.W.7 was the Sidha Doctor who gave him treatment for two days, and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Attur and thereafter to the Government Hospital, Salem, and on 30.5.2005 at 2.00 P.M. P.W.11, the Doctor, has declared him dead; that now, at this juncture, though P.Ws.1 and 2 have claimed that they witnessed the occurrence on 26.5.2005, the complaint was given only after a long period namely on 10.6.2005; that the prosecution does not come forward with any explanation to offer; that further, in the earliest statements which were recorded from these witnesses under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., both P.Ws.1 and 2 have not even whispered any act or the overt act of the accused at all; that insofar as P.W.7, the Sidha Doctor, they have not stated to him about the involvement of the accused, and the Doctor also does not speak about the same; that even the Medical Person attached to the Government Hospital, Attur, has not been examined; that even on 30.5.2005, he was taken to the Government Hospital; that P.W.11 has categorically admitted that he was also out of the hospital, and he got himself discharged even before the treatment was given; and that it would be quite clear that the medical evidence was not at all placed before the Court to corroborate the ocular testimony in that regard.5.Added further the learned Counsel that even P.W.1 has categorically admitted that she gave a complaint after three days prior to giving Ex.P1, to the Superintendent of Police, and that complaint was not even marked and has been thoroughly suppressed; that all would clearly go to show that the prosecution had not proved its case in any manner known to law; that it is not only a case where the prosecution lacked in evidence, but also there was bereft of evidence, and the trial Court has taken an erroneous view; and that it would warrant an order of acquittal giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.7.It is not in controversy that the husband of the deceased by name Thoppalan following the treatment given by P.W.7, the Sidha Doctor, on 26.5.2005, for nearly about two days, was taken to the Government Hospital, Attur, and thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Salem, where he died.Now P.Ws.1 and 2 would claim that they were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence in which the appellant/accused attacked him with the dry coconut leafstalk, and as a direct consequence, he died.All the available materials when carefully scrutinised, this Court is afraid whether it can sustain the conviction recorded by the trial Court for more reasons than one.P.Ws.1 and 2 would claim that they have witnessed the occurrence.If to be so, there could not have been any impediment for bringing the matter to the knowledge of the police immediately.But, for the first time, a complaint was given only on 10.6.2005 to P.W.16, the Head Constable, and that too, 13 days after the death.Neither P.Ws.1 and 2 brought to the notice of the police immediately after the occurrence was over, nor they have brought to the notice of the police even 10 to 12 days after the death of the deceased.If the said document was produced before the Court, it should have been the earliest document; but, the same has been suppressed.That would also cast a doubt.9.Added above all, the prosecution had no medical evidence to offer.As far as P.W.7, the Sidha Doctor, was concerned, he gave initial treatment.But, neither the medical person attached to the Government Hospital, Attur, was examined, nor the medical evidence from that hospital was placed.Even the Doctor examined as P.W.11 from the Government Hospital, Salem, has categorically deposed that he gave initial treatment; but, Thoppalan got himself discharged and went away from the place.As far as the other part of the evidence was concerned, they were all nothing but cooked up in order to strengthen the prosecution case if possible.All would go to show that the prosecution has not proved its case in any manner.As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view despite all the infirmities and lacunas found in the prosecution case.It can be well stated that there was thoroughly bereft of evidence.There is nothing to indicate the nexus of the crime with the appellant/accused.Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court has got to be made undone only by upsetting the same.10.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,993,916 | JUDGMENT P.N. Bhagwati, J.On 17th May, 1965 a lorry loaded with heavy logs of wood was driven by the third respondent through a narrow lane off Kalighat Road and brought to a halt in front of a saw mill of which Respondent No. 1 was the owner and Respondent No. 2, the manager.Whilst the logs of wood were being unloaded from the lorry by two coolies, they fell on a girl called Mita Mukherjee and resulted in her death.A first information report was thereupon lodged with Bhawanipur Police Station against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the two coolies who were unloading the logs of wood.On the basis of this first information report, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were prosecuted in the Court of the Magistrate, Alipore.Respondent No. 1 was also joined as an accused though his name did not appear in the first information report.The two coolies were absconding and they were, therefore, left out of the criminal case.The charge against Respondent No. 1 was that though residents of the locality had repeatedly asked him not to allow entry of lorries dangerously loaded with heavy logs of wood into the narrow lane, he did not pay any heed and on or about 17th May, 1965 the third respondent engaged by him drove the lorry in question dangerously with heavy logs of wood and kept the lorry in the narrow lane in front of the saw mill rashly and negligently and his manager, the 2nd respondent, had logs of wood unloaded rashly and negligently without due care and caution to guard against the dangerous consequences and caused the death of Mita Mukherjee and thereby committed an offence under Section 304A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.There was also a similar charge against respondent No. 2 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.The 1st respondent filed an application being Criminal Revision No. 1375 of 1965 in the Calcutta High Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground that it constituted an abuse of the process of the Court and in any event, its quashing would secure the ends of justice.The only ground on which the application was rejected was that "the points raised... depend on certain questions of fact which have to be ascertained on evidence by the Court of facts" and the Division Bench did not, therefore, propose "to interfere with the proceeding against the petitioner at this stage".Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, once again moved the Calcutta High Court for quashing the proceeding and this time the Division Bench of the High Court by an Order dated 7th April, 1970 allowed the application and quashed the proceeding on the ground that no prima facie case was at all made out and the continuance of the proceeding was, therefore, an abuse of the process of the Court.Hence, the present appeal.The main question debated before us was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make the Order, dated 7th April, 1970 quashing the proceeding against Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 when on an earlier application made by the 1st respondent, the High Court had by its Order dated 12th December, 1968 refused to quash the proceeding. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,993,992 | (1) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against an order of Shri R. P. Gupta, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated November 6, 1971, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge upheld a claim of privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of two documents.(2) The petitioner herein, Khairati Lal, filed a suit, No. 231 of 1968, against the Delhi Development Authority, for a perpetual injunction restraining the latter from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff in respect of a land measuring about 161 square yards and situate in khasra No. 202/15, Motia Khan, Delhi, and a shop, bearing No. 47, which was constructed on the said land, and from demolishing the said shop.(3) In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner-plaintiff sought for the production of two documents, viz. "(i) File No. W.II-73- (10)/54 dated 22nd February, 1952, from the Ministry of Works Production and Supply - to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi) " and "(ii) Letter No. 11662-W-11-51 dated 19th November, 1951, from the Ministry of Works, Production and Supply to the Chief Commis- sioner, Delhi".On August 30, 1968', Shri K. K. Sethi, Subordinate ' Judge, Delhi, issued a summons for the production of the said docu- ments.It is against the said order that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, Khairati Lal.(6) Shri S. N. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated at the out-set, that the petitioner does not want the production of the entire file at No. (i), but only wants the production of the letter dated February 22, 1952, which is in that file, and the letter at No. (ii).He conceded that in Union of India V. Ramgopal (supra) B.C. Misra, J. held that the letter, dated February 22, 1952, regarding the implementation of "Gadgil Assurances" and "Parliamentary Report" thereon related to affairs of State and upheld the claim of privilege in respect thereof.The learned counsel, however, .submitted that in Suit No. .292 of 1966, Mela Ram V. D.D.A. (the came Nirmal Singh and others V. D.D.A. mentioned in the objections of the petitioner is stated to be incorrect, Shri K. K. Sethi, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, held by an order dated October 21, 1967, that the said letter dated February 22, 1952, and the letter at No. (ii), dated November 1951, which are sought to be produced by the present petitioner.Khairati Lal, did not relate to affairs of State and disallowed the claim of privilege in respect of the said letters.A certified copy of the said letter has been produced along with an affidavit of the petitioner, Khairati Lal.A typed copy of the said order of S.N. Shan- kar, J. has been produced.In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this Civil Revision Petition. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,399,343 | -:- 2 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1201 of 2010 Mandir, behind Bus Stand Amla.The appellant entered in the house forcefully and shown a knife to the prosecutrix.Thereafter, he threw her on the Earth and committed rape upon her.On shouting of the prosecutrix, the witness Ram Singh (P.W.4), Shriram (P.W.2) etc. had came to the spot who saw the appellant running from the spot.The prosecutrix informed about the incident to her husband Kishore (P.W.5) and thereafter, she went to the Police Station Amla along with his uncle Ram Singh (P.W.4), where she lodged an FIR, Ex.The prosecutrix was directed for her medico legal examination to CHC, Amla.Dr. Vandana Ghoghre (P.W.7) examined the prosecutrix and gave a report, Ex.There was no external or internal injury found on the person of the prosecutrix but, there was a bleeding from her vagina due to menses.Ghoghre prepared two slides of her vaginal swab and also took a sample of her pubic hair and handed over to the concerned police constable after sealing them.The appellant was also arrested on 5.9.2009 and he was also directed for her medical examination.V.P.Chourasiya (P.W.6) examined the appellant and gave his report, Ex.The appellant was found competent to do the intercourse.His semen sample was taken on slides and handed over to the concerned police constable, after their sealing.All the sealed properties were sent to the Forensic Science-:- 3 -:-After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Betul, who committed the case to the Special Court, Betul.The appellant abjured his guilt.Actually, the appellant was falsely implicated due to his quarrel with Ram Singh, uncle of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix had admitted thatThe prosecutrix (P.W.3) has has stated that on the date of the incident, she was all alone in the house along with her children.At about 8 p.m. in the night, the appellant entered in her house.However, it is no where mentioned in the FIR that the appellant was held by the prosecutrix and her uncle or he was with them.On the contrary, the witnesses who were named in the FIR, turned hostile.For example, Gurucharan (P.W.1), Shriram (P.W.2) have turned hostile.They did not support the prosecution's story.(Delivered on the 18th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.5.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Betul in Special case No.124/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 376 (1) and 450 of IPC and sentenced for 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine, 3 months' rigorous imprisonment was also directed for each count of default.Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 5.9.2009, at about 8.30 p.m. in the night, the prosecutrix (P.W.3) was in her house, situated in the township of Amla, near KaliHe did not take any specific plea in the case but, he has stated that there was a dispute of the appellant with the uncle of the prosecutrix and therefore, he was falsely implicated in the matter.In defence, Ramkali (D.W.1) and Smt. Reshmi Satankar (D.W.2) were examined.The learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 506 (II) of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but, convicted him for the offence punishable under sections 450 and 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1201 of 2010 her uncle came inside the house then, the appellant left the prosecutrix and the appellant was held by the prosecutrix and her uncle Ram Singh but, Ram Singh (P.W.4) did not support the story given by the prosecutrix.On the contrary, he has stated that the appellant entered in the house of the prosecutrix and started abusing her by some abuses.Under such circumstances, no offence punishable under section 376 or 450 of IPC is made out against the appellant.The appellant is in the custody since the date of the judgment without any substantial reason and therefore, it is prayed that he may be acquitted.He had a knife and he had-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1201 of 2010 shown that knife to the prosecutrix and with the threat, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.She has further stated that on her shouting, her uncle Ram Singh (P.W.4) came inside the house, who saw the accused and thereafter, the prosecutrix and her uncle held the appellant and tied him by a rope.Thereafter, the prosecutrix went to lodge an FIR along with her uncle.In this connection FIR, Ex.P/3 was proved by the prosecutrix, which was lodged within 45 minutes of the incident.In support of the prosecutrix, the witness Ram Singh (P.W.4), her uncle was a star witness, who saw the appellant in the house but, when he was examined in the trial Court, he has stated that at about 7.30 p.m., in the evening, he came from the work and he was sitting in his house.His sister's house was adjacent and the prosecutrix came to her mother's house in those days.The appellant entered in the house of the prosecutrix and abused her.He has specifically denied that he saw the appellant that the appellant had done any intercourse with the-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1201 of 2010 prosecutrix.Similarly, he has denied to the fact that the prosecutrix had informed him that the appellant had done any intercourse with her.Ram Singh is a maternal uncle of the prosecutrix and there was no enmity between him and the prosecutrix and therefore, looking to the testimony of Ram Singh (P.W.4), it appears that the allegations made by the prosecutrix are not correct.Only a small portion of the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the witness Ram Singh that the appellant went inside the house of the prosecutrix and abused her but, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be believed to that extent that either the appellant assaulted her to outrage her modesty or tried to commit rape or committed a rape.Moreover, when the prosecutrix was examined by the Dr.Vandana Ghoghre (P.W.5), no external or internal injury was found on her person and the bleeding was present from her vagina due to menses.Under such circumstances, the medical evidence also appears to be not corroborative.Kishore @ Harikishore (P.W.5), husband of the prosecutrix also partly turned hostile.He did not support the prosecution's evidence that the appellant gave any threat to his wife and therefore, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence punishable under section 506 (II) of the IPC.He has stated-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1201 of 2010 that the prosecutrix had informed him that the appellant had committed rape upon her but, since Kishore @ Harikishore was not an eye witness, he could be informed by the prosecutrix in a tinted manner.Under such circumstances, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC or any lower offence of the same nature.On the basis of the evidence given by the prosecutrix, Ram Singh (P.W.4) and timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/3, it is proved that the appellant went inside the house of the prosecutrix and abused her.Under such circumstances, if any offence is constituted against the-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1201 of 2010 appellant then, it would be the offence punishable under section 451 of IPC but, no offence punishable under section 450 of IPC is made out against the appellant because no otherwise intention of the appellant was established.Since offence punishable under section 451 of IPC is an inferior offence of the similar nature, therefore, the appellant can be convicted for the offence punishable under section 451 of IPC without framing of charge for that offence.The appellant can be convicted for the offence punishable under section 451 of IPC, under the head of the offence punishable under section 450 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, offence punishable under section 451 of IPC is not so grave and therefore, 6 months' imprisonment could be a sufficient sentence for that offence.However, the appellant is in the custody since 26.5.2010 and therefore, it would be proper that his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.The conviction and sentence directed against the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 450 and 376 (1) of IPC are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from the charges of both the offences.However, he is convicted for the offence-:- 9 -:-Registry is directed to issue a supersession warrant forthwith, so that the appellant may be released from the jail as soon as possible.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information. | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,963,396 | -( 2 )-electric connection of Mujaddin then applicants and some other persons came there and they abused them by filthy language.When they stopped them, then all the accused persons started to beat them by stick and stone due to which they sustained injuries.The accused persons have also prevented them to perform their official duty.They also threatened to kill them and damaged the official vehicle.-( 5 )-(10).Perusal of material available on record, leaves no doubt that the complainant Kamal (PW-2) was working as Junior Engineer in the M.P.E.B. Tonk Khurd.On 24.05.2016 he went to Village Khedamadhopur for collecting electricity uses charges.He was accompanied with his staff namely Radheshyam, Jitendra, Arjun Choudhary, Rajendra and Amit Joshi.Due to default of payment of electricity charges 8-10 connection of the defaulters were disconnected by the team of department under their public functions.When they were disconnecting the electricity connection of the house of the accused persons they abused and prevented them for disconnecting their electricity connection.They obstructed them in their official duties and caused injury by legs fist and stick.(11).Amit Joshi (PW-1), Jitendra (PW-4), Rajendra (PW-5) and Radheshyam (PW-9) also corroborated the statement of Kamal (PW-2).(12).On going through the entire evidence available on record, it is noticed that during the course of trial Radheshyam (PW-9) specifically mentioned the name of the present applicants who assaulted the team of the employees of the electricity board and his statement could not be shattered in his cross-examination.The Injuries are( 29/ 02 /2020) The applicants have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short " Cr.P.C.") feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.05.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Dewas in Criminal Appeal No.351/2018 whereby the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonkkhurd, District Dewas in Criminal Case No.264/2016 has been affirmed wherein the applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under 147, 332/149 (five counts) of I.P.C.and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/- each with default stipulation.(2).Facts of the case are that on 24.05.2016 at about 22:00 pm an incident was reported at Police Station Tonk Khurd against the applicants and other co-accused persons by complainant Kamal Bhitolwal, Junior Engineer, M.P.E.B. Tonk Khurd stating that he alongwith staff went to the village Khedamadhopur for disconnecting the electric connection of defaulters.When they started disconnecting theOn the basis of aforesaid submission, FIR bearing crime No.146/2016 was registered against the applicants at Police Station Tonk Khurd for the offence punishable under Section 294, 332, 353, 427, 506 of I.P.C. Injured persons were sent to the hospital for examination.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.(3).The trial court framed the charges against the applicants under Section 147, 294, 332/149 (5 Counts), 427/149, 506 (part-II) of I.P.C. The applicants denied the charges and pleaded innocence, in defence they have not examined any witnesses.(4).The judgment dated 20.11.2018 was called in question by filing an appeal before the Court of-( 3 )-Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the appellate court has acquitted the 12 accused persons out of 15 accused persons from all the charges, therefore, no question was remained that the applicants were the member of the unlawful assembly and in common object to the said assembly they caused injury to the complainants with intent to prevent them for doing official duty, therefore, appellate Court has committed error in convicting the applicants for the aforesaid offence.It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant No.1 Akram to prove the charges framed against him even then the trial court as well as appellate Court has held guilty him for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. even otherwise from the perusal of the entire evidence, it does not appears to be trustworthy.It is further submitted that the courts below have not properly appreciated the-( 4 )-evidence and wrongly convicted the applicants for the aforesaid offence.He also submitted that the applicants were present at the place of incident and they assaulted the employees of M.P.E.B. due to which they sustained injuries and obstructed them to discharge their official duties.(8).I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.(9).-( 6 )-also found proved to the injured persons by the statement of Dr. Femida Qureshi (PW-3).(13).On going through the evidence, it is clear that the present applicants assaulted the complainant Kamal, Amit Johsi, Jitendra and Radheshaym when they were discharging their official duty as a result they sustained injuries.Although the name of the applicant No.1 is not mentioned in the FIR, however, from the FIR Ex.P/1, it appears that due to the typographical mistake his name is mentioned as Chuhuttan Kha S/o Akram Kha in place of Akram Kha S/o Chhuttan Kha and the complainants and other witnesses categorically stated in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that applicant No.1 Akram Kha was also present on the place of incident and he also participated in the incident, therefore, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable that the presence of the applicant No.1 at the place of occurance is doubtful.(14).The trial court convicted the 10 accused persons for the offence under Section 147, 332 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., however, the appellate court acquitted the 12 accused persons meaning thereby the court found that only three persons have participated in the incident therefore, the constitution of unlawful assembly is not established hence, no offence under Section 147 and 149 of I.P.C. is made out.The appellate court has-( 7 )-committed error in convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 147 and 149 of I.P.C. therefore, the conviction and sentence of the applicants for the said offence is hereby set aside, however, the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 332 of I.P.C. is upheld and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced from 1 year to 6 months with additional fine of Rs. 5000/-.In default of payment of fine amount, the applicants shall suffer further 3 months R.I.(15).With the aforesaid modification, the present revision petition is allowed in part.The applicants are on bail.Their bail bonds are discharged.They are directed to surrender before the trial court within 15 days from today.Office is directed to arrange for issuance of superssession warrant against the applicants.Let record of the trial court be sent back alongwith copy of this order.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION KUMAR COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454715 d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d05b8f NAYAK d5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.03.02 14:19:37 -12'00' | ['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,596,453 | Leave granted.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.The appellant/State of Madhya Pradesh seeks to challenge the order ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 25.6.2013 passed in Misc.CriminalCase No.4013/2013, in and by which the High Court in exercise of its powersunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. by taking into account the stand of the de factocomplainant, who was present before the Court, that she did not wish toprosecute the respondents herein as the disputes have been amicably settledbetween them, curiously proceeded to quash the FIR in Crime No.512/2012registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offences underSections 307, 294 and 34 IPC as well as the subsequent criminal proceedingsbeing Criminal Case No.2602/2013 for the same offences pending before theCourt. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,659,721 | The case of the prosecution lies in a small compass and may be statedthus : Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, at the time of his death, was 74 years ofage and had amassed substantial properties.His first wife died in 1936leaving behind her a son, who is said to be insane, and two daughters.After the death of the first wife, he married Vengadamma in February 1937and had three daughters and three sons by her.Prior to 5th June 1956,Belur Srinivasa Iyengar had fractured his leg and was confined to bed.Onthe night of 5th June, 1956, the inmates of the house retried to bed asusual.Belur Srinivasa Iyengar was sleeping on a cot in his bed-room.Hiswife, Vengadamma, her daughter Rangalakshmi, her two sons Lava and Kushaand her mother Singamma were sleeping on three costs in a room adjoiningthe bed-room of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar.The other two daughters, Ratna andPrasanna, were sleeping in a separate room.Their servant, Ramalingam, wassleeping in the veranda.There was also a watch-dog in the house.BelurSrinivasa Iyengar being a rich man, there were cash, jewels, silver wareand other valuable articles kept in his house in iron-safes, almirahs,trunks and suit cases.On the morning of 6-6-1956, it was discovered thehouse was broken into & that some of the inmates of the house, viz., BelurSrinivasa Iyengar, his wife, mother-in-law, his two sons Lava and Kusha andtheir servant, Ramalingam, were lying dead with serious injuries on theirbodies.The dog was also found doped and lying in a dying condition.Thevaluable articles from the iron-safes, almirahs and other boxes were foundremoved.Rangalakshmi, a daughter of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, was foundleaning against a wall with bleeding injuries on her head and in anunconscious state.The version of the prosecution is that the appellants, who are relatedor at any rate closely associated with one another, getting scent of thefact that Belur Srinivasa Iyengar kept cash & valuable jewels in his house,conspired to commit murder and robbery, broke into his house on the rightof 5th June, 1956 with deadly weapons, doped the dog, killed the servant,murdered Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, his wife, mother-in-law, two sons Lavaand Kusha, caused grievous injuries to Rangalakshmi, took away the bootygathered in the house and divided the spoils amongst themselves.The appellants were charged on the following counts.Section 302 readwith S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 307 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code;S. 457 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 380 read with S. 34, IndianPenal Code; S. 392 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 394, Indian PenalCode; S. 397 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and S. 460, IndianPenal Code.The prosecution examined 116 witnesses.Three witnesses wereexamined on behalf of the first appellant.There were no. eye-witnesses tothe incident for the simple reason that all the persons who could havewitnessed the occurrence were done away with and the only other member,Rangalakshmi who was sleeping in the same room along with her mother andothers, was seriously injured and was in an unconscious state.It is inevidence that she continued to be unconscious for some days after theincident and thereafter also was not in a position to give evidence.Theother two daughters, Ratna and Prasanna, who were providentially sleepingin a different room, escaped from being murdered and they came to know ofthe ghastly incident only on the early morning of the 6th June.In thecircumstances the prosecution case was based upon circumstantial evidence.The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been stated by thisCourt in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952AIR(SC) 343, and it is as follows :"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of acircumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guiltis to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and allthe facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis ofthe guilt of the accused.Again, the circumstances should be of aconclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude everyhypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.In other words, there must bea chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable groundfor a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it mustbe such as to show that within all human probability the act must have beendone by the accused."Having regard to the aforesaid principle, the learned Sessions Judge and,on appeal, the High Court definitely found the circumstantial factsrelating to each of the accused and drew the inference from them that theaccused conjointly participated in the commission of the murder and theother offences with which they were charged.On that finding, the learnedSessions Judge convicted them on the counts on which they were charged.Onthe first count they were sentenced to death and on the other counts theywere sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.On appeal, the High Courtconfirmed the conviction as well as the sentences except in regard to thefourth count, as in its opinion, the offence of theft being an ingredientof the offence of robbery, they should not have been convicted twice overthe same offence.The aforesaid appeals were filed by the accused againstthe sentences of death and imprisonment.The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that an important linkin the chain of circumstantial evidence found by the Court below was thefingerprints of the appellants taken by the police during the course of theinvestigation for the purpose of comparing the same with the finger printsfound on the articles scattered in the room in the house of Belur SrinivasaIyengar, where the incident took place, that the said evidence wasinadmissible by reason of Art. 20, Cl. 3 of the Constitution of India, thatif the finger prints were excluded from the evidence, the continuity of thechain would be broken and that in any event there would be no. evidence tohold that the three appellants conjointly participated in the commission ofthe offences with which they were charged.So far as the appellants 2 and 3 were concerned, itis manifest that the facts found were incompatible with their innocence.Incombination with the other facts found, the discovery of the crow-bars,proved to have been purchased by appellants Nos. 2 and 3 Krishna andMuniswamy, in the bedroom of Vengadamma on the 6th June 1956 with blood-stains thereon, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that theseappellants were present in the house of the deceased and took part in theincident.The learned Counsel contended that though the crow-bars were purchasedby appellants 2 and 3, it might be that the said crow-bars were handed overto the real culprits for committing the murder and the appellants mighthave been only the recipients of stolen goods.It may bethat the said fact in itself may not be decisive of the complicity ofappellants 2 and 3, but the said fact along with the other facts found mayreinforce the conclusion of guilt.In the circumstances of this case, thehypotheses suggested is far fetched and the only reasonable conclusion thata prudent man can come to is that the appellants 2 and 3 had committed theoffences.The learned Counsel then made a special pleading in the case ofappellant No. 1, Govinda Reddy.He urged that whatever justification theremight have been for the finding in the case of appellants Nos. 2 and 3, ifthe evidence of finger prints was excluded, it would not be possible tohold that the first appellant participated in the commission of theoffences and, without such participation, he could not be jointly madeliable along with the other two appellants.To meet this argument it wouldbe convenient to restate, with more particularity, the facts found againstthat appellant : (i) Appellant No. 1 was closely associated with appellantsNos. 2 and 3; (ii) P. W. 38 heard the third accused saying that there weremoney and jewels in the house of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar and that theyshould kill them and bring away the properties; (iii) on the day followingthe unsuccessful attempt, appellant No. 1 came to the house of appellantNo.2 and he was told that, as the dogs barked, they could not succeed intheir attempt (iv) 15 days after the first incident, P. W. 38 heardappellants 1 and 3 asking appellant No. 2 to go again to Belur SrinivasaIyengar's house and she intervened and said to the first appellant that,being an elderly man, he should not instigate them to do such illegalthings and that he should give proper advice to the youngsters; (v)Appellant No. 1 had the special knowledge of the fact that Belur SrinivasaIyengar was a wealthy man and had a lot of cash and jewels in his house;(vi) on the 5th June 1956 at 11 a.m., appellant No. 1 was expectingappellant No. 2 to meet him at the Ramanatha Cafe.Appellant No. 1, at therequest of P. W. 74, went to the "Water Office" and appellant No. 2 came tothe Cafe in his absence and asked P. W. 74 to tell appellant No. 1 that hecould meet him at 3 p.m. : (vii) at bout 8 p.m., the appellants 1 and 2went to the fuel shop of P. W. 75, Basavaraj, where appellant No. 2 lefthis motor-cycle, and appellant No. 1 informed Basavaraj that they wheregoing to the Himalaya Talkies; (viii) two half portions of cinema tickets,Exhibits P-74 and P-74(a), which were proved to be the corresponding halfportions of the tickets sold at the Himalaya Talkies, were found on theearly morning of the 6th June 1956 in the house of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar,close to the window from which a bar had been wrenched; (ix) the fingerimpressions of appellant No. . 1, Govinda Reddy, were found on the silvercup, M. O. 89, found in the house of the deceased; (x) on the morning of10th June1956, the house of the first appellant was searched by P. W. 114and the panche, M. O. 101, was seized and that it contained stains of humanblood; the panche was proved to belong to appellant No. 1; (xi) M. Os.It was contendedthat if that fact was excluded, the other facts would not establish thatappellant No. 1 participated in the offence of murder and robbery and wouldbe consistent only with his being the receiver of stolen goods.But wecannot agree with this argument. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,972,198 | 6) and Rajkumar (PW-4) are real brothers.The deceased Smt. Nabiya Bai was their mother.There was dispute of partition of the ancestral property between accused Goverdhan with his brothers.Goverdhan was living separately whereas deceased Nabiya Bai was living with his younger son complainant Rajaram and Salakram.As per prosecution it is alleged that on 17.05.1995 in the village Hatvas, in the early morning the wife of accused Goverdhan Smt. Keshar Bai was taking the soil from the land of complainant.Keshar Bai objected to it and told her not to dig the soil from their land.A dispute arose between them meanwhile the accused Goverdhan came there and assaulted Nabiya Bai by a spade on her head.Thereafter at about 08:30 A.M. complainant Rajaram, his brother Salakram and Rajkumar were taking Nabiya Bai for treatment to hospital, to village Pipariya.When they reached out of village the accused Goverdhan came there and told them not to take Nabiya Bai to hospital.When Rajaram and Salakram refused to obey accused he got annoyed and assaulted Nabiya Bai by Axe on her head and inflicted fatal injury.The witnesses Salakram and Rajaram tried to intervene then accused assaulted them also by Axe on their head and inflicted injuries.Nabiya Bai died on the spot and Salakram and Rajaram became unconscious.Witness Rajkumar immediately went to Police Station, Pipariya and gave information of the incident.-3- Cr.A. No.1630/1997 A.F.R.(Ex.P/19 and P/20) was recorded by the police and Sub- Inspector Jahir Singh (PW-10) went on the spot and recorded the Dehati merge intimation (Ex.P/8) and also Dehati Naalishi (Ex.D/2) on information of Rajaram.During inquest the panchanama of dead body of the deceased Nabiya Bai was prepared and sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Pipariya.Injured witnesses Rajaram and Salakram were also sent for MLC and treatment to the hospital.-5- Cr.A. No.1630/1997to Police Station and reported that accused Goverdhan had assaulted his mother and brothers.(25.04.2017) Per Anurag Shrivastava, J.The instant appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant Goverdharn against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur in Sessions Case No.44/1996 by which the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 (two counts) of IPC and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and also imprisonment for 7-7 years respectively.In brief, the case of prosecution is that accused Goverdhan and complainant Rajaram (PW-3), witness Salakram (PW-The red earth was seized from the spot.Thereafter a FIR (Ex.P/12) was recorded on the basis of Dehati Nalsi and offence was registered against the accused.During investigation on memorandum of accused an Axe was seized and also blood stained cloths of accused was seized.The statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed.On commencement of trial, charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused/appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 307 (two counts) IPC.He abjured guilt, thereafter statement of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded.Accused did not give any evidence in the defence.After completion of trial the trial Court vide impugned judgment found accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 (two counts) of IPC for murder of his mother Nabiya Bai and committed attempt to murder of his brothers Rajaram and Salakram.No independent witness has supported the prosecution case.There are material contradictions and discrepancies occurred in prosecution evidence.The main prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan witnesses.Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon.We have considered the rival submission made by both the parties.Other witnesses Rajaram, Salakram and Rajkumar are his real brothers.It is also not denied that at the time of incident deceased Nabiya Bai and her son witness Rajaram had sustained fatal injuries on their head.Investigation Officer Jahir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Pipariya (PW-10) deposed that on 17.05.1995 the younger son of deceased Nabiya Bai cameOn this information Jahir Singh went to village Hatvas and he found dead body of Nabiya Bai on the spot and her sons Rajaram and Salakram were also found in seriously injured condition.Jahir Singh had recorded Dehati Merg (Ex.P/8) and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.D/2) on the information of Rajaram and conducted inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem and Rajaram and Salakram for medical examination and treatment to Primary Health Centre, Pipariya.This statement is also corroborated by witness Rajaram (PW-3) Rajkumar (PW-4) and Salakram (PW-6) and Dehati merge (Ex.P/8) intimation and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.D/2) and Rojnamchan Sanaha (Ex.P/19 and P/20).Dr. S.C. Sahu (PW-9) deposed that on 17.05.1995 in Primary Health Centre, Pipariya he had conducted the postmortem of dead body of deceased Nabiya Bai and found following injuries:-i. Incised wound 3'' x 1'' x deep inside the brain and bone was completely cut at this stage.Incised wound 3" x 1'' x bone deep on the back side of the head.Incised wound 3" x 1'' bone deep at right side of the head.Multiple fractures on the left side of partial temporal and occipital region, where broken bone pieces were found, inside the brain matter.was present below the skull and inside the brain.It is opined by the doctor that above injuries are caused by hard and sharp object and may be caused by Axe or spade.The statement of doctor is also gets corroborated by postmortem report (Ex.P/7).Therefore, from postmortem report it is established that the deceased Nabiya Bai was died of head injuries caused to her by Axe or Spade at the time of incident.The injuries were homicidal.Similarly, the witnesses Rajaram and Salkaram were examined by Dr. Ashok Verma (PW-8).Dr. Verma deposed that on 17.05.1995 in Primary Health Centre, Pipariya he had examined Rajaram and found following injuries.i. Incised wound 2" x 1" x 1" on the left side of head.Incised wound 5" x 1 " x 1 " on the centre of head.Incised wound 2" x 1" x " on the left side of forehead.All the injuries are caused by hard and sharp object and dangerous to life.Dr. Ashok Verma (PW-8) further deposed that on 17.05.1995 in Primary Health Centre, Pipariya he had examined Salakram and found following injuries.Incised wound 1" x " x " on the right side of head.All the injuries are caused by hard and sharp object.The statement of Dr. Ashok Verma is duly corroborated by MLC report (Ex.P/5 and P/6).Dr. N. Hassan (PW-12) Radiologist deposed that on 19.05.1995 the X-Ray of Salakram was taken and it was found that there was a depressed fracture on the parietal bone.It is corroborated by X-Ray plate P/22 and report P/21 also.Thus, from above medical reports, it is clearly established that both the witnesses Salakram and Rajaram had sustained fatal injuries on head, which were caused by hard and sharp object and also dangerous to life.Now the question arises whether the appellant/accused had inflicted injuries to deceased Nabiya Bai and witnesses Rajaram and Salakram ?Rajkumar (PW-4) deposed that on the date of incident in the early morning the wife of accused Goverdhan, Kesar Bai was taking the soil from the land of Rajaram.Nabiya Bai objected to it and there was hot talks between them.After hearing the noise Rajaram went there and sent Kesar-8- Cr.A. No.1630/1997 A.F.R.Bai back to her house.Thereafter accused Goverdhan came and assaulted Nabiya Bai by Spade on her head.After some time Rajaram, Rajkumar and Salakram were taking injured Nabiya Bai for treatment to hospital, when they reached out of village, the accused Goverdhan came there armed with Axe and told Rajaram not to take Nabiya Bai to hospital.When Rajaram refused, then accused assaulted Nabiya Bai by Axe on her head.When Rajaram and Salakram tried to intervene and save Nabiya Bai then accused again assaulted them by Axe on their head.Rajkumar had seen the incident and immediately went to Police Station Pipariya and informed Sub Inspector Jahir Singh (PW-10).Jahir Singh came to spot and found Nabiya Bai dead and Rajaram and Salakram seriously injured lying on the ground.A Dehati Nalsi and merge intimation were recorded by him of the spot.The statement of Rajkumar is also corroborated by the statement of Rajaram (PW-3), Salakram (PW-6) and Jahir Singh Sub Inspector (PW-10).Rajaram and Salakram both had deposed that on the date of incident in the morning the accused had assaulted his mother Nabiya Bai by Spade and when she was being taken to hospital for treatment by Rajaram, Salakram and Rajkumar, the accused again intercepted them on the way and assaulted them by Axe.-9- Cr.A. No.1630/1997 A.F.R.termed as interested witnesses.There may be some discrepancy regarding use of weapon whether it is Axe or Spade but, it is not material.The trial Court had discussed at length on this point and rightly observed that this discrepancy is not material to discard the testimony of injured eye witnesses.Therefore, the trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that the appellant/accused has assaulted the deceased and his brothers Salakram and Rajaram by Axe.Rajaram and Salakram where younger brothers of accused.Accused assaulted them when they were taking their mother the deceased for treatment.The multiple blow of Axe like weapon on the head of deceased and the witnesses Rajaram and Salakaram shows the intention of the accused to kill them.Therefore, it is rightly found proved by the trial Court that the appellant/accused has committed murder of his mother and inflicted grievous injuries on head of his brothers and thereby committed offence of attempt to murder.Thus, the trial Court had rightly found appellant/accused guilty for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 307 (two counts) IPC and convicted him.The conviction is based on credible, clinching and reliable evidence sustainable under the law.The sentence imposed upon the appellant is adequate.The bail bonds of appellant stands cancelled and he shall be sent to jail for undergoing the remaining jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,979,926 | PWs.1 to 4 and 7 were residing at Prattiyur Village in Trichy District.PWs.5and 6 were residing in Melapaganoor Village in the same District.Thedeceased was residing with PWs.1 to 4 in Prattiyur Village in a jointfamily.PW2 was studying an Engineering College.Because of the criminal cases, he discontinued hiseducation and joined PWs.1 and 2 to do centring work.Thus, PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased were all engaged in centring work in Prattiyur Village and inthe nearby places.(c) It is alleged that on 19.06.2011 around 6.00 a.m. PWs.1 and 2 andthe deceased were proceeding to the work spot.On their way, they weredrinking tea in a nearby tea shop.At that time, the accused 1 to 3 and 5came there and developed quarrel with them.They shouted at PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased that because of the attack made by them on the earlier occasionon the wife of the second accused, they had spent Rs.50,000/- for treatment.The Villagers intervened and pacified the accused and accordingly, they leftthe place.Immediately thereafter, PWs.1, 2 and also the deceased had goneto Edamalaipatti Pudur Police Station and made a complaint about the saidoccurrence.Thereafter, they went to the work spot.On 20.06.2012 PWs.1 to3 again had gone to the work spot to do the centring work.For havinglunch, they returned to their house in a motorcycle from the work spot atPrattiyur Village.(d) Around 2.30 p.m., after having lunch at their house, they wereagain returning to the work spot to continue the centring work.PW2 was sitting behind PW1 and the deceased was sitting behind PW2 in the same motorcycle as pillion riders.When theywere nearing the Catholic Church on the Dindigul Main Road, it is allegedthat all the ten accused suddenly emerged there.All the ten accused werearmed with aruval.The accused 1 to 3 intercepted the motorcycle.Then, theaccused 1 to 9 cut the deceased on his backside with aruvalsindiscriminately.The deceased fell down.Then, all the accused 1 to 9 cut thedeceased indiscriminately.PWs.1 and 2 cried for help.The occurrence waswitnessed by PWs.3 to 7 also.The accused No.10 was very much present at the place of occurrence.Then, all the ten accused ran away from the scene ofoccurrence with aruvals.(e) PW1, who got injury in the said occurrence and the deceased wereimmediately taken to the hospital.PW9 - Dr.PW1 was then conscious.He told PW9 that he was attacked by four known persons with aruvals.On the same day, at 3.30 p.m., he examined the deceased.The deceased was unconscious.P1 is thecomplaint and Ex.P37 is the FIR.(g) PW23, the Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and arough sketch in the presence of PW15 and another witness.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence and aplastic bag found at the place of occurrence.Then, on going over to thehospital, he examined PW1 and other witnesses.He also recovered bloodstained clothes worn by PW1 and the deceased.(i) During the course of investigation, on 23.06.2012, PW23 arrestedthe accused A2 to A6 and P10 near old Railway Colony at Edamalaipatti Pudur in the presence of the witnesses.While in custody, the third accused gave avoluntary confession followed by the fourth accused.Similarly the 5thaccused also gave a voluntary confession.In their confessions, theydisclosed the place where they had hidden their weapons.In pursuance of thesame, they took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out andproduced the aruvals and one knife (MO.1 series).From out of the disclosurestatements made by A2 and A6, two motorcycles bearing Registration Nos.TN-48- D-6253 and TN-47-W-3921 were recovered.Then, he forwarded all the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also tothe Court.While so, the first accused surrendered before the Court.PW23took the first accused in the Police custody on the orders of the learnedMagistrate.While in custody, on 06.07.2012 at 7.00 p.m. he gave a voluntaryconfession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval.In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witnesses to the place ofhide out and produced the same.That was recovered by PW23 under a mahazar.both the appeals/ ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against thejudgment, dated 13.08.2014, made in S.C.No.195 of 2013, by the learnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirapalli District.!For appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.217/2015 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar^For appellant in Crl.N.Anandakumar For respondent in both the appeals : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, Additional Public Prosecutor:COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.195 of 2013 onthe file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division.Including these appellants, there were a total number of ten accused.Thetrial Court framed as many as five charges against them as detailed below:Charge No. AgainstOffence U/s.A1 to A5 147 and 148 IPC 2A1 to A9 341 IPC 3A1 to A9 302 IPC 4A1 & A2 307 IPC 5A10 302 r/w 114 IPC2.By judgment dated 13.08.2014, the trial Court acquitted the accused 5to 10 from all the charges, however, convicted the appellants/A1 to A4 aloneunder Sections 341 and 302 IPC and acquitted them from the other charges.The trial Court sentenced these appellants/A1 to A4 to undergo imprisonmentfor life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and toundergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence underSection 341 IPC.The trial Court directed these sentences to runconcurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1 has come upwith Crl.A.(MD).No.294 of 2015 and A2 to A4 have come up with Crl.Since these appeals have arisen out of one and the same judgment,they were heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.When A1 and A2 attempted to cutPW2, who was sitting behind PW1, in the motorcycle, PW2 bent his body in order to avoid the cut being fallen on him.But, the said cut fell on PW1.He sustained injury on his back.On examination, he found acut injury measuring 3 x 2 c.m.on the backside of the chest.There werefractures of 5th and 6th ribs.There were no other injuries.One Amutha, a close relative of the deceased, had brought him for treatment.On examination, she found the followinginjuries on him:?(i)The left forearm near left wrist was cut and the cut end of thehand was hanging.(ii) Another cut injury measuring 6 x 3 cm exposing bone on the leftforearm.(iii) A cut injury measuring 7x 5 cm on the right forearm.The bonewas found fractured.(iv) There were avulsion of skin on the head exposing skull boneinvolving in the occipital lobe.(v)A lacerated injury measuring 10 x 2x 2 cm on the frontal scalp.?P12 is the Accident Register.PW9 admitted the deceased as well as the accused as inpatients.But, the deceased shortly thereafter died.She gaveintimation to the Police about the same.(f) PW21, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receiving the saidintimation, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 and onreturning to the Police Station, she registered a case in Crime No.189 of2012 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 307 IPC.The statement was recorded at 5.15 p.m. and the case was registered at 6.00 p.m. Ex.PW23 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on 21.06.2012 in the hospital.Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.(h) PW8 ? Dr.A.Ravikumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 21.06.2012 at 12.00 noon.He found the following injuries:?1.A transverse cut wound, on the lower part of left side of occipitalregion of scalp, 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep.2.A transverse cut wound, on the right occipital region of scalp, 4 cmx 1.5 cm x bone deep.3.An oblique cut wound, on the right occipital region, 4 cm x 2 cm xbone deep.4.A transverse cut wound, on the centre of occipital region of scalp,10 cm x 5 cm x bone deep.O/E cut fracture of occipital bone present.5.An oblique cut wound, on the vertex x 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.6.A transverse cut wound, on the right parietal region of scalp, 5 cm x1 cm x bone deep.7.A transverse cut wound, on the frontal region of scalp, 10 cm x 2 cmx bone deep.8.Four cut wounds of varying dimensions and muscle deep on the back of left side of chest.9.Two cut wounds of varying dimensions on the back of centre of chest.10.A cut wound, on the back of right shoulder 3 cm x 1 cm x muscledeep.11.A cut wound, on the top of right shoulder 5 cm x 2 cm x muscledeep.12.A cut wound on the right side of chin 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.O/E.Cut fracture of right side lower jaw bone.13.A cut wound, on the inner aspect of right elbow 4 cm x 1 cm x muscledeep.14.Two cut wounds, on the back of right forearm each of 5 cm x 2 cm xbone deep.15.A cut wound on the back of wrist 8 cm x 4 cm x bone deep.O/E.cut fracture of both bones of right forearm bone.16.A cut wound on the inner aspect of right ankle, 5 cm x 1 cm xmuslce deep.17.A cut wound on the back of left forearm 10 cm x 9 cm x bone deep.18.An oblique cut wound on the back of left wrist 5cm x 2 cm x bonedeep.19.Cut fracture at the level of left writs.O/E. the left hand ishanging with skins intact and lower end of both bone of left forearm wasfound cut.20.A cut wound on the back of left hand 4 cm x 2 cm x tendon deep.cm x3cm x 0.5 cm.22.Bruising of occipital and frontal region of scalp ? dark red.Cut fracture present on the occipital bone.24.Sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage on both cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres.25.Fracture base of skull-posterior cranial fossae present.?He opined that the said injuries could have been caused by a weapon likearuval.(j) On 02.08.2012, PW23 arrested the 7th accused.On such arrest, hedisclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval.In pursuance of the same,he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced anaruval.The accused Nos.8 & 9 surrendered before the Court.While in custody, they gave independent voluntary confessions.In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by A8, he produced yet anotheraruval from the place of hide out.Similarly, the accused No.9 also producedan aruval in pursuance of his disclosure statement.PW23 recovered the sameunder a mahazar.Then, he forwarded all the accused to the Court and handedover all the material objects also to the Court.On his request, PW11recorded the statement of PWs.1 and 2 under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. At hisrequest, the material objects were sent for chemical examinations.Thereport revealed that there were bloodstains on the material objects,including the aruval recovered from the accused.On completing theinvestigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.(k) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed chargesagainst the accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of theprosecution, as many as 23 witnesses were examined and 51 documents and 15 material objects were marked.(l) Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 7 have been examined aseyewitnesses.They have spoken about the occurrence.PW1 is the injured eyewitness.PW1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to thePolice.PW8 - Dr.Ravikumar has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of thedeath.PW9 has spoken about the treatment given to PW1 and the deceased at the Government Mahathma Gandhi Memorial Hospital at Tiruchirapalli.PW10 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the material objects.She has further stated that there were human bloodstains on all the materialobjects, including on the billhooks of the weapons recovered from theaccused.PW11, the then Judicial Magistrate, has spoken about the statement recorded by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. PWs.12 to 14 have turned hostileand they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.(m) PW15 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch and recovery of the material objects from the place ofoccurrence.PW16 has spoken about the recovery of the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased.PW17 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by A2 to A6 and A10 and the consequential recovery of the materialobjects viz., the weapons, out of their disclosure statements.PW18 hasspoken about the disclosure statement made by the 7th accused and the consequential recovery of an aruval.He has stated that he handed over the material objects tothe Forensic Lab for chemical examination, as directed by the learnedMagistrate.PW22 has spoken about the earlier case registered against PWs.1, 2 and the deceased in Crime No.88 of 2012 under Sections 294(b), 394 and 307 IPC on the complaint of the wife of the second accused.PW23 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.(n) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side,they examined as many as 7 witnesses as DWs.1 to 7 and marked 4 documents.DW1 is a nodal officer from BSNL at Tiruchirapalli.But, he could notproduce the call details, because they were destroyed after one year.DW2 isa nodal officer of Wodaphone Cellular Service Provider company.He was also not able to producethe call details, because the same was destroyed after one year.DW3 hasstated that the second accused Mr.Manivel gave a jewel to him for pledgingand accordingly, he pledged the same in Karur Vysya Bank, Jeeyarpuram Branch, in his name.DW4 has stated that he was running a Pawn Broker Shop at Kulumani under the name and style of Bhakiyalakshmi Finance.He has furtherstated that one Mr.(o) DW5 has stated that he was residing at Naithaloor Colony,Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District and that on 21.06.2012 there was ear boringceremony of his son and daughter and that on 20.06.2012, when he went to invite mother-in-law of the second accused at Nachikurichi, the accused 2 to4 were in that house and he invited them.He has also spoken about the pledging of jewels byMr.DW7, a nodal officer from Aircel Cellphone ServiceProvider, was examined to speak about the call details of Cell PhoneNo.9715625514 and two more cell phone numbers.But, he was not able to produce the same, because of the destruction of the same.The defence of theaccused was total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Courtconvicted the appellants/A1 to A4, as detailed in the second paragraph ofthis judgment.Thus, the appellants/A1 to A4 are before this Court with theseappeals.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and we have alsoperused the records carefully.There is no denial of the fact that there was long standing enmitybetween the family of the accused 1 to 4 and that of the deceased.As amatter of fact, according to PW22, on 02.04.2012, PWs.1 and 2 and thedeceased had attacked the wife of the second accused with aruval and caused extensive injuries and on the complaint made by the wife of the secondaccused, a criminal case was registered on the file of Edamalaipatti PudurPolice Station in Crime No.88 of 2012 under Sections 294-B, 394 and 307 IPCand under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Then,PWs,1 and 2 and the deceased were arrested and lodged in prison for some time and later on, released on bail.This is stated to be the immediate motivefor the occurrence.There is no denial of these facts.Thus, the prosecutionhas clearly established that there was long standing enmity between thefamilies.To speak about the present occurrence which had taken place on20.06.2012, the prosecution has relied on the evidences of PWs.1 to 7, whoclaimed to have witnessed the occurrence.The alleged occurrence was at 2.30p.m.on Trichy - Dindigul Main Road near Catholic Church.PW1 and thedeceased were immediately taken to the hospital.It is the case of theprosecution that all the ten accused surrounded the motorcycle and theaccused 1 to 9 cut the deceased with aruvals.The deceased fell down fromthe motorcycle.It is the further case that A1 to A9 again cut the deceasedindiscriminately with aruvals.Thus, it is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 thatthe deceased was done to death by the accused 1 to 9 by indiscriminatelycutting him with aruvals.According to them, PW10 also participated in theoccurrence by physically being present and he instigated them to cut thedeceased.But, when PW1 was examined by PW9 ? Dr.Uma Kalyani in the Government Hospital, he told her that he was attacked only by four knownpersons with aruvals.PW1 had been duly contradicted with this statement bythe defence.There was no explanation offered as to why he, at the earliestpoint of time, had stated that he was attacked only by four known persons andnot by ten persons.He has stated that few more persons also participated in the occurrence.It is not as though the accused A5 to A10 were notpreviously known to him.During cross examination, both PWs.1 and 2 havestated that these accused were known to them previously.If that be so, itis not explained to the Court as to why PW1 had not mentioned about the names of A5 to A10 in Ex.If we proceed on the assumption that the accused 5 to10 were not previously known to PWs.1 and 2, it is not explained to theCourt as to why there was no test identification parade conducted in respectof them.It needs to be emphasised that it is not at all the case of theprosecution that the accused 5 to 10 were not previously known to PWs.1 andThis would only go to show that after registration of FIR, every attempthad been made to implicate as many persons as accused as possible, who were the enemies of the prosecution party.If that be so, it has become doubtfulwhether to believe PWs.1 and 2 in respect of the participation of theseappellants/A1 to A4 also in the occurrence.This doubt is further fortified by the other evidences also.PW3,the mother of the deceased, has stated that she also witnessed theoccurrence.She has further stated that A1 to A3 cut the deceased and fewmore persons, who were wearing mask, also attacked the deceased.It is notat all the case of the prosecution that any of the assailants was wearing anymask covering their face.Had it been true that A4 was present and he alsoattacked the deceased, PW3 would have mentioned the same in her evidence.But, she has categorically stated that she found only A1 to A3 and few otherpersons, who were wearing mask.She has stated even in her cross examination that she knew the names of the some of the assailants and did not know thenames of the other assailants.If it is true that PW3 had witnessed theoccurrence, she would have certainly mentioned about the presence and participation of A4 and others, who were known to her.But, PWs.1 and 2 have not stated so.This creates further doubt in the case of the prosecution.Then comes the evidence of PW4, the father of the deceased.He hasstated that he did not witness the occurrence.He has further stated that healong with his wife was proceeding to the place of the occurrence.When hereached the place of occurrence, they found a huge crowd of people there andhe found the deceased with injuries.He has categorically stated in thechief examination that he did not find the assailants anywhere near the placeof occurrence.As we have already pointed out, it is his evidence that hewent to the place of occurrence along with PW3, his wife.Had it been truethat he went along with PW3, he would have seen the entire occurrence.But,he has stated that he did not see the occurrence at all.Had it been truethat PW4 did not see the occurrence, then PW3 would not have seen the occurrence.But, PW3 says as though she witnessed the entire occurrence.This is also not explained by the prosecution.Then comes the evidence of PW5, the brother-in-law of the deceased.He is not a native of Prattiyar village.He was residing at MelapaganoorVillage.He has further stated that when theywere nearing the place of occurrence, a huge crowd of people came,intercepted the deceased and cut the deceased.He was treated as hostile,because he has not identified any of the accused as assailants.PW6 is the wife of PW5 and sister of the deceased.She has statedthat she also accompanied her parents to the place of occurrence.She hasstated that when they were nearing the place of occurrence, there was hugecrowd of people.She found PW1 driving the motorcycle and PW2 and the deceased sitting in the motorcycle as pillion riders.She has further statedthat A1 alone cut the deceased.She has not stated anything about A2 to A4or the other accused.She has stated in her chief examination itself that theaccused 1 to 7 were previously known to her and the accused 8 to 10 alonewere not known to her.Had it been true that 10 accused participated in theoccurrence, she would have mentioned in her evidence about the participationof all the ten accused.But, instead she has stated that only the firstaccused cut the deceased.It needs to be remembered that according to PW6, she accompanied PW3 and PW4 to the place of occurrence.PW4 has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found a crowd of people in which the deceased wasfound with injuries.He did not witness the occurrence at all.Theassailants were not even seen there.If really, PW6 had accompanied PW4, she also would not have seen the occurrence.This major contradiction also has not been explained away by theprosecution.PW7 is yet another sister of the deceased.She has stated that sheaccompanied PW6 to the place of occurrence.She has further stated that shefound the accused 1 to 6 alone in the crowd and they only attacked thedeceased.She has not stated about the other accused.She has not evenmentioned about the presence of the other accused.Above all, it is highly artificial that these family members viz.,PWs.1 to 7 would have gone to the place of occurrence together.It is statedthat PWs.1 and 2 along with the deceased had gone in a motorcycle.When that be so, how PWs.3 to 7 would have gone together, reached the place ofoccurrence by walk and witnessed the occurrence.This is also not explainedby the prosecution.Above all, the FIR in this case had reached the hands ofthe learned Magistrate only at 11.10 p.m. There is no explanation for thatdelay also.Going by the strong motive between the two families and havingregard to the fact that PWs.1 to 7 are inimical witnesses and highlyinterested in the case of the prosecution and their presence is highlydoubtful besides the contradictions about which we have discussedelaborately, we find it difficult to place reliance on the evidences of PWs.1to 7 to sustain the conviction.Thus, these witnesses have rendered themselves evenbefore the trial Court only as partly believable.There is no independent witness examined to speak about the occurrence.Itmay be true that one or more of the accused would have participated in theoccurrence.But, we are unable to separate the grain from the chaff.In ourconsidered view, the true version is not before us.The evidence of PW3stating that the assailants were under mask would go to show that someidentifiable people covering their faces had come to the place of occurrenceand attacked PW1 and the deceased, and caused the death of the deceased.This alternative theory cannot be ruled out.If once the evidences of PWs.1 to 7 are rejected, we find no otherevidence except the recovery of the material objects.Out of recovery of theweapons alone, we cannot sustain the conviction.Thus, we find that theprosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts andtherefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and theconviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in S.C.No.195 of 2013 onthe appellants/A1 to A4 are set aside and they are acquitted from all thecharges.The bail bond, if any, executed by them shall stand terminated.Thefine amount, if any, already paid by the appellants shall be refunded.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy Division, Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, E.Pudur Police Station, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,983,422 | This appeal has been filed, against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 10.05.2010, made in SC.No.333 of 2008, by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, wherein the Trial Court, found the appellant/accused guilty for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and convicted him to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 498A of IPC and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 304B of IPC and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.On the basis of the complaint, Ex.P1, given by PW.1, who is the father of the deceased, Amudha, the Appellant/ accused was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the marriage between the Appellant/ accused and the deceased had taken place on 28.6.2007 and that at the time of marriage, the Appellant/ accused had demanded and accepted two and half sovereigns of gold jewels and further, demanded Rs.10,000/- to purchase a vehicle, as dowry and that the Appellant/ accused had pledged the jewels and misappropriated the amount and that the accused had demanded more money as dowry from the deceased and that due to the harassment meted out to her and due to the abetment by the Appellant/ accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging at the house of the accused on 14.10.2007 between 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and that the death of the deceased caused otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.The case was taken on file in SC.No.333 of 2008, by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, and necessary charges were framed.The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and also marked Exs.4. PW.1, 2 and 3 respectively are father, mother and brother of the deceased; PW.4, is the mahazar witness; PW.5, is the brother-in-law of P.W.1; PW.6, is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem; PW.7, is the Head Constable of Vazhappadi Police Station, who received the complaint from the P.W.1; PW.8, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation; PW.9, is the RDO; PW.10, ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 the Assistant Director in Forensic Department; PW.11, is the Additional Superintendent of Police, who conducted further investigation.P1, dated 15.10.2007 is the complaint, Ex.P2, dated 15.10.2007 is the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P3 dated 15.10.2007 is the Seizer Mahazar, Ex.P4 dated 15.10.2007 is the requisition to conduct post mortem, Ex.P5 dated 15.10.2007 is the post mortem certificate, Ex.P6 dated 23.11.2007 is the chemical examination report with final opinion of P.W.6, Ex.P7 dated 15.10.2007 is the First Information Report, Ex.P8 dated 15.10.2007 is the Inquest report, Ex.P9 dated 15.10.2007 is the RDO's report, Ex.P10 dated 23.11.2007 is the Chemical examination report, Ex.P11 dated 15.10.2007 is the Rough Sketch, Ex.P12 dated 17.10.2007 is the Section alteration report.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused has assailed the impugned order of conviction and sentence, on the following infirmities, discrepancies and grounds:-http://www.judis.nic.in 4 a. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant/ accused, for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC, by letting in cogent and convincing evidence, both oral and documentary and in other words, the essential ingredients of Sections 498A and 304B of IPC have not been made out to warrant conviction on the Appellant/ accused.b. PW.1 to PW.3, who are the father, mother and sister of the deceased, are interested witnesses.No independent witness was examined in order to prove the guilt of the Appellant/ accused.P1 given by PW.1 and except the ligature mark caused by hanging, there was no other injuries on the body of the deceased to prove that the Appellant/ accused harassed the deceased, by demanding dowry.There is not even an iota of evidence both oral and documentary to show the demand of dowry by the Appellant/ accused and harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the Appellant/ accused.The said delay was also not explained satisfactorily by the Prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would ultimately contend that mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the Appellant/ accused under Sections 304Bhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 and 498A of IPC and that only when the Prosecution proves beyond doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked and that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by cogent evidence and that the Trial Court is not correct and justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused and hence, the appellant/ accused is entitled for acquittal.A.No.1145 of 2012 (Major Singh Vs.State of Punjab) and the judgement of this Court, dated 2.3.2012, made in Crl.A.No.619 of 2003 (Pandiarajan and others Vs.State).On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, while supporting the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, would contend that the death of the deceased had occurred within four months of her marriage and the deceased committed suicide due to the demand of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing a vehicle, which is evident from the evidence of PW.9, Revenue Divisional Officer and that even though the PW.1 to PW.3 are father, mother and brother of the deceased, their evidence is consistent and credible and amply established that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and on their evidence, the Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellants under Section 498A and 304B of IPC and hence, the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence warrants no interference by this Court.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgement of conviction, including relevant provisions of Law.What is to be seen is as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, by cogent evidence and satisfied the essential ingredients of Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.PW.9, Revenue Divisional Officer, has also admitted in his evidence that the Appellant had asked Rs.10,000/- for purchase of a vehicle and at that time, he told the Appellant/ accused that he could not give that money and later the Appellant purchased the vehicle.But, he did not know as to how the Appellant purchased the vehicle.The Trial Court has acquitted the Appellant/ accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which provides for penalty for demanding dowry.When the Appellant/ accused was discharged from the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on same set of facts, convicting the Appellant/ accused under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC is not proper.It is also seen from the inquest report, Ex.Further, except the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, who are the father, mother and brother of the deceased, no other independent witnesses were examined, about the demand of dowry from the deceased.There is not even an iota of evidence to show that there was agreement between the parties, regarding jewels or valuables at the time of marriage or after marriage.http://www.judis.nic.in 10The above reasoning would go to that the allegation of harassment and demand of dowry made by the Appellant/ accused is nothing but a story created at a later stage by the Prosecution, not supported by cogent evidence.In the case on hand, while scrutinizing the evidence, both oral and documentary, as has been discussed above, it came to light that there is no evidence let in by the Prosecution to prove that the appellant/ accused has committed dowry death of the deceased and the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant/ accused or his relatives and that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry and such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Now, adverting to the relevant statutory provisions, it may be noticed that cruelty as defined in Section 498A of IPC means any wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health or harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by them to meet such demand.Section 304B of IPC requires the presence of essential ingredients, as stated above, which in turn requires proof.In the aid of proof of these offences, the presumption is provided in the provisions of Sections 113B as also under Section 114 of the evidence Act, which reads as under:-“113B:- Presumption as to dowry death.In 2013 3 SCC 684 (Vipin Jaiswal Vs.The testimony of the Prosecution witnesses cannot lead to an inference that the Appellant caused harassment driving the deceased to commit suicide.In the absence of direct evidence, the Trial Court has erred in holding that the appellant/accused had driven the deceased to commit suicide.http://www.judis.nic.inThe sum and substance of the analysis of the background facts are 14 that there is no reliable evidence to hold that the deceased was harassed within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC.On a scrutiny of the entire evidence, I am of the considered view that the circumstances and instances shown by the Prosecution are far too meagre for reaching the conclusion that the Appellant had subjected her to cruelty or harassed her for or in connection with any demand of dowry.That being so, this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside.The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.The bail bond if any, executed by the appellant, shall stand cancelled.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded to him.19.02.2019 Jer/Srcm Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.3.The Section Officer Criminal Section, High Court of Madras.4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vazhapadi Sub Division Vazhapadi Police Station Salem District.http://www.judis.nic.in 15 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J, Jer/Srcm Crl.328 of 2010 | ['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. |
165,989,259 | The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:The defacto complainant, Ganesan, is the husband of the deceased, namely, Subbulakshmi and they are residents of Aladipatty village.They belong to Hindu Arunthathiyar (Scheduled caste) Community.The appellant / 2/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 accused, Muthulakshmi is also a resident of Aladipatty village and she belongs to Hindu Maravar Community.The deceased moved closely with the husband of the accused, one Thandavam, despite the warning of the accused.While so, on 16.06.2007 at about 08.00 am, when the deceased was sitting in front of her house, the accused came with an Aruval, picked up a quarrel in respect of the deceased's attitude towards her husband, assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with the Aruval and caused injuries on the deceased.When, Gansean [PW1] and Arunprasath [PW2], the husband and son of the deceased, respectively, tried to rescue her, the accused threatened them with dire consequences.She also threatened one Bakkiyam [PW4], the sister of the deceased, who was inside the house.When the complainant and others raised noise, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.Then they rushed to rescue the victim, but, they found her dead.Immediately, Ganesan [PW1], informed his relatives and proceeded to the Police Station and lodged a complaint [ExP1].3/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.On receipt of the complaint, Thiru Sargunam [PW15], Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.189 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against this appellant on 16.06.2007 at 10.30 am.The printed FIR is marked as Ex.The investigation in this case was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli [PW17] as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police.On 16.06.2007, around 10.30 am, PW17 visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P4] and a rough sketch [Ex.P17] in the presence of Thiru Ramasamy, Village Administrative Officer [PW10] and the Village Assistant.He also recovered the soil with and without blood stains [Mos.2 & 3, respectively] and a portion of plugged hair [Ex.P4] from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar [Ex.P5].He recorded the statements of witnesses Azhagammal, Ramaraj, 4/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 Ramasamy and Natarajan.He also conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.He, then, sent the body for postmortem through Head Constable Senthil Kumar [PW16].Selva Isakki [PW9], received the requisition for conducting postmortem from the investigating officer on 16.06.2007 at about 11.00 am.She commenced the postmortem around 04.00 pm and noted down the following injuries on the deceased:A cut injury below right nose in supra labial region 4 x 6 X 1 cm.A cut injury in right shoulder 6 X 6 X 1 cm.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 PW9 gave her final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries.On 16.06.2007, around 06.30 pm, the investigating officer [PW17] arrested the accused Muthulakshmi on the Thiruchuli Road and based on the confession statement, he recovered an Aruval [MO1], bag [MO7] and blood stained cloth [MO6] under seizure mahazar [Ex.P7].Then he collected the community certificate of the deceased and accused, which are marked as Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 respectively.He also collected the Accident Register [Ex.P3] in respect of the accused.He also recovered a blouse [MO8], red colour inskirt [MO9], Mangalsutra [MO10].He sent the recovered material objects for examination through the concerned Judicial Magistrate.He collected the Biological report [Ex.P19] and Serology Report [Ex.P20].iv) PWs.5 to 8 are residents of Aladipatty village and 7/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 all of them have been treated as hostile witness.ix) PW13 is the then Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, who forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Department, Ramanathapuram.x) PW14 is the then Tahsildar, Aruppukottai, who issued the community certificates, Ex.P14 and Ex.xii) PW16 is the then Constable at Thiruchuli Police 8/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 Station, who identified the body to the Doctor for Postmortem.PW1 was having dispute with his wife, condemned her illegal relationship with the husband of the accused and was residing at Karisalkulam village at the time of occurrence.The occurrence was taken place in the early morning hours at Aladipatty village and therefore, the presence of PW1 in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.It was not elucidated by the prosecution that whether the assailant was a male or a female.PW2 has clearly stated that someone has assaulted.He did not refer this appellant / accused as the assailant.The occurrence was taken place at 08.00 am.PW1, in his complaint [Ex.P1], has stated that his wife / the deceased was combing her hair in front of the house at the time of occurrence.At that time, the accused came and assaulted her.But in his evidence, PW1 has stated that he was talking with his son [PW2] and brother-in-law [PW3] near the place of occurrence and his wife was sweeping the floors and at that time, the occurrence was taken place.B.PUGALENDHI, J.This appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2009, dated 11.01.2017, in and by which, the appellant/accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5.000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.However, the appellant was acquitted from the charges under Section 506 (ii) IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. As against the conviction and sentence the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal.A cut injury on left shoulder 4 x 2 X 1 cm.A cut injury over right parietal and occiptial region exposing the bone 20 X 6 X 4 cm.A cut injury on the back side of the neck oblignet placed 10 X 4 x 4 cm.A cut injury over L1 region on the back 16 X 4 X 4 cm.A cut injury over L5 region on the back 16 X 4 X 4 cm.” 5/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.He recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report on 17.07.2007 against the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The final report was taken on file in P.R.C.No.6/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 38 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai and was then committed to the Court of Sessions.The case was taken in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2009 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur and during the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined and 20 documents were marked, besides 8 material objects.The available evidences from the prosecution witness are as follows:i) PW1 is the defacto complainant and also the husband of the deceased Subbulakshmi.He speaks about the offence committed by the accused and the lodging of the complaint [Ex.P1].ii) PW2 is the son of the deceased and he speaks about the noise raised by his mother / deceased and the injuries inflicted on her on the occurrence date.iii) PW3 is the brother and PW4 is the sister of the deceased.Both of them have been treated as hostile witness.v) PW9 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P2].vi) PW10 is the then Village Administrative Officer of Aladipatty village, who stood as a witness for the spot mahazar and for the arrest and recovery.vii) PW11 is the Constable of Thiruchuli Police Station, who handed over the express First Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and to the higher officials.viii) PW12 is the then learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Virudhunagar, who recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C.xiii) PW17, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli, who conducted the investigation in this case and filed the final report.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.Though she has stated that there are evidences to support her case, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of this accused.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, though found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, has found her guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced her as stated supra.Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.9/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018Heard Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Counsel for the appellant has made his submissions as follows:PW1 cannot be an eye witness to the occurrence and even according to him, he was residing in another village and PW2, the son of the deceased, has also not stated about the presence of his father [PW1] in the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 of occurrence and only on the information from PW2 about the occurrence, she went to the occurrence village.The arrest and recovery were also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.According to PW2, at the time of occurrence, a Police Patrol Jeep came there accidently and he reported the incident to them and the Police secured the accused.Apart from the evidence of PW1, there is no other evidence connecting this appellant / accused with the commission of offence.Moreover, PW2, the son of the deceased, has not spoken about this appellant / accused 11/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for interference.Per contra, Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 clearly states the motive for this appellant for the commission of offence and her presence in the place of occurrence.PW1, though was residing in another village, came to the occurrence village on the date of occurrence to see his son [PW2] and therefore, his evidence cannot be suspected.The complaint was also lodged immediately after the occurrence and there is no delay in reporting the incident and the First Information Report reaching the Court.The evidence of PW1, coupled with the recovery of weapon, establishes the case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and he prays for dismissal.12/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record.The husband of the accused, namely, Thandavam, was a friend of PW1 and he used to visit the house of PW1, often and was moving closely with the deceased.PW1 suspected his wife's fidelity and condemned her activities.But, even then the deceased continued her relationship with Thandavam and therefore, PW1 left the house at Aladipatty and was residing at Karisalkulam.On the date of occurrence, according to PW1, he came to the occurrence village to see his son [PW2], who was studying 9th standard by then.While PWs.1 & 2 were talking to each other near their house, the accused came there, questioned the deceased on her conduct of relationship with her husband, Thandavam, plugged her hair and also attacked her with Aruval.When PW1 and others attempted to rescue the deceased, the accused intimidated them and ran away from the place of occurrence.The occurrence was taken place at about 08.00 am and the complaint was lodged at 10.30 am.13/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018The learned Counsel for the appellant, by referring to the signature of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the printed FIR [Ex.P16], taken a ground that the FIR registered on 16.06.2007 was received by the concerned Court only on 18.06.2007 at 03.30 pm and this inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution.The date seal found in Ex.However, the endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the complaint [Ex.P1] shows, without any ambiguity, that the complaint [Ex.P1] was received on 16.06.2007 itself.Therefore, we do not find any delay in the FIR reaching the Court and there is no delay in reporting the incident as well.Though PWs.1, 2 & 4 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, PW1 alone supported the case of the prosecution.PW2, the son of the deceased, though stated about the occurrence, has not stated that this appellant / accused alone caused the injury.Whereas, PW1, in his evidence, has clearly mentioned that this appellant / 14/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 accused came to the place of occurrence, abused his wife and assaulted her indiscriminately and also criminally intimidated them.It appears the trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST [POA]Be that as it may, since the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of PW1, we have to carefully analyze his evidence.PW1 admits in his evidence about the illegal relationship of his wife / the deceased with his friend, one Thandavam and his dispute with the deceased and out of that dispute, he was residing away from the occurrence village.According to him, he came to the occurrence village on the date of occurrence to see his son [PW2] and to give some money for his studies.But, according to PW2, PW1 deserted them due to the dispute with his mother and was residing at Kalayar Karisalkulam village and he never visited them.PW2 added further that his father [PW1] never provided any assistance and cloths to them.15/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018PW2 is the son of the deceased and the natural witness available at the place of occurrence.But he specifically stated that PW1 deserted them and was residing in another village and never used to visit them after the dispute with the deceased.According to PW2, he was sleeping inside the house and at that time, he heard some noise.When he woke up, he found his mother standing outside the house and was assaulted by somebody.As stated supra, the prosecution has also failed to establish whether the assailant was a male or a female.A statement was recorded from PW2 immediately after the occurrence before the learned Judicial Magistrate [PW12] under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, PW2 has stated that his mother / the deceased was sleeping inside the house and at that time, the accused came and assaulted his mother.16/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018In fact, according to the statement of PW2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., at the time of occurrence, a Police Officer from Tiruchuli Police Station came to the occurrence place accidently in a Patrol Jeep and PW2 informed the Police immediately about the occurrence.The accused has also attempted to attack the police, however, the police secured the accused and taken her to the police station in their jeep.PW2 in his evidence as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate has not stated about the presence of his father [PW1] in the place of occurrence.But, according to PW2, his mother was sleeping inside the house at the relevant point of time.The Doctor [PW9], who 17/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 conducted the postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P2] has observed that the bladder was full.This observation by the Doctor in the postmortem certificate, coupled with the evidences of PWs.1 & 2 raises a reasonable doubt with regard to the time and manner of occurrence as projected by the prosecution.In fact, PW1, though in his evidence has stated that he along with his son [PW2] and brother-in-law [PW3] were talking near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence, has not referred about his brother-in-law [PW3] in his complaint [Ex.P1].But, according to PW3, he was informed only by PW2 about the incident when he was at Madurai and immediately, he rushed to the village.Similarly, PW4, the sister of the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that it was only PW2, who informed her about the occurrence and she immediately rushed to the village.These contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses raises a serious doubt as to the presence of PW1 in the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time, as projected by the prosecution.18/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018The arrest of the accused was also doubtful in this case.PW2 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate has stated that immediately after the occurrence, accidently, a Police Patrol Jeep came to the place of occurrence and he reported to the Police about the incident and the Police secured the accused.The evidence of PW2 / son of the deceased made it clear that PW1 deserted them and was living in another village and never visited them and never taken care of them.In view of the anomalies discussed supra, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant cannot be sustained, as the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant / accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.19/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2009, dated 11.01.2017, are set aside.The appellant / accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against her and she is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded and bail bond, if any executed, shall stand terminated.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.20/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 20184.The Record Keeper (2 copies) Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.21/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 T.RAJA, J.AND B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,999,093 | This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissing his petition filed against an order dated 21.12.2010 passed by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in a case against him under Section 363, 366,368, 376, 342, 343, 506 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 1 of 10He claimed to be juvenile on the day of commission of offence and moved application under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act) before JJB.Learned JJB on the question of age of the petitioner, examined 8 witnesses.The petitioner herein also produced two witnesses of different schools.As per the certificate issued by Solanki Public School, the petitioner was admitted on 6.4.1994 in the first class on the basis of affidavit of his father.This was so stated by CW-1, Administrative Incharge of that school.It is stated by father of the petitioner that the petitioner was withdrawn from Solanki Public School when he was studying in 7th class on account of some quarrel with the school.He stated that thereafter he was admitted in Rahul Public School.There is no record pertaining to this school.As per petitioner, he was admitted in 10th class privately in National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS).This was so stated by CW6, Assistant Director of NIOS.Record of NIOS was stated to have been destroyed.He has stated that since the record qua petitioner was destroyed, he could not say as to what was the document submitted by the petitioner at the time of his admission in their school.He, however, stated that it may either be an affidavit or school leaving certificate which might have been submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission in their institution.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 2 of 10However, there was no record produced as to the basis of admission of the petitioner in private 10th class in NIOS.With this backdrop, the learned JJB got the ossification test of the petitioner done from the Medical Board.CW2 Dr. Arvind categorically stated the age of the petitioner to be 21 years and that it was the majority view of the Medical Board and there was no scope of lower margin of less than 20 years.Similar was the statement of CW3 Dr. Yatish Aggarwal and CW4 Dr. Ajay Kumar.That being so, as per the Medical Board, the age of the petitioner was to be about 19 and half years at the time of commission of alleged offence.The learned JJB relied upon the said report of the Medical Board and the statements of doctors and arrived at a finding that the petitioner was more than 18 years at the time of commission of offence and thus could not be treated as a juvenile as per the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice Act.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 3 of 10The matter was taken in appeal to the Court of learned ASJ by the petitioner.The learned ASJ vide the impugned order upheld the findings of learned JJB and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 6 of 10 provides that it was only in the absence of either of the above that the opinion of the Medical Board could be sought.It also provided that if exact assessment of the age could not be done, the benefit was to be given to the child or juvenile by considering his/ her age on lower side within the margin of one year.However, in such a case, the reasons were required to be recorded for giving such benefit.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 6 of 10With this procedure of recording evidence for conducting an enquiry, the learned counsel sought to submit that since there was record of NIOS available, it was this piece of evidence which was to be made the basis of the age of the petitioner and not the record of Solanki Public School.On the same premise, he also submitted that since the record of NIOS was available, no reliance could be placed on the report of Medical Board.Apparently the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be worth consideration.However, it was to be kept in mind that the record of NIOS which was sought to be relied upon was neither the matriculation nor the equivalent certificate of the petitioner, but only an entry of date of birth that too without any supporting evidence as regards the source of such entry.The official of NIOS who was examined as a witness did not know as to what were the documents which may have been submitted at the time of the admission of petitioner.He could not say that if it was on the basis of an affidavit or school leaving certificate of the petitioner.The petitioner had been admitted in NIOS privately in 10th class after he was withdrawn from 7th class from Solanki Public School.The in between period of three years has not Crl.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 7 of 10 been explained and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was admitted in Rahul Public School or any other school.If he had been so admitted in any school, the record of the same could have been produced by the petitioner.The admission of the petitioner in 10th class in NIOS was not on regular basis, but as a private student.The learned JJB rightly recorded that the admission in such an institution was often given on the basis of an affidavit, irrespective of the age of the child and his having failed or passed the previous class.The petitioner was initially admitted in Solanki Public School from Nursery till 6th class.This factum was also accepted by his father Surender Singh.The genuineness of the school certificate and the horoscope had been questioned.The school certificate produced was found to be forged and fabricated and in fact a criminal case was directed to be instituted against the head of the institution.It was in these circumstances that the Court had to determine the age on the basis of medical reports.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 8 of 10Though there are catena of authorities on medical jurisprudence holding that there can be error of two years on either side for determination of the age of a person on the basis of ossification test, but it is also trite that each case has to be judged on its own facts and material brought on record.Even if he Crl.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 9 of 10 was given benefit of one year, his age comes to be above 18 years on the relevant date.This fact commensurate with the record of Solanki Public School.There shall be no orders as to costs.M.L. MEHTA, J.Rev. No.132/2011 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
165,999,525 | Mr. Q. A. M. Firoz Mr. Arun Shaw ........For the Appellant/Petitioner Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury Mr. Mainak Gupta ......For the State This is an application for execution of suspension of sentence and bail filed by the appellant/petitioner.It is ascertained from the record that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer regorous imprisonment for seven years for committing offence under Section 376 (i ) of the Indian Penal Code.I have carefully perused the impugned judgement.The evidence on record prima facie is sufficient and on the basis of such evidence the learned trial judge held the accused guilty for committing offence under Section 376 (i ) of the Indian Penal code.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,660,012 | He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: In the intervening night of 8-9th May, 1994 when Vishwas (PW-3) and his wife Renu Jain (PW-1) were sleeping in their house situated in Mauji Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, five persons entered the house and tied their servant Chaturbhuj who was sleeping in the basement of the house.Thereafter, the accused also tied the mouth, hands and legs of Vishwas Jain (PW-3) and his wife Renu (PW-1) and then bolted them inside the bathroom and having threatened them at the point of pistal and knife, the accused looted the gold and silver ornaments, coins and cash.The miscreants stayed in their house for about an hour.J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2008(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4178 of 2006)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.Challenge in the appeal before the High Court was to the judgment and order dated 10.4.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Class II, Jaipur.By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').Complainant Vishwas managed to come out of the bathroom through a window and then telephonically informed the police personnel of Police Station, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.On receiving the information, the police party reached the house of complainant, where complainant submitted a written report, whereupon a case for offence under Section 395 IPC was registered.At the very outset it may be stated that case was registered against five accused.The investigating agency arrested three accused, namely, Mohd. Babul, Mohd. Jalal and Mohd. Ansari and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against them for offence under Section 395 IPC.At the conclusion of trial, the leaned trial Judge vide its judgment dated 31.3.1997 held the accused appellant guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them.These three accused challenged their conviction by filing appeals before the High Court.Vide judgment dated 13.4.1998 the High Court dismissed the appeals of Mohd. Jalal and Mohd. Babul and maintained their conviction under Section 395 IPC and partly allowed the appeal of accused Ansari by altering his conviction from Section 395 IPC to Section 411 IPC.Investigation as against the appellant and co-accused Saidulla was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').Co-accused Saidulla was also arrested but he absconded during trial and is still absconding.After arrest, Test Identification Parade was conducted and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant.The basic challenge before the High Court was to the possibility of identification.With reference to the statement of Renu Jain (PW-1) and Vishwas Jain (PW-3) it was contended that there was possibility of the appellant having been shown to the complainant and his wife.It was stated that the Test Identification Parade (in short 'TI Parade') was done after a period of over 7 days.High Court did not accept the plea.It held that the trial Court had analysed this aspect.The High Court also considered the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and came to hold that it was crystal clear that PW-3 had ample opportunity to identify the appellant.It was also noted that the said witness was believed in respect of the identification of three other accused persons who had earlier faced trial and had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and on appeal their conviction had been upheld by the High Court.The appeal was accordingly dismissed.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only on the basis of identification by PW-3 the conviction should not have been recorded.It was pointed out that PW-1 had accepted that his wife, PW-1 had not gone for the identification.Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the trial Court.The TI Parade was done on 3.4.1998, the accused was arrested on 27.3.1998 and on 28.3.1998 the accused was produced by the SHO at the residence of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 and prayer was made for police custody remand.On 31.3.1998 the SHO again produced the appellant before the Magistrate and on both occasions the Magistrate recorded that the accused was produced 'Baparda'.The evidence of Shri Ratish Kumar Garg (PW-12) the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur shows that on 3.4.1998 he was working as Judicial Magistrate and on the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur the accused-appellant alongwith others were brought for the TI Parade.Vishwas Jain (PW-3) correctly identified the appellant. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,413,050 | sh This revision is directed against the order dated 08.02.2018 e passed by 5th ASJ, Katni in ST No.88/2015 wherein charge has been ad added against the petitioner for offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC.Pr The facts just necessary for disposal of this case are that the a hy accused pettioner is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.During the course of trial, after the statement ad of the prosecutrix was recorded, charge has been amended and M Section 376 (1) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Harassment Act, 2012 have been added in the charge.Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. clearly spells out that the Court may rt alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.ou Charge may be altered or added under Section 216 when there is evidence to support it.A new charge can be added and a charge can C be altered only if there is material before the Court either in the h complaint or in the evidence to justify such action.Coming to the present circumstances, the prosecutrix has stated H in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., that accused and prosecutrix were living at Bhopal for 10-12 days as husband and wife.However, she stated that during this period the accused petitioner did not do any crime with her.But in her examination before the Court, she has specifically and unequivocally stated that the accused was not known to her.The accused petitioner along with two of his friends, gagged her and took her to a four-wheeler vehicle and to village- Kherni.After they reached, she was given some tablets because of which she became unconscious.When she regained consciousness, she found herself at Bhopal.From 12.04.2015 till 24.04.2015, she was kept in Bhopal.During this period, the accused by administering medicine, committed rape with rape.When he stopped giving intoxicant tablets, she rang up and informed her family members.In her cross-examination at paragraph 6, she clearly stated that the accused after administering the medicne (tranquilizer) used to commit rape.Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.a hy ad (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE M Digitally signed by of KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2018.03.07 01:22:51 -08'00' rt ks ou C h ig H | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,413,861 | The aforesaid appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Budaun in S.T. No. 921 of 2012 convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 302 read with 34 read with 120-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellants would have to undergo further ten months imprisonments.The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Khunnu Shah son of Vande Shah resident of village Bilhat, police station Binawar, District Budaun gave a written report-Ex. Ka-1 to Station Officer, police station Binawar, District Budaun informing that on 26.5.2012 at about 6 a.m. in the morning when he had gone on a walk towards Bilhat Kundra Road near village Kundra at about one km. near the turning, he saw a dead body lying in the agricultural field of one Ramcharan Jatav.He tried to identify the same but failed to identify and it appeared to him that the person was from outside of the said village.He prayed that necessary action be taken accordingly.The said information given by Khunnu Shah was endorsed in G.D. No. 12 at 7:05 a.m. on the very same day and police reached at the spot and conducted the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and sealed the same and sent for postmortem.The inquest and post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted as unknown.Thereafter one Rakesh son of Rukum Singh resident of village Bilori, police station Aanwla, District Bareilly gave an application at police station Binawar, District Budaun stating that he along with his sister-in-law, namely, Aagna Devi and his mother, namely, Sudama Devi and other family members had visited police station Binawar where after seeing the photographs of the dead body and his clothes, identified the said dead body to be of his brother, namely, Surajpal.It was further stated in the said application by Rakesh that his brother Surajpal on 24.5.2012 at about 6 p.m. in the evening, had gone on foot to the house of his paternal aunt (Bua), namely, Launga Devi in village Pathra, police station Aanwla, District Bareilly which is about two kms.When Surajpal did not return for few days then he along with his sister-in-law went to village Pathra where the neighbours of his Bua and other persons of the said village informed them that on 25.5.2012 in the evening, his brother Surajpal was called from the house of his Bua by the brother-in-law (dever) of his Bua, namely, Ramdas and Nanhe son of Lauki Khatik to their house where all the persons have taken liquor together and after consuming liquor some quarrel took place between them.Thereafter, Ramdas, Nanhe along with one of their relative have taken Surajpal on a motorcycle from the village.He has strong belief that his brother was done to death by Ramdas, Nanhe and one of their relative.The investigation of the case was taken up by Station Officer of police station Binawar, namely, Jai Prakash Yadav and after his transfer, the investigation was carried out by Station Officer, Binawar, namely, Ashok Kumar.He submits that after some time, he came to know that the dead body which was recovered was of one Suraj Pal son of Rukum Singh resident of village Billori, police station Anwla, District Bareilly.He further deposed that the investigating officer had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was lying and also recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.P.W.-2 Smt. Agma Devi, who is the wife of the deceased Surajpal stated before the trial court that on 24.5.2012 at about 6 a.m. in the evening, her husband Surajpal had gone to village Pathra for helping in the work of the marriage of the daughter of his Bua which was to be solemnized on 30.5.2012 and when her husband did not return for 2-3 days then she along with her Devar Rakesh had gone to village Pathra to enquire about her husband, she came to know that on 25.5.2012 in the evening her husband was called by accused-appellants Ramdas and Nanhe, who were the devar of her Bua at their house where her husband and the accused-appellants, Ramdas, Nanhe and their relatives Awdhesh and Shiv Singh consumed liquor and after consuming liquor some quarrel took place between them and at the instance of Ramdas and Nanhe, Awdhesh and Shiv Singh took her husband on a motorcycle and committed his murder.It was deposed by her that one Budhpal and Vijay, who belong to the village of P.W. 2 have seen the accused conspiring the murder of the deceased at the house of the accused Nanhe.The investigating officer has taken her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. She has also identified the accused Nanhe, Ramdas and Awadhesh, who were present in the Court.P.W.-3 Dr. R.S. Yadav deposed before the trial court that on 26.5.2012, he was posted as Senior Surgeon at District Hospital Budaun.He has conducted the post mortem of an unknown dead body which was sent by the police of concerned police station in a sealed condition brought by Constable Chedalal and Constable Rishipal.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)The aforesaid criminal appeals have been decided by a common judgment and order, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are hereby heard together and decided by a common order.The investigating officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses, made a spot inspection of the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused, namely, Nanhe, Ramdas, Awdhesh and Shiv Singh under section 302, 120-B I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance on the charge-sheet committed the case to the court of Session on 3.11.2012 and the trial court on 5.2.2013 framed charges against accused-appellants Nanhe, Ramdas, Awadhesh and Shiv Singh, who denied the charges and claimed trial.The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.-1 Khunnu Shah, P.W.-2 Agma Devi wife of the deceased, P.W.-3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, P.W.-4 Rakesh, brother of the deceased, P.W.-5 Ashok Kumar the investigating officer of the case.The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court in which they denied the incident and have stated that the witnesses have falsely deposed against them on account of enmity and the case which has been registered against them is false case.They have further stated that they are wholly innocent.No documentary evidence was produced from the side of the defence.P.W.-1 Khunnu Shah has deposed before the trial court that on 26.5.2012 at about 6 a.m., he had gone towards village Kundra for a walk from his village and on the turning which is about one km. before village Kundra, he saw an unknown dead body lying in the agricultural field of Ram Chandra Jatav.He tried to identify but could not identify the same and it appeared to him that the said dead body is of a person outside of his village.He has deposed that on seeing the dead body, he had gone to police station Binawar and had informed the police about the same by giving a written report and had affixed his thumb impression on the written report which was read to him and proved the same.The said dead body was identified by the said constables.The said dead body was of a person aged about 26 years.The death of the deceased was possibly occurred 3-4 days prior.The following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:-"1. LW = 4 X 1.0 cm.on front of forehead, Lt. side over eye brow brain cavity deep.2. LW= 2.5 x 1.0 cm.over Rt. eye x bone deep.Lw= 2 x 1.0 cm.on Lt. eye brow (lateral side x Bone deep)An abraded contusion= 8 x 2.0 cm.on Rt. side of nexk, 7.0 cm.above the Rt. clavicleAn abraded contusion= 7 x 2.0 cm.on Lt. side of Neck, 6.0 cm.over Lt. Clavicle."As per the opinion of the doctor the cause of death is due to ante mortem injuries.The clothes of the deceased was handed over by him to the Constable in a sealed condition.P.W.-4 Rakesh, who is the brother of the deceased has stated before the trial court that accused Nanhe, Ramdas, Awadhesh and Shiv Singh are known to him.He has strong belief that they committed the murder of his brother Surajpal.He deposed that Surajpal had gone to village Pathra to help in the marriage ceremony of the daughter of his Bua prior to solemnization of the marriage and when he did not return for few days then he became worried and had gone to village Pathra along with his sister-in-law Agma Devi-wife of the deceased where it was informed to them that his brother Surajpal was called by accused Nanhe and Ramdas to their house where they consumed liquor thereafter some quarrel took place between them on which they along with their relative took him on motorcycle and committed his murder.He deposed that he did not name accused Shiv Singh and Awdhesh in his statement but only a reference has been given by him by their village as he did not know them by their name.He has proved Paper No. 5A/1 and deposed that it was the same which was got written by him through one Devdutt and put his signature on the same on the basis of which the case was registered.P.W.-5 Ashok Kumar, has deposed that he was the second investigating officer of the case as the earlier investigating officer was transferred.He has further recorded the statements of the Constables, who were the witness of inquest.He has not made the site plan.Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, Sri Pankaj Satsangi, Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.J. P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the appellants submit that there appears to be no evidence against the appellants which may show their involvement in the present case, hence the conviction of the appellants by the trial court be set aside.On 29.5.2012, P.W. 4 Rakesh brother of the deceased along with P.W. 2 Agma Devi-wife of the deceased when came to know about the recovery of a dead body then they visited police station Binawar and identified the same to be of his brother and husband through photographs of the said dead body and clothes.Thereafter on 29.5.2012, an application was given by P.W.-4 Rakesh against the accused appellants, namely, Ramdas and Nanhe suspecting that the deceased, who had gone to the house of his Bua to help in the work of marriage of the daughter of his Bua which was to be solemnized on 30.5.2012 was called by accused appellant Nanhe and Ramdas, who happens to be Devar of his Bua on 25.5.2012 to their house where they along with their relatives Shiv Singh and Awadhesh consumed liquor and after consuming liquor some quarrel took place between them.Thereafter the deceased was taken by the accused appellants on a motorcycle towards village Kundra and was done to death by them.The said fact was also deposed by P.W. 2, who is the wife of the deceased.It was argued that the said persons have not been produced by the prosecution and only on the basis of hearsay evidence, P.W. 2 suspected the involvement of the appellants in the murder of the deceased which is not worth of credence, hence their testimony be discarded.Moreover, the motive to commit the crime has also not been suggested.There appears to be no recovery of any incriminating article made either from the possession or on the pointing of the appellants.There also appears to be no evidence of last seen thus, in these circumstances the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is wholly illegal and against the evidence on record as the chain of circumstances which bring home to the guilt of the accused is not established by the prosecution.Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants by the trial court is liable to be set aside by this Court.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that on receiving the information about the death of the deceased, P.W.-2 and 4 along with other family members reached the police station Binawar and identified the deceased to be Surajpal through photographs and his clothes.Thereafter, an application was given by P.W.-4 Rakesh brother of the deceased narrating the incident.The date on which his brother went to village Pathra to help in the work of marriage of the daughter of his Bua.Thereafter on 25.5.2012, the deceased was called by accused Nanhe and Ramdas at their house where they consumed liquor and after consuming liquor some quarrel took place between them on account of which the deceased was taken by the accused-appellants on a motorcycle and done to death and thrown the dead body in the field of Ram Charan Jatav which was later on seen by P.W. 1, who informed the police about lying of the dead body in the field of said Ram Charan Jatav on 26.5.2012 and on the basis of evidence brought before the trial court, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence they are charged with, hence no interference is called for by this Court.Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The police reached at the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report of an unknown dead body and sealed the same and sent for post mortem as unknown dead body.On receiving information about the recovery of a dead body, P.W. 4 and P.W. 2 along with other family members reached at police station Binawar and from the photographs and clothes identified the dead body to be of Surajpal, who was brother and husband of P.W. 4 and 2 respectively.P.W. 4 Rakesh gave a written application narrating that on 25.5.2012, his brother Surajpal had gone to village Kundra to help in the work of the marriage of the daughter of his Bua which was to be solemnized on 30.5.2012 and when he did not return for about 2-3 days, his wife-P.W.-2 tried to search him and they visited village Pathra where they were informed by Buddhpal and Vijay that they have seen the accused-appellants planning the murder of the deceased Surajpal.She was further informed by the said two persons and neighbours of his Bua that Surajpal was called by accused Nanhe and Ramdas at their house on 25.5.2012 where the other accused-appellants Shiv Singh and Awadhesh were also present where they together consumed liquor and after consuming liquor some quarrel took place between them and the deceased was taken by the accused-appellants Shiv Singh and Awadhesh on a motorcycle as it appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 at the instance of accused-appellants Nanhe and Ramdas to village Kundra and was eliminated.From the evidence of P.W. 2 and 4 it is absolutely clear that they have not seen the incident.So far as the information gave by Budhpal and Vijay is concerned, they too had not seen the accused-appellants consuming the liquor with the deceased or taking the deceased on a motorcycle on 25.5.2012 or quarrel which had taken place as has been stated as they only informed P.W. 2 that they have seen the accused-appellants conspiring the murder of the deceased.Moreover, the said two persons, namely, Budhpal and Vijay were not produced by the prosecution.No motive has also been suggested by the prosecution to accused-appellants for committing the murder of the deceased Surajpal.Further there is no recovery of any incriminating article either from the possession or pointing out of the accused-appellants.There also appears to be no evidence of last seen against the appellants.The learned State Counsel could not point out any incriminating circumstances against the appellants for their involvement in the murder of the deceased though he tried to justify the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants by the trial court.Under these circumstances, the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court that the chain of circumstances were found to be complete and conclusively proves the guilt of the accused-appellants, is absolutely incorrect and wrong finding, hence the judgment and order of the trial court is against the evidence on record.The accused-appellants are stated to be in jail.They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.The appeals stands allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,414,241 | :: 2 ::(a) On 30.08.1992, at the time when the appellant no.2 Hakam Khan (for short 'A2') was taking the cattle through the land in occupation of Hemraj (since deceased), a quarrel ensued that led to animosity between them.(b) On the following day i.e. 31.08.1992 only, at about 8 a.m., while returning home from their fields, Hemraj and his nephew Raja Bhaiya (PW11) were jointly attacked by the appellants and co-accused Naseer, Munni Bi, Sakina Bi, Kadori Bi, Mitthu, Sheikh Ramjan, Sheikh Muddin and Chamru @ Hasrat.The appellant no.1 Sheikh Sultan (for brevity 'A1') and A2 were armed with axes and amongst their companions, Naseer was equipped with a knife; Ramjan & Mitthu were carrying lathies and the women named above were also having lathies like Kholias.To save themselves, both Hemraj and Raja Bhaiya rushed towards the house of Chamru.But, pursuing them, the appellants and their associates were able to surround them in the courtyard of Chamru where they were brutally assaulted with the respective weapons.Sustaining injuries, Hemraj died instantaneously whereas Raja Bhaiya was rendered unconscious.(c) Upon information as to what was termed as the communal violence, the police force was deployed in the village.At the instance of one of the eyewitnesses namely Dev Baksh (PW9), ASI Deviprasad Pandey (PW13) recorded the details of incident in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-19) and, accordingly, registered a case, under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with S.149, of the IPC.(d) The injured & unconscious Raja Bhaiya was immediately sent to District Hospital at Narsinghpur.Dr. S.K. Maheshwari (PW6), after a preliminary examination, admitted him to the hospital and, thereafter, he was referred to Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur for further examination and necessary treatment.:: 3 ::(e) After inquest proceedings, dead body of Hemraj was sent for post-mortem.(20.01.2009) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 29.12.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara Distt.Narsinghpur in S.T. No.255/1992 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently -with S.34 of the Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer R.I.The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under -Autopsy Surgeon Dr. M.R. Khan (PW7) opined that Hemraj's death was caused due to coma as a result of injury to the brain.(f) During investigation, ordinary as well as bloodstained earth collected from the spot, a piece of Sari found tied on the head of Hemraj were seized and respective weapons were recovered from the possession of the appellants and the co-accused.The seized articles were forwarded to FSL, Sagar for forensic examination.On being charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 307 read with S.149 of the IPC, the appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity.In their examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), they also submitted written statements to the following effect : -(i) On the previous day of the incident in question, while driving cattle to the grazing field, A2 noticed that Hemraj had obstructed their way by putting Jarenta (branches of thorny tree).As he removed the obstruction, Hemraj also picked up a quarrel with him.(ii) On the fateful day, while proceeding towards the house of co-accused Chamru, they were surrounded by Hemraj and Raja Bhaiya who, being armed with lathis, were ready to beat them.To save themselves, they ran into the house.However, they were followed by Hemraj and Raja Bhaiya, who having trespassed into Chamru's house, jointly attacked them and in defence, they also inflicted injuries to Hemraj and Raja Bhaiya.The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including Amol Singh (PW1), Ram Shankar (PW2) and Dev Baksh (PW9) whereas three witnesses namely Tikaram (DW1), I.S. Patel (DW2) and Jagdish (DW3) were produced in defence.:: 4 ::On a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record and the probabilities in the light of the plea of right of private defence, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that injuries found on the bodies of Hemraj and Raja Bhaiya were attributable to the appellants only.Accordingly, he proceeded to acquit the other eight accused of the offences charged with.However, for the reasons recorded in Paragraphs 42 to 46 of the impugned judgment, he further determined that the appellants had exceeded limits of the right of private defence.Both of them, therefore, convicted and sentenced as indicated hereinabove.Legality and propriety of the convictions under challenge have been assailed mainly on the following grounds : -(iii) The first information report (Ex.P-20) was not forwarded to the Magistrate within a reasonable period.In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while inviting attention to the corresponding incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that the convictions in question are well-merited.In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in proper perspective, it is necessary to first advert to the medical evidence available on record.:: 5 ::The following were injuries noticed by Dr. M.R. Khan (PW7) on the body of Hemraj -(i) Incised wound over frontal bone size 3" x " x bone deep, 2" above the left eyebrow.(ii) Incised wound on left parietal bone size 3" x 1" x communicating with brain cavity.(iii) Incised wound on left ear size 1" x 1" x bone deep.(iv) Incised wound on right side of face size " x " x ".(v) Incised wound spindle shaped " x " connecting with the abdominal cavity 1" to umbilicus on left of abdominal.(vi) Bruise on left shoulder and arm size 4" x 1", anterior aspect.(vii) Bruise on left shoulder and arm size 3" x 1", lateral aspect.No dispute was raised as to his opinion, as recorded in the post-mortem report (Ex.P-23) that death of Hemraj, as a result of injury to the brain, was homicidal in nature.Existence of injuries on the person of Raja Bhaiya, as described in the report (Ex.P-22), was proved Dr. S.K. Maheshwari (PW6).According to him, he had found that on 31.08.1992, Raja Bhaiya had sustained an incised wound measuring 12" x 1" with cutting of bone and brain matter on scalp over left frontal and parietal region and another incised wound measuring 1" x " x " on right hand over thenar eminence.In his opinion, the injuries were caused by hard and sharp cutting weapon and the injury on left frontal and parietal region was dangerous to life.Raja Bhaiya (PW11) is the key witness.He substantially corroborated the prosecution version as against the appellants.His statement that both the appellants had assaulted him and his uncle Hemraj with axes was not subjected to a serious dispute.Even otherwise, his presence at the spot could not be doubted as, in the :: 6 ::Appeal No.2/1994 same transaction, he had also sustained grievous injuries.He candidly admitted that the incident resulting into death of Hemraj had taken place in the courtyard of Chamru, the grandfather of the appellants.The factum of a previous quarrel between Hemraj and A2 over the Bari (hedge of thorns) was also not denied by him.It also came in his evidence recorded on 22.09.1993 that he could regain consciousness only a month before.In these circumstances, the grievance that his statement, that could be made to the police under Section 161 of the Code was not available, does not assume any significance as apparently no prejudice was caused to the defence.The testimony of Raja Bhaiya (PW11) as an injured witness to the incident has its own efficacy and relevancy (Mohar vs. State of U.P. AIR 2002 SC 3279 referred to).Further, no motive to falsely implicate the appellants was alleged against him.His straight forward deposition drew ample support from the recovery of bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence.The infirmities in the statement of the first informant and the eyewitnesses also had no bearing on the credence of the testimony of Raja Bhiaya.However, mere delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate was not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case in its entirety simply because the veracity of the incident was not disputed.At the most, it could be taken as an infirmity in the investigation.For these reasons, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants against legality of the convictions deserves acceptance.The presence of Hemraj and Raja Bhaiya in the courtyard of Chamru, could only amount to criminal trespass.In such a situation, the appellants were not justified in causing death of Hemraj and injuries, one of which was dangerous to life, to Raja Bhaiya by using axes.On these facts, learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in holding that the appellants had exceeded the limits of the right of private defence.To sum up, even on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, no interference would be called for with the findings of guilt recorded against the appellants.Their convictions, therefore, deserve to be affirmed as well-merited.However, taking into consideration the fact that more than 16 years has already elapsed after the unfortunate incident, the interest of justice would be met if the custodial sentences for the offences under Sections 304 Part I read with S.34 and 326 read with S.34 of the IPC are reduced to 5 years and 3 years respectively.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.The impugned convictions of the appellants for the offences under Sections 304 Part I read with S.34 and 326 read with S.34 of the IPC and the consequent sentence of fine are hereby affirmed but the term of custodial sentences are reduced from 7 years to 5 years and 4 years to 3 years respectively.The appellants are on bail.They are directed to surrender to their bail bonds for undergoing remaining part of sentences.Appeal partly allowed.(R.C.Mishra) JUDGE 20.01.2009 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,414,989 | The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 got deteriorated and thereafter, the respondent no.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioner at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur on 27.11.2007 for commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of FIR., the police registered the offence and filed the charge-sheet before the Court.Thereafter, criminal case No.16451/2007 was registered against the petitioner, the same is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent no.2 filed an application for compromise under Section 320 (1) of Cr.P.C., mentioning the fact that they want to settle the dispute amicably.There was no bitterness between the parties and cordial relations have been established between the parties.In the present case, the dispute is between the husband and wife.Both have filed compromise application.It is mentioned in the application for compromise that they have settled the dispute amicably and now the relations between the husband and wife are cordially hence, there is no chance of recording conviction against the petitioner and trial would be an exercise in futility.No order as to the costs.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,418,327 | -: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Raju s/o Kanvar Bhilala v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 04.10.2019 :-Shri Ayush Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant - Raju.Shri Anil Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Submissions were made on this second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.208/2019 registered at Police Station Bistan, District Khargone.Earlier bail application was withdrawn with liberty given to file afresh application after examination of the injured Deepak Soni.Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the copy of deposition of Deepak Soni (PW-1).The applicant faces trial for committing offences under Sections 294, 332, 353, 506, 324, 333 and 326 of IPC.As the condition fulfilled, after hearing learned counsel for the State, this application stands allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Cc as per rules. | ['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,420,844 | This writ petition is directed against an order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB).The said order came to be passed on an application moved by the petitioner herein, whereby the petitioner sought stay of proceedings, in Company Petition no.45/2003, on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against the respondents herein, in FIR No.63(11)/2004, P.S. Laban, Shillong, under various sections of the IPC.As a matter of fact, the petitioner's application for stay has been dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.